University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring the development of psychological empowerment among survivors of intimate partner violence: does the Personal Empowerment Program live up to its name?

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring the development of psychological empowerment among survivors of intimate partner violence: does the Personal Empowerment Program live up to its name?

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content EXPLORING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EMPOWERMENT
AMONG SURVIVORS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: DOES THE
PERSONAL EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM
©
LIVE UP TO ITS NAME?

by
Nadia Islam

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(SOCIAL WORK)

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Nadia Islam

ii
Table of Contents
Abstract iii
Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Background & Significance 10

Chapter 2: Research Design & Methods 39
Table 1. Sample Descriptives 51

Chapter 3: Findings

Influences of Women’s Historical and Cultural Contexts on Psychological
Empowerment: Families of origin & cultural intersections 75
The Personal Empowerment Program
©
: Does PEP live up to its name? 89

Differences in Psychological Empowerment between Pre-participants and Graduates:
Comparisons along the Psychological Empowerment Continuum

Foundation: Knowledge of domestic violence,
its consequences, and available resources 121

Awareness: Applying knowledge of domestic violence 138
to personal circumstances

Engagement: Preliminary exercise of relevant skills to promote safety 182
Practice: Experimenting with new behaviors and refining skills 194
Chapter 4: Discussion 223
Conclusion 241
References 244
Appendix A 255
Focus Group Guide
Pre-Participant Interview Guide
PEP Graduate Interview Guide

iii
ABSTRACT
The Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP) is a 10-session weekly psycho-
educational group designed to empower victims of domestic violence by increasing
participants’ knowledge about healthy relationships in order to recognize warning signs
of abuse, access resources to improve safety, and engage in non-abusive relationships in
the long run. Lack of evidence compels providers, consumers, and local funding sources
to support PEP based on the authority of sponsoring agencies (Gambrill, 1999). This
study contributes to practice-based evidence and promotes a critical best practice
approach by partnering with both service providers and consumers to explore the
development of psychological empowerment with a heterogeneous population of women
united by their lived experience of PEP. As a grounded theory study, this research is a
collaborative project with Laura’s House, a local domestic violence shelter and outreach
organization headquartered in south Orange County, California.
Using a modified constant comparative method to analyze data from participant
observation and verbatim interview and focus group transcripts, the study found that
psychological empowerment develops along a continuum of phases built upon a
foundation of knowledge about domestic violence, its consequences, and available
resources. These cyclical phases are awareness, engagement, practice, and praxis. While
awareness involves application of relevant knowledge to individual circumstances,
engagement represents women’s development and preliminary exercise of skills to
achieve safety. Lastly, practice refers to behaviors that diminish the likelihood of abuse
reoccurrence and subsequent violent relationships. Women build on existing levels of

iv
psychological empowerment by participating in praxis or ongoing cycles of action and
reflection.
PEP’s curriculum, group experience, and facilitators’ styles and strategies shape
the development of psychological empowerment among participants. Differences
between pre-participants and graduates suggest that the latter’s PEP participation
positively influence their levels of psychological empowerment. Finally, women’s
experiences of witnessing domestic violence as children, abuse by their parents, sexual
assault, and abuse by past intimate partners impacted their development of psychological
development. Ironically, the study’s limitations related to intersectionality correspond to
its findings related to the absence of critical consciousness in PEP’s content and delivery.
The findings yield recommendations for empowerment-oriented social work practice
with women who have experienced intimate partner violence.

1
INTRODUCTION
Domestic violence intervention services in the United States emerged from
grassroots battered women’s activism that was part of the larger women’s rights
movement in the 1970s (Saathoff & Stoffel, 1999; Klein et al., 1997). The majority of
shelters for battered women opened during the latter part of the decade and evolved from
groups of volunteers operating telephone hotlines and providing room and board for
victims in their private homes. Reflecting their historical origins within this grassroots
activism, the majority of community-based services for women and their children operate
within feminist theoretical models which though popular have been poorly studied with
regard to their effectiveness.
Empowerment theory offers an alternative to a needs- or rights-based prevention
framework by guiding practitioners to increase the opportunities of individuals,
organizations, and communities to leverage pertinent resources. Empowerment has been
described in the literature as both a process and an outcome (Israel et al., 1994; Itzhaky &
York, 2000; Swift & Levin, 1987; Wallerstein, 1992). Hardly an intrapsychic
phenomenon, psychological empowerment integrates a subject’s perceptions of personal
competence with meaningful engagement in one’s social environment to negotiate
barriers and achieve desired outcomes (Maton & Salem, 1995; Wallerstein, 1992;
Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman et al., 1992).
Social work research in this arena has focused on either clinical intervention to
ameliorate client deficits or the oppression of marginalized groups and social
transformation (Peled et al., 2000). Empowerment practice with women who have

2
experienced intimate partner violence demands integration of both perspectives. This
study defines psychological empowerment as a woman’s increased capacity to engage in
healthy intimate relationships that results from her successful integration of relevant
knowledge and skills to recognize abuse and access resources in her local environment to
improve safety.
Empowerment-oriented social work practice examines how themes of power,
powerlessness, and oppression affect personal, family, and community-level problems
and their intersections and strives to expand personal, interpersonal, and political power
to facilitate improvement in subjects’ quality of life (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al.,
1995; Solomon, 1976). Small group interventions which build on participants’ strengths
and promote mutual aid, support, self-help, skill-building, consciousness-raising,
education, and social action match these priorities (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al.,
1995; Parsons, 1991). By providing an opportunity for women to expand social networks
and increase their social capital (Larance & Porter, 2004), support group membership not
only helps women end violent relationships but also enhances their coping while
experiencing abuse (El-Bassel et al., 2001). These networks, in turn, offer a space for
women to engage in critical reflection and growth which promotes personal autonomy
(Abu-Lughod, 1995; Aleman, 1997).
Empowerment practice often includes education to increase critical awareness and
skills (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al., 1995; Simon, 1994). As an educational outcome,
critical awareness of personal problems as individual manifestations of structural
inequalities reduces self-blame and promotes social transformation (Freire, 1973;

3
Gutierrez et al., 1995). Acknowledging that psychological empowerment requires
mastery of the subject’s local environment, empowerment education not only seeks to
enhance individual attitudes and behaviors but also facilitate social action to address the
collective’s unmet needs.
The present research on practice effectiveness with women who have experienced
intimate partner violence cannot provide a clear understanding of which interventions are
most effective with the target population. Although research supports the positive
influences of participation in psycho-educational supportive counseling on women’s self-
esteem, anxiety, depression, hostility, assertiveness, social support, locus of control,
adaptation, and self-efficacy (Cox & Stoltenberg, 1991; Mancoske et al., 1994; Tutty,
1996; Tutty et al., 1993), studies of group interventions offer incomplete or inconsistent
results. Differences in treatment approaches and specific group variables appear to have
minimal impact on participants’ experiences (Mancoske et al., 1994; Tutty et al., 1996).
Existing studies neither replicate nor complement one another, instead assessing
dissimilar types of interventions and implementing measures and procedures
characterized by various degrees of sophistication. As a result, there is little empirical
evidence to suggest that current approaches facilitate better outcomes.
Despite the ongoing development of intervention programs for domestic violence,
there appears to be limited expansion of research with regard to their effectiveness.
Relatively few studies have employed samples that include racially diverse and/or
immigrant women, raising more questions about the relevance of their conclusions when
attempting to design effective interventions for minority consumers. The majority of

4
studies on practice effectiveness published focuses on short-term group interventions,
uses small study samples, adopts convenience sampling techniques, and has substantial
methodological weaknesses (Abel, 2000). The lack of attention to ethnicity, race, and
immigration status in previous research may be among the reasons that account for the
existing literature’s mixed findings.
As a grounded theory study set within an intersectional analytic framework, this
research is a collaborative project with Laura’s House, a local domestic violence shelter
and outreach organization headquartered in south Orange County, California. The
study’s focus is psychological empowerment described by women who have experienced
intimate partner violence and are graduates or pre-participants of the Personal
Empowerment Program
©
(PEP). Considering the development of constructivist
methodology for evaluation research in education (Biklin & Bogdan, 1986; Bogdan &
Biklin, 1992; Guba, 1987; Guba & Lincoln, 1981, 1982; Smith & Lincoln, 1984;
Williams, 1986), this study applies a modification of the 3 phases of an emergent social
work constructivist design.
The Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP) is a 10-session weekly psycho-
educational group designed to empower victims of domestic violence by educating
participants about domestic violence and facilitating strategies to end violence in their
intimate relationships. PEP’s goal is to increase participants’ knowledge about healthy
relationships in order to recognize warning signs of abuse, access resources to improve
safety, and engage in non-abusive relationships in the long run.

5
PEP evolved as a result of persistent and innovative collaboration between
Interval House, Women’s Transitional Living Center, Human Options and Laura’s
House. The project benefited from representation of all the comprehensive domestic
violence shelters in Orange County which received financial support from the California
Department of Health Services, now the California Department of Public Health. The
collaboration involved program managers, social workers, marriage and family therapists,
and domestic violence services consumers to develop a culturally competent, bilingual
program curriculum.
Each session has a planned duration of 2 hours each week over 10 weeks.
Participants may enter at any point in the sequence, and each series of 10 sessions is
offered consecutively. The maximum number of participants in each session is 15. The
copyrighted curriculum is offered in English and Spanish to men and women in sex-
segregated groups at public offices.
The limited research on racially visible and immigrant survivors has led to a
broad application of results from studies with samples composed primarily of Caucasian
women. Previous research on violence against women has sought to ascertain
distinctions in the nature and extent of domestic abuse, women’s help-seeking patterns,
and access to resources among different groups. However, most studies have neglected
the examination of ethno-racial differences in combination with other social factors such
as gender, poverty, social class, or unemployment (Oxman-Martinez et al., 2000;
Crenshaw, 1995). Contrastingly, an intersectional analytical framework describes the
interactions between different aspects of an individual’s social identity with dominant

6
systems of oppression, e.g. racism, sexism, and homophobia. The benefit of applying
this perspective lies in its utility with regard to examining social problems in a way that
recognizes the diverse and multiple realities of population constituents by exploring the
relationships between socioeconomic status, gender, and race with capitalism,
discrimination and ethnocentrism. These intersectionalities are significant due to their
effects on the meaning and nature of domestic abuse, its experience by victims and their
collaterals, private and social consequences of the abuse, and how or whether safety can
be achieved (Bograd, 1999).
Critical best practice integrates critical theory and best practice approaches to
social work intervention (Ferguson, 2003). Focusing not only on outcomes but also
social action processes, critical best practice prefers research methods which elucidate
lived experience to generate practice-based evidence. Complementing an evidence-based
practice approach, practice-based evidence involves naturalistic assessment of
interventions’ effectiveness with samples in community-based settings (Margison, 2001).
While highlighting what works, a practice-based evidence approach also examines
interventions which yield no difference or poor outcomes. By incorporating perspectives
of service consumers, managers, and direct practitioners, a critical best practice approach
acknowledges how all actors and systems mutually construct social work applications.
Lack of evidence compels providers, consumers, and local funding sources to
support PEP based on the authority of sponsoring agencies (Gambrill, 1999). The study
contributes to practice-based evidence and promotes a critical best practice approach by
partnering with both service providers and consumers to explore the development of

7
empowerment processes and outcomes with a heterogeneous population of women united
by their lived experience of PEP. The existing literature calls on theorists to use
qualitative methods (Israel et al., 1994; Perkins, 1995; Wallerstein, 1994; Zimmerman,
1990) to investigate barriers to empowerment across various life domains (Rappaport,
1987), the types of conditions characterizing natural or intervention settings which
promote or hinder empowerment processes (Perkins, 1995; Wallerstein, 1992;
Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988; Zimmerman et al., 1992), how empowerment at one
level influences its manifestations at other levels (Perkins, 1995; Zimmerman et al.,
1992), and the relationship between perceived and actual power (Rappaport, 1987; Riger,
1993). In response to these gaps, this research addresses the following questions:
1. How is the development of psychological empowerment influenced by women’s
historical and cultural contexts?
2. How does participation in the Personal Empowerment Program
©
influence
psychological empowerment among women who have experienced intimate partner
violence?
3. How do descriptions of psychological empowerment differ between women who
graduate PEP and pre-participants?
The study’s setting in south Orange County is timely. Domestic violence-related
emergency calls in Orange County increased from 12,233 in 2002 to 12,796 in 2003 and
12,923 calls in 2004. Among equivalent counties, Orange County has a medium level of
domestic violence-related calls yet the lowest level of domestic violence arrests
(California Department of Justice, 2003). Despite an estimated need for 3,722

8
emergency shelter beds for domestic violence victims, there exist only 362 inside the
county (Orange County Continuum of Care, 2006). Until 2007, the Orange County
Superior Court required domestic violence victims to complete PEP in order to modify or
remove a temporary restraining order against their perpetrators. Consequently, men and
women enrolled in PEP included both voluntary participants and those mandated by the
Orange County Superior Court to attend. Under the leadership of a new presiding judge
in 2007, the Superior Court suspended conditions on domestic violence victims.
Changing trends in the local environment coupled with a lukewarm criminal justice
response and lack of domestic violence-related resources indicate the need for research to
strengthen existing programs and document their effectiveness. The specific aims of the
study are below:
1. Explore the influence of women’s historical and cultural contexts on psychological
empowerment.
2. Explore the development of psychological empowerment among PEP participants.
3. Assess the extent to which the Personal Empowerment Program
©
corresponds to
principles of empowerment education.
4. Compare and contrast the descriptions of women who complete PEP to pre-
participants.
The qualitative design and intersectional analytic framework fill gaps in existing
research on the development of psychological empowerment among women participating
in a 10-session psycho-educational group to address domestic violence. Previous studies
on the effectiveness of short-term group programs minimize or disregard how race,

9
ethnicity, gender, nationality, and socioeconomic status intersect with each other and how
these relationships impact experience with formal social service interventions.
Qualitative methods are necessary to sufficiently explore these intersections in depth.

10
Chapter 1: BACKGROUND & SIGNIFICANCE
Definitions. Intimate partner violence involves physical, sexual or psychological
abuse perpetrated against a current or former partner or spouse by another within a same-
sex or heterosexual relationship which may or may not include sexual intimacy. The
frequency and severity of intimate partner or domestic violence fluctuates from emotional
abuse only to chronic, severe battering. Intimate partner violence consists of threats,
physical, sexual, and psychological/emotional abuse (Saltzman et al., 2002). Physical
violence is defined as the purposeful use of physical force, potentially leading to death,
disability, injury, or harm. Examples of physical violence are scratching, pushing,
shoving, throwing, grabbing, biting, choking, shaking, slapping, punching, burning, using
weapons or restraints, or one’s body, size, or strength against another person. Sexual
violence includes abusive sexual contact; using physical violence to force participation in
unwanted sexual acts regardless of the act’s actual completion; and any attempted or
sexual act with a person who lacks the capacity to comprehend, refuse, or communicate
consent due to illness, disability, influence of substances, or coercion. Threats of
physical or sexual violence involve verbal and nonverbal communication of one person’s
intent to physically harm another. Finally, physical or emotional violence results in
trauma to the victim through humiliation, tactics of control, and isolation including
restricting access to financial or other resources. Prior perpetration or threat of physical
or sexual violence also fits this category. Unwanted pursuit or stalking frequently factors
in victims’ experiences of intimate partner violence. The term is used to label repeated

11
threats or harassment including surveillance, intrusive visits, phone calls, or
correspondence, and vandalism of property (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998).
According to the Power & Control Wheel developed by the Domestic Abuse
Intervention Project in Duluth, Minnesota and widely used by domestic violence shelter
organizations across the United States, emotional abuse involves “putting the victim
down, making her feel bad about herself, calling her names, making her think she is
crazy, playing mind games, humiliating her, and making her feel guilty” while
psychological abuse involves coercion and threats, intimidation, isolation, and
minimizing, denying, and blaming the victim for the abuse. Less widely discussed,
spiritual abuse includes denying access to church or clergy, making fun of personal
values, and ignoring or ridiculing religious or cultural traditions (Wisconsin Coalition
Against Domestic Violence).
Occurrence. The National Crime Victimization Survey reports that women
comprise 85 percent of all victims of intimate partner violence (Rennison, 2003). The
annual incidence of domestic violence among adult female California residents is 5.8
percent. Between 1998 and 2001, 5 percent of Caucasian women, 8.5 percent of African-
American women, 7.9 percent of Hispanic women, and 4.8 percent of Asian women in
California experienced domestic violence (California Office of Women’s Health, 2006).
Although the estimated lifetime prevalence rate of intimate partner violence is 29
percent for women and 22 percent for men (Coker et al., 2002), most incidents of
domestic violence are excluded from official accounts. Findings from the National
Violence Against Women Survey suggest that about 20 percent of rapes and sexual

12
assaults perpetrated by an intimate partner, 25 percent of physical assaults, and 50
percent of stalking incidents against women are reported (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
Although most incidents are relatively minor, the same survey reports that adult women
and men suffer 5.3 and 3.2 million incidents of intimate partner violence each year, and
about 1.5 million women and 800,000 men experience rape or sexual assault perpetrated
by an intimate partner, resulting in about 2 million injuries and 1,300 deaths (Centers for
Disease Control & Prevention, 2003). One-fifth of non-fatal violence against women and
3 percent against men consisted of intimate partner violence in 2001. Intimate partners
stalk over 1 million women and 371,000 men annually (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
Intimate partners also murdered 11 percent of all homicide victims between 1976 and
2002. At the end of that period, women comprised about three quarters of all intimate
partner violence-related homicide victims (Fox & Zawitz, 2004). Crandall et al. (2004)
found that 44 percent of female intimate partner violence-related homicide victims had
visited an emergency room within 2 years of their death, and 93 percent of this group had
visited the emergency room at least once due to domestic violence.
Costs. Violence against women perpetrated by intimate partners cost nearly $4.1
billion in health costs and $1.8 billion in lost productivity, resulting in over $5.8 billion in
1995, excluding expenses related to law enforcement. Intimate partner violence victims
miss about 8 million days of paid work or 32,000 full-time jobs and 5.6 million days of
unpaid labor annually (Centers for Disease Control, 2003). In 2003 dollars, these costs
exceed $8.3 billion, breaking down to $460 million for rape, $6.2 billion for physical
assault, $461 million for stalking, and $1.2 billion due to death (Max et al., 2004).

13
Risk factors. Individual, interpersonal, community, and social factors intersect to
increase risk for intimate partner violence (Crandall et al., 2004; Heise & Garcia-Moreno,
2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Individuals are at greater risk of experiencing intimate
partner violence if they have suffered previous abuse by an intimate partner, are female,
young, use drugs and alcohol heavily, participate in high-risk sexual behavior, have
witnessed or experienced abuse during childhood, have lower education levels, or are
unemployed. In addition to these factors, individual women experience higher risk if
they are more highly educated than their partners, identify as Native American or
African-American, or have a verbally abusive partner. Individual men are at greater risk
if their ethnicity differs from their partner’s identity. There is a greater likelihood of
intimate partner violence when partners differ in socioeconomic status and live in
communities characterized by poverty, overcrowding, low social capital, and traditional
cultural expectations regarding gender, including tolerance for domestic violence.
Consequences. Victims of intimate partner violence suffer physical,
psychological, social, and health consequences. The National Violence Against Women
Survey found that 42 percent of adult female victims and 20 percent of adult male victims
suffered physical injuries during the last incident of intimate partner violence (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). Despite variance due to the frequency and severity of abuse (Campbell
et al., 2002; Heise & Garcia-Moreno, 2002; Plichta, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000),
common physical consequences include bruises, knife wounds, pelvic pain, headaches,
back pain, broken bones, gynecological disorders, pregnancy complications, sexually
transmitted infections, central nervous system disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, or

14
cardiac problems. Psychological abuse usually concurs with physical and sexual violence
resulting in depression, suicidality especially among women, anxiety, low self-esteem,
lack of trust, fear of intimacy, and posttraumatic stress symptoms including detachment,
sleep problems, and flashbacks (Bergen, 1996; Coker et al., 2002; Heise & Garcia-
Moreno, 2002; Roberts et al., 2003). Among respondents to the 2003-2004 California
Women’s Health Survey, 4.3 percent reported physical violence and another 4.5 percent
reported psychological violence only perpetrated by an intimate partner (California
Office of Women’s Health, 2006). Over a third of women who had experienced physical
violence also reported frequent mental distress, and over 50 percent of women who had
experienced physical violence indicated their desire for mental health assistance.
Although 71.5 percent of women who reported both physical violence and frequent
mental distress desired mental health assistance, only 46.5 percent received services.
Adverse social consequences associated with intimate partner violence are constrained
access to employment, healthcare, social services, and natural support networks (Heise &
Garcia-Moreno, 2002; Plichta, 2004). For example, about 30 percent of women receiving
public assistance report concurrent involvement in an abusive intimate relationship
(Lawrence, 2002; Toleman & Rapheal, 2000; Lyon, 2000). Lastly, women who
experience intimate partner violence are more likely to participate in behaviors that
aggravate health risks in comparison to women without abuse histories (Heise & Garcia-
Moreno, 2002; Plichta, 2004; Roberts et al., 2005; Silverman et al., 2001). These health
behaviors and activities may involve high-risk sexual behaviors, e.g. lower condom use,
early onset of sexual activity, unhealthy or multiple sexual partners, and exchanging sex

15
for financial or other resources; substance use and abuse including cigarettes and alcohol;
driving under the influence; and eating problems, e.g. fasting, vomiting, and overeating.
A comprehensive response by anti-domestic violence organizations to women’s
experience of battering encompasses crisis intervention and long-term assistance
notwithstanding emergency shelter, transitional housing, legal services, assistance with
household establishment, vocational training, childcare, transportation, psychological
counseling for women and their children, and at times substance abuse treatment
(Brewster, 2000). More than 2,000 domestic violence organizations operate in the United
States, providing not only telephone hotlines and emergency, short-term shelter but also
legal, health, mental health, or vocational services or referrals, and assistance with
securing housing, relocation, and safety planning for adult and child survivors (Saathoff
& Stoffel, 1999). Many of these agencies have also expanded their prevention efforts,
supplementing their direct services with community outreach programs, education, and
training for the public and professionals, targeting law enforcement, child protection, and
health care personnel.
Intersectionality. The limited research on racially visible and immigrant
survivors has led to a broad application of results from studies with samples composed
primarily of Caucasian women. Previous research on violence against women has sought
to ascertain distinctions in the nature and extent of domestic abuse, women’s help-
seeking patterns, and access to resources among different groups. However, most studies
have neglected the examination of ethno-racial differences in combination with other
social factors such as gender, poverty, social class, or unemployment (Oxman-Martinez

16
et al., 2000; Crenshaw, 1995). These analytical lapses treat race and ethnicity as if they
existed independently of other aspects of social location and use racial categories to label
static and homogenous descriptions of the target group’s cultural traits. Oxman-Martinez
and her colleagues argue that this additive or linear process examines gender, class, race,
and ethnicity as fixed variables that can be added or subtracted to explain variance in
women’s experience of violence. Harris (1995) states powerfully, “The result…is to
reduce the lives of people who experience multiple forms of oppression to additional
problems: ‘racism + sexism = straight black women’s experience’ or ‘racism + sexism +
homophobia = black lesbian experience.’ Thus, in an essentialist world, black women’s
experience will always be forcibly fragmented before being subjected to analysis, as
those who are ‘only interested in race’ and those who are ‘only interested in gender’ take
their separate slices of our lives” (p. 255). In summary, the authors assert that the present
body of research has utilized an analytical approach that accepts the homogeneity of
minority women’s experiences, the existence of essential traits, the false separation of
race and socioeconomic status from other aspects of social location, and an overemphasis
on culture and diversity.
Contrastingly, an intersectional analytical framework describes the interactions
between different aspects of an individual’s social identity with dominant systems of
oppression, e.g. racism, sexism, and homophobia. The benefit of applying this
perspective lies in its utility with regard to examining social problems in a way that
recognizes the diverse and multiple realities of population constituents by exploring the
relationships between socioeconomic status, gender, and race with capitalism,

17
discrimination and ethnocentrism. These intersectionalities are significant due to their
effects on the meaning and nature of domestic abuse, its experience by victims and their
collaterals, private and social consequences of the abuse, and how or whether safety can
be achieved (Bograd, 1999). As a theoretical construct, intersectionality has been
criticized both for its subjectivity and its resistance to operationalization for research
purposes. Despite authors’ acknowledgement of their studies’ limitations and disclaimers
against uncritical acceptance of stereotypes that emerge from their work (Oxman-
Martinez, 2000), current empirical studies have stopped short of incorporating an
intersectional analytical framework in their methods.
Theoretical perspectives of empowerment practice
The development of empowerment theory and practice can be traced to
community organization, adult education, feminist theory, and political psychology
(Gutierrez, 1990). The construct of empowerment provides a useful framework for social
and community intervention (Rappaport, 1984; Pinderhughes, 1983). In his presidential
address to the American Psychological Association’s annual meeting in September 1980,
Rappaport (1981) prioritized an empowerment model for social policy over both needs
and rights models. Criticizing prevention schemes operating within a needs model, he
writes, “Prevention programs aimed at so called high-risk populations, especially
programs under the auspices of established social institutions, can easily become a new
arena for colonization, where people are forced to consume our goods and services,
thereby providing us with jobs and money…This underlies much of what is called
prevention: find so-called high-risk people and save them from themselves, if they like it

18
or not, by giving them, or even better, their children, programs which we develop,
package, sell, operate, or otherwise control” (p. 13). Such programs encourage
beneficiaries to believe that a change in a pre/posttest score is equivalent to an
improvement in quality of life. Empowerment theory offers an alternative to a prevention
framework by guiding practitioners to increase the opportunities of individuals,
organizations, and communities to control pertinent resources.
Swift & Levin (1987) offer contrasting definitions of the verb to empower. While
the first definition refers to providing authority to others, the second describes actions
that bolster others’ capacity to achieve authority as a result of their efforts. The following
are 11 assumptions which serve to orient empowerment theory development (Rappaport,
1987). First, empowerment exists at multiple levels, and, second, changes at one level
impact other levels. Third, the historical and, fourth, cultural contexts of the individual,
organization, or community including the subject-environment fit will shape its
empowerment processes and outcomes. Fifth, the dynamic nature of empowerment
demands longitudinal research. Sixth, empowerment theory is explicit about the value it
places on collaborative and participatory research and conscious use of language to
promote egalitarian relationships. The setting’s size (seventh), conditions of participation
(eighth), and extent to which it embraces an empowerment perspective (ninth) will
influence empowerment processes and outcomes. Tenth, grassroots responses to local
problems will facilitate greater empowerment than those developed by a central authority.
Finally, empowerment generated via social interaction expands resources rather than
contributes to their scarcity (Weick, 1982). The literature calls on theorists to investigate

19
barriers to empowerment across various life domains (Rappaport, 1987), the types of
conditions characterizing natural settings or intervention programs which promote or
hinder empowerment processes (Perkins, 1995; Wallerstein, 1992; Zimmerman &
Rappaport, 1988; Zimmerman et al., 1992), how empowerment at one level influences its
manifestations at other levels (Perkins, 1995; Zimmerman et al., 1992), and the
relationship between perceived and actual power (Rappaport, 1987; Riger, 1993).
Empowerment has been described in the literature as both a process and an
outcome (Israel et al., 1994; Itzhaky & York, 2000; Swift & Levin, 1987; Wallerstein,
1992). As a process, empowerment is a “mechanism by which people, organizations, and
communities gain mastery over their lives” (Rappaport 1984, p. 3), resulting in an
internal sense of control or actual power to change life circumstances. A social work
perspective defines empowerment as a “feeling, conviction, or perception of intrinsic or
extrinsic value which manifests itself as achievement of self-determined goals through
the use of personal resource and skill” (Solomon, 1976). Peering through a more political
lens, Kieffer (1984) sees empowerment as a long-term process of adult learning and
development culminating in 3 intersecting components of participatory competence: a
sense of personal efficacy, a critical awareness of the subject’s social and political
environment, and participation in building individual and collective resources.
Empowerment tends to be observed by its absence. Practitioners and scholars
identify actual or perceived powerlessness, learned helplessness, alienation, and external
loci of control in order to define empowerment (Rappaport, 1987; Wallerstein, 1994).
Solomon (1976) traces this powerlessness to internalized oppression and direct and

20
indirect experiences of oppression in the meso and macro-level systems including
inequitable access to resources and vulnerability to discrimination (Gutierrez et al.,
1995). This perspective positions low self-esteem as a consequence of powerlessness
rather than its source (Solomon, 1976; Freire, 1970).
Empowering processes are experiences that facilitate greater access to and control
over resources which increase the likelihood of desired outcomes. Examples are
opportunities to increase knowledge and refine skills related to leadership and resource
development, enter a coalition with others to achieve common goals, and expand social
networks (Zimmerman, 1995; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Notably, each requires
social interactions which supply support, mutual aid, and validation (Parsons, 1991).
Empowerment processes refer to an ongoing interaction between a subject and its
environment; therefore, empowerment outcomes alter as a function of their local
environments (Rappaport, 1981; Rappaport, 1984; Zimmerman, 1993; Zimmerman,
1995). Examples include feelings of individual and group efficacy, critical engagement
with the subject’s social environment, relevant knowledge and skills for social action,
mutual aid, and behaviors to achieve desired objectives (Parsons, 1991; Zimmerman,
2000). At the organizational level, empowerment might take the form of a diffuse power
structure, opportunities for capacity building, and influence in community decisions
(Zimmerman, 1990). Hardly unfolding in a linear sequence, empowerment outcomes
represent a subject’s heightened quality of interaction with his or her environment.
Rich and his colleagues (1995) differentiate formal, intrapersonal, instrumental,
substantive, and community empowerment. Institutions such as governments and social

21
service agencies facilitate formal empowerment by providing opportunities for
constituents to participate in decision-making. Intrapersonal empowerment may precede
or evolve subsequent to participation in decision-making and is defined as a sense of
personal competence. Building on intrapersonal empowerment, applicable knowledge,
concrete resources, communication skills, and formal empowerment contribute to
instrumental empowerment or the person’s ability to participate and influence decision-
making. Substantive empowerment manifests as desired outcomes or innovative, long-
term solutions to problems which result from meaningful collaboration between citizens
and formal institutions. Finally, community empowerment is possible only when
individuals and institutions are sufficiently empowered to successfully co-create solutions
to local problems.
Kieffer’s research (1984) emphasizes that empowerment processes are instigated
only by a sufficiently forceful violation or threat to the subject’s physical integrity, and
this stimulus is irreplaceable by consciousness-raising or educational interventions.
Participation or praxis is central to empowerment as this process depends on ongoing
cycles of experience/action and reflection (Freire, 1970; Kieffer, 1984; Zimmerman,
1995). In her research with 37 older African-American women residents in Harlem,
Saegert (1989) discovered that women’s leadership evolved due to a combination of
personal attributes and interdependence on long-term social networks. Participation in
social or political action has the potential to foster psychological empowerment by
providing individuals with opportunities to organize others to identify resources and
achieve collective goals (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). In three separate studies with

22
college students and community residents, Zimmerman & Rappaport (1988) found a
positive relationship between participation in community activities and organizations and
psychological empowerment. Although students and residents who were more intensely
involved reported higher political efficacy, competence, and mastery, desire for control,
civic duty, and internal attributions of success, the study could not determine the
relationship’s directionality. These findings were reproduced in another study set among
households in a tri-county region surrounding Detroit, Michigan (Zimmerman et al.,
1992). Prestby and his colleagues (1990) found a significant association between
increasing levels of participation in block associations and higher personal and social
benefits and lower costs or barriers. Itzhaky & York (2000) placed participation as an
antecedent to empowerment in their study with community activists in a low-income
urban neighborhood in central Israel. Their research suggests that not all participation
has a perceived effect on empowerment. Only participation as a representative of fellow
residents had a measurable impact on psychological empowerment, and this association
was weakened once gender was introduced in the analysis.
The conflation of perceived power with actual power can minimize barriers
imposed by institutional factors, which weakens efforts to actualize real social change
(Israel et al., 1994; Riger, 1993; Speer & Hughey, 1995). Riger (1993) argues that using
empowerment as a label for interventions is appropriate only when it seeks to increase the
subject’s influence over decision-making. Perkins (1995) counters that personal
empowerment leads organizational and community level empowerment, enabling

23
marginalized groups to grapple with their oppression (Freire, 1970; Israel et al., 1994;
Rappaport, 1984; Wallerstein, 1992; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988).
Psychological empowerment. Empowerment at the individual level of analysis is
called psychological empowerment (Zimmerman, 1990a; Zimmerman & Rappaport,
1988). In contrast to individually-oriented conceptualizations of empowerment,
psychological empowerment incorporates an ecological perspective (Rappaport, 1987,
1994; Trickett, 1994; Zimmerman, 1990). Overlapping with the first two components of
Kieffer’s description, psychological empowerment emanates from a social action
framework that includes collectivity, however, emphasizes that organizational and
community empowerment is distinct from an assembly of empowered individuals
(Perkins & Zimmerman, 1995). Hardly an intrapsychic phenomenon, psychological
empowerment integrates a subject’s perceptions of personal competence with meaningful
engagement in one’s social environment to negotiate barriers and achieve desired
outcomes (Maton & Salem, 1995; Wallerstein, 1992; Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman,
1995; Zimmerman et al., 1992).
Zimmerman (1995) discusses 3 conditions underlying psychological
empowerment. Psychological empowerment manifests differently in diverse populations
and settings requiring different sets of perceptions, skills, and actions. Second, it may
change for the same person across different aspects of his or her life. Finally,
psychological empowerment is dynamic and may morph over time. Consequently,
Zimmerman (1995) discourages creating a universal standardized instrument to measure
empowerment as it contradicts the construct’s dynamism (Trickett, 1994).

24
Psychological empowerment is a set of intersecting relationships between
intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral components (Zimmerman, 1995). The
intrapersonal component consists of perceived competence, motivation to control, and
perceived control and self-efficacy with regard to specific aspects of the subject’s life,
e.g. work, family, community. Second, critical awareness of options, opportunities and
barriers in the social environment, capacity to mobilize resources, and decision-making,
problem-solving, and leadership skills bridge the intrapersonal and behavioral
components. The third component consists of behaviors to achieve outcomes. This
understanding suggests that an empowered person can attain psychological empowerment
without necessarily obtaining authority to directly achieve his or her objectives (Chavis &
Wandersman, 1990; Riger, 1993).
Empowerment-oriented practice is inherently strengths-based in that it assumes
the presence or potential for clients’ competence. As a targeted outcome for social work
intervention, empowerment often becomes conflated with other psychological constructs
including self-esteem, self-efficacy, competency, and locus of control (Perkins &
Zimmerman, 1995), and empowerment-oriented practice has been confused with
interventions to promote adaptation and resilience (Pinderhughes, 1983). For example,
Pinderhughes insists, “treatment should focus not only upon strengthening ego
functioning and family structure but also upon reinforcing the appropriate support of
group, community, and other societal systems” (p. 334). She stresses the potential
effectiveness of support groups over other modalities to achieve empowerment outcomes.
Despite calls on practitioners to dismantle the unearned privilege they enjoy as a result of

25
their authority over social work clients, the practitioner’s centrality in Pinderhughes’
conceptualization of empowerment practice clashes with a critical awareness of
circumstances which foster powerlessness.
Freire (1970, 1973) explains that alienation results when an individual assumes
the role of an object rather than a subject in his or her social environment. A subject
integrates its environment while an object adapts to it. He insists, “If man is incapable of
changing reality, he adjusts himself instead. Adaptation is behavior characteristic of the
animal sphere; exhibited by man, it is symptomatic of his dehumanization” (Freire 1973,
p. 4). Integration implies not only adaptation but also the capacity to make choices and
alter life circumstances.
Empowerment practice examines how themes of power, powerlessness, and
oppression affect personal, family, and community-level problems and their intersections
and strives to expand personal, interpersonal, and political power to facilitate
improvement in subjects’ quality of life (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al., 1995;
Solomon, 1976). Although interventions provided by professionals may engender
empowerment, empowerment outcomes are more likely to result due to shared power and
meaningful collaboration between professionals and clients (Kieffer, 1984; Rappaport,
1984). Rappaport writes, “If we are to inform a social policy of empowerment and to
develop interventions useful for those who are not now empowered we need to find ways
to intervene in a form and with a style that is consistent with the idea of empowerment
rather than the idea of controlling others” (p. 4).

26
Although psychology’s alignment of empowerment with masculine priorities of
mastery and control typically overshadows phenomena integrating interdependence and
collectivity (Riger, 1993; Sullivan, 1994), empowerment-oriented intervention methods
start with creating a relationship between entities that is based on collaboration, mutual
trust, and shared power (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al., 1995) and responds to the
specific demands of each subject’s local environment (Trickett, 1994). Small group
interventions which build on participants’ strengths and promote mutual aid, support,
self-help, skill-building, consciousness-raising, education, and social action match these
priorities (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al., 1995; Parsons, 1991). Finally, empowering
interventions identify and implement opportunities for participants to become involved in
their design, implementation, and evaluation (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Gutierrez et
al., 1995; McTaggart, 1991; Tandon, 1989; Wallerstein, 1994; Zimmerman et al., 1992).
Empowerment education. Empowerment practice often includes education to
increase critical awareness and skills (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al., 1995; Simon,
1994). As an educational outcome, critical awareness of personal problems as individual
manifestations of structural inequalities reduces self-blame and promotes social
transformation (Freire, 1973; Gutierrez et al., 1995). Israel and her colleagues (1994)
point out that health education’s focus on improving individual choices and behaviors
overlook environmental risk factors including unmet needs for housing, sanitation,
employment, and supportive relationships. Acknowledging that psychological
empowerment requires mastery of the subject’s local environment, empowerment

27
education not only seeks to enhance individual attitudes and behaviors but also facilitate
social action to address the community’s unmet needs.
Freire’s educational model (1973) creates a framework to concurrently address
psychological, organizational, and community levels of empowerment (Israel et al.,
1994). Broadly applied in health education (Bialik-Gilad et al., 1991; Carpio-Cedraro et
al., 1992; Labonte, 1992; Magana & Ferreira-Pinto, 1992; Minkler, 1985; Wallerstein &
Bernstein, 1988; Werner & Bower, 1982), the relevance of Freire’s frameworks for social
work intervention has been recognized (Carroll & Minkler, 2000). Comprised of
listening, dialogue, and action, Freire’s framework involves people coming together to
name and bear witness to each others’ problems, investigating their problems’ sources in
culture and society, and brainstorming strategies to achieve their objectives for personal
and community transformation (Romero et al., 2006; Wallerstein, 1992; Wallerstein,
1994; Wallerstein & Auerbach, 2004). Praxis or continuous cycles of reflection and
action follow the initial series of listening, dialogue, and action. By implementing a
process of problem-posing rather than problem-solving (Wallerstein, 1994),
empowerment education promotes psychological empowerment which integrates feelings
of personal and group efficacy, motivation, critical thinking, and action (Zimmerman,
2000).
Dismantling hierarchical relationships between students and teachers, all
participants are co-investigators (Freire, 1970). In his introduction to Freire’s essay
entitled, “Education as the Practice of Freedom” (1973), Goulet writes, “The mark of a
successful educator is not skill in persuasion – which is but an insidious form of

28
propaganda – but the ability to dialogue with educatees in a mode of reciprocity” (p. xiii).
Freire developed educational projects which he labeled culture circles to emphasize their
departure from passive school settings. In these culture circles, a coordinator who
facilitated dialogue with group participants in programs arranged in learning units
replaced a teacher who lectured to students using structured syllabi. Active
communication replaced passive knowledge transmission by a teacher who attempted to
deposit information in his or her students.
Based on these principles, an empowerment education program precludes
participants’ objectification, enabling them to exercise authority over their experience of
the curriculum. As much as possible, the curriculum is a product of the first stage in
Freire’s model, listening. Despite structural constraints, the curriculum must at least
offer opportunities for participants to identify their problems. As problem-posers,
program facilitators will catalyze critical analysis of people’s problems as consequences
of underlying social inequities. Lastly, participants will choose the actions they pursue in
response to their altered consciousness. Since empowerment is an interplay between a
subject and its environment (Wallerstein, 1994), any evaluation of the program’s effects
will include measurement of empowerment processes and outcomes related to both
individual participants and the intervention setting (Wallerstein, 1992).
Empowerment-oriented practice and intimate partner violence
Peled et al. (2000) highlight two approaches to empowerment in social work
research. While one faction focuses on a clinical intervention to ameliorate client
deficits, the other concentrates on the oppression of marginalized groups and social

29
transformation. Seldom are these two integrated in a way that is demanded by practice
with survivors of domestic violence. Empowerment-oriented practice strategies include
enabling, linking, catalyzing, and priming (Lum, 1996), referring to identifying
individual and group strengths, planning and implementing interventions which supply a
space for people with common experiences of oppression to connect, providing
preliminary resources which enable families to leverage their existing ones, and
mediating between individuals or families and historically oppressive systems and
institutions respectively. Empowerment interventions with this population consider the
intersections of personal and social identities, linkages between personal problems and
institutional structures, egalitarian relationships, and the value of women’s perspectives
(Worell & Remer, 2003).
Social work practice with groups. Small groups are recommended as appropriate
interventions to facilitate empowerment outcomes (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al.,
1995; Parsons, 1991, 2001; Parsons & Cox, 1992). The emphases of mutual aid,
strengths, and empowerment indicate the relevance of group practice with those suffering
from trauma (Foy et al., 2001; Knight, 2006) defined as “a natural human response to the
physical, psychological, social, and spiritual manifestations of stress in a person’s life”
(Fournier 2002, p. 116). By reducing isolation and providing an opportunity to problem-
solve with peers, the group experience enhances feelings of self-esteem, self-worth,
competence, and self-efficacy (Knight, 2006). While studies document group
participation’s positive influence on members’ posttraumatic and other stress symptoms,
depression, self-esteem, isolation, and behaviors (Allen et al., 1997; Klein & Schermer,

30
2000; Schnurr et al., 2001; Wallis, 2002; Wright et al., 2003), there exist serious gaps in
the available research including inconsistency in group format, membership criteria, and
use of control groups (Knight, 2006).
Although small group work and empowerment practice overlap (Parsons, 2001),
not all group work approaches correspond to empowerment principles. For example,
group interventions for trauma survivors include supportive, psychodynamic, and
cognitive-behavioral frameworks (Foy et al., 2001). These therapeutic models converge
with regard to at least 5 characteristics. First, group members share similar types of
trauma experiences. For example, groups will not combine victims of natural disasters
with those who have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault. Trauma-focused
groups strive, second, to normalize members’ experiences and, third, validate their
survival strategies (Klein & Schermer, 2000); therefore, members are encouraged, fourth,
to disclose and bear witness to each others’ experiences (Knight, 2006). Finally, each
approach accepts the value which professionals offer as treatment facilitators.
Rather than exploring members’ memories and experiences of traumatic events,
supportive group therapy aims to reduce posttraumatic stress symptoms including
depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem by bolstering adaptation and resilience.
Available in either clinical or community settings, support groups are characterized by
open entry, and weekly meetings may range from 10 to 15 sessions (Foy et al., 2000).
Cognitive-behavioral models offer more space for processing traumatic events by
applying systematic prolonged exposure, cognitive restructuring techniques, and psycho-
education. Groups are typically closed and meet weekly for 6 to 16 weeks. Both models

31
contrast from traditional process-oriented group therapy which reproduces and works
through difficulties in family-of-origin relationships within the treatment setting (Foy et
al., 2001).
Knight (2006) recommends groups that are structured, time-limited, and
educational for trauma survivors who have not participated in prior intervention. Psycho-
educational groups acknowledge and validate while containing feelings about the
traumatic event(s). While reducing isolation, they increase members’ knowledge of
trauma’s effects rather than focusing on its integration. More so than the severity of
trauma or demographic variables like race, age, or ethnicity, participants’ interpersonal
styles and identification with the group influence their persistence in the intervention
(Alexander et al., 1991; Alexander et al., 1989).
Breton & Nosko (2005) encourage practitioners to prioritize women’s experiences
over adherence to theoretical models. Social workers facilitating groups with women
who have experienced abuse must provide each woman with an opportunity to “tell her
story” and, quoting Freire, “name her world” (p. 215). Facilitators must believe these
stories and instigate processes of consciousness-raising by identifying existing or
potential strengths as resources, confronting internalized oppression in the form of poor
self-images, and promoting awareness of social, political, economic, and cultural patterns
in their narratives. When interventions are based on member self-determination and
individualization, practitioners will embrace flexibility in the group’s structure including
control over termination of services and labels, e.g. battered women. If groups are time-
limited, practitioners must identify ways to prolong the group’s support to members over

32
time. Finally, the authors recommend that social workers create community partnerships
in order to leverage existing and potential natural supports in the local environment.
Among domestic violence survivors, social support not only helps women end
violent relationships but also enhances their coping while experiencing abuse (El-Bassel
et al., 2001). Support group membership provides an opportunity for women to expand
social networks and increase their social capital (Larance & Porter, 2004). These
networks, in turn, offer a space for women to engage in critical reflection and growth
which promotes personal autonomy (Abu-Lughod, 1995; Aleman, 1997).
In her study with separate groups of welfare recipients and women experiencing
intimate partner violence, Parsons (2001) found that participants joined the groups
voluntarily to address their isolation and develop relationships with other women who
had similar experiences. The group provided them with a safe space characterized by
commonality, validation, and interdependence where each woman had a voice, received
support, increased knowledge and skills related to their problems, practiced resolving
conflict and taking risks, and experienced themselves and others as role models and
advocates. Her findings demonstrate that empowerment practice with women fosters
both personal and collective transformation regardless of the presenting problem.
Intervention effectiveness. Although research supports the positive influences of
participation in psycho-educational supportive counseling on women’s self-esteem,
anxiety, depression, hostility, assertiveness, social support, locus of control, adaptation,
and self-efficacy (Cox & Stoltenberg, 1991; Mancoske et al., 1994; Tutty, 1996; Tutty et
al., 1993), studies of group interventions offer incomplete or inconsistent results. For

33
example, domestic violence survivors who participated in an intensive two-week group
program achieved greater assertiveness and self-esteem and decreased anxiety,
depression and hostility than those women who participated in unstructured group
counseling only (Cox & Stoltenberg, 1991). However, the study neglects to assess
whether participants in either condition experienced reduced levels of interpersonal
violence. In another evaluation study, 90-minute groups were held four times each week
during an 11-week intervention period. Interestingly, participants were subjected to no
requirements with regard to their attendance, and the results provide no support that
participants experienced improvement with regard to their partners’ abusive behaviors or
their personal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Rubin, 1991). Conversely, a study of a
similar weekly group program by Tutty and her colleagues (1993) finds significant
improvement in women’s reports of belonging support, locus of control, self-esteem,
perceived stress, attitudes toward marriage and the family, and marital functioning
including subscales on task behavior, control and affective expression, controlling
behavior, and abuse. Participants also reported maintaining positive changes in self-
esteem, perceived stress, coping, attitudes toward marriage, controlling behavior, and
incidence of spouse abuse after six months. In the only study to examine aftercare
services for battered women, Holiman and Schilit (1991) evaluated a 10-session group
program for battered women who had engaged in some type of help-seeking behavior
such as entering a women’s shelter, pursuing a restraining order, involving the police in
response to a battering episode, or living separately from their abusive partners. The
study finds significant positive changes in participants’ expression of anger and general

34
contentment but no parallel improvement in self-esteem. Kim & Kim (2001)
implemented a group intervention program with Korean women which included sessions
on trauma assessment, identifying major problems, managing feelings, self-awareness,
indicators of an abusive partner, stress management, action planning, and empowerment.
In comparison to 17 control subjects, the study found that group participants experienced
no change in state anxiety, self-esteem, or depression despite significant improvement in
trait anxiety. Rycroft (2000) found that 20 women experienced less loneliness,
psychological distress, shame, and self-blame after participating in a 12-session group
therapy program but no improvement in fears about safety and assault, beliefs about
intimate partner violence, or self-worth. However, qualitative data indicates that the
group experience created intense feelings of acceptance, empowerment, initiative,
problem-solving, and decision-making among participants.
Differences in treatment approaches and specific group variables appear to have
minimal impact on participants’ experiences (Mancoske et al., 1994; Tutty et al., 1996).
Mancoske et al. (1994) considers first, how battered women receiving short-term group
counseling services experienced change in self-esteem, self-efficacy, and attitudes toward
feminism and second, if clients experiencing different treatment approaches demonstrate
different outcomes. Participants in a grief resolution-oriented treatment group reported
significant improvement in self-esteem and self-efficacy whereas women who
participated in feminist-oriented group counseling did not demonstrate comparable
change. When all scores were combined, however, all participants demonstrated
significant improvement on the three outcome measures. The study concludes that short-

35
term group counseling preceded by individual crisis intervention improves self-esteem,
self-efficacy, and attitudes toward feminism among battered women. Shin’s (1999)
doctoral dissertation on empowerment-focused group practice with women who had
experienced domestic violence implemented an educational intervention based on a
feminist rather than a trauma treatment perspective. The intervention’s objectives
focused on building social support, identifying strengths, reducing self-blame, and
increasing skills and behaviors to leverage resources. After 10 sessions, the sample of 14
participants demonstrated higher levels of self-efficacy, self-esteem, and group
identification.
Secondary data analysis using information previously collected by Tutty and her
colleagues (1993) suggests that group size, participant attendance, program completion,
number of group facilitators, client’s age, abuse history, and current living arrangements
with an abusive partner do not predict graduates from group members who terminate
before completion (Tutty et al., 1996). Nonetheless, women participating in groups with
two facilitators reported significantly less traditional and stereotyped attitudes about
gender roles at posttest and reported greater tangible support, increased internal locus of
control, less controlling behavior on the part of the abusive partner, lower verbal abuse,
and higher levels of satisfaction after six months. Women currently residing with and
separated from their abusive partners responded similarly to treatment, and both parties
reported substantial levels of abuse at posttest. Findings also indicate no statistically
significant differences between new and recontracted clients. At six-month follow-up,
however, recontracted clients reported experiencing greater controlling behaviors and

36
physical abuse perpetrated against them by their partners than women who were seeking
services for the first time. Similarly after six months, the eldest category of women
reported poorer internal locus of control, attitudes toward marriage and the family,
emotional involvement and communication, and greater verbal abuse. Consequently,
Tutty and her colleagues concluded that “gains may be less sustainable for recontracted
or older clients” than their counterparts (p. 321).
The present research on practice effectiveness with women who have experienced
intimate partner violence cannot provide a clear understanding of which interventions are
most effective with the target population. Existing studies neither replicate nor
complement one another, instead assessing dissimilar types of interventions and
implementing measures and procedures characterized by various degrees of
sophistication. As a result, there is little empirical evidence to suggest that current
approaches facilitate better outcomes.
The majority of studies published has substantial methodological weaknesses
including small samples, lack of control or comparison groups and non-probability
sampling techniques. For example, only 22 participants remained in Cox and
Stoltenburg’s (1991) study after attrition. Nine and 7 women comprised the first and
second treatment groups respectively. The second treatment group was differentiated
from the first by the administration of an additional personality measure. Six women in
the control condition received unstructured group counseling only during the intervention
period, and women were assigned to their treatment group based on the time of year that
they entered the residential program as well as their willingness to participate. Rubin

37
(1991) used daily telephone interviews to assess the effects of support group participation
on 6 battered women by administering a list of questions about their thoughts, feelings
and behaviors and another checklist of five items that described their partners’ abusive
behaviors during the previous 24 hours. Neither measure was tested for validity or
reliability. Mancoske and his colleagues (1994) assigned 20 women seeking services at a
domestic violence services agency to one of two treatment conditions based on when the
woman approached the agency for assistance. Studies are characterized by substantial
threats to internal validity and generalizability due to the absence of control or
comparison groups (Holiman et al., 1991; Rubin, 1991; Tutty et al., 1993, 1996; Tutty,
1996) and convenience sampling techniques (Cox et al., 1991; Holiman et al., 1991;
Mancoske et al., 1994; Rubin, 1991; Tutty et al., 1993, 1996).
Several authors provided vague or incomplete information related to the ethno-
racial composition of their study samples. Cox and Stoltenberg’s (1991) original sample
was comprised of Caucasian, African-American, and Mexican-American women.
However, the authors fail to specify the composition of their final sample after attrition.
Tutty and her colleagues provide no demographic information for participants in their
group intervention evaluations in 1993 and 1996 respectively. Rubin’s (1991) study
employs the most explicitly homogenous sample with only six Caucasian women.
However, the majority of studies appear to have some cultural diversity among their
participants. One sample was comprised of primarily Caucasian and African-American
women (Mancoske et al., 1994) while a quarter of Holiman and Schilit’s (1991) sample

38
was composed of Hispanic women. The latter’s study includes only twelve participants,
and their sample is largely homogenous with nine Caucasian women and three Latinas.
Despite the ongoing development of intervention programs for domestic violence,
there appears to be limited expansion of research with regard to their effectiveness.
Relatively few studies have employed samples that include racially diverse and/or
immigrant women, raising more questions about the relevance of their conclusions when
attempting to design effective interventions for diverse consumers. The majority of
studies on practice effectiveness published focuses on short-term group interventions,
uses small study samples, adopts convenience sampling techniques, and has substantial
methodological weaknesses (Abel, 2000). The lack of attention to ethnicity, race, and
immigration status in previous research may be among the reasons that account for the
existing literature’s mixed findings.

39
Chapter 2: RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODS
Research Design
This research is a grounded theory study set within an intersectional analytic
framework. The study’s focus is psychological empowerment described by women who
have experienced intimate partner violence and are graduates or pre-participants of the
Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP) at Laura’s House.
Qualitative methods correspond to investigations of feelings, thought processes,
or the meaning or nature of people’s experience with problems that demand engagement
in the field. Grounded theory methodology emphasizes “the interrelationships among
conditions (structure), action (process), and consequences” and recognizes the value of
field-based data collection; theory’s role in a discipline’s development and as a
predecessor to social action; the complex nature of social phenomena including human
behavior; and that people act in response not only to problems which confront them but
also their dynamically constructed meanings (Strauss & Corbin 1998, 10). The product
of this methodology is generated from data that is collected and analyzed through a
specified research process.
Grounded theory development demands an emergent design. As the investigator
unearths novel concepts, s/he must use this new information to make decisions about
subsequent sampling and data collection. Preceding theorizing, conceptual ordering
involves organizing data into categories and expanding upon them based on their
properties and dimensions. Theorizing considers these ideas or concepts from multiple,
diverse perspectives in order to construct an explanatory framework about the

40
phenomena under investigation. The implications of this theorizing direct research
activity. All hypotheses or propositions are verified and revised based on new data as
data collection proceeds, involving both inductive and deductive analysis. This theory
development process will yield a set of well-developed, related categories which explains
who, what, when, where, why, how, and with what consequences a phenomena occurs
(Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Considering the development of constructivist methodology for evaluation
research in education (Biklin & Bogdan, 1986; Bogdan & Biklin, 1992; Guba, 1987;
Guba & Lincoln, 1981, 1982; Smith & Lincoln, 1984; Williams, 1986), this study utilized
a modification of the 3 phases of an emergent social work constructivist design. The
emergent design consists of 3 phases: orientation and overview; focused exploration; and
comprehensive member check (Rodwell, 1998). Each phase demands identifying
important questions, elucidating meaning, and verifying findings to maintain rigor
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, 1989). The first phase involves clarifying the research problem
and describing its context. During this phase, the investigator assesses the feasibility of
the study in the chosen setting by accessing its physical environment and informally
speaking with its constituents. Second, she develops foreshadowed questions based on
her previous experience or review of the literature. These questions are refined further as
the investigator increases her awareness of the research context. Third, she begins both a
reflexive journal and methodological log. The most tangible objective of this first phase
is to gain entry and negotiate consent for participation. Focused exploration involves
data collection and data analysis. This second phase may require more structured

41
observation and interviewing techniques to advance the study. For example, a more
structured interview protocol with specific questions may emerge during this period.
Lastly, the third phase involves drafting findings, conducting the final member check,
and arranging an independent audit. In order to complete the final member check, the
investigator submits a write-up of findings in draft form to the study’s participants in
order to solicit recommendations for approval, revision, or elaboration. Although
unanimous approval is not required, participants must be comfortable with the product
before it is submitted for independent audit. After a successful audit, the final draft is
completed and submitted to stakeholders for recycling or re-examination (Rodwell,
1998).
Setting
This study is a collaborative project with Laura’s House. Laura’s House was
founded in 1994 by a group of concerned citizens following the homicide of a woman by
her husband in San Clemente, California. It is the only state-approved comprehensive
domestic violence shelter and outreach organization located in south Orange County,
serving 17 communities and 840,000 residents. The agency was chosen due to its (1)
willingness to provide access and space for the study’s implementation and (2) close
geographical proximity to the investigator. Its programs include a short-term emergency
shelter, short-term transitional housing, and outpatient Counseling & Resource Center.
Orange County is the second densest county in the state, following San Francisco
County and leading San Diego County and Los Angeles County (Orange County
Community Indicators Project, 2006). The county’s population in 2005 was 3,056,865.

42
The county’s ethnic composition is 49.1 percent White, 32.3 percent Hispanic, 15.3
percent Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.5 percent Black, and 1.6 percent identifying with
other ethnicities (American Community Survey, 2003). Among Counseling & Resource
Center clients at Laura’s House in 2008, 59 percent identified as Caucasian, 27 percent as
Latino/Hispanic, 3 percent as Asian/Pacific Islander, 0 percent as Native American, 1
percent as African-American, and 10 percent as other.
Domestic violence-related emergency calls in Orange County increased from
12,233 in 2002 to 12,796 in 2003 and 12,923 calls in 2004. Among equivalent counties,
Orange County has a medium level of domestic violence-related calls yet the lowest level
of domestic violence arrests (California Department of Justice). Despite an estimated
need for 3,722 emergency shelter beds for domestic violence victims, there exist only 362
inside the county (Orange County Continuum of Care, 2006).
Initially, PEP forged a powerful partnership with the Domestic Violence
Coordination Team launched by Judge Pamela Iles at the Harbor Justice Center of the
Orange County Superior Court. Until 2007, the court required domestic violence victims
to complete PEP in order to modify or remove a temporary restraining order against their
perpetrators. Consequently, men and women enrolled in PEP included both voluntary
participants and those mandated by the Superior Court of California to attend. Under the
leadership of a new presiding judge in 2007, the Superior Court diminished the capacity
of the Domestic Violence Coordination Team and suspended imposing conditions on
domestic violence victims.

43
Intervention
The Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP) evolved as a result of persistent and
innovative collaboration between Interval House, Women’s Transitional Living Center,
Human Options and Laura’s House. The project benefited from representation of all the
comprehensive domestic violence shelters in Orange County which received financial
support from the California Department of Health Services, now the California
Department of Public Health. The collaboration involved program managers, social
workers, marriage and family therapists, and domestic violence services consumers to
develop a culturally competent, bilingual program curriculum. Due to concerns about
copyright infringement, PEP is only provided by the 4 organizational members of the
original collaborative.
The Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP) is a 10-session weekly psycho-
educational group designed to empower victims of domestic violence by educating
participants about domestic violence and facilitating strategies to end violence in their
intimate relationships. PEP’s goal is to increase participants’ knowledge about healthy
relationships in order to recognize warning signs of abuse, access resources to improve
safety, and engage in non-abusive relationships in the long run. Its authors assert that
empowerment begins when participants realize that they are not alone and there is a name
for their abuse experiences. PEP emphasizes acceptance of participants’ choices to end
or continue relationships with their abusive partners. Acknowledging that domestic
violence violates victims’ psychological space and physical bodies, it prioritizes

44
decreasing denial about participants’ abuse experiences and increasing skills to achieve
safety within or outside an abusive relationship.
Each session has a planned duration of 2 hours each week over 10 weeks. The
maximum number of participants in each session is 15. The copyrighted curriculum is
offered in English and Spanish to men and women in sex-segregated groups at public
offices. Participants may enter PEP at any point in the sequence, and each set of 10
sessions is offered consecutively. The curriculum outline is as follows:
Week 1: What is domestic violence? Creating a safety plan. The objectives of this
session are to define abusive behaviors, facilitate identification of the types of
participants’ abuse experiences, increase awareness of the effects of intimate partner
violence, reduce self-blame, provide information about the cycle of violence (Walker,
1979), and facilitate the development of a personal safety plan.
Week 2: Effects of domestic violence. This session emphasizes the importance of
the facilitator’s acceptance of participants’ choices to continue or end relationships with
their abusive partners. Objectives are to reduce participants’ shame and guilt over their
choices; highlight similarities between participants’ narratives; increase knowledge about
posttraumatic stress disorder, Stockholm Syndrome (Graham & Rawlings, 1987), and
Battered Women’s Syndrome (Walker, 1979); and increase understanding of participants’
motivations for continuing relationships with abusive partners.
Week 3: Setting boundaries; Anger management. Acknowledging that domestic
violence violates victims’ psychological space and physical bodies, and anger is
commonly reported by survivors, the objectives of the third session are to increase

45
understanding of personal boundaries, recognition of healthy and unhealthy boundaries,
and anger management skills.
Week 4: Effects of domestic violence on children. The objectives of the fourth
session are to increase knowledge about how witnessing domestic violence between their
parents affects children and to identify how behaviors in their families of origin have
shaped participants’ adult lives. Participants discuss child abuse, behaviors commonly
exhibited by children who have witnessed domestic violence, and resources available to
assist child witnesses.
Week 5: Legal aspects of domestic violence. The information provided during
this session is specific to domestic violence in Orange County, California. The objectives
of the fifth session are to increase participants’ access to legal remedies available to
domestic violence victims by increasing knowledge about obtaining restraining orders,
immigration relief, and free or low-cost legal assistance.
Week 6: Working through denial; Facing the danger. The curriculum identifies
this session’s purpose of decreasing denial about the abuse as one of the potentially most
empowering parts of the program. Its objectives are to decrease denial about
participants’ abusive relationships, increase awareness of the danger posed by their
abusive partners, decrease guilt and shame about wanting to stay in their relationships,
and increase awareness about the effects of their relationships on their children.
Week 7: Recognizing red flags and lethality. The purpose of the seventh session
is to increase women’s capacity to avoid subsequent abusive relationships. Its objectives
are to increase knowledge about characteristics of potentially abusive partners, increase

46
awareness of their personal vulnerabilities which exacerbate risk of intimate partner
abuse, facilitate psychological distance from their abusive partners, decrease cognitive
distortions, and increase awareness of lethality risk.
Week 8: Understanding the healthy relationship. The objectives of the eighth
session are to increase awareness of key characteristics of a healthy relationship and
identify examples of healthy and abusive behaviors. Facilitators use the Equality Wheel
developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, Minnesota, to promote
discussion.
Week 9: The role of alcohol, drugs, and codependency in domestic violence. The
ninth session uses research findings and statistics to increase knowledge about the
intersections of alcohol and substance use and domestic violence including its effects.
The session emphasizes that drugs and alcohol are correlates rather than causes of
intimate partner violence. The remaining objectives are to compare and contrast
alcoholic and abusive households and increase awareness of codependency and related
behaviors.
Week 10: Where do I go from here? The purpose of the final session is to
increase capacity to achieve safety within or outside an abusive relationship. Its
objectives are to increase skills related to safety planning, increase recognition of tension
building prior to an acute episode, and offer action steps to maximize safety.
Sampling
The final sample size relied on the point of redundancy or the number of cases at
which point no new information was found (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Theoretical

47
saturation was achieved with 20 participants in each condition. The study recruited a
purposive sample using a combination of convenience and theoretical sampling of
information-rich cases (Patton, 2002) in order to obtain maximum variation (Rodwell,
1998). PEP facilitators assisted in the identification of critical cases. In order to
adequately explore intersectionalities, recruitment attempted to stratify sampling with
regard to race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status within each condition of PEP
participation. The research team invited women to participate in interviews based on
ideas which emerged from previous data collection in order to explore the range of
conditions under which psychological empowerment varies (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
Instrumentation
The research team consisting of the Prevention Education Specialist and
investigator were the primary instruments of data collection (Rodwell, 1998). All
research team members were Laura’s House employees. All PEP facilitators were
registered with the California Board of Behavioral Sciences as marriage and family
therapists or interns who are supervised by a licensed marriage and family therapist.
Study participants completed the Personal Progress Scale – Revised (PPS-R)
before starting the verbal interview. The Personal Progress Scale – Revised (PPS-R)
developed by Johnson, Worell, & Chandler (2005) measures personal empowerment in
women and demonstrates strong internal reliability, factorial, convergent, and
discriminant validity with a population primarily composed of White, heterosexual,
female university students. However, the instrument also demonstrated sound
discriminant validity with those who reported experiencing intimate partner violence.

48
The strengths of the semi-structured interview guide include organization of the
topics to be discussed, flexibility to alter prompts as needed, and the opportunity for the
participant to co-create the research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). The latter quality is
particularly important in order to obtain emerging themes in grounded data (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). The interview guides were based on the stated objectives of the Personal
Empowerment Program
©
listed in the Facilitator’s Guide and Client Materials. Questions
probed women’s knowledge, skills, behavior, thoughts, feelings, motivation, and level of
safety within their intimate relationships and experiences within PEP. The foreshadowed
questions explored participants’ values, meanings, and functional relationships between
factors, events and processes within their individual contexts (Rodwell, 1998). Please see
Appendix A for the focus group topic guide and interview guides.
Interview Participants
Pre-participants and PEP graduates were comparable to each other in age. The
youngest pre-participant was 21 years old while the eldest woman’s age was 57 years.
The average pre-participant’s age was 34.5 years old. The youngest graduate was 22
years old while the eldest woman’s age was 62 years. The average PEP graduate was
38.25 years old.
PEP graduates were more likely than pre-participants to be married; 40 percent of
graduates were married in comparison to 15 percent of pre-participants. The marital
status of one quarter of either group was single.
PEP graduates were more racially and ethnically diverse than pre-participants.
While 75 percent of pre-participants were White with the remaining women identifying

49
as Hispanic or Latina, the majority of graduates (40 percent) identified as Hispanic or
Latino while roughly a third identified as White. One tenth identified as African-
American, Asian, or other respectively.
An equivalent proportion of women in each group experienced physical abuse (60
percent vs. 55 percent), psychological abuse (85 percent vs. 75 percent), emotional abuse
(75 percent vs. 70 percent), and stalking (5 percent). Twice as many pre-participants than
graduates reported sexual violence in their most recent abusive relationships (20 percent
vs. 10 percent). While 45 percent of pre-participants reported that their most recent
abusive partners had abused drugs or alcohol, 35 percent of graduates made a similar
disclosure.
Although an equivalent proportion of each group was employed (65 vs. 70
percent), the mean monthly income of pre-participants was higher at $1,984.35 than
graduates at $1,387.70. More graduates reported owning their residence than pre-
participants. However, graduates’ subsequent disclosures suggest that women who
resided with their parents at the time of the interview reported their parents’ ownership
status. Over half of pre-participants rented their residences in comparison to over a third
(35 percent) of graduates.
Based on the Personal Progress Scale – Revised (PPS-R), PEP graduates
demonstrated a higher level of personal empowerment than pre-participants. The mean
score on the PPS-R among graduates 137.5 was while the mean PPS-R score among pre-
participants was 128.3.

50
In July 2007, the Laura’s House Counseling & Resource Center moved from San
Juan Capistrano to Ladera Ranch, California. The project began data collection in May
2008. As a result, some graduates started participation prior to the Center’s relocation
while pre-participants registered after the move. As a newer development, Ladera Ranch
is characterized by a more affluent, racially homogenous (White) population. The
differences in these two cities’ demographics may explain differences between pre-
participants and graduates with regard to their race/ethnicity, marital status, and income.

51
Table 1. Sample Descriptives

Pre-
Participants
PEP
Graduates
All 2008 PEP
Participants
Age (Mean) 34.5 38.25 37
Marital Status
Married 15% 40% 35%
Separated 35% 25% 33%
Divorced 10% 5% 13%
Single 25% 25% 14%
Employed 65% 70%
Income (Mean) $1,984.35 $1,387.70
Race
White 75% 30% 51%
Hispanic/Latino 25% 40% 34%

African-
American
0% 10% .01%
Asian 0% 10% 5%
Other 0% 10% 9%
Types of Abuse
Experienced

Physical 60% 55%
Sexual 20% 10%
Psychological 85% 75%
Emotional 75% 70%
Threats 0% 5%
Stalking 5% 5%
Unknown 10% 25%
Alcohol or Other
Drugs Involved
45% 35%
Housing
Owner 15% 45%
Renter 55% 35%
Temporary 20% 5%
Unknown 10% 15%
PPS-R Score (Mean) 128.3 137.5 N/A

All names reported in the study are pseudonyms. The following are brief
descriptions of the pre-participants and PEP graduates who completed an interview.

52
Pre-participants. Olivia is a 38-year old White woman who is separated from her
abusive partner. Although she is currently unemployed, she receives a monthly income
of $1,000. Her husband psychologically, emotionally, and sexually abused her and drugs
or alcohol. She, her 6-year old son, and 2 daughters, ages 9 and 7 years, temporarily live
with a friend. Raised in a strict Mormon household, she described how her parents
withdrew affection and support as punishment when they disagreed with her behavior
even after she became an adult. Prohibited from placing any boundaries which diverged
from their own, she believes her childhood physical and psychological abuse prepared
her to enter subsequent abusive intimate relationships.
Hope is a 41-year old single White woman. She works as a bartender and
hairstylist, but her monthly income is $390. She rents her residence. Despite her most
recent partner’s physical and psychological abuse, she regrets the relationship’s end. She
reported that he decided to terminate the relationship and has a new intimate partner. She
has 3 sons, ages 20, 15, and 6 years respectively.
Recently divorced, Estelle is a 25-year old White woman who currently is
unemployed. She experienced physical and sexual abuse during the marriage, also her
first intimate relationship. She, her 4-year old son, and 3-year old daughter now live with
her parents. She and her brother were adopted after their mother lost custody due to
physically abusing them. While she does not remember her mother’s mistreatment, her
brother has resented her since childhood, especially since in their adopted family, she
secured a special place as “Daddy’s little girl.” She and her husband married after 6
months of dating and moved to Oklahoma to be near his family. Totally isolated with her

53
son and severely developmentally disabled daughter, she planned her escape to California
with her highly resourceful parents.
Cecilia is a 47-year old White woman who is legally separated from her
psychologically and emotionally abusive husband. Cecilia earns $2,300 per month as a
personal trainer. She has 3 daughters and 1 son who live with their father. She watched
her father degrade her mother until he finally ran off with another woman when she was
19 years old. She remembers hiding in her room to avoid his verbal abuse. While he
physically abused her brother, he frequently insulted her. When her husband began
comparing her intelligence to a child’s, she hardly flinched.
Claudia is 21 years old, single, and identifies as White. In addition to studying
full time at a local university, she works at an accounting firm where she earns $940 per
month. She experienced psychological, emotional, and physical abuse during her first
dating relationship. She has no children. Claudia moved to San Diego after her parents
divorced when she was 6 years old. In 4
th
grade, she decided to remain with her father in
Germany, prompting a transcontinental custody battle involving attempted abduction and
false imprisonment. Early in high school, she decided she would keep her head down
and work hard to enter university and escape her mother’s family. She acknowledged
that her estrangement from her family of origin contributed to her attraction to her
boyfriend.
Alicia earned the most among pre-participants. As an insurance programmer, she
earns $9,000 per month. Although she is legally separated, she and her 14-year old
daughter live with her psychologically, emotionally, and physically abusive husband in

54
the home they jointly own. She is White and 46 years old. Although her father never
physically abused her mother, she believes she repeated her mother’s pattern in her own
choice of life partner, “I am my mom, and my husband is my dad”.
Georgina was the only non-White English-speaking pre-participant. She is 34
years old and earns $1,400 per month working as a nanny. Separated from her
psychologically, emotionally, and physical abusive alcoholic ex-partner, she and her 2-
year old son live in a rented room. She witnessed her parents fighting when she was a
child. At one point, her mother emigrated from Mexico to the United States and later
sent for her. She has had a history of violent or jealous partners.
Fiona works as a teacher at her church’s preschool, earning $10,000 annually.
She and her psychologically, emotionally, and financially abusive husband live with their
7-year old daughter and 4-year old son in the home they jointly own. She is 47 years old
and White of Puerto Rican descent. Prior to this 14-year relationship, she lived in New
York with her violent husband, also a police officer. She relocated across the country to
escape him and his network of law enforcement cronies who protected him from the legal
consequences of his abuse.
Carmen is employed as a mortgage loan officer. She disclosed that she is
separated from her ex-husband and lives with her 9-year old twin sons. She is 27 years
old and identifies as Mexican. She and her sisters grew up in south Los Angeles, where
her mother’s family was heavily involved in local gangs. She learned to use violence to
communicate with others and establish her identity. She accepted it as a way of life until
it threatened to take her away from her children.

55
Melody lives in a room she rents from a verbally and emotionally abusive
landlord. She is sporadically employed due to her poor health. She is legally married to
her most recent abusive partner. Before he returned to their native country, he
psychologically and emotionally abused her and continues to stalk her. At 57 years old,
she is the eldest pre-participant. An immigrant from Argentina of Italian descent, she
identifies as White. She learned to “pretend she could not see what was happening
around her” as a young girl, watching her mother deny emotional abuse perpetrated by
Melody’s father. She sees how she has repeated these patterns in her own marriage and
in relationships with others including her landlord and adult son.
Tara is separated from her psychologically, emotionally, and physically abusive
husband who also abuses alcohol and cocaine. Her marriage was her first intimate
relationship. As a credentialed teacher, her monthly salary is $3,000. While her 15 year-
old son lives with her in a rented apartment, her 19-year old daughter resides in university
housing except during holidays when she visits her father. Tara is White and 44 years
old. Raised in an isolated, Catholic family with absolute intolerance for divorce, Tara
watched her mother abandon a nursing career to raise her children. Although she
submitted to his wishes, she hardly respected their father. While the children respected
his authority, they minimized hers. As an adult, Tara felt that she should do the same
things that her mother did by homemaking rather than paid employment; however, after
two years of trying to conform to her mother’s mold, she realized that did not feel she
was accomplishing the same things her mother thought she did. Her intimate relationship
changed as she completed her bachelor’s and master’s degrees and her husband

56
increasingly failed to cope with his feelings of inferiority. His alcohol and drug use
intensified, and one night, his verbal abuse escalated to physical violence. Tara moved
out of the house after that first incident of physical abuse.
Jade is separated from her psychologically, emotionally, physically, and sexually
abusive and drug and alcohol addicted husband. Receiving $723 each month in
CalWORKs benefits, she and her sons, ages 5 and 2 years, currently reside with her
parents. She identifies as White and is 24 years old. Like Alicia, Jade acknowledges that
she “married her dad”. As a child she witnessed his physical abuse of her mother as well
as their multiple separations and reconciliations. While her mother worked a double
shift, her father hardly contributed to the household, instead abusing alcohol and
narcotics. After they divorced, she moved in with her grandmother where she became
involved with a church community for the first time. Her relationships with congregation
members posed both barriers and supports to her safety.
Elvira, her 5-year old son, and 1-year old daughter live with her parents. A single
mother, she subsists on $723 in monthly CalWORKs benefits. Her ex-boyfriend
psychologically, emotionally, and physically abused her. She is 26 years old and
identifies as Latina. In contrast to other women who reported sexual abuse, she is the
only study participant who experienced a sexual assault at age 17 years. She started
abusing alcohol to numb her feelings after the assault. Although her parents gave her
“the best life they could”, like Carmen, she grew up in a gang-dominated neighborhood.
Although she takes responsibility for her choices, her environment influenced her

57
attraction to “bad boys” and livelihood as a drug dealer. Her most recent abusive
relationship was impacted by both her own and her partner’s drug abuse.
Ingrid is 54 years old, divorced, and identifies as White. She receives $889 per
month in disability benefits. Her most recent abusive partner psychologically,
emotionally, and physical abused her and abused drugs and alcohol. She has a 28-year
old daughter. Ingrid disclosed emotional abuse and neglect by her mother and
abandonment by her father when she was a child. She implied that she recently became
involved with a 12-step program for alcoholism.
Ginger, a single 25-year old White woman, and her 1-year old son live
temporarily with a friend. She earns $2,000 per month as a dog groomer. Her ex-
boyfriend psychologically, emotionally, and physically abused her and drugs and alcohol.
She witnessed her mother enter multiple abusive relationships since her father abandoned
the family when she was 10 years old. She disclosed that she first came to Laura’s House
when she entered the most recent abusive relationship. She returned 5 years later after
his violence resulted in mutual arrests and both parties obtained a restraining order
against the other partner.
Helena is on leave from her job at Fed Ex due to mandatory bed rest related to a
high-risk pregnancy. A 41-year old single White woman, her monthly income is $444.
Although she insists the abuse in her most recent relationship was due to their mutual
substance abuse, she disclosed experiencing psychological and emotional abuse.
Although she reported that she owns her home, she currently resides with her elderly

58
parents as part of her probation requirements. She has an adult daughter who did not live
with her during the most recent abusive relationship.
Carla is a 24-year old White woman who rents a room with her psychologically,
sexually, and physically abusive alcoholic boyfriend. She receives $1,378 in disability
benefits each month. She has one 2-year old daughter from a previous relationship and
one 5-month old son with her current partner. While her mother verbally and physically
abused both her daughters, their paraplegic stepfather sexually abused them and
physically abused them at his wife’s bidding. His first perpetration of sexual abuse
occurred when she was in kindergarten or first grade. He abused her again after she
entered 4
th
grade and continued to sexually abuse her until his death 5 years later. When
the sisters entered junior high, he introduced marijuana to them, as a precursor to his
violation. At the same time, her mother tried to persuade her to accuse her biological
father of rape or molestation. She struggled with depression and self-harm, e.g. cutting
behaviors. She told her sister about the sexual abuse, but her sister replied that Carla’s
biological father had sexually abused her while he had lived with them. Confused and
believing no one would care, she did not disclose again until after her stepfather’s death.
She reported that the sexual abuse occurred while her mother lay in the same bed.
Theresa also lives with her psychologically, emotionally, and physically abusive
boyfriend. She is 24 years old and identifies as White. She earns $2,000 monthly as a
pharmacy technician. Her partner has been chronically unemployed and abuses drugs or
alcohol. She has no children. Although they were not abusive toward one another, she
remembers her parents’ icy relationship. While they slept in separate bedrooms, they

59
confided their unhappiness to her until they divorced and she subsequently entered
therapy for depression.
Self-employed, Bette earns $1,300 per month. Her marital status is unknown.
She experienced psychological and emotional abuse in the most recent abusive
relationship. She is 34 years old and identifies as Mexican. She and her 5-year old
daughter live with her partner in a rented residence. She has childhood memories of
walking in circles around their garden to avoid listening to her father’s screams. He
physically abused their mother in front of them. Although he never beat her, she
continues to suffer flashbacks of the events she witnessed.
As a hospital employee, Amalia’s monthly income is $2,200. She is 24 years old,
identifies as Mexican, and did not disclose how her husband has abused her. She
continues to live with him in a rented residence. She has no children. Her father
frequently drank and became physically violent. She remembers how he once held a
knife to their mother’s throat. She knows that he was abused as a child. Rather than
blaming him, she holds her mother responsible for her ambivalence and failing to enforce
their restraining order.
PEP Graduates. Sasha is 36 years old, single, and identifies as African-
American. She earns $2,500 per month as an executive assistant at Kaiser Permanente.
She lives temporarily with her mother. Her most recent abusive partner psychologically
and physically abused her. She has no children. Witnessing severe physical violence
perpetrated by her father against her mother, she suffered injuries when she tried to
intervene and was called upon by her father to apply first aid and tidy the house after he

60
finished his assaults. Her parents eventually divorced. Earning a bachelor’s degree in
psychology, she later counseled victims of domestic violence. Since participating in
PEP, she realizes that her intimate partner prior to the most recent abusive relationship
also emotionally abused her.
Joyce earns $1,600 per month as a hotel housekeeper. She and her 8-year old
daughter live in a rented residence. She experienced psychological, emotional, and
physical abuse during her most recent relationship. She is 46 years old and identifies as
Mexican. Her alcoholic father frequently beat her mother, threatening both of them once
with a machete.
Glenda earns a monthly salary of $1,500 at her job as a sales secretary. She is 37
years old and identifies as White. She is separated from her psychologically,
emotionally, and physically abusive partner and lives with her 2-year old son in a
residence she owns.
Aura is a 51-year old married woman who identifies as Mexican. She earns
$1,524 as a factory assembly worker and owns her home. She and her psychologically,
emotionally, and physically abusive husband have 3 adult children, ages 31, 28, and 24
years. She suffered multiple incidents of sexual molestation between the ages of 5 and 7
years. Her father also verbally and physically abused her. Growing up, she “felt of no
value”, the “ugliest”, and “most unworthy”.
Clementine believes her husband’s alcohol and substance use influenced how he
psychologically, emotionally and physically abused her. She is 31 years old, identifies as
Mexican, and earns a monthly salary of $1,500. She has one 12-year old son and one 8-

61
year old daughter. Clementine disclosed that her father started sexually abusing her when
she was 6 years old. He threatened to hurt her if she told anyone. Lazy and alcoholic, he
often beat her mother while drunk. She escaped by eloping with her husband at age 16.
As an adult, she learned that her father had abused all of his daughters. She believed her
mother knew about the abuse but did nothing because she feared his repercussions and
their small town’s social stigma.
A 32-year old African immigrant, Marilyn experienced psychological, emotional,
and sexual violence perpetrated by her husband. She earns $600 per month working as a
babysitter. She has no children.
Angelica is 37 years old. She is married and identifies as Mexican. She earns
$1,400 per month working as a housekeeper. Her husband psychologically and
emotionally abused her and drugs or alcohol. She has two daughters, ages 19 and 13
years. She witnessed her alcoholic father physically abuse her mother.
Dorothy is a 39-year old single woman who identifies as Mexican. She earns
$1,500 per month working as a marketing processor. She experienced psychological,
emotional, and physical abuse during her most recent relationship which also involved
drugs or alcohol. She has 2 sons, ages 20 and 16 years. She experienced physical abuse
perpetrated by her stepfather.
Vivien is 29 years old, divorced, and identifies as White. She has 3 sons, ages 12,
9, and 7 years. Her psychologically and emotionally abusive ex-boyfriend also abused
drugs or alcohol. She supports her family working as a waitress. Her parents used
excessive physical discipline to control her as a child. She has struggled with self-harm

62
behaviors since age 6. Her intimate partner prior to the most recent abusive relationship
also emotionally abused her. Because she had no evidence of her experiences, a judge
denied her restraining order petition. Since legal remedies have failed her, she has relied
on self-help strategies to maximize her safety since ending the relationship.
Currently unemployed, Eve reported receiving $300 per month from an
undisclosed source. She and her 2-year old daughter live with her parents. She jointly
owns a home with her psychologically, emotionally, physically, and sexually abusive
husband. Although they are separated, he continues to stalk her. She is 41 years old and
identifies as Asian. Growing up as an only child in a household with an American
military father and Japanese mother, Eve learned to “be seen, not heard”. She believes
that the lack of demonstrated social approval and affection in her family of origin
increased her vulnerability to her partner’s attention.
Sigourney is 26 years old. She is married to her most recent abusive partner and
identifies as Mexican. She has one 8-year old son and 3 daughters, ages 7, 6, and 4 years
respectively. Although she implied she had been sexually abused twice during
childhood, she was hesitant to disclose any experiences in her parents’ household that
impacted her life as an adult.
Grace is legally separated from her psychologically and emotionally abusive
husband. Unemployed and receiving no other income, she and her 2-year old daughter
live with her parents. She is 30 years old and identifies as Persian. She reported no
adverse experiences prior to her most recent abusive relationship.

63
At age 62 years, Marlena is the eldest PEP graduate. Although retired, she has a
monthly income of $10,000. She has experienced psychological, emotional, and physical
abuse during her marriage to her first and only intimate partner. She has two adult
children, a 40-year old son and 37-year old daughter. She intends to preserve her
marriage and financial solvency, anticipating that her husband will die before she will.
As a courier, Lola earns $1,600 per month. She is 49 years old, identifies as
Mexican, and is married to her most recent abusive partner. She has no children. Raised
by a single mother, she shouldered tremendous responsibility, caring for her paralyzed
grandmother and preparing the family’s meals since age 8.
Although she insists she provoked her husband and consistently minimized his
actions, Greta disclosed his psychological, emotional, and physical abuse at intake. She
is 37 years old and identifies as Asian. She has one 12-year old son and 3 daughters, ages
11, 8, and 6 years. She receives $1,400 each month in veteran benefits. Born and raised
in the Philippines, her mother used excessive physical discipline while she was a child,
beating her with wooden planks and belts and shaving her head to shame her. Her
siblings also emotionally abused her, telling her that she was unlovable and would never
find a partner. Greta disclosed that she feels grateful that her husband accepts and
supports her.
Francesca and her 4-year old daughter live with her parents. Her ex-boyfriend
psychologically, emotionally, and physically abused her and drugs or alcohol. She earns
$2,000 per month as a marketing manager. She is 32 years old and identifies as Persian.

64
Unlike some of her friends, she feels no compulsion to be in a relationship with a man.
She attributes this freedom to growing up in a functional family with both parents.
Nora is a single college student who also earns $650 per month as a bowling alley
attendant. She is 22 years old and identifies as Puerto Rican. She experienced emotional
abuse perpetrated by both parents. Her first dating relationships have been
psychologically or physically abusive.
A school teacher who also holds a doctorate of psychology degree, Mona is
legally separated. Since allegations of child abuse had been founded, her 14-year old son
and 12-year old daughter have been dependents of the court. She is 49 years old and
identifies as White. Although she was her father’s favorite child, he frequently
disciplined her by spanking her with a belt. Since she separated from her husband, she
started a new relationship which has quickly intensified. She hopes her new partner will
ask her to marry her to assuage her guilt feelings related to extramarital sexual relations.
Unemployed and receiving no other income, Carolina is legally separated from
her psychologically, emotionally, and physical abusive husband. She is 54 years old and
identifies as White. As the “Chairman’s wife”, her friends doubted that she experienced
any hardship while she was surrounded by her husband’s wealth. Despite the advantages
her lifestyle afforded her, she disclosed that she suffered abuse for all of it. She was
never good enough and constantly searched for lessons and accessories that might help
her meet her husband’s outrageous standards. As a child, she also learned to “be seen,
not heard” and experienced emotional abuse.

65
A 40-year old single White woman of Mexican nationality, Mary Jo earns a
monthly income of $1,280 as a restaurant employee. Her ex-boyfriend psychologically
and physically abused her. She has no children. Her alcoholic father was abusive to both
his wife and daughter. As a child, she learned that “she wasn’t worth much”. All her
past intimate relationships have been abusive.
Procedures
The research team recruited 4 PEP facilitators, 20 women who complete PEP, and
20 pre-participants. PEP sessions are part of the agency’s standard of care. However, the
study included observation to assess the extent to which these programs corresponded to
principles of empowerment education. PEP participants who agreed to be involved in
this study completed 1 interview of approximately 1 to 1.5 hours’ duration while PEP
facilitators participated in 1 90-minute focus groups. Data collection consisted of the
following activities: (1) observing 2 series or 20 PEP sessions, (2) conducting 40 face-to-
face or telephone interviews with PEP graduates and pre-participants, and (3) conducting
1 focus group with PEP facilitators.
Interviews. The study used individual interviews with PEP graduates and pre-
participants in order to investigate barriers to empowerment across various life domains
(Rappaport, 1987), the types of conditions characterizing natural or intervention settings
which promote or hinder empowerment processes (Perkins, 1995; Wallerstein, 1992;
Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988; Zimmerman et al., 1992;), how empowerment at one
level influences its manifestations at other levels (Perkins, 1995; Zimmerman et al.,
1992), and the relationship between perceived and actual power (Rappaport, 1987; Riger,

66
1993). Interviews aggregated data about ways in which women’s historical and cultural
contexts intersect with participation in PEP to influence psychological empowerment. In
addition to ensuring a comfortable environment for all participants, the interview engaged
the interviewer and participant in “a mutual search for shared meaning” which “will
involve surfacing remembrances and reflections of the past, mutual revelations of ideas
and information, combined with respectful listening, in a search for meaning in the
present” (Rodwell 1998, 123).
Women who wish to receive services at the Counseling & Resource Center
complete a registration process which involves reviewing and signing intake and
confidentiality forms and pre- and posttest questionnaires. Women who visited the
agency to complete registration received a flyer, Information Sheet, and a Permission to
Contact form. The Prevention Education Specialist or I contacted women who provided
permission to contact to schedule an interview.
The Prevention Education Specialist or I completed all interviews. All interviews
were scheduled for 2 hours. In-person interviews took place in private offices at the
Laura’s House Counseling & Resource Center. Interviewers attempted to schedule
meetings in person; however, women who were unable to travel to the Counseling &
Resource Center participated in interviews by telephone. All interviews were audio-
recorded and transcribed. The investigator recorded observations and reflections of the
interaction as soon as possible after the interview.
Participants received Target store gift cards in the value of $20 for each interview.
The interviewer offered this gift card to the participant at the end of the interview. The

67
interviewer mailed the gift card to a safe forwarding address if the interview took place
by telephone. Participants refused any question that they did not wish to answer without
penalty.
Despite answering additional questions about their participation in PEP, the
average lengths of graduates’ interviews was comparable with pre-participants’. Pre-
participant interviews ranged from 38 minutes to 109 minutes, with an average length of
64 minutes. Graduate interviews ranged from 33 minutes to 110 minutes with an average
length of 66 minutes. Among interviews above 1 hour in length, 10 interviews involved
pre-participants and 9 interviews involved graduates.
Focus group. The focus group inaugurated the study by creating discussion
among PEP facilitators where multiple perspectives related to the phenomena under
investigation were identified and assessed (Rodwell, 1998). The purpose of the focus
group was to explore facilitators’ perspectives regarding the types of conditions
characterizing natural or intervention settings which promote or hinder empowerment
processes (Perkins, 1995; Wallerstein, 1992; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988;
Zimmerman et al., 1992), how empowerment at one level influences its manifestations at
other levels (Perkins, 1995; Zimmerman et al., 1992), and the relationship between
perceived and actual power (Rappaport, 1987; Riger, 1993). Focus group questions
solicited information about how PEP participation influences psychological
empowerment.
I invited 4 PEP facilitators to participate in 1 focus group which took place for 90
minutes. The focus group occurred at the beginning of the project period. I moderated,

68
audio-recorded, and transcribed the focus group independently. PEP facilitators received
no payment for participation. After the group, I recorded details about the setting and
observations about my performance as the moderator, so these reflections could facilitate
subsequent interpretations of findings.
Persistent and participant observation. Persistent and participant observation
assessed the extent to which the implementation of PEP corresponds to principles of
empowerment education. Comprised of listening, dialogue, and action, empowerment
education based on Freirean principles involves people coming together to name and bear
witness to each others’ problems, investigating their problems’ sources in culture and
society, and brainstorming strategies to achieve their objectives for personal and
community transformation (Romero et al., 2006; Wallerstein, 1992; Wallerstein, 1994;
Wallerstein & Auerbach, 2004). An empowerment education program precludes
participants’ objectification by enabling them to exercise authority over their experience
of the curriculum. Despite structural constraints, the curriculum must at least offer
opportunities for participants to identify their problems. As problem-posers, program
facilitators catalyze critical analysis of people’s problems as consequences of underlying
social inequities. Lastly, participants choose the actions they pursue in response to their
altered consciousness.
Persistent and participant observation promotes naturalistic inquiry, increases
understanding of the context in which participants’ interactions with each other and staff
occurs, and highlights phenomenon that may fail to emerge from interviews or other data

69
sources (Patton, 2002). Data gleaned from persistent and participant observation
supplemented information collected by personal interviews and focus group.
As each series consists of 10 sessions and there are 2 PEP facilitators, I observed
2 series or 20 PEP groups. I observed each of the 10 PEP sessions at least twice. I
documented my observations of the setting, environment, planned and unplanned
activities, structured and unstructured interactions, verbal and nonverbal communication,
program-related documents, outcomes, and subtle indicators as well as their absence.
I dated and recorded possible meanings in relation to my values and interests in
the reflexive journal (Rodwell, 1998) in addition to observations and direct quotations
during or immediately after activities as appropriate in expanded field notes. The
purpose of the reflexive journal was to transform the investigator’s tacit or intuitive
knowledge into words. Here I recorded events, decisions, thoughts and feelings about the
research problem and process. In contrast, I used the methodological log to document
decisions regarding the form and process of the research, i.e. methods and explanations to
support them. The methodological log recorded foreshadowed questions, working
hypotheses, purposive sampling strategies, data analysis decisions, coding mechanisms,
decision rules, category labels, and proposed relationships between categories (Rodwell,
1998).
Data Analysis
The study used inductive and deductive approaches to analyze data from
participant observation and verbatim interview and focus group transcripts (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2003; Coffey & Atkinson, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Data analysis

70
procedures involved labeling and reducing data, elucidating categories based on their
properties and dimensions, and relating them through propositional statements (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998).
Grounded theory building involves a process of open, axial, and selective coding.
During open coding, I separated data and compared parts to each other in order to
identify similarities and difference between them. I sorted events, actions, and
interactions that are conceptually similar into categories. Instead of completing line-by-
line analysis, I examined verbatim transcripts by sentence or paragraph. The purpose of
axial and selective coding is to reconstruct data by drafting hypotheses or statements of
relationship among categories and subcategories. During axial coding, I related
categories to their subcategories along their properties and dimensions. A category’s
general or specific characteristics are its properties while the property’s standing along a
continuum is called its dimension. Subcategories elaborate on a specific category by
outlining when, where, why, who, how, and with what consequences a phenomenon
might happen, increasing the category’s explanatory capacity. This second phase
involves identifying categories’ properties and their dimensions which started during
open coding; identifying the conditions, actions/interactions, and consequences
associated with phenomena; drafting statements of relationship between the category and
its subcategories; and examining cues in the data that might link categories to each other.
Selective coding or the process of theory integration and refinement begins with deciding
a central or core category or main theme of research. During this third phase, data

71
analysis involved drafting explanatory statements of relationships between major
categories.
By discovering relationships among categories at the level of their dimensions,
the study related conditions from which actions arise, in other words, structure with
process. Causal conditions are events or occurrences that influence phenomena while
intervening conditions affect the impact of causal conditions. Contextual conditions are
patterns which emanate from causal and intervening conditions and intersect
dimensionally at a specific time and place to create problems. Rather than listing causal,
intervening, and contextual conditions, data analysis examined the intersections of
conditions from which the problem arises and to which people respond with strategic
actions/interactions or routines resulting in intended or unintended consequences.
Early data analysis remained provisional, as grounded theory development
requires validation of existing categories via constant comparison against emerging
information. Asking questions of who, when, why, where, what, how, how much, and
with what results guided theoretical sampling and the development of foreshadowed
questions. Initial rounds of analysis indicated the need for more targeted data collection
to fill gaps until unambiguous relationships among categories emerged. This data
deconstruction and reconstruction process ended when it adequately depicted a structural
relationship or web of relationships which undergirds the research question.
First, I read and reread expanded field notes and verbatim interview and focus
group transcripts to identify topics important to participants. Second, I executed a
modified version of the constant comparative method to analyze participants’ verbatim

72
transcripts (Glaser & Straus, 1967). Data from persistent and participant observation
were used as contextual information to enhance credibility.
In order to begin the constant comparative process, I eliminated tangential
information and filler words from the verbatim transcripts. Second, I identified a unit, the
smallest piece of information that can be understood by a person who is unfamiliar with
the study’s focus. In order to qualify as a data unit, this piece of information was
comprehensible without additional explanation. Third, I assigned a code to each unit that
traced the latter back to its original source. I derived codes from the foreshadowed
questions and the interview guides (Rodwell, 1998). Each code conformed to the
following template: participant type, data type, data unit number.
After all data units were created, I compared each unit to all others in order to
generate relevant categories. After this sorting process, I lumped similar units into
tentative categories (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I labeled and re-labeled these categories as
constant comparison ensued. If a new unit did not fit within existing categories, I formed
a new category. I grouped units which did not appear to relate to any emerging
categories in a miscellaneous category for subsequent consideration.
I defined each category label, outlining the properties of the units lumped in that
category. This definition was the decision rule for all units assigned to the category.
Units were assigned to all categories for which they meet the decision rule and were
cross-referenced for further interpretation. Each category was distinct and complete. I
re-assessed codes lumped in the miscellaneous category to consider their assignment to
other categories or deletion based on irrelevance. Based on Lincoln & Guba’s (1985)

73
suggestion, the study permitted no more than 5 to 7 percent of units to remain
unassigned.
I assessed the categories to ensure their independence and distinctiveness. If any
category overlapped, it was relabeled or redefined or its units were reassigned. I assessed
if any category could be subsumed by another as a subset. If one category existed as a
subset of another, I reassigned units to the appropriate subset(s) or categories.
After this first round of analysis, I assessed the data units’ categorical assignments
by reviewing each category’s decision rule. I repeated this process until possible
relationships between categories emerged.
Strauss & Corbin (1998) emphasize objectivity and sensitivity; however, the
terms’ definitions differ from their conventional meanings. Objectivity insinuates active
listening and observation, faithful representation of data, and acknowledgement that the
investigator’s values, training, and experiences shape data analysis in ways which may
diverge from those of the study’s participants. Techniques to improve objectivity include
thinking comparatively, using existing literature to enhance comparison, and considering
multiple perspectives by sampling multiple units or triangulating methods. Most
importantly, emerging theoretical concepts determine study activities to make
comparisons, ask questions, and sample participants.
Trustworthiness and authenticity determine the study’s rigor. The study
incorporated data and methodological triangulation and thick description to maximize
trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The trustworthiness and authenticity of
findings were addressed with data triangulation of group participants and staff facilitators

74
and methodological triangulation of participant observation, interviews, and a focus
group. Thick description maintained the study’s focus on participants’ verbatim
accounts, and comprehensive records at each phase of data collection and analysis
enhanced subsequent rounds of interpretation. The goal of data analysis was to identify
functional relationships and create a report of findings sufficiently rich in detail to permit
readers’ assessment of its relevance to other contexts (Rodwell, 1998).

75
Chapter 4: FINDINGS
Influences of Women’s Historical and Cultural Contexts on Psychological
Empowerment: Families of origin & cultural intersections
The study explored how the historical and cultural contexts of women who have
experienced intimate partner violence influence their development of psychological
empowerment. The study finds that women’s abuse histories including witnessing
domestic violence as children, experiencing verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by their
parents, surviving sexual assault, and suffering abuse in early adult intimate relationships
increased their vulnerability to intimate partner violence. Women consciously or
subconsciously repeated their mothers’ choices and played out patterns established in
their families of origin. Some women also perceived that culture contributed to their
partner’s violence and bound them to their abusive relationships.
Abuse histories
Study participants disclosed abuse experiences during their childhood,
adolescence and early adulthood which they perceived as having increased their
vulnerability to intimate partner violence. These experiences included witnessing
domestic violence as children, experiencing verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by their
parents, surviving sexual assault, and suffering abuse by past intimate partners.
Pre-participants. Only 3 of 20 women believed they had grown up in healthy
families with nurturing and supportive parents. The other pre-participants witnessed
domestic violence in their childhood homes, with many remembering their fathers
abusing alcohol or other drugs and then physically or verbally abusing their mothers in

76
front of them. These women spoke extensively about the lessons they learned from their
families of origin about appropriate gender roles and tolerating violence or abuse.
Tara grew up in a large, rather isolated Catholic family that had no tolerance for
divorce. Her mother abandoned her nursing career to raise her children. Although her
mother complied with her father’s demands and relinquished control of the household
finances, she resented her husband. Bette reported that watching her mother tolerate
severe physical and psychological abuse in order to preserve her marriage taught her that
she also needed a man alongside her at any cost. Jade remembered running away with
her mother to hide from her angry father. Motivated by pity, her mother repeatedly
reconciled and separated from her father over a 16-year period. Ginger watched her
mother enter multiple abusive relationships after her father abandoned them when she
was 10 years old. Melody learned from her mother’s example:
I started behaving the same way my mother did. I always tried to show her that I
was not aware of anything that was happening around me…I always try to ignore
what others say. Some say I am stupid because I am not aware of things, but no,
no, I am not stupid. I am aware, but I have to ignore it because I cannot defend
myself.
After her parents divorced when she was 6 years old, Claudia survived an ugly custody
battle involving attempted transcontinental abduction and false imprisonment. She
attributed her own abusive relationship to the fact that she never saw an example of a
loving relationship:
I didn’t even know how people in a loving relationship were supposed to be or
how they seem or how they act.

77
Coming from a context of family conflict, Claudia felt estranged from her natural support
network. Her isolation made her more susceptible to her boyfriend’s affection in spite of
his mistreatment.
Besides witnessing their parents’ abusive relationship, women also were subjected
to verbal, physical, and sexual abuse and neglect as children. Ingrid described her mother
as a “rage-oholic” who shunned her:
I never got any praise from my mother and my father was gone all the time.
Cecilia connected her father’s verbal abuse to her willingness to tolerate her husband’s
constant criticism:
I remember my girlfriend … She said, ‘Yeah, I remember riding in the car with
you and your dad, and he turned around and told you how stupid you were, and I
remember my jaw just fell open…,’’ and I go, ‘Really?’ I don’t even remember
that, but now it makes sense, and I was like, ‘Wow, pieces of the puzzle really
start coming together when you remove yourself and you’re looking at your life.’
Jade identified parallels between her own childhood and her children’s present
experiences:
As far as I can remember back, the first [memory of abuse occurred when] I was
4. My oldest son is 4. My sister’s 2 years younger, and my youngest son is 2
years younger, so it’s hitting home now.
One pre-participant and 3 graduates disclosed experiencing childhood sexual
abuse. Carla and her older sister were physically abused by their mother and sexually
abused by their stepfather, who sometimes executed their mother’s instructions to beat
them with hangers and dog leashes. Their stepfather sexually abused them while their
mother slept alongside them in the same bed. When Carla first disclosed her sexual
abuse to her older sister, her sibling responded apathetically, disclosing that Carla’s
biological father also had molested her. When Carla finally told her mother about her

78
sexual abuse after her stepfather’s death, her mother shrugged that there was nothing she
could do about it now. She wonders if “it could have stopped sooner, and it might not
have affected me as much” if she had told someone about the abuse earlier. Only 1
woman disclosed a history of rape. Elvira kept her rape at age 17 secret, blaming herself:
I was out there on the street, and I figured, ‘Well, I put myself in the situation, so I
should deal with it on my own.’
PEP Graduates. PEP graduates also grew up in abusive families. Only 1 of 20
women believed she had grown up in a healthy family. Two women disclosed growing
up in traditional households where they were taught to “be seen, not heard.”
Several women witnessed domestic violence in their childhood homes. Four
women disclosed that their violent fathers also abused alcohol and frequently beat their
mothers and the children while drunk. Some women reported suffering physical injuries
when they tried to protect their mothers. Growing up in an affluent suburb where both
adults worked as high-ranking government officials, Sasha experienced a “wonderful
upbringing on the outside” where few would suspect her parents “were like Bobby and
Whitney on crack without the crack”. Using her younger brother’s fragility as an excuse,
her mother dismissed Sasha’s pleas to pursue a divorce:
I was always going for the divorce, campaigning, ‘Mommy, take us out of here!’
but she would never listen to me. I always thought she didn’t love me because
she would always say, ‘Well, it’s because of your brother that we can’t leave. He
can’t handle it’, so I always felt like I was invisible.
PEP graduates also disclosed verbal, physical, and sexual abuse and neglect by
parents. Six women reported physical abuse or harsh physical discipline. Vivien’s
punishments prepared her for physical abuse in her adult intimate relationship:

79
I think I grew up and then in these relationships thought, ‘This person is only
behaving the way my parents did, and if my parents loved me, obviously I was
their child, then this person could possibly be in the same mindset: I love her so
much. I really need her to understand what I’m saying, and this is obviously the
only way to get it through to her, especially if a strong willed woman’, so I know
that’s a pattern that feels comfortable to me by living in my parents’ household.
Vivien started cutting herself at age 6 years, and her compulsions to self-harm remained
constant into adulthood although her tactics of abuse changed. Carolina’s emotional
abuse conditioned her to recreate the same dynamics in her marriage. Emotionally
neglected, the lack of affection in her household increased Eve’s vulnerability to her first
partner:
I just never thought I was good enough about anything, and then I didn’t feel
lovable, so then here comes this person that showed me so much attention and just
poured love on me. He made me feel like I was the most important, most loved
person. I felt so important. I felt like I mattered.
Three women disclosed sexual abuse; however, only 1 woman disclosed that the
perpetrator was her biological father. Fearing retribution, Clementine never disclosed the
incest and ran away with her subsequently abusive husband when she was 16 years old.
Two of the three women believed their mothers were aware of the abuse but did nothing
because they feared the perpetrator and backlash from their small rural community while
Sigourney spoke of her mother’s denial:
I used to blame her for what happened to me because when it happened she used
to say, ‘Oh, everything is going to be okay,’ and she would just go to work the
next day like nothing.
Identifying intergenerational patterns
Pre-participants. Aside from entering and sustaining abusive intimate
relationships, pre-participants identified similarities between their choices and those of
their mothers before them:

80
It is as if, I don’t want to be, but I am becoming a reflection of my mother.
[Clementine]
Many women inadvertently repeated their mother’s patterns by submitting to their
husband’s authority especially with regard to household finances, staying at home to raise
their children, or marrying a man with traits similar to their fathers’:
I just thought that was how it should be because my parents were like that. My
dad was the authority, and my mom just did whatever he told her to do. [Tara]
I married my dad. I always told myself, ‘I’m never going to be with a person that
was like my dad. I guess I looked for that person subconsciously because I ended
up marrying him. He ended up being an alcoholic drug user. My dad is a
recovering alcoholic. He’s got about 15 years sober which is awesome but he is
still a narcotics offender. I followed in my mom’s footsteps 100%. [Jade]
I always said that I didn’t want to be like her. That’s been my biggest thing
throughout my whole life, and here I am, 4 years later in an abusive relationship.
[Ginger]
I am my mom, and my husband is my dad. [Alicia]
At a conscious or subconscious level, they followed their mother’s examples. Tara was a
reluctant wage-earner. She preferred to stay at home with her children. When her
husband’s income made it possible, she quit outside employment, but felt unfulfilled:
I thought staying home was the right thing to do, yet I didn’t feel comfortable
with that. I wasn’t happy staying home. I tried that for 5 years, but after 2 years
of staying home, I didn’t feel like I was actually accomplishing anything that my
mom felt she was accomplishing.
Confused about why she repeatedly reconciled with a boyfriend who consistently
mistreated her, Ginger realized that she was drawn compulsively to his abuse:
I think it wasn’t so much that I loved him [or] that I felt like he loved me back. It
was more that it was a sick kinda – I don’t know how to describe it. I relate it
back to my family, what I saw from my mom. It’s the best way I know how to
describe it.
Women who recognized that their mothers had been abused expressed harsh self-

81
reproach and disappointment that they failed to fulfill their intention to avoid domestic
violence as adults:
I felt really depressed, and I feel really bad that I went into that relationship
knowing the past. It’s like when you say I’m never going to do that and then you
do it, you feel really bad. [Georgina]
Women also identified abusive patterns in other close relationships. For example,
Theresa observed that her boyfriend treated her in a manner similar to how he treated his
mother. Melody related the abusive dynamics in her relationship with her live-in
landlord to the partner violence she experienced:
I am allowing it to happen. I am doing the same thing I used to do. People hurt
me emotionally the way my husband used to hurt me, and I don’t do anything to
get out of it. I allow it.
PEP Graduates. PEP graduates also recognized that they carried behavior
patterns they had learned in their families of origin into their adult relationships,
sometimes entering multiple abusive relationships consecutively. Observing the
similarities between her past boyfriends and her father, Nora acknowledged:
I didn’t really like it. I was always following these patterns. [My father is]
always the victim. I’ve noticed that too, like the victim of life, and I’ve dated a
lot of guys that are like that as well.
In the most profound example, Vivien discussed how her physical abuse as a child set the
stage for her acts of self-harm, including cutting and disordered eating. A violent
relationship during adulthood had the potential to substitute for previous destructive
behavior and became another option for self-harm:
Being in an abusive relationship is, in kind of a dysfunctional way, it’s a nice
release because you have someone who’s doing that to you whereas if you’re
alone then that might be something you do to yourself or you can do it in
conjunction with the abusive relationship.

82
Her partner’s abuse mirrored her parents’ maltreatment:
He would always get me to do whatever he wanted to do, and honestly, I have to
say that’s not even all his fault because they were dynamics and patterns that I felt
familiar and comfortable and safe with because that’s the way my parents were,
so in the end, he would get his way, but I would feel safe again and secure and
had somebody that knew what was going on. Kind of like a rocky ship and that
was a lot of break ups and make ups, a lot of drama, a lot of chaos.
Since she separated from her abusive partner, she regularly considers self-harm:
When I feel like there’s pressure coming [from] outside, it can be released by
doing harm to myself if there’s not someone to do harm to me.
Consciously rejecting her past methods of coping with anxiety, however:
I’m having to find new behaviors that are uncomfortable for me now. That
pattern of self-abuse is very comfortable, and I’m having to practice them in
conjunction with my therapist until those things become normal for me instead of
my old patterns.
Adult mother-daughter relationships
Pre-participants. Pre-participants seemed to have discordant relationships with
their mothers. Only one woman expressed confidence in her mother’s support. Some
suggested that they felt superior to their mothers in how they handled conflict or
overcame codependency:
My mom still has a lot of growing up to do. I feel I’m way ahead of her.
[Carmen]
Although she once had obtained a restraining order against her mother due to her
aggression, her mother’s recent illness motivated Carmen to reestablish contact.
They hesitated to share their experiences with their mothers and felt betrayed by
their lack of support. Since her mother opposed divorce and had tolerated her father’s
domination, Tara hardly expected her mother’s advice to leave her husband:

83
I was shocked when my mom said, ‘Well then just leave him,’ because I didn’t
expect that from her. I thought, ‘Well, she’s never been happy with my father, so
why didn’t she just leave him?’
Despite a history of physical and psychological abuse and neglect by her mother, Carla
found compassion for her, acknowledging the protective function of the latter’s ongoing
denial:
A couple months ago, we got into an argument and I was telling her that she let all
this happen to us, get abused and sexually abused, and sat right there in the bed
next to us while it happened, and she said, ‘Stop making up those stories! Stop
lying, and telling all your stories! You know that never happened! Stop telling
lies!’ and I’m like, ‘You’re kidding me, right? You laid there right next to us, and
you think I’m lying?’ I think she is in denial. It hurts her too much to come to the
realization that it did happen.
PEP Graduates. Graduates also had difficult relationships with their mothers.
Each graduate who disclosed childhood sexual abuse resented her mother for her
perceived neglect. Although she understood that her mother never disclosed her
daughters’ incest because she feared their father and the stigma that was sure to result in
their small town, Clementine asks:
Didn’t my mom see that if she would have said something when it was happening
to the oldest daughter, maybe it would not have happened to all of us? Doesn’t
she realize how much pain this has caused us?
Dorothy also blamed her mother for her lack of awareness of the effects that childhood
abuse had on her daughter. Although her mother eventually divorced her stepfather, “she
never again trusted. She never lived a fulfilled life. She never remarried. It was hard for
me to see that she didn’t learn to have a healthy relationship.”
While some mothers encouraged graduates to take steps to achieve safety, others
offered advice which reinforced the women’s ambivalence:

84
My husband’s a doctor, so my mom said, ‘Oh, don’t follow through because he’ll
lose his license. Don’t tell anybody,’ so I was talked out of it, and I shouldn’t
have done that. [Mona]
She says, ‘Well, that’s the one you married. He is your husband. You have to
stay with him until God decides. [Joyce]

Cultural intersections
Pre-participants. Although the interview guide did not include questions
regarding the women’s perceptions of how culture influenced their experiences, three
pre-participants believed that culture was a factor in their partner’s aggressiveness:
I’m Hispanic, so [in] a lot of our culture, men are normally drunk and normally
hit the women. [Carmen]
I believe that in Spanish culture domestic violence is considered normal, at least
in the old culture. [Ingrid]
One woman commented on how her husband’s self-hatred intersects with his abuse
tactics. Paradoxically, he frequently degraded her ethnicity despite his family’s similar
ethnic background. Claudia’s Persian boyfriend attributed his abusive behavior to his
cultural background. She accepted his explanation and now doubts he has the power to
work against such a powerful influence:
I’m also wondering, ‘Can we work it out? Can you work around those things or
are you forever going to be stuck in certain viewpoints?’ because he’s already 25
years old. I’m just thinking a child maybe if they come here when they’re 6 or 10
years you can change. They’re flexible. You can still change them, but he came
here when he was 18, so I’m just thinking like twice already he thought it was
OK.
The culture of urban, gang-dominated neighborhoods also posed a barrier to
women seeking safety within these environments. For example, Elvira believed that the
gang culture which pervaded her neighborhood shaped her attraction to “bad boys” or
drug-using, alcoholic, violent men. She now avoided interacting with her family and

85
friends who were involved with gangs since she feared that associating with them could
jeopardize her ability to regain custody of her children. Carmen disclosed that she had
grown up in south central Los Angeles where men in her mother’s family were involved
heavily with local gangs, and residents harassed her mother and aunts for their brothers’
affiliation. As a result, violence was normalized, even encouraged:
Seeing all that made me kind of not care either. Both of my sisters [would be]
tripping out, ‘How are you going to step up to that person when they’re so much
bigger than you?’ I’d say exactly what my mom would say, ‘Don’t be afraid of
getting your butt kicked.’ I’m using other terms or she would say, ‘You better be
down for it. You better back up what you say,’ and she would say, ‘Even if you
do lose, you keep going back until you make your point, that you ain’t scared of
her. Don’t be scared of nothing.’
Pre-participants disclosed studying the Bible, attending church, and praying
regularly. Women drew on their spiritual beliefs to negotiate their abusive relationships.
After reuniting with her husband at her pastor’s recommendation and seeing no change in
his behavior, she ended the relationship with no regrets:
I wanted to prove to God that I wanted to try.
Both during and after the process of leaving their partners, women relied on their faith to
tolerate uncertainty about their physical and psychological welfare, including gaps in
needed resources.
Pre-participants and graduates spoke of cultural influences promulgated by their
families of origin and faith communities which reflected shared understanding about
marriage and family. Both White and Latina pre-participants discussed how clergy and
lay leaders in their faith communities encouraged them to forgive their partners and
continue their abusive relationships. Women who grew up in religious families and
practiced in congregations seemed to adhere to and perform more rigid gender roles.

86
Family members and friends of women who lived in more affluent communities advised
them to preserve their husbands’ professional reputations at the expense of their well-
being.
PEP Graduates. Three Spanish-speaking graduates suggested that culture bound
them to their abusive relationships:
I also learned that we come from a machismo culture. Ever since we are young
we are taught the contrary of what we should know. [Angelica]
Only one English-speaking graduate, a biracial Japanese-American whose father
completed his career in the military, discussed how she learned to respect and obey those
in authority. Having lived many years as a child in Japan, she believes the relative lack
of affection and expression of social approval increased her vulnerability inside her first
intimate relationship.
Although they also disclosed praying, graduates seemed to draw on a more
personalized spirituality that was not tied to a specific religious community. Their faith
helped them assimilate their experiences in constructive ways that promoted healthy
boundaries and accountability:
I’m very careful who I spend any time with. Only certain people come into my
energy space and my home. That’s my special, sacred space. I don’t do anything
much anymore without listening here (pointing to her heart) and prayer and
meditation,
and later,
You can tell where we are on the inside by what we’ve created on the outside.
I’ve created this! Wow! I’ve got to look and find out where this came from, so I
went to the root. In Sufism, you go to the root of the root, and so I had to start
owning where that started. [Carolina]
Having joined a psychologically-minded prayer group, as well, she observed:

87
What’s helped me a lot, too, is the spiritual path along with the psychological
path. My faith has done wonders, but I also listen now more with my solar
plexus. I learned that here, to really listen.
Summary
While 3 of 20 pre-participants and 1 of 20 graduates reported that they had grown
up in families with nurturing parents, the remaining women witnessed domestic violence
and/or experienced verbal, physical, and sexual abuse and neglect as children. Their
experiences in their families of origin trained them to perpetuate rigid female gender
roles that included acceptance of intimate partner violence.
Both pre-participants and graduates repeated their mother’s patterns by submitting
to their partner’s authority especially with regard to household finances, staying at home
to raise their children, or marrying men with traits similar to their fathers’. Vowing to
avoid similar intimate relationships as adults, women who recognized their mother’s
abuse expressed self-reproach and disappointment that their awareness alone was
insufficient to prevent their involvement with abusive men. Both pre-participants and
graduates reported having conflicted relationships with their mothers. They hesitated to
share their experiences with them and felt betrayed by their lack of validation and
support.
Three pre-participants and graduates respectively believed that culture (Hispanic)
was a factor in their partner’s aggressiveness. Their responses implied an uncritical
acceptance of the machismo elements within Latino culture. Some pre-participants
reported that the culture of their urban, gang-dominated neighborhoods normalized
violence while one graduate believed that the lack of affection and expressed social
approval in her Japanese-American military family negatively impacted her self-esteem

88
and increased her vulnerability inside her first intimate relationship. Pre-participants
shared their reliance on their church communities while graduates seemed to draw on a
more personalized spirituality. Overall, both pre-participants and graduates discussed
culture as a negative influence, most often a barrier they sought to overcome.

89
The Personal Empowerment Program
©
: Does PEP live up to its name?
This section focuses on how the Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP)
facilitates the development of psychological empowerment in survivors of domestic
violence. It examines the curriculum’s content, the role of the facilitators, and group
dynamics. It also explores participants’ and facilitators’ feedback about the program and
their recommendations for enhancing it.
The PEP Curriculum
The curriculum’s checklists and exercises seemed to facilitate women’s
interactions, encouraging them to take risks by disclosing their abuse experiences and
receiving and giving support to others. The facilitators confirmed that the curriculum is
designed to foster supportive relationships among participants in order to end their social
isolation and dismantle their denial:
It’s like breaking out of that shell totally interrupts the process of the problem.
When they start talking about the abuse they go through, it’s almost like a
breakdown of the defenses they’ve had up which is ‘If I don’t say it and I don’t
talk about it, then it doesn’t exist,’ so when they do talk about it, it’s a big break
through. It’s harder to deny it, that things are happening, when you’re listening to
yourself talk about it.
Both facilitators and graduates emphasized that the curriculum’s checklists and exercises
directly target women’s denial:
There had to have been a crack over my head to let me know that I had to get out
of that denial. I didn’t know I was in denial when I first started PEP, so being in
that denial, I didn t know that [PEP] was for me until you start reading the lists,
like ‘Oh my! Wow, I belong here. [Eve]

90
Stressing choice, emphasizing personal responsibility. Rather than focusing on
the abuser, the curriculum emphasizes women’s decisions to tolerate the abusive
behavior:
For example, a client might say, ‘He did this to me, and I wasn’t allowed to do
this, and I couldn’t help my kids or I couldn’t contact my mother.’ That changes
to ‘I can contact my mother if I want to.’ I see that they stop using the word
‘allowed’ and they start understanding that it’s a choice. It might not be the
choice they want to make, but there’s a choice involved.
Facilitators clarified that the curriculum’s emphasis on a woman’s choices does not
blame the victim or suggest that she wants abuse:
I think a lot of it, too, is seeing why they’re choosing to do it because the
consequences also brought harm, so it’s not like they were choosing it because
they liked it. They were choosing it because the consequences of not choosing
that would be that they were harmed or their children were harmed.
Reframing their decisions within the abusive relationship as a choice sets the stage for
women to identify how they must change their behavior to achieve different results:
When they understand why they were making that choice, I’ve seen a lot of them
say, ‘Well, then okay, if I don’t want to choose that,’ it opens up, ‘then I have to
remove myself from this person.’ It allows them to see that even within there,
they had a choice, so ‘Yes, he wouldn’t allow me to do this, but I had a choice in
accepting him to not allow me to do it or not,’ and it’s them recognizing why the
choices they made were made.
“Getting off the autopilot”: Identifying patterns and blind spots. Early in the PEP
curriculum, participants are challenged to identify abusive patterns in their social
relationships, starting with their families of origin:
They start recognizing how these patterns don’t just exist in an intimate partner.
It’s not just an intimate partner issue. They’re here because of that, but it doesn’t
just exist in that relationship.
There’s a pattern. It’s a pattern of victimization. There tends to be not just with
intimate relationships, but in career, with jobs, as far as maybe having abusive
relationships with their coworkers or employers.

91
To break these “automatic” patterns of relating, the PEP curriculum teaches women to
approach dating as an interview process:
It takes a lot of practice for someone to actually be interested in someone who is
not like that in some ways, so there’s that certain re-teaching for someone to be
aware, of getting off the autopilot during the dating process.

The program also helps women to recognize that weak boundaries pervade their lives and
they must begin to set firmer boundaries in order to take care of themselves. After
establishing that “there’s no way to set a good boundary with someone else if they can’t
set a boundary for themselves,” the curriculum guides women in transferring the skills of
identifying, creating, and enforcing boundaries to how they parent their children.
Learning about the effects of witnessing domestic violence on children provides women
with the knowledge and skills to repair or strengthen their parent-child relationships:
A lot of women who have been abused are distracted because they’re thinking
about their partner and how to please their partner.

A lot of time also the children become parentified, and the parents are unable to
recognize that, so with learning about boundaries, they’re able to see how the
child has taken up this role.
Embracing anger. The curriculum emphasizes the need to identify and own one’s
feelings as an essential step toward achieving safety. Maintaining denial inside their
abusive relationships often required women to disengage from their feelings:
I think a lot of them learn to not identify their feelings because it wasn’t
convenient.
They can really get in there and realize what they’re feeling, ‘Oh, you know
what? I’m feeling fear right now. I’m not feeling safe right now; instead of this
it’s sort of just an unrecognizable feeling, ‘You know, it feels icky.’ No, no, I
don’t want ‘icky’, tell me. Let’s get there. Let’s figure it out.’ It’s very
important. If we can tell how we feel, it tells us a lot about how to maneuver
under certain situations especially personal relationships.

92
Many domestic violence survivors disavow anger in themselves:
They associate anger with the abuse. ‘He’s angry, so he hits me. He’s angry, so
yelling. He’s angry, so he’s punching at the wall.’ So, they see anger as just a
negative emotion. I find that there’s no identifying with the emotion. It’s like, ‘It
doesn’t exist in me. It only exists in him.
PEP tries,
to give them a healthy perspective of anger because all they’ve had is the negative
behavior that comes with anger…I would think they would learn they have a
choice. Expressing emotion doesn’t mean they’re going to get hurt. They have a
choice in how they’re going to let that emotion out.
Acknowledging their partner’s choice to express anger destructively, women also
recognize their power to choose how they manage their feelings vis-à-vis their children:
When they’re able to see that anger can be an agent of change if it’s expressed
positively, then I think that empowers them to recognize it in themselves and do
something about it. I think that when they start recognizing it in themselves
toward their children, they often blame it on their children, ‘Well, my children
make me angry.’ When they start recognizing that within themselves, they see
that they do have the ability to react differently.
The Facilitators
Both the first (Amy) and second (Vibha) facilitators were marriage and family
therapy professionals, but they varied in their adherence to the curriculum, introduction
of extracurricular content or resources, facilitation of group discussion, and responses to
women’s retelling of traumatic experiences. Both facilitators dominated their sessions by
reading aloud long portions of text from handouts, labeling women’s experiences rather
than allowing them to define them independently, and creating an environment more akin
to a classroom rather than a group. On the other hand, they often allowed one or two
participants to monopolize the group’s time which prevented the group from
experiencing the total content allocated to the particular session.

93
Both Amy and Vibha took up a considerable amount of the group’s time reading
long pieces of text from the facilitator’s guide, particularly Vibha, and they tended to
label women’s experiences, using terms like “abuser,” “passive-aggressive,” or “silent
treatment”, rather than allowing participants to define their own experiences. Facilitators
said they encouraged more experienced group members to share their knowledge,
awareness, and skills with new participants, allowing them to speak first or directly
asking for their input. Group members seldom were observed interacting with one
another spontaneously. Rather, the facilitators maintained more of a seminar-like tone
than a psychotherapeutic tone.
Oftentimes, facilitators allowed individual participants to monopolize the group’s
time, thereby abbreviating the didactic content for the session. Facilitators frequently did
not review the handouts in their entirety before the group’s time elapsed, instructing
participants to read independently at home, including content about safety planning, the
cycle of violence, and immigration relief available to undocumented survivors.
Sometimes, facilitators provided misinformation about available resources. For example,
a substitute therapist, Rekha, who stepped in when Amy was on vacation, introduced the
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) waiver process, which permits men and women
who are married to abusive United States citizens or legal permanent residents to adjust
their immigration status without their spouses’ cooperation, but went on to describe the u-
visa, a form of immigration relief available to crime victims who cooperate with law
enforcement to prosecute the offender instead.

94
Facilitators employed a variety of strategies to foster empowerment including
offering examples rather than advice and modeling the skills and behavior they
encouraged participants to develop.
Giving examples, not advice. Although they typically refrained from offering
direct advice, facilitators frequently responded to women’s statements by repeating the
same general guidance. For example, Amy often emphasized that women must do things
differently in order to achieve different results, “Whenever I’m achieving an outcome I
don’t want, I must be doing something that isn’t true to me, is not empowering to myself.
Whenever we make a decision out of fear and desperation, it probably isn’t a good
decision.”
After reading a segment in the handout or an item on a checklist, facilitators
typically paused to provide examples and subsequently invited participants to share
examples from their experience. Amy and Vibha used examples to clarify new material
that may be unfamiliar to participants, particularly content related to personal boundaries.
During one session, Amy recounted an example offered by another client (not in the
group) who had met a man to whom she stated she would call. Although the woman
explicitly told him not to call her, he called her the next day, showed up at her gym, and
insisted that he really liked her and wanted to date her. Amy asked the group to consider
whether his behavior was flattering or aggressive.
Modeling. Facilitators allowed the group to become a forum where members
learned about boundaries, identified boundary violations in their own lives, and practiced
responding to them safely. Taking into account that a number of women maintained their

95
abusive relationships while participating in PEP, Amy frequently modeled appropriate
responses to boundary violations using I statements. For example, one member disclosed
a story about a time her husband became furious with her after she returned from the
grocery store without purchasing chips, accusing her of disrespecting him. Amy
suggested responding with the statement, “I’m sorry you feel that way.” The member
asked, “Isn’t that taking responsibility?” Amy clarified that using the statement was a
way to express empathy without taking responsibility.
Group Dynamics
PEP creates an environment which supports women’s development of
psychological empowerment:
I think being in a place where they feel safe for maybe one of the only times or
the only time, being in an atmosphere [of] being supported by other individuals
going through similar circumstances, that facilitates their empowerment.
The following section describes graduates’ motivations for participating and completing
PEP. Second, it reveals how participants’ sharing of their stories and entering dialogue
about their problems with other members facilitated their identification with domestic
violence survivors and validated their experiences.
Motivation. Facilitators suggested that participants were motivated by the
information, emotional support, and safe space which PEP offers. Graduates indicated
that they were motivated to participate by their personal goals and achievements, namely
their diminished feelings of fear, greater self-knowledge and confidence, desire to be
better mothers, and how good they felt after they attended their first few sessions:
Leaving that [first] class I felt empowered, not greatly, but I felt empowered. I
don’t remember the subject, but as opposed to being, ‘Oh you poor things, you’re
here for domestic violence. You’re in such a turmoil,’ it’s like, ‘You can survive

96
this. You can get better. You can recognize this. It was an atmosphere of ‘You
can,’ instead of ‘You cannot’. I wanted to learn more. If I could feel more
empowered after 1 class, oh my gosh, what more could I learn and how much
better can I feel if I keep coming? [Marlena]
When I took the first three classes, it impacted me so much. It was as if someone
threw a bucket of water on me, and I said, ‘Oh my God, this is how I am living? I
am living this way!’ I thought it was incredible. [Dorothy]
I knew I needed help, but I didn’t know how much help I needed, but then when I
got the information like the second day or the second or third time, ‘Whoa!
Wow!’ At that point I didn’t want to give it a chance. I ate it. [Eve]
When women practiced the skills they had been introduced to during PEP, their early
successes encouraged them to continue their participation. While they may experience
harsh judgment from friends and family, PEP provides members an opportunity to be
vulnerable, take risks, and develop confidence to take parallel risks outside the group:
They can have hope that if I continue setting boundaries, if I continue these
things, I can continue the kind of interaction that I’ve had in this safe place.
Some women found satisfaction in having completed something:
It’s gonna sound really dumb, but I never finished anything in my entire life. I
told myself that I was going to finish one thing and see what it felt like to finish
something, so I went back to PEP and I did that. [Vivien]
A couple of graduates expressed that they had not achieved goals they had set for
themselves previously, and they wanted to show themselves and those around them that
they could succeed.
Graduates wanted to heal from their abuse experiences and create a different
future for themselves and their children:
I wanted to go on with my life. I wanted to keep myself up. I didn’t want to go
down. I think about my daughter. If not her, maybe I would be weak and not
even go there. [Grace]
I wanted to heal like a drowning man wants air. Nothing stopped me. Nothing

97
will stop me. I guess I saw a light at the end of the tunnel, and it wasn’t the train,
each week. [Carolina]
Having sought assistance from general counseling resources, graduates appreciated the
agency’s specific focus on domestic violence:
I was fishing around. You’re at the surface of the problem, but I felt like all of the
sudden, I was at the problem. I was where I was meant to be, and I was dealing
with the real issues that were going in my life for the first time, and that was so
refreshing and so helpful, so heartening to be in that place. [Mona]
It was addicting. I was so excited because it was just like my whole life had been
centered around one way or another these things that we were learning… just
being so lost and feeling like someone was handing me like a treasure map. It’s
all I can think of, like just handing me the road to get better. [Nora]
Finding emotional support after experiencing social isolation, graduates felt encouraged
by the validation they received from each other and their facilitators:
I think what kept me going was the people too. You look forward to seeing them,
like seeing how they’re doing, and they want to know how you’re doing and you
have something in common with them, so it kind of makes you excited when you
have no one else. You like have this thing to look forward to because you know
it’s going to help you move forward vs. just sitting at home and like your friends
don’t understand, your parents don’t understand. You come here and they
understand, so it’s helping each other. [Nora]
Participants were each other’s cheerleaders:
We just constantly talk about how you can be a better person. You don’t need
this abusive person to dictate your life. You can be your own individual,
confident woman that you need to be and be successful. [Nora]
Graduates described watching other women surmount similar hurdles and feeling
encouraged by their success. Facilitators explained:
There’s also really no other place where it’s appropriate to open up at this
level…They usually don’t have those close friendships at the point they come in
here, and otherwise, it’s not appropriate to open up at this level or even discuss
stuff at this level pretty much anywhere.
They indicated that once women experience the overwhelming level of support from

98
other members, they may be “resistant to the change, but not resistant to coming after that
point.”
Facilitators estimated that only a fifth of participants were court-referred. Some
women decided to enroll in PEP to mollify the judge or commissioner who had issued a
restraining order. Seeking to reconcile with their abusive partners, these women sought
to modify a stay-away or move-out order that prevented their partners from sharing their
residence. Facilitators observed a marked difference in the motivation of court-ordered
participants who intended to leverage their PEP participation to modify their restraining
orders:
The court-ordered ones that only needed to take the classes so they can modify the
restraining order weren’t invested in themselves or really learning any of what the
dynamics were all about. They just wanted to hurry up and get through it like,
‘Can I have something to prove that I’ve been here 3 times?’
At one point, judges frequently required victims to bring proof that they had completed at
least 3 sessions. They later increased their demand to 10, requiring victims to show proof
of completion before they would consider a request for modification.
Women referred by Orange County Children & Family Services intended to avoid
further intervention by the dependency court or enrolled in order to reunify with children
who were no longer in their custody while participants referred by Orange County Social
Services Agency sought to complete PEP as part of their service agreements with the
Domestic Abuse Services Unit. Contrary to the facilitators’ approximation, one Spanish-
speaking graduate estimated that few members participated voluntarily:
Most of the women in my group come because they have been mandated by the
court, not voluntarily. There are very few of us that are here on our own free will.
[Lola]

99
Dropping out. The majority of graduates indicated they never wanted to drop out.
Among the graduates who suspended their participation more than once before
completion, only one graduate identified barriers posed by unreliable transportation.
Facilitators suggested that most participants who drop out leave PEP because they
reconcile with their abusers:
The biggest reason why people quit is because they’ve decided to make another
commitment to their abuser…as soon as they commit to that again, you really
can’t do both.
If you’re in the relationship and still coming to PEP, it’s hard. It’s like you don’t
want to hear it because they want to believe the abuser. There’s a lot of reality
checking going on in the group through checklists that we have and information,
and it can be really painful, I imagine, for them to sit in there if they’re not really
wanting to look at that stuff.
I think there are people that are still in denial, maybe holding on to the hope that
maybe this person isn’t that bad or ‘I just gotta give it another try’, and so I think
that’s when people drop out and not necessarily due to the program. There are so
many other things that affect their behavior too.
Graduates offered different insights about why women might end participation before
completion. Vivien did not want to identify with the other women in PEP. Believing she
was better than the women she saw there, she “equated dropping out with recovery and
having my act together.” Identifying with a woman who inspired her changed her
perspective:
I went to PEP this one time, and there was this woman in there, and she had been
through like three times worse than what I’ve been through, but she was so much
further along in her path, and I had never seen that before. I’d only seen people in
the thick of denial in there, and when I saw her, I remember saying, ‘I want that. I
want to be done with all the legality. I want to be done with the relationship. I
want to be where she is where she’s learning to live life like post-domestic
violence,’ so she was such a diva to me, but she was still in PEP which made me
think you can be a diva and you can still go to PEP, and you can still be working
on something, so she was really inspiring to me.

100
Eve disclosed that she considered dropping out of PEP, abandoning her restraining order,
and returning to her husband during the period after she had obtained a temporary
restraining order prior to the permanent restraining order hearing. She received bank
statements indicating his recent purchases of firearms and martial arts equipment. She
decided to pursue a restraining order without hiring legal representation. After she
started, she learned that her husband had retained an attorney. Finally disclosing her
abuse experiences, she felt defensive and powerless:
I felt like, ‘Oh my goodness, I’m going to be a statistic because nobody’s taking
me seriously’…I’m finally opening up, yet I felt like I have to defend the
truth…When I was at that point, I found out he’s buying martial art equipment.
He’s doing black belt, and there was a purchase of a gun and then I found out that
he’s trying to get jurisdiction, and he’s smart…That’s what’s in my head, ‘He
always wins. He never loses,’ and I just felt defeated, and I felt worthless. Why
should anybody believe me? Why do I deserve any protection? Who am I to
deserve anything?
Although participants may drop out at the point that they choose to reconcile with their
abusive partners, the reasons why they choose to reconcile are complex and multi-
faceted. Eve disclosed her fears to the group and received information and support which
allowed her to implement a safety plan and emotionally withstand the uncertainty she felt
until she obtained a permanent restraining order. Her story demonstrates that the group’s
dynamics have the potential to prevent women from dropping out when they are most at
risk.
Sharing stories. Graduates observed the difference between sharing their stories
with friends or family and the exchange inherent in sharing experiences with another
woman who had also suffered abuse. They could help others while accepting support
from them.

101
Sharing their experiences challenged their denial:
I think that really empowers them, hearing themselves talk because we do a lot of
exercises where they can share their experience through the exercise and being able to
talk about the abuse – some people say, ‘I’ve never been able to admit this to myself, and
now I’m saying it out loud’ – there’s a sense of empowerment with that.
While they could not see past their own blinders, they could hear the advice they offered
to others:
I would think, ‘I hear their stories and I could advise them,’ but I can’t, I couldn’t
advise myself. [Grace]
Women talked about how their partners were kind and charming when they met them,
how the cycle of violence perpetuated their relationships, and how they seldom
recognized that their partner’s behaviors were abusive. When a woman identified
another member’s abuse and observed the other’s denial, her shock and confusion
sometimes underscored her own minimization of domestic violence.
The process of articulating their thoughts while sharing their experiences
enhanced their learning:
You have it in your head and then when they ask you to share an experience, you
actually verbalize it and then it just makes you learn more. [Francesca]
Facilitators agreed:
When you encourage them to participate and share their stories, a lot of the
learning comes from that listening to someone else’s experience and relating to it.
Listening to members’ stories as they pertained to the curriculum increased the content’s
accessibility because women usually identified more easily with each other’s examples.
Hearing one another’s experiences facilitated intimacy and increased the emotional
support available to members, as women frequently swapped telephone numbers and
talked to one another outside the group. Sharing stories was only the first step since

102
women usually asked the speaker how she tackled a past problem and sought advice for
how they might handle a similar problem in their own lives presently.
Dialogue. Women participated in dialogue with each other and their facilitator
regarding their experiences with different types of abuse, the cycle of violence, lessons
learned in their families of origin, safety planning, parenting, and interface with police,
child protective services and family and criminal courts. The dialogue may or may not
have started organically. For example, a group member would direct a question to Amy
which she, without answering, would refer to the group for their response. The most
animated discussions pertained to the role of alcohol and drugs in perpetrating domestic
violence, the efficacy of batterers’ intervention programs, and the effects on children of
witnessing violence. Women shared safety strategies with one another and ways in
which their partners pursued them after they left their abusive relationships. Members
learned from each other’s successes and failures and could better anticipate and prepare
for risks to their own safety.
The women used dialogue to assess the extent to which their experience fit the
definition of domestic violence. For example, one member disclosed that her partner
accused her of being controlling when she asked him to call her if he would be late for
dinner while another questioned her discomfort when her boyfriend framed threats to
harm her as a joke. The former wondered if her behavior was abusive while the latter
doubted her assessment of danger. Second, another member described how her boyfriend
wanted to have sex and physically blocked her from leaving his bedroom. She had told
her parents, and neither she nor they identified the behavior as abusive. The majority of

103
women participating in that session concurred that they had been similarly restrained by
their abusive partners. The dialogue validated the speaker’s experiences as worthy of
concern. Third, some members had never experienced a healthy relationship while others
had never been involved with a partner other than the most recent abuser. When women
expressed doubt that they could experience a healthy relationship, other women who had
been involved with a non-abusive partner interjected to share their experiences.
Interestingly, although a participant might experience denial with regard to her
own situation, she usually identified patterns and risks present in another’s situation.
After obtaining a restraining order, Eve wondered aloud if she had become paranoid and
if her fear was exaggerated. Asking the group “what could have happened” if she had
continued the relationship, a fellow member responded, “a broken nose”. Although at
that point the member believed that her partner’s recent incarceration had changed him
and intended to reunite with him once he was released, she addressed Eve’s denial,
warning her, “Don’t let your guard down”. Glenda asked Eve directly if she intended to
abandon the restraining order, and Eve admitted that she was considering it. Several
members then encouraged her to follow through by attending the permanent restraining
order regardless of whether or not she chose to reconcile with her husband in order to
benefit from the added protection it might afford. Second, members whose partners
completed the 52-week batterers’ intervention program informed others that their abusers
had learned more efficient tactics, such as increasing psychological abuse to exert control
or targeting body parts where injuries could be less easily detected. Third, when Ingrid
expressed regret that she would never receive the apology she sought from her ex-

104
boyfriend, Olivia replied that her husband’s apologies only sustained her motivation to
continue the relationship. In contrast, she pointed out the absence of apology might serve
to increase Ingrid’s safety in the long run.
Identification. Facilitators suggested that identifying with other survivors “is
probably where the real magic comes from”. Understanding “I’m not in this alone,
totally changes the outlook”. Women who successfully identified with other members of
the group appeared to leverage the most benefit and receive the most verbal
encouragement; whereas, those whose experiences did not seem as familiar garnered less
group support. For example, a young, childless college student living with her parents
and involved for a total of 9 months with an abusive boyfriend who never physically
assaulted her asked her fellow members if it was a normal feeling to want to regain
freedom or independence. The other women, apparently having difficulty relating to her,
didn’t respond to the question.
Validation. Hearing one another’s stories showed members that they experienced
similar problems, dismantled denial, reduced self-blame, and inspired confidence that
they could resolve them. PEP facilitators explained:
The information they’re receiving, not just from the materials but from the other
women in the group, allows them to see that they’re not the only ones
experiencing that, and they’re not going crazy, it’s not something that only they
were experiencing and there’s no hope for it or there’s no other way.
It’s just something that puts it right in their face. There’s a dynamic. This is on
paper. It’s studied. It’s just not your imagination. It’s not something that we’re
making up. It’s real.
Graduates concurred:
It just validated that I’m not nuts. Yeah, I’m nuts being in the situation, but I’m
not. This is very real. I mean people experience this. I’m not making it up.

105
[Carolina]
Because I knew that it was abuse, for some reason, because everything fit into
something, I fit into something. I never thought I would like that idea, but I fit
into something and because I did, there was a way to get out of that. It was a
wonderful relief to know that there was an out, not just out physically but out in
the brain, in the mind. [Eve]
Participants described experiences they had outside the group to solicit members’
and the facilitator’s feedback. More often than not, facilitators validated members’
thoughts and actions to the extent feasible. For example, one member shared that during
a recent visit, she observed a sister emotionally manipulate her young daughter to
influence the girl’s behavior. Recalling how their mother had manipulated them, the
member wondered if she treated her son similarly without realizing the parallels with her
upbringing. Amy suggested that by examining her behavior, she probably avoided
repeating the same pattern. In another instance, Eve shared with the group that she had
learned that if children were removed from a home where they witnessed domestic
violence by age 2 years, they would not be adversely affected. She wanted reassurance
from Vibha and fellow members that her child would not be impacted by her experiences.
Vibha told her that although it was impossible to say with certainty how her experiences
would impact her, Eve was doing all the right things now to ensure the best possible
outcomes.
Members discovered their similarities with other women who had experienced
domestic violence including the psychological effects of battering. Although this tended
to comfort some women, others seemed further demoralized by their new awareness.
Participants were disappointed to identify their trauma symptoms. Eve commented that
she knew she had problems, but she did not want there to be a label (PTSD) for her

106
difficulties. She acknowledged having financial problems, conflicts with her family, and
other problems, but it adds to her burden to know that she has psychological problems of
this magnitude as well. Vibha pointed out that some women feel relief knowing that
others also suffer from these problems, but this knowledge did not seem to encourage the
women attending this group. Eve commented that she hopes that “it’s easily fixed” and
that she wished “I wasn’t in that category.” The exercise seemed to discourage the
women rather than validate them.
Participants’ & Facilitators’ Reflections
Prefacing that empowerment is somewhat intangible and hard to describe,
facilitators suggested that PEP empowered participants by teaching women how to “have
power over their emotional world,” by understanding what they can and cannot control
and exercising that power appropriately and assertively. In addition to emphasizing skills
related to identifying abuse and implementing healthy boundaries, facilitators discussed
how empowered survivors begin to seek out available resources in their environment to
enhance safety. Data from the facilitators’ focus group supports the conceptualization of
a continuum of psychological empowerment along which women move from a state of
denial and powerlessness to improved knowledge, awareness, engagement, and practice.
Along the psychological empowerment continuum: PEP participants’ knowledge.
Above all, graduates emphasized their gains in self-knowledge as a result of their PEP
participation:
I think that’s where I actually learned the most. I actually learned about me.
[Francesca]

107
They discussed how navigating the curriculum content facilitated movement from
knowledge about key concepts to an awareness of how the dynamic manifested in their
own lives:
First off, you hear it. Okay, we all know what is cycle of violence, kind of wishy
washy, but then when you’re in PEP, and you have the paper in front of you
where it says tension, then it’s the actual act, and then it’s the violence, and then
it’s the honeymoon period and then you transfer that. It has you think about,
‘Well, what was my experience?’ [Francesca]
If we were talking about red flags, I would participate and say, ‘Well, I remember
this red flag. I remember this. I remember that,’ the more it manifested in me. I
actually saw it more clearly when I spoke it. It sank in more, and seeing it on
paper and talking about it, it connected because I put my thoughts into words, and
I think when I do that, it helps me understand me better. [Francesca]
Graduates who had not experienced physical violence in their most recent abusive
relationships realized that they were not immune from the risk, and women who believed
they had not suffered sexual violence learned that sexual abuse involved behaviors they
had not considered abusive. Most importantly, PEP replaced women’s beliefs that justify
or minimize abuse with a comprehensive framework through which to define, identify,
and address multiple forms of intimate partner violence.
Awareness. Facilitators anticipated that participation in PEP ideally could be the
“beginning of a different emotional experience,” gaining “a different emotional
understanding of what is going on,” that could involve the realization that “Wow, living
like this really is absurd or not necessary. It doesn’t have to be this way.” Graduates
asserted that their PEP participation highlighted their own thoughts and behaviors which
contributed to their involvement with abusive partners, including their incapacity to
identify red flags or lack of willingness to act on them once detected:

108
There were so many red flags from what I learned from PEP. If I would have saw
those flags, and there were some that I saw and didn’t do anything about, they
were opportunities, and I kept walking back into them, so that’s where I take
responsibility. [Sasha]
That’s what the PEP was, to be self-aware and being pointed out behaviors that I
didn’t even see in my own self. [Eve]
First of all, I learned to value myself and my things. What I allow is what will
ultimately happen. If I don’t want something to occur, it will not happen. [Lola]
They also reported observing a transformation in their attitudes toward themselves and
people around them:
I was judgmental before. I had that kind of whatever, you’re just, do this and do
that, it’s your fault, and it’s really kind of a snobby attitude toward everything,
and this made me see that I’m really not that person anymore. [Sasha]
I’m able to hear things without skewing it in my head because I’m not bound
defending him in my head while I’m in PEP, so it’s allowed me to look at myself
from myself, not look at myself from him, so it’s allowed me to begin creating
who I think that I am, not who he thinks I should be. [Vivien]
Eve’s self-concept totally changed:
I’ve gained respect for myself, and I’m working on the self esteem right now, but
my value is what I’ve really come away with in PEP. The greatest thing is my
value. I feel like I’m worth something. I feel like I’m a valuable human being,
and I have something to offer.
Finally, Dorothy no longer consumes media in the same way:
Taking all the classes, the entire course of ten weeks, it has even changed the way
in which I view movies or television. In the movies at the theater I can see
domestic violence, and in the soap operas, how far they take the abuse! Right
now I am watching one that I like, and I see the drama in the soap opera. The
parents live in such ignorance! How is it possible that one as a human being can
live with so much ignorance?
Facilitators pointed out that although most women do not choose to leave their
abusive partners while they are participating in PEP, they gain a new lens through which
to view their experiences that “ultimately will help them make an informed decision

109
about whether they want to stay with this person or not.” Referring to her intense desire
to abandon the temporary restraining order and return to her husband, Eve recalled a
story Vibha had shared about a famous behavioral experiment where dogs had been
locked in a cage and administered electric shocks. Initially, the dogs struggled to escape,
but later even when the cage door was thrown open, the dogs made no attempt to leave:
Seriously that day I was done. I was ready to quit on everything. I felt
completely defeated. I felt like when I was in the marriage, when my husband
would just be so overpowering, I would give in. I [didn’t] want to be that person
anymore, and PEP was able to help me step out of the cage that I was in, and I
thank God every day that I didn’t quit. When it was pointed out to me, I saw it. It
was very clear to me what I was doing, and that’s what it did. It challenges the
way you think, and it gives you tools on how to think differently. I went in there
with an empty sack and I came out with tons of tools, and I can use them.
They’re usable. I can’t say enough. I can’t believe how much I learned in those
short 10 weeks vs. what I’ve learned all my life. I feel like I’m lying because it’s
that big of a thing.
My old behavior is when it got tough, when I felt like I was defeated or that I’m
not good enough, that I’m not going to be able to succeed or finish, and I just felt
like this big, I felt teeny in a big place. I just wanted to crawl into my own little
space and stay there. When that was pointed out to me, that’s not the person I
want to be. That’s exactly where I don’t want to be, and I didn’t know that I was.
Even after how many weeks of PEP, I didn’t know that I was still living in that
spot until it was actually pointed out to me, and boy, when that was pointed out, it
was night and day. I changed, but I didn’t – it took someone to point that out to
me and not just say, ‘Well, could it be this or that?’, but say ‘Hey, this is what I
see,’ and then I could see it too, but I did not see it. I didn’t see that behavior I
was doing, and it was overwhelming. It was like a little light popped up into my
brain, and I could see it and because I did, I can change it, but if I didn’t see it, if
nobody pointed it out to me, I would have continued on that road because I didn’t
see what I needed to change. That was a powerful moment for me, extremely
powerful, and I have not been that person since then.
Francesca disclosed that PEP participation facilitated her decision to end her relationship
with her daughter’s father. At her tenth session, another member remarked how much
her participation had changed her thoughts about her relationship and how she wanted to
proceed. She started PEP at the suggestion of her husband’s defense attorney. Although

110
she had married him after his recent incarceration for corporal punishment of a
cohabitant, she now intended to seek an annulment. Facilitators predicted:
They’re there to get rid of their restraining order, and all of the sudden, they’re,
‘You know what? I’m learning. I’m liking this,’ and they go to, ‘You know
what? I’m not going to get back together with them.
Although hardly the norm, they reported:
I’ve actually seen a handful of clients move out and get their own place while
they’re still going through PEP which is huge considering the state that they were
when they came in here, so it does increase that awareness that they don’t want
this relationship anymore.
PEP participation not only helped women relinquish their self-blame and
recognize their value but also offered an opportunity to re-envision themselves outside
their abusive relationships:
A lot of times you feel or I felt like, ‘I don’t know who I am without this
relationship,’ so it shows you who you can be. [Nora]
Whereas they had once believed all men were potentially abusive, graduates expressed
hope that they could create a healthy relationship founded on equality, respect, honesty,
and safety. Analogously, PEP provided an opportunity to consider, “Where does my
mental frame need to be to be in a healthy relationship?’ and ‘What do I want from me?’”
Overall, graduates expressed a new-found confidence to tackle obstacles and achieve
their personal goals:
This is like finding a door to my future, my success. With all of these abilities,
it’s as if I am capable of doing anything I set my mind on. [Dorothy]
Engagement. Graduates indicated that they learned life skills, namely “coping
skills” and “survival skills” related to abusive relationships. They emphasized skills they
gained in identifying abuse, identifying red flags, safety planning including exercising

111
options for legal protection, and setting personal boundaries. They recognized abusive
dynamics in relationships beyond those with their intimate partner including those with
adult children, parents, friends, landlords, and employers. Graduates also described
learning how to obtain information and access relevant resources to enhance safety.
Graduates suggested that participating in PEP taught them “how to see
dysfunction” and “how to see function” and listen and communicate more effectively.
Facilitators observed the most change in how participants identified, communicated, and
enforced healthier personal boundaries:
It’s usually boundaries, like when they come back, and they talk about how they
exercise it, not just in the intimate relationship but like with their kids, family, or
just with people in their life. They’ll come in and talk about, ‘I was able to say no
to something I would have just said yes to,’ so from what they share, you can
pretty much pick up that they’re implementing what they’re learning.
For example, Vivien believed that PEP gave her “permission in relationships to make
choices for myself that before I would feel are selfish or bitchy or disloyal to other
people. It’s allowed me to do that in relationships with my parents or my ex-husband or
even strangers.” Illustrating how building skills requires practice, graduates reported
experimenting with setting boundaries with friends before attempting them with an
intimate partner. Sometimes women struggled with moving from their
knowledge/awareness about personal boundary-setting to its application:
Sometimes they weren’t able to set the boundary but at least they were able to
recognize it was happening. I tell them that’s empowerment, that’s learning
because that’s awareness, so once they’ve had this experience, they may come
back into group saying, ‘I did this and I saw this happening’. ‘Well, was there a
time when you wouldn’t have seen this?’ ‘Yeah.’ ‘Well, that’s growth, that’s
empowerment, that you’re now aware of this.’

112
In addition to emphasizing the availability and procedures through which to
access community resources, facilitators reinforced that women deserved to succeed:
Sometimes taking a more active role in getting them connected can help, but I
think the real part is not just us connecting them. They’re developing the skills to
access them themselves.
I think the more beneficial skills that they learn is how to seek these things out for
themselves and that they deserve to have those things.
Practice. Perhaps due to PEP’s emphasis on personal boundaries, members
developed a stronger sense of self which impacted their closest relationships. For
example, one participant disclosed in session that PEP was helping her learn how to think
for herself. She often identifies a religious or spiritual person whom she will then rely on
to give her advice and tell her how to behave. She would like to change this dependency
on others for direction. In an effort to enforce boundaries, a second participant reported
that she has been more consistent in calling attention to her husband’s actions when he
behaves abusively. Prior to attending PEP, she was not aware that his behavior was
abusive. Now she makes it a point to tell him when he is disrespectful and reiterate that it
is unacceptable to her. During the same session, another member also reported that she
was “communicating boundaries more.” She has observed a “cause and effect” change.
She and her husband have been working on their “codependency issues” in that she tells
him what she wants and expects rather than assuming that he should know. Alluding to
praxis, she later recounted an epiphany she had while watching a movie with her husband
the past weekend. She held his hand for a little while, and she disclosed that having that
“connection” facilitated a “deep understanding” that she is not responsible for her
husband’s anger, that “he needs to do that work”. After coming to this understanding,

113
she felt less burdened, that it had “lost its power to suck me.” Finally, when a member’s
husband commented that she had changed recently, she worried that he would discover
her PEP attendance. She commented, “It’s amazing how in 4 weeks I’ve made this
change.” She described how she no longer has meals or postpones her son’s bedtime to
accommodate her husband’s whims. She says that by not waiting for him to respond, she
no longer feels so nervous. She is less anxious because she proceeds with her tasks and
enjoys the time she has with her son without worrying about if and how he will
participate. She asked if she was making a mistake, but Amy labeled her behavior as
appropriately placing a boundary and following through with it.
Several Spanish-speaking graduates reported that setting and enforcing
boundaries has changed their relationships with partners, siblings, and children. Rekha
who regularly facilitates the Spanish language PEP group pointed out that she observes a
marked difference in how the women carry themselves by their fifth session. Dressing
differently, wearing make-up and perfume, the women begin “doing all of these outside
physical things, but it shows there’s something going on inside of them, and I think that’s
probably the most apparent way that I see whatever is going on in the group is starting to
affect them.”
Eve believed she walked out of PEP a totally different person:
When you’re in that abuse and you come out, and then you learn all this, how can
you not be a different person? I can’t imagine not every single woman walking
out of there not feeling the same way. Maybe they don’t but I just can’t see it.
They have to have changed.

114
After years of social isolation and self-censorship, she now reaches out to people,
wanting to connect. She compared her learning process to that of her 1-year old’s
learning to talk:
I’m learning to communicate. I know it doesn’t sound like it when I can hear
myself talking. I’m learning to open up and express my ideas although I’m not
very good at it, but I’m learning to.
Graduates expressed their motivation to reach out to others. They felt less defensive and
self-blaming about their experiences. Lola explained that PEP helped her relax since she
now feels that she has control over her life. Previously disdainful of others’ opinions, she
has learned to listen, relate to, and communicate with others. Since starting PEP, a
couple of graduates reported sharing their knowledge about red flags with family and
friends. Similarly, when they meet potential intimate partners, they are conscious of
them. Finally, their participation motivated women to continue self-study about domestic
violence and healthy boundaries and/or pursue individual therapy if they had not already:
After I would leave PEP, I would read and learn more because it’s addicting.
You’re like, ‘Wow, I never realized this before. I want to learn more,’ [Nora]
while others leveraged new knowledge about available resources to achieve their goals:
I’m able to take the tools that I learned in PEP, make the phone calls, do whatever
it takes after I get the information to accomplish it. [Eve]
Praxis. Praxis refers to personal reflection after women’s practice or
experimentation with new behaviors. Women participate in praxis after taking some
action, and their self-reflection informs their levels of awareness. In this way, the
development of psychological empowerment is a recurrent cycle of overlapping phases of
awareness, engagement, practice, and praxis built on a foundation of relevant knowledge
about domestic violence, its consequences, and relevant resources.

115
Graduates emphasized that they were on a “road to recovery”, and empowerment
is not an end point. In addition to identifying their deficits, they were aware of their
multiple strengths, including their faith, optimism, involvement with supportive family,
and economic self-sufficiency.
Similar to how awareness builds on knowledge, praxis builds on practice. By
reflecting on how they respond to abusive behaviors, do something different to get
different results, and generalize knowledge and skills to other relationships, domestic
violence survivors’ increase their levels of awareness, initiating further development of
their psychological empowerment.
Praising their facilitators. Graduates praised their PEP facilitators and expressed
strong attachment to the practitioner at Laura’s House who provided their individual
therapy. In some cases, graduates had participated in individual therapy with the same
practitioner who facilitated their PEP group. Overall, women’s comments suggested that
they relied on their therapists for their self-awareness and mental well-being:
[Amy] helps me make sense of all of it and taps into places that I’m not even
aware of, so if I’m getting a little too heady or a lot of anxiety or just if I’m blue,
she helps me realize what’s going on. I’ve had these bouts, ‘Am I good enough?’
sometimes, now and again, ‘Will bad things happen?’ kind of days, and Amy in
the ongoing counseling has helped me tremendously to find myself when it’s not
there and to recognize who I am when I forget. [Sasha]
My therapist is great because she helps me to look at what I think the right thing
to do is and if it’s rational and reasonable. [Vivien]
She helps me figure out how I’m feeling about it and we work through it. [Nora]
Reflecting a persistent lack of confidence in independent decision-making, Carolina
disclosed her intention to rely on guidance from trusted authorities including her therapist
and spiritual advisor to help her choose a future intimate partner. Like their facilitators,

116
graduates encouraged fellow group members to enroll in concurrent individual therapy in
order to increase their understanding of PEP content. Sasha recalled certain women
whose denial continued throughout their PEP participation as showing particular need for
individual therapy:
I remember all these women. There was one woman that got stabbed by her
husband, and he was in jail, and she just loved him, and he stabbed her a couple of
times, and I was just like, ‘Weird!’, and I kept thinking to myself, ‘Is this woman
in counseling?’ and I never knew. I don’t think she was.
There were new women who came, and they had just started to go through the
process, and I remember I was always telling them they should go see Amy, ‘You
should really go talk to her. You need a counselor,’ and I remember that was one
of things that I had talked about with a lot of those women was about getting
counseling with Amy. I think that’s another thing that should be stressed. While
they’re going through the process, they should do a dual thing. I think it helps
make them stronger.
“Not enough for the actual healing”: Promoting ongoing therapeutic treatment.
Facilitators described PEP as a foundational workshop that provides skills to build
healthier relationships. Although the program intends to teach women how to define,
articulate, implement, and enforce appropriate boundaries, facilitators insisted that it was
insufficient for “actual healing”:
We’re setting this stage, maybe building a foundation, pouring a little concrete,
but that’s kind of weak. It’s not enough for the actual healing.
While facilitators consistently recommended concurrent or consecutive participation in
individual therapy, Rekha seemed to encourage a dependence on formal resources as
opposed to the development of self-sufficiency. For example, rather than exploring the
safety concerns one member expressed, she instructed her to make an appointment to
meet individually with a legal advocate to clarify her legal rights and options or with a
therapist if she felt she could benefit from assistance with developing a safety plan.

117
Rekha was considerably more directive in her facilitation style, e.g., “Don’t feel like you
have to pick yourself up by yourself”.
Recommendations
While facilitators expressed satisfaction with PEP’s duration, graduates pointed
out that groups seldom completed the total content allocated to each session; 40 percent
of graduates suggested increasing the session’s length to more than 2 hours or expanding
the series to more than 10 weeks. Both graduates and facilitators identified gaps in PEP’s
content, and facilitators discussed how they attempted to address them by incorporating
supplemental material. While facilitators proposed offering an open-ended, process-
oriented therapy group to graduates, graduates emphasized preventive programs
including an intervention for couples and adapting PEP for high school-age participants.
Facilitators asserted that 10 2-hour sessions over 10 weeks is “enough time to
give them a taste of what [change] could be and an idea of where they need to grow or
what are the opportunities of growth”. However, two graduates recommended increasing
the session’s duration to longer than 2 hours while six graduates suggested that the series
expand to longer than 10 weeks:
It’s 10 weeks? I think it could go longer than that or the hours. It’s 2 hours, but
when we get together, sometimes it can hit the perfect point where we open up
and just don’t want to stop it. It’s hard enough to open up and then you get
someone who starts talking and then people start sharing and that’s a growth.
That’s such an empowering time because that’s when you start really connecting
and understanding that you’re not truly alone. The information is great but also
the relationships, and it’s hard to really capture those relationships in 2 hours
when there’s a lesson to be learned too. Either I feel like if it was longer than 10
weeks or maybe it’s more than 2 hours but to have the lessons and also have the
time to just freely talk. [Eve]
Marlena highlighted that her group seldom completed review of all the handouts:

118
I don’t remember which week it was, but I wrote down on my comments, ‘We
only got through half of the papers.’ Maybe it was just the particular group that
was there. With a different group of women, [we] might have gotten through all
of it. It looked like too much to cover in one session.
Only one graduate would increase PEP’s frequency from once to twice weekly. Three
graduates would not change anything. Grace pointed out that she did not know enough
while she attended PEP to identify missing information. Although she advocated for an
ongoing support group for alumni, Nora assessed:
I think it’s perfect for this stage you’re at when you get into it. You’re not really
sure what’s going on and like it’s perfect for that stage. Seriously I learned so
much from that class. I think it’s a good start.
Graduates suggested increasing content on assertive communication,
codependency, and boundaries in addition to introducing a concise definition of domestic
violence. The women identified gaps in information related to workforce reintegration:
There needs to be more of how they reintegrate people back into the workforce.
That’s not something you have here, and that was lacking for me. I had to go out
there and do that, and I think it would have been more beneficial to me to have
someone within this organization work with me on that, [Carolina]
and advice on exercising legal options:
The other thing would be if we could be told more about the legal. After you get
a restraining order, what you can do if the police aren’t helping you because
learning that through other people was kind of frightening. To hear that they call
the police and nothing was done. I think that if we got a piece of paper telling
you, ‘Call the watch commander.’ I jotted that down, but it’d be nice to have to
talk about that because that ended up being a long conversation for a while. I’m
glad I learned it here instead of experiencing it in reality. [Eve]
Only Spanish-speaking graduates recommended developing a parallel intervention for
couples to participate in as a preventive measure:
I believe that every couple would benefit from this program, even if there is no
violence. They should get involved before the problems and fights happen. [Lola]

119
Most women agreed that PEP should be taught, especially to female students, in high
school health classes like mandatory sex education. Suggesting that all women should
participate in the program, both Sasha and Eve respectively asserted:
I don’t think PEP should just be a resource that you have when something bad
happens.
It’s not just when you’re in it. It should be preventing it before it happens. It’s the
best tool.
While graduates recommended instituting a follow-up intervention:
There needs to be something beyond PEP for your graduates, for them to maintain
a place and also somehow connect like a big sister or something to connect them.
The ones just to be there to say, ‘You can do it,’ if they can’t get in here because a
lot of women can’t get out. Just someone saying, ‘You’re not alone,’ [Carolina]
facilitators emphasized the need for an ongoing open-ended support group for PEP
graduates:
A lot of my clients when they do graduate, that’s one of the things that they ask,
that continued support, and I refer them to other workshops that we offer but
having like a weekly support group where they can actually come and have the
support and talk about their experiences and how they’re actually out there
implementing what they learned, I think that would be a great idea.
Consistent with their recommendations for additional therapeutic intervention, they
stressed that an “alumni group” would have to be process-oriented group facilitated by a
therapist starting the week after the graduate had completed PEP rather than a mutual aid,
self-help group.
Facilitators explicitly indicated that they brought in additional content to address
codependency, self-esteem, effects of battering on parenting, and cycle of violence
dynamics in the absence of physical abuse to address gaps in the PEP curriculum:
I think originally the PEP program was designed looking at physically abusive
relationships, and what I find in my groups is that there are some people that have

120
that, but there’s another big portion that have verbal and emotional abuse, and
they don’t identify as much with the terminology in the program that’s directed
toward the physical abuse.
While the curriculum addresses the effects of witnessing domestic violence on children,
facilitators incorporated information about the effects of parenting by the non-abusive
parent both within and after the adult abusive intimate relationship has ended.
Facilitators also generalized content on personal boundaries to include relationships
beyond the intimate partner relationship and broadened the group’s discussion of
codependency to emphasize that codependent relationships exist among people who are
not intimate partners and do not abuse drugs or alcohol.
Data from verbatim transcripts and field observations yielded a number of gaps in
the curriculum. The curriculum fails to provide a comprehensive definition of domestic
violence, instead operationalizing it as physical, sexual, or psychological abuse.
Facilitators pointed out that PEP minimally addressed nonphysical forms of abuse and
limited its discussion of codependency to substance abuse. Graduates reported that they
had hoped PEP would provide more content on improving parenting skills in the context
of an abusive relationship and economic empowerment to enhance survivors’ self-
sufficiency. Women who participated in the 6-week codependency group or self-esteem
workshops also identified the curriculum’s shortcomings in these areas.

121
Differences in Psychological Empowerment between Pre-participants and
Graduates: Comparisons along the Psychological Empowerment Continuum

Foundation: Knowledge of Domestic Violence, its Consequences, and Available
Resources

The development of psychological empowerment among women who have
experienced intimate partner violence relies on a foundation of relevant knowledge about
domestic violence, its consequences, and available resources to end abuse. This section
explores how pre-participants and PEP graduates define domestic violence, delineate red
flags or indicators of a potentially abusive partner, understand the cycle of violence,
define a healthy relationship, recognize the consequences of domestic violence,
acknowledge the effects of witnessing domestic violence on their children, and identify
relevant resources. The following section describes how women apply this knowledge to
their personal circumstances. This application represents awareness, the first phase along
the continuum describing the development of psychological empowerment among
domestic violence survivors.
Defining domestic violence
Pre-participants. Pre-participants identified a spectrum of abusive behavior
spanning physical, sexual, financial, mental/psychological, emotional, verbal, and
spiritual abuse. As one woman put it:
(abuse is) anything from mentally to physically to emotionally to controlling
somebody else. There’s a wide range that I’ve seen.

Women most often mentioned physical behaviors, such as pushing, hitting, grabbing,
blocking exits, or “any type of touching of the person to make them feel uncomfortable in
their space whether or not they are pushed down or punched.” Verbal (e.g., yelling, using

122
harsh words) and emotional abuse also were identified frequently. Along these lines,
participants shared threats leveled against them, such as:
If you come home late again, I will not allow you to go out again.
When I return, if you are not home, I will leave you for good.
Women also identified more subtle indicators of abusive behavior, including,
pushing your thoughts on somebody else;

anything that makes you either change or makes you mak[e] decisions because of
the way that you have been treated;

that basically
(make) the other person feel like they’re less of a person;
(make) the other person feel worthless.
One woman concluded:
It’s not right. It doesn’t make you feel right.
PEP Graduates. PEP graduates also identified a wide spectrum of treatment that
they considered abusive across physical, sexual, mental, emotional, verbal, and financial
domains. Three women disclosed their ignorance of nonphysical manifestations of
intimate partner violence prior to participating in the program. One woman said:
There’s a belief, and I had it, that you had to be physically abused to be in an
abusive situation. I didn’t know that there was the other aspects of it.

In describing her experiences of mental abuse, Grace explained:
I think it like plays with your head more because that’s what happened to me,
more mental. Like always it’s ‘you’re imagining things’ or ‘no, no, you’re stupid’
or ‘you’re wrong,’ ‘you’re imagining,’ ‘it never happened.’ I would consider
mental abuse like lying to you, betraying you… more playing with your head.

123
Some women provided more general definitions of abuse, such as “attempting to lower
the other person’s sense of self and sense of control and freedom in themselves” and “it’s
anything that doesn’t allow you to be yourself.”
Delineating “red flags” or indicators of a potentially abusive partner
Pre-participants. Pre-participants identified the following “red flags” of a
potentially abusive partner: intense and rapid involvement in the relationship, threats of
harm to self or others, controlling behavior (e.g., monitoring whereabouts, appearance,
activities), intense jealousy, drinking or substance use, aggressiveness, immaturity, self-
centeredness, low self-esteem, poor communication, lack of friends, and abuse history as
a victim and/or perpetrator. One woman observed:
He sweeps you off your feet. He presents himself as a really sweet guy that will
do anything for you. He studies you and knows exactly what you like.
Another added:
Like ‘If you’re ever with somebody else, I’ll kill myself or I’ll kill you.’ Some
girls think, ‘Oh, he really loves me.’ No, that’s a red flag… If they ever say, ‘If
you cheat on me, I’ll kill you,’ that’s a red flag. That means, ‘Get out of
there’…The little things all add up.
Women named behaviors that fit the curriculum’s definition of abuse (e.g., intimidation,
screaming, socially isolating his partner), with one woman alluding to the cycle of
violence when she mentioned a cycle of angry outbursts and apologies as a warning sign.
A few respondents could not name any specific “red flag” indicators, while others
pointed out that warning signs are not always readily apparent:
I don’t really know how you would see what are the signs before you meet the
person…I don’t know if there’s really signs…You can’t really figure those out
until you get to know the person a little bit better.

124
PEP Graduates. Graduates identified the same types of red flags as did the pre-
participants (e.g., intense and rapid involvement, controlling behavior, jealousy or
possessiveness, abuse history, negative attitudes toward women). Others mentioned
abusive behaviors such as “verbal putdowns,” “pushing,” and taking advantage
financially:
One goes to, for example, to a coffee shop, and then well, they say, ‘Can you
lend me some money to pay for the coffee?’ I don’t know. I think that is abuse.
They say, ‘Let me move in with you or rent me your living room,’ and if the rent
is, for example, $200, they want to pay $150. That is abuse. ‘Lend me your
cellular phone,’ and they make many calls, and when the bill arrives, that’s abuse.
That’s taking advantage of one.
Although two graduates, including one who denied her partner was abusive, could not yet
identify the red flags in their own relationships, all graduates recognized the benefit
gained by learning warning signs of potential abuse:
It’s helped me see red flags which are huge. They’re great because they allow me
to be responsible for myself and to realize that’s the only person I can be
responsible for, is me, and that gives me a lot of freedom. [Vivien]
Understanding the cycle of violence
Pre-participants. Although the majority of pre-participants indicated their lack of
familiarity with the term, those who offered a definition often added to or deleted parts of
the cycle’s conceptualization as 3 consecutive and reoccurring phases, starting with
tension-building followed by the abuse incident and reinforced by the honeymoon phase
or reconciliation. Some women created a definition that included one or more of the
phases but related them to each other inaccurately. Others were confused about the term,
using it to label escalation of abuse over time or intergenerational transmission of family
violence.

125
One pre-participant explained how the cycle of violence involves:
A honeymoon phase where you feel that things are getting better and then a crisis
happens and then it goes back again in a circle, just like the cycle.
Another explained, “A person gets caught up thinking that it’s going to get better and
better, and it keeps going round and round, so they just can’t get out of it because it’s a
cycle.” Alicia further clarified:
The cycle of violence is where usually the abuse happens, and the person is very
sorry and then they apologize. Soon, they lessen the incident. They make it to be
less than it was, and pretty soon, the incident didn’t really happen. It was almost
like an accident. You accidentally fell into my fist. You accidentally fell out of
the chair, and then I accidentally tumbled on top of you.
PEP Graduates. Graduates offered definitions that conformed to the curriculum:
In the cycle of violence, first you have this pressure building, like you can feel
that he’s getting touchy or nervous or he’s going to get to the point where he’s
going to explode, and he’s going to be angry and yelling and whatever, hitting
you. After that, after the abuse, he will feel guilty, but not take responsibility, just
feel guilty or say sorry, and then starts the honeymoon. Everything is okay but
then starts again the pressure, to build up again, so it’s a circle. [Mary Jo]

PEP taught women that the cycle of violence, first, continues until the survivor
disengages from the relationship; second, accelerates over time, gradually abbreviating
and ultimately eliminating the honeymoon phase; and third, motivates women to
perpetuate their involvement.
Defining a healthy relationship
Pre-participants. Pre-participants described healthy relationships as being
characterized by respect, trust, love, cooperation, mutuality, tolerance, kindness, and
open, non-abusive communication. Carmen emphasized self-sufficiency as a prerequisite
for a healthy relationship:

126
When they admire you, when you are establishing your life, you don’t need to
rely on them. When you rely on yourself first, then you’re able to be in a
relationship. If you rely on somebody, they’re going to catch that, and it’s not
going to be healthy because they know that you rely on them; and therefore,
they’re going to put you down.

Nevertheless, the majority could not describe what healthy relationship looked like. For
example:
I’ve been with him so long. I don’t know what was healthy and what’s not
healthy.
I don’t know. Something I hope to have some day.
PEP Graduates. Graduates also stressed love, honesty, trust, respect,
equality/balance, support, and communication. Many women defined a healthy
relationship according to what it was not:
A healthy relationship is where the person is not trying to hurt you;
Not to belittle you or not you to belittle him;
No lies, no control;
You’re not isolated from your friends and your partner’s friends;
You don’t try to control each other’s money, try to be secretive or hide things
from each other; or directly,
I know the opposite of that.

Graduates emphasized the centrality of self-knowledge for healthy relationships:
It has to be a lot of truth, truth in who you are. He has to allow you to be true in
who you are and able for you to express really who you are.

You would be able to express your needs, your wishes, and the other person,
because they have respect for you, will abide by that.
Unlike pre-participants, some graduates incorporated boundaries as an essential facet of
healthy relationships:
Boundaries, respect of those boundaries. One person’s doing their one thing, and
the other person’s doing their other thing, and they can come together and be two
separate people, but they’re not looking for each other to make or break the
person.

127
Similar to pre-participants, several graduates disclosed that although they knew what they
were looking for, they had not yet experienced a healthy relationship. Marlena
confessed, “I see that in others, and I envy them”. Nonetheless, a majority expected to
achieve a healthy relationship in the future:
I think that I will eventually get married and have kids. I don’t think it will
happen anytime soon, but I think that it will happen. [Sasha]
Recognizing the consequences of domestic violence
Pre-participants. Most pre-participants disclosed that they had never heard of
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or if they had heard of the term, they were uncertain
of its meaning. Some pre-participants who ventured a guess offered incomplete or
inaccurate descriptions:
A woman that can’t function because of the stress of the abuser.

It is having something that has impacted you that you will experience problems in
the future.

It’s when after something happens, something really bad or something really hard
for you, it’s like something stressful.

Hope denied any meaningful effects of domestic violence. She said of PTSD:
I think it’s just an excuse, not an excuse, but another crutch or something people
use… to blame other people for something or to not participate or be a participant
in life.
One pre-participant, who responded “I feel like I’m going through it”, described PTSD
as:
An experience that affects you so greatly, emotionally, that when something else
in the future happens, outside of you or to you, you can identify with that
hurt…It’s like a déjà vu. It brings you back and leaves you feeling the same as
when the incident originally occurred or it could leave you very anxious, nervous,
hurt and unsure of yourself in daily activities without anything being in front of
you to remind you of the incident.

128
Fiona’s veteran husband was diagnosed with the disorder:
It would come back to him if he was stressed out. He would think that I was the
enemy, and he was ready to attack me.
She defined PTSD as “something that’s happened to you in the past that was pretty
violent, and your mind relives it again. You don’t know if you’re in the past or in the
future. It just pops right back up again.” Diagnosed with it herself, Estelle identified it as
a type of depression. Some women identified its features such as flashbacks or
withdrawal.
Even fewer pre-participants demonstrated awareness of Battered Women’s
Syndrome (BWS). Some offered inaccurate definitions, such as, “the way they keep
choosing the same kind of partners” and “battered women’s process of getting healed and
over it all”, while others described the effects of battering:
It’s like the housewife who’s afraid to leave her husband for financial and
emotional security reasons, and so she stays with an abusive husband and doesn’t
usually report it, just lives with it.

A man would hit a woman, and she does everything she can to cover it up and not
tell anybody about it because she’s embarrassed. She doesn’t seek any help, and
she feels very hopeless and gets very depressed.

I’m gonna take an educated guess and say that the person keeps going back to the
guy regardless of what the situation, how terrible, because they’re afraid for one
more reason that they’re not going to find somebody else, financial situation,
codependence, whatever you want to call it.

Estelle provided an appropriate description by recalling a television show she had
viewed:
Basically where a woman was so distraught over that, she killed her ex…I was
going, ‘That sounds a little extreme,’ but I’m pretty sure there are women out
there who seem like that or actually have done that because of it.

129
Only one pre-participant offered a response to a question asking about Stockholm
Syndrome. She remembered, “I believe that’s the Patty Hearst syndrome, being held
hostage until you adore your hostage?”
PEP Graduates. Graduates described how domestic violence disrupts survivors’
worldviews by “having them question themselves, lose power in their own ability to
reason rationally, [and] have a secure relationship with reality. They offered incomplete
definitions of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), comparing it to shock after a
traumatic incident. Two graduates had never heard of PTSD while Grace appeared to
confuse it with Stockholm Syndrome, “I think they even identify with their abuser. They
bond. I think that’s it too.”
Several graduates either had never heard of Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS)
or could not define it. Women also offered incomplete descriptions by identifying effects
of battering including self-blame or the cycle of violence:
You deserve the abuse, that you’ve done something to deserve what is being done
to you. It’s hard for you to see that it isn’t your fault on some level.

It’s a continuous cycle, and you keep going back because there is an addiction,
and there’s a dance, and you still haven’t earned your power. [Carolina]

Battered Women’s Syndrome is when, for example, one is being beat. The
woman has to always live in fear. Like waiting for him to come home, you have
to clean up because what’s-his-name likes it this way, and one has to do that
because if there is something wrong, one gets beat. In order not to provoke him,
one has to do what he says.

One graduate offered a definition which conformed to the curriculum:
You have women who have been abused over a period of time, and they feel that
they’ve been told so many times that they’re going to be hurt, they’re going to be
killed. Sometimes they think the only way they’re going to get out of that
situation is to hurt their attacker, to kill their attacker because they feel that they

130
will be killed if they leave. Often the worst time of it is when they leave their
attacker.
Another disclosed she had lived it firsthand:
That is what I went through with my husband. I wanted to kill him. I thought
about grabbing a knife and kill him. Only because he held me back, I was not
successful.
Although some graduates said they had never heard of Stockholm Syndrome,
others offered descriptive answers:
That’s when you, I don’t want to say, fall in love with your captor or your abusive
person, but you make excuses. You become like any ally of his sort of. You
don’t see the abusiveness. You become an ally. You become on his side. That’s
a horrible place to be in for an abused woman really. I’ve witnessed that in our
PEP program. It’s uncanny how someone can physically abuse you, emotionally,
and do all sorts of horrible things to you, and you still defend that person.

That’s when somebody falls in love with their captor or gets attached to them
rather.

That’s where you feel you have identified with your captor.

One graduate suggested that Stockholm Syndrome involved strategic behavior:
In order to survive the situation, it’s so bad and so severe, you go along with the
bad person, the person who’s basically holding you hostage, and do with them
whatever that person says just in order to survive the situation.
Another graduate similarly sought to avoid blaming the survivor:
It’s when the actual victim takes the abuser’s side because they feel like they need
to be safe. It’s a form of survival.
Acknowledging the effects of witnessing domestic violence on children
Pre-participants. Although most women appeared to minimize the effects of
witnessing domestic violence on their own children, pre-participants identified several
consequences for children living in abusive homes, including trauma or other mental
health symptoms such as fear, hyper vigilance, nightmares, depression, self-blame,

131
withdrawal, and low self-esteem. In addition to anger, aggressiveness, rebellion,
oppositional-defiant behavior, attention-seeking behavior, alcohol or substance abuse,
developmental delays or regressive behavior (e.g., bed wetting, learning difficulties, poor
school performance), pre-participants anticipated that children who witness domestic
violence learn to accept violence as normative and are more likely to engage in abusive
relationships during adolescence and adulthood:
If it’s tolerated then the children would believe that type of activity is okay.
Even though it seems very scary to them at the time, if it keeps happening and
nobody’s doing anything, it must be fine.
It could possibly make them violate somebody else or allow it to happen to them.
A few women alluded to the source of child witnesses’ hyperactivity:
They want to do one thing and then another. They haven’t found peace within.
Right now they want to be playing a game, then they want to be opening the
refrigerator. Later they want to watch TV. Later they want to draw or color or
play with water. That’s when a child has been affected because they cannot find
any peace of mind.

PEP Graduates. Graduates identified fear, insecurity, anxiety, depression, low
self-esteem, and trauma; distrust of men; disrespect; extreme behavior e.g. withdrawal or
aggression and/or rebellion, high levels of academic achievement or poor school
performance, school refusal, or truancy; regressive behavior e.g. thumb sucking or bed
wetting; running away; alcohol or substance abuse; normalization of violence; and
repeating abusive or codependent patterns in adolescent or adult relationships. Two
women commented on how witnessing violence forces children to “grow up quicker” and
“to be the parent” in a household where there is little stability. With regard to
normalization of violence, one graduate pointed out that witnessing domestic violence
may teach children to conflate abuse with love:

132
When you see violence going on between two people that love each other, like
your parents, then you can sometimes flip it to mean, ‘That’s how you show
love.’ You have to show it that way. [Vivien]
Some women alluded to the short and long-term effects of growing up in an environment
characterized by weak or abusive boundaries including early onset of sexual activity.
Identifying relevant resources
Pre-participants. Although a minority knew of no available resources to assist
children who witness domestic violence, most pre-participants were aware of several
relevant ones including shelters, police, school resources, child protective services, and
mental health therapy. They also discussed their limitations, “Domestic violence shelters
is the best one, so that a woman could get her kids out of that situation. It’s still scary
though because it’s temporary help. What are you going to do at the end?” Several
women named counseling as an available resource. When asked how she thought
counseling would help, Elvira laughingly admitted her ignorance, “I don’t know.”
Despite knowledge of available resources, pre-participants expressed concern with regard
not only to their constraints but also their feasibility, “I’m hoping if we keep talking
about it that [her teenage son] won’t be abusive. I know he needs counseling, but he
won’t go.”
Some pre-participants already had sought legal assistance related to their abuse
experiences including costs for medical expenses, dissolution, child custody, restraining
orders and exploring options for legal remedies while others neither knew how to access
it nor how it might help them. A couple of them confused low-cost legal assistance with
any type of supportive services including counseling. With the exception of 1 woman
who was also an immigrant, pre-participants were unaware of immigration relief

133
available to victims of domestic violence. One woman offered outdated information
related to protection for undocumented immigrants:
They could still go to the police. They’re not going to the INS. They’re going to
a police officer that’s there to help them, put them in safe place, and they’re not
going to be deported and be put at risk. They’re gonna be helped out just like any
American citizen would be because everybody deserves to be safe.
Despite mixed feelings, women believed that restraining orders were beneficial in
that they established a boundary with the abusive partner and increased feelings of safety:
I feel safe knowing that I have a restraining order and that he’d be arrested even if
he made one comment of threat or threatened me. By just verbally threatening
me, he could be arrested for that. [Tara]
Carmen pointed out that the court’s finding of domestic violence protects women in case
they must defend themselves physically against an attacker:
There’s no guarantee they’re going to be abiding by the law, but at least if you
have that document, the police station having the document, you’re in favor rather
than you getting in trouble in case you have to defend yourself.
A couple of women spoke of a restraining order’s capacity to create space:
It’s supposed to help that other person away, so [the victim] can work on their
own safety plan, work on their own means of protecting themselves or protecting
their children or their loved ones around them. [Jade]

It keeps that person away from them; they can get a breather. A restraining order,
although it’s a piece of paper and it’s not like a brick wall, a lock on the door, it
gets them a chance to step back, and ‘What am I really? Do I really want to hang
in there with this person?’ Nah, get away from them, out of the home. It helps
them in their process of trying to get away. [Carmen]

Having a restraining order obviously keeps them separated from further abuse.
Helping either side heal themselves before they even think of contacting again, or
if one case or the other, the abusive party just doesn’t seem to get it in their heads
that it’s no longer a relationship. [Theresa]

Some expressed uncertainty:

134
When it comes down to it, it’s not a protective wall against anybody, so as long as
you can get to a phone before they can.

A restraining order’s just a piece of paper. It’s not like a shield. You can’t hold it
up and say, ‘Look, it’s a restraining order.’ If someone really wanted to hurt
you…Cops take forever to get there sometimes. In some ways, it’s a good thing.
In some ways, not exactly. I’m not really sure how it would be helpful.

It sounds really good, but I don’t know if it’s monitored or not. I have one that I
can have contact with him but no violence. How do they know that unless I call?
They won’t know that unless I have a chance to call. I don’t know how that
works, so I’m not sure. I mean there’s no other witnesses saying something
happened. It’s just my word against his too, so I don’t know how good a
restraining order, how good that is. [Tara]

Despite the latter’s hesitation, however, she felt that the restraining order served to deter
her husband, “I think that’s holding him back because he’s scared of getting arrested
again, so I feel safe in that aspect.”
Although most women expressed that the restraining order made no difference,
Ingrid felt that obtaining a restraining order aggravates the situation as the abuser
perceives it as a challenge to his power and control, “It just makes it worse…It makes the
other person angry… It makes them want to conquer that.” Although the process of
petitioning and enforcing the order provided an opportunity to practice new skills and
behaviors, “I went to the police when he violated the financial restitution part of the
restraining order, to advocate for myself, instead of letting things slip which is my normal
behavior,” she had mixed feelings about its efficacy:
I think attitude is the only protection, and a restraining order shows attitude of
‘I’m not going to let you beat me up anymore,’ but in reality, it’s nothing. It
really doesn’t do anything, but it gives the abuser an indication that ‘I’m fed up,’
but in reality, it doesn’t protect.
Overall, most pre-participants perceived a restraining order as a mental construction with
circumscribed effects:

135
I think the idea of it is helpful, the idea that the other person knows that there is a
consequence for them contacting you.

It doesn’t really do very much because you can still get around it. Basically
because there’s nobody always checking up and because there’s no one checking
up, then the person can just slowly wind themselves back.
PEP Graduates. A handful of graduates admitted they were unaware of resources
for child witnesses of domestic violence. A non-parent, Sasha drew from her own
childhood experience:
When I was growing up, there’s really nothing you can do. If you don’t have
healthy parents or one healthy parent that can recognize there’s a problem, you’re
kind of left alone, which is what happened with me.
Others named the police, domestic violence shelters like Laura’s House, teachers,
counselors, and faith-based resources. More graduates had received assistance from legal
advocates at Laura’s House than pre-participants; however none but 2 women indicated
any awareness of laws which provide relief to undocumented victims of domestic
violence.
Graduates expressed similarly diverse opinions about the efficacy of restraining
orders, ranging from favorable to dismissive. Drawing from their own experiences, some
women recommended pursuing restraining orders:
I ended up getting a restraining order on my own, told my story, had a wonderful
judge who granted me a 5-year. Also I asked my ex to go to a program, and he
instituted all that which was wonderful.

I think a restraining order helps to get the physical danger away immediately.
Remove that from the home, place of work, obviously, and schools. It helps with
harassment like when the person who’s abusing you is calling you way too much.
It gives you a little bit of room to breathe and obviously just keeps you safe in the
moment. I would definitely say, ‘Get a restraining order if at all possible.’

Some women described its benefit as largely psychological:

136
In my opinion, it’s only worth the paper it’s written on because they have to be
caught in the middle of it, but it does give psychological help. I just heard too
many bad things, not enough good things. I’m not sure how well they actually
can work once in place,
and building on its psychological function, an opportunity to communicate and
implement an absolute boundary:
It helps a lot because this is a way for you to say, ‘This is real. You can’t come
here. You can’t bug me or threaten me or call me or anything.’ I think that’s
important because then they really feel that this time it’s for real, that you’re not
kidding. Maybe before you threatened them with something, but you didn’t
follow through. That is proof that you’re doing something.
In terms of providing space:
I think it begins to provide a safety zone for the woman or whoever has
experienced domestic violence.
I think it gives them that little bit of period to just get away, get themselves in a
safe place, and get their head clear of the situation they’ve been in. I think that’s
how actually the restraining order helped me to see the situation I was in.
Only a couple of women specifically acknowledged the survivor as the ultimate source of
change and safety, “It helps but not necessarily…you have to change yourself, your
mentality.”
Summary
Pre-participants’ and graduates’ definitions of domestic violence included
physical, sexual, financial, mental/psychological, emotional, and verbal abuse. Only pre-
participants identified spiritual abuse. Although they most often mentioned physical
behaviors, they frequently offered examples of verbal and emotional abuse including
threats. Graduates identified the same red flags or indicators of potentially abusive
partners as pre-participants. The majority of pre-participants was unfamiliar with the
term “cycle of violence” or confused it with escalation of abuse over time or the

137
intergenerational transmission of domestic violence. Those who ventured a definition
added to or deleted from its conventional conceptualization as 3 subsequent and recurring
phases: tension-building, abuse incident or explosion, and honeymoon or reconciliation.
In contrast, graduates offered definitions that matched the information provided by PEP.
Pre-participants believed healthy relationships required respect, trust, love, cooperation,
mutuality, tolerance, kindness, and open, non-abusive communication. In addition to
stressing all of these aspects, graduates defined them based on the characteristics of
abusive relationships and stressed the importance of self-knowledge and healthy
boundaries. Like pre-participants, they knew what they were looking for but had not yet
experienced a healthy relationship.
Most pre-participants had never heard of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or
were uncertain of its meaning. Even fewer knew about Battered Women’s Syndrome
(BWS), confusing it with the effects of battering. Graduates also offered incomplete
definitions of PTSD and confused BWS with self-blame or the cycle of violence.
Graduates demonstrated a stronger grasp of Stockholm Syndrome, suggesting that its
features involved strategic behavior required to survive the abusive relationship. Despite
minimizing the effects of witnessing domestic violence on their own children, pre-
participants named several consequences suffered by children living in abusive homes.
Graduates identified similar psychological and social consequences.
Although a minority of pre-participants and graduates knew of none, most were
aware of the availability and limitations of several relevant resources to assist child
witnesses. Some pre-participants had already sought legal assistance while others did not

138
know how to access it or how it might help them. A couple of them confused low-cost
legal assistance with any supportive services including counseling. More graduates than
pre-participants had received assistance from legal advocates at Laura’s House. All but
one pre-participant and two graduates were ignorant of immigration relief available to
undocumented victims of domestic violence. Despite some uncertainty, pre-participants
believed that restraining orders benefitted them by establishing a finding of domestic
violence recognized by law enforcement, placing a boundary with the abusive partner,
creating space, and increasing feelings of safety. Most pre-participants expressed that
restraining orders did not enhance their actual level of safety but impacted how both the
perpetrator and victim think about contacting the other. Despite expressing diverse
opinions about their efficacy, graduates emphasized how restraining orders offered
survivors an opportunity to communicate and implement an enforceable boundary. Only
a few acknowledged that the survivor herself was the ultimate source of change and
safety.
Awareness: Applying knowledge of domestic violence to personal circumstances
Despite its centrality, knowledge alone is insufficient to avoid or escape domestic
violence:
I have always thought that if you become educated, your life will be good, but it’s
not like that.
You have all the information you need to change a conduct, a pattern, but you
can’t change it because maybe you need to get in touch with your subconscious
for the subconscious to learn and to change.
As the first phase along the psychological empowerment continuum, awareness is the
application of general knowledge about domestic violence, its consequences, and relevant

139
resources to women’s personal circumstances. The study identified 5 processes that
contribute to women’s awareness of the dynamics of domestic violence in their own
lives: dismantling denial, identifying abuse experiences, assessing danger, increasing
self-awareness, and analyzing choices.
Dismantling denial
While in a state of denial, domestic violence survivors minimize the severity of
their abuse experiences or disavow them altogether, excusing their partner’s behavior,
believing they cause the abuse or otherwise hold the power to control the perpetrator’s
behavior. The first section of this chapter explores women’s level of denial, their blind
spots, and the points at which their denial began to diminish, also called “breakthroughs”.
Pre-participants. Inadvertently defining denial, one woman asked, “What do you
call that? Is there a term for it? It is as if I was not aware of what was going on, but I
was aware. It is just that I avoided it.” Several women described their denial as a lack of
awareness, blindness, foggy vision, “a sleepy mode,” or “bandages over their eyes”.
Ginger “lived in a false sense of ‘it could get better’”, despite acknowledging “he doesn’t
recognize any faults in himself. You can’t work with that”:
Honestly, it sounds stupid now, but I felt like I could control the arguing and the
fighting, but when I really put my foot down and tried to control the arguing and
the fighting, he fought back 10 times harder, and I couldn’t control anything at
that point. [Ginger]

Denial allowed some women to dismiss the first incident of physical abuse:
When the first one happened, pretty much let it go because I figured he was so
sorry, and he made a mistake. My first pregnancy with him, it was like 2 months
after. He started choking me for the first time, and I was just like, ‘Okay,’ I’m
like, ‘Well, maybe he’s just having a really bad day.’ I didn’t say anything.
[Estelle]

140

In addition to using denial to cope with abuse, “When you get into a fight like that, your
mind makes it into a blur because it doesn’t want to deal with it,” some pre-participants
avoided acknowledging their abuse because they lacked resources to make changes:
It’s very difficult to get a restraining order on a man that you love that has just
hurt you because the woman goes into denial about it…It’s a denial. It’s one
more chore to do when you don’t want to face something. It’s burning gas when I
don’t have the money to pay for it right now. It’s admitting, ‘Yes, this happened
to me.’ It’s all of the above. [Ingrid]

Now I am trying to get out of this situation where I know I am not wanted, but I
avoid it. I shut my mouth and pretend not to know anything, and the next day, I
have a smile on my face. I avoid things day to day so that I can move forward.
[Melody]

Pre-participants exhibited various degrees of denial. Although they might
acknowledge their abuse, some women minimized the violence they experienced:
He didn’t do damage to me. He just grabbed me, knocked me down, and slapped
me…He just hit me once. [Tara]
The same minimization was present with regard to abuse directed toward their children,
“He never hurt him like that all the time. It was just once that he did that, and I didn’t
know what to do.” Tara explained how she dismissed her concern, “My dad would spank
us, so I figured that was pretty much the same. He was authoritative. He was the one
who needs to do that.”
Ingrid identified the first two incidents of abuse as “red flags” although they fit
the definition of intimidation, overlapping categories of physical and psychological
abuse, e.g. abandonment in unsafe areas and destroying and throwing objects
respectively:
He left me on the freeway in his truck one time right in the middle of the lane and
ran down the freeway and left me, and I can’t drive his truck. I was buckled in

141
the passenger seat. It was Christmas night, and I was frightened of getting hit by
a semi-truck. The second was he insisted he didn’t make a statement I said he
did, and he blatantly looked at me and said, ‘I didn’t say that’ when I knew he did,
so that’s when I knew there was something wrong in his head, and he kept
insisting that he didn’t say it when I knew he did. Then he pounded on my coffee
table, broke its leg, took my Perrier bottle, and threw it across the room at the
wall, and that frightened me. That was my second red flag before the actual
incident of violence.
She defined domestic violence only as the serious battering episode which prompted her
to obtain a restraining order against her perpetrator. In contrast, other pre-participants
identified nonphysical abuse as domestic violence:
I do believe it’s worse. I’d rather get punched because in that case there it is, and
‘Hey! Why did you do that?’ Where in my case, it was always turned around and
manipulated to be my fault, all the mind games and crazy making. [Cecilia]
I was down there on the level of the kids. He would tell me I have the
intelligence level of a child. [Cecilia]
PEP Graduates. Denial permitted graduates to continue their relationships:
I kept thinking that he would get it, that he would somehow turn around…You
see it through rose colored glasses. You see how you want to see it. You see
people the way you want to see them, [Mona]
which increased their vulnerability in extreme ways:
At least for me, I associated violence and that kind of behavior with love, so you
never knew if it was going to be lethal because at least I always thought, ‘He
loves me, and that’s why he’s doing this, but he would never actually kill me,’ but
then being out of it for so long you think you know people that behave that way.
Maybe they don’t even know what that limit is. They could accidentally kill you
when they didn’t mean to. [Vivien]

Some graduates walked into their relationships encased in denial, “I just never thought it
would happen to me.” Subsequently caught in the cycle of violence, reoccurrence of
abuse, paradoxically, reinforced it:
Just continuous things, just over and over and over, and you think it’s normal
because you don’t know anything else.

142
Up until probably 8 or 9 months ago, I ha[d] this veil over my face, and slowly
but surely it’s starting to get thicker and thicker, and I couldn’t even see all the
stuff I was putting myself through and all the things I was putting up with. [Nora]
A couple of graduates reported that their denial ended with the first incident of
physical abuse:
Getting hit in the face was a wake up call literally because I just didn’t understand
what was happening. That’s where the openness changed. Being violated and
abused and being attacked will change you immediately. [Sasha]

Those slaps woke me up, and it’s just the greatest thing that ever happened to me.
They didn’t happen until the end…That was just a blessing because I’d still be
there…Finally you realize it’s not about you. [Carolina]

Carolina’s onset of physical abuse coincided with her own spiritual awakening.
Following this turning point after which she abandoned her decades-long dependence on
marijuana, she experienced a heightened awareness of her interactions within her
environment:
I started all of the sudden being more aware and noticing things or asking
questions, ‘Well, why do you want me to sign this?’ or ‘I really don’t want to go
there,’ or ‘Well, this is what I’m having for dinner. What would you like?’
Breakthroughs often occurred when the abuse impacted their children:
When I first found out about the relationship he had with my daughter, he used to
blame her, but not too long ago, I spoke with my daughter, and she told me that he
had beaten her and raped her and forced her, so then for me, it was like I awoke
from a sleep, and I took off my eye bandages…He says that she begged and
provoked him. Where was my head, that is to say, to allow this to happen?
Formal intervention by law enforcement or child protective services also weakened
denial:
When I realized that I had to go to the extreme of getting a restraining order, and
the state put limits on this person, that’s when I knew I was in danger…Not until
the state gave me this restraining order did I realize that I was wrong, and that it’s
not possible to live with someone like that forever…I am the first one in my

143
family that is confronting her abuser. With the help of the state of California and
the police, I am the first in all the history of my family.

I was very angry with him, and at that moment, I don’t know what came over me.
I started to hit him in front of the police officer. I didn’t care who was there, and I
told him to shut up because I was talking to the social worker, and he was butting
in and denying things. I became like a lion. Ever since that day, I started to not
allow others to get in my way.
Finally, participation in independent study, individual therapy and/or PEP enabled
graduates to recognize the negative dynamics of their intimate and non-intimate
relationships:
All these things I created for myself. These people are good people. They had
good hearts, but they were treating me like crap. [Nora]
Once someone shows you, ‘Oh, this is really common. Oh, this is what happens,
and then this happens too,’ you start to question some things. You’re saying like,
‘What happened? What caused, what blocked me from changing?’ It makes you
realize stuff too when you’re actually engaged in it vs. sitting there. I think it
helps to get it off your chest.
Identifying abuse experiences
Breakthroughs permitted survivors to identify the onset of abuse and its course in
their relationships, including control and isolation. As their denial diminished, they
identified a broader range of the types of abusive behaviors they personally experienced.
Pre-participants. Although a couple of women identified verbal and emotional
abuse from the relationship’s start, many pre-participants disclosed that the onset of
abuse coincided with other life changes, including financial difficulties, a new career,
pregnancy, and getting married:
Pretty much happened when we started going downhill. We lost our house and
became homeless. [Helena]

I had been going to school, and I got my teaching credential, so I started working
5 years ago at this job. He kept telling me he wanted me to stay home. He liked

144
it when I was home. He didn’t like when I was doing something…He didn’t like
the fact that he thought I was becoming higher than him because I had a master’s
degree. [Tara]

He changed completely right after the whole pregnancy. It was the controlling
and then jealousy.

We got married, and then it started getting some spots where things didn’t feel
comfortable anymore. I had an ectopic pregnancy, so I had to go to the hospital.
I was dealing with depression with that, and [he] was not supportive. He actually
started downgrading me, making me more depressed, and then the physical abuse
started and everything else just fell in. [Estelle]
I was outgrowing him. He was seeing that, and I think he had fears, and I was
detaching to an extent, moving away. When he met me, I was like a party animal,
and he didn’t really respect me much probably. It was just sexual, and then I
started a 12-step program and stopped drinking and lost weight, acted different,
changed completely. Even though he liked the new person, it scared him, so I
know that affected him. [Ingrid]

I was having an affair. When it got found out in 2005, it really went downhill
from there. He just exploded, and, I don’t know, just has been really chaotic since
there. I saw a lot more projection. Everything really increased. [Cecilia]

Pre-participants recognized the tremendous extent to which their partners exerted
power and control within their relationships:
Whatever he says, we can do it or we can’t do it. If he says we don’t have money,
we don’t have money. He would never let me see the finances.

He would call me constantly. He had confronted me, thinking that I was seeing
somebody else. How could I do that when I’m always here? Where do I go? I
couldn’t go to the grocery store and be gone a little longer than he would expect
me. He’d be calling me, ‘Where are you?’

If he didn’t feel in control – and jealous, the whole jealous situation – I had to get
a beating that day.

He constantly tries to change my viewpoints about the people that I choose to be
friends with.

When she tried to break up with him, Claudia’s boyfriend refused to accept it. He
showed up at her doorstep when she asked him to stay away, bought her an engagement

145
ring, and ultimately threatened suicide. He also successfully recruited his father and both
her parents to convince her to reconcile with him.
Their attempts to hide the abuse, their family’s lack of support, or their partner’s
interference compounded their isolation:
I didn’t want my family to know what I was going through.

We were homeless together. It was like, ‘Where was I going to go?’ My family
wasn’t talking to me because I was on drugs. [Helena]

Maybe about a week or two before [the physical abuse incident] happened, I
started talking to my mom about it, but before that I was more embarrassed to talk
about it. [Tara]

Tara disclosed her experiences to her sisters-in-law because all of her friends were
“friends that he brought in.” Claudia’s boyfriend disrupted her relationships with her
parents, roommates, and coeds:
I didn’t go to my good friend’s birthday party here because it was on a Saturday,
and on Saturdays, I’m supposed to be with him. The whole day I actually stayed
in Irvine. I was actually on the phone with him the entire day at the library just
yelling at him, why I’m in Irvine on a Saturday and why I’m not with him, and
then by that time, I was so angry. I was like ‘I’m going to ruin everybody’s mood
in the evening’ that I just ended up driving down.
The specific behaviors which pre-participants identified as abusive within their
relationships included physical, sexual, verbal, economic, emotional and mental abuse.
The women named cheating or infidelity, stealing, lying, yelling, screaming, cursing,
throwing objects, hitting, slapping, shoving, sexually provocative communications via
text messaging, insults, belittling, constant criticism, name-calling, harassment,
accusations of infidelity, abandonment in unsafe or unknown areas, isolation, restricting
access to money, stalking, threats to harm themselves, the woman, or her loved ones, and

146
abuse directed toward their children. Women discussed how their partners withheld
access to health care, especially mental health treatment:
I didn’t know why I was getting depressed, and every time I went to see a
therapist to get over that depression, he always made me feel worse because it
was just a crutch. Medication to get over depression’s just a crutch because
you’re not really depressed. [Tara]
In an extreme example of isolation, Alicia’s partner attempted to destroy her reputation
among their neighbors and friends by capitalizing on a sinus infection which forced her to
enter hospital. While she was in the emergency room, her husband called her friends,
including fellow school and soccer carpool moms, to ask them if they had noticed any
signs that she was using drugs since he suspected she had ingested some of his
prescription pain medication.
Women recognized how their relationships mirrored the tension-building,
explosion, and honeymoon/reconciliation phases of the cycle of violence:
Finally, for some reason, every now and then it would get through to him how bad
it really was. He would be on his best behavior for a couple weeks, and that
would change, but like I said, he can’t recognize exactly what he does when he
does it wrong, so I knew every time that it was okay for a couple of days or a
week or so, I knew that it would go back to shit in a matter of time. You can’t
pretend to be something you’re not. [Ginger]

When my daughter was still in the hospital. There were too many nurses, too
many doctors going on. Six weeks, so that was the safety net, too much attention
on the family at that point and time. As soon as the attention started to lax off, he
started getting back to that. I knew I was going to enjoy my honeymoon period as
long as I could. [Estelle]
During the honeymoon or reconciliation phase, their partners would go to extreme
lengths to prevent the relationship’s end. Carmen described how her husband convinced
her to stay by proving how much he needed her:

147
He would do some crazy stuff that would make me think, ‘Why would he hurt me
in any way? Why would he? He loves me so much.’ There would be times that I
would be leaving, ‘Okay, I’m outta here. I can’t be with you no more,’ and he
actually pooped on himself. He said his stomach hurt, and I was like, ‘What is that
funky smell?’ and he’s like, ‘Oh my god, please don’t leave me. Please don’t
leave me.’ He did that 3 times.
The abuse perpetuated their feelings of insecurity and powerlessness:
On a normal basis, verbal abuse where he cut me down, told me I was no good,
and then later on, ‘Oh no, you’re perfect.’ I mean that’s why we were thinking he
was bipolar. It didn’t make any sense. ‘Oh no, everything you do is fine,’ so I
never knew what I was doing right or what I was doing wrong because I could
never figure out what it is that I was doing. [Tara]
I mean I would be driving, and if he felt like it, he would swing at me and hit me
in the lip or in my eye or whatever he wanted. [Elvira]
Most women had no control over the household’s finances. They signed documents
placing them in extreme debt without their knowledge or consent. In other cases, their
partners refused to work and placed total responsibility for their expenses on her, also
without her consent.
Carla demonstrated her awareness of what constituted abuse by sharing her
unsuccessful attempt to negotiate her right to say no:
There’s been times where I told him that I wasn’t in the mood, didn’t want to
have sex, and he wanted to anyway, and I told him, ‘I don’t want to,’ ‘No, not
right now, I don’t want to,’ and he did anyway, and I told him afterward, ‘You
don’t realize that is itself, that’s rape. When somebody tells you, ‘No,’ it’s no.’
He said, ‘That’s not true. You’re with me,’ and so I go, ‘It doesn’t matter. You
can be in a relationship, and they’re not wanting to do it, then that’s rape,’ and
he’s like, ‘Well, you didn’t seem to [be] fighting it.’ I’m like, ‘I said that I didn’t
want to, and then I was tired, and I wanted to go to sleep, and that I didn’t want
that, and you did anyway.’ You have to realize that is what it is.
PEP Graduates. Fewer graduates commented on the onset of abuse in their
relationships; however, they recognized changes in their relationships that coincided with
changes they made in themselves:

148
At the same time, I found a prayer group who very much has a psychological
path, a lot of Jungian psychologists in the group. We talk about our dreams, and I
was having amazing dreams at the same time. It’s like I’m seeing dreams, and
I’m putting it all together, and then I’m just growing stronger. That’s when the
physical abuse started. [Carolina]
If I’m healthier, every action creates a reaction, my marriage is healthier. I see a
change in my husband…I can’t say this is accurate, but I feel like most of it’s
been me. [Marlena]

What’s interesting is that the stronger I get, the weaker he gets. [Carolina]

He saw that I wasn’t the submissive woman he thought I was, and he wasn’t
interested in that kind of woman that has rights and things to say and knows her
rights. Our relationship changed because I was able to be more firm, to say no to
sexual things or whatever…He kind of gave up. [Mary Jo]
They described confusing control with love or affection:
‘Together we’re going to go here. We’re going to go there,’ and I thought I have
the nicest guy in the world, but it really wasn’t. He just wanted to make sure he
knew where I was going, knew my movements. ‘Where are you going now?’
After work, I would go straight over there or during my lunch breaks, I would go
over there. He knew everything I was doing. I think in hindsight, I gave him too
much control over that or access. [Sasha]

He was very controlling, but I felt like it was because he loves me.

Their partners monitored their voicemails, curtailed interactions with friends, and limited
their employment:
He had specific ideas about where he wanted me to work, if he wanted me to
work, when he wanted me to work. [Vivien]
For the longest time, I didn’t drive, so I was relying on him to take me to work. I
lost my job for him because he would intentionally drive me there late or maybe
don’t drive me at all, so I would not go to work. [Mary Jo]
Women seemed to censor themselves around others, not wanting to “take out whatever’s
in my relationship.” After her husband abused illicit substances with a new couple she
had befriended:

149
Every time I met new friends, I was scared to get together because I was scared
that it would lead [to] stuff with him, so I didn’t want. He didn’t care. [Grace]
Their isolation eroded relationships with family and friends and reinforced their partner’s
power and control:
I spent so much time with him. I stopped spending so much time with my family.
It’s very subtle.

I didn’t have any friends anymore, and he didn’t even want me to be around my
family anymore.

I lost a lot of friends because of that relationship. They just didn’t want to deal
with it anymore.

We live isolated, so you don’t have friends or family. You can’t really tell
anybody about it…When you’re isolated, that’s all you have…they’re your
everything.
Graduates recognized that they had experienced verbal, mental, physical,
financial, and sexual violence including social isolation. Women described how their
partners lied to, beat, shunned, cheated on, threatened, and raped them (and sometimes
their daughters), disclosed incest to publicly humiliate them, and killed their beloved
pets. Women described sexual abuse including their partner’s affairs, deceit about his
sexual orientation, and forcing them to participate in activities with which they were
uncomfortable or did not consent. Many graduates admitted that they did not realize the
extent of their abuse experiences until they started PEP:
It’s the mental and psychological that I didn’t know people did. I kept knowing
something was wrong, wasn’t right, but I couldn’t put my finger on it because
nobody ever talks about it. You just hear about the verbal and physical, but you
don’t hear about the psychological.
I didn’t know exactly that I was verbally abused. I thought he was just a jerk.
[Francesca]

150
Their partners also used their children to exert power and control over them.
After displeasing him, Mona’s husband left in the middle of the night with their daughter,
refusing to disclose where he intended to take her or for how long they would be away.
When he returned, he reported her to child protective services who investigated an
incident when she had pinched their son. To their court hearing, he brought a photo of a
bite mark she left on his shoulder while she struggled to free herself from his grasp. The
investigation found that she had left a mark on the child, and the court removed the
children from her care. She had not seen them for months, as the court ordered
supervised visitation, and the children’s court-appointed therapist had not decided which
venue she preferred to supervise the mother’s visits.
Only one graduate insisted, “I never been abused with my husband.” Throughout
the interview, Greta persistently maintained that she was at fault for provoking her
husband, reporting the incident in a way that incited legal involvement, and profoundly
regretted her actions.
Similar to some pre-participants, graduates connected their motivation to continue
the relationship with the cycle’s dynamics:
He told me he was really sorry for what had happened because I filed a police
report, and he spent a month in jail. He had told me, ‘It’s my fault. I’m different
now. I’m off drugs. Do whatever you need to do. If you feel unsafe, just tell
me.’ He was like that, so it was very confusing for me. He was very, ‘This is my
fault. I am so sorry. Do whatever you need to do,’ but that would sometimes
change…Probably like 3 weeks or a month, it was like, ‘This is the person that I
love. See, I knew it! I am so in love with him. We’re going to get married, this
and that, and then he started doing drugs again.

151
While Nora initially felt encouraged by her boyfriend’s apologies and accommodations,
the honeymoon phase inevitably gave way to tension-building and the subsequent abuse
episode.
Assessing danger
While identifying abuse refers to the woman’s awareness of past or present acts of
violence or maltreatment, assessing danger involves an awareness of certain behaviors or
events indicating heightened risk of its reoccurrence. Pre-participants and graduates
showed different levels of appreciation for these warning signs.
Pre-participants. Some pre-participants asserted that no warning signs existed in
their relationships or they did not know if there were any:
There’s never really rhyme or reason.
There’s not too much that I can really [identify] because every day was different.
You don’t know. It could happen at the spur of the moment like it did with me.
Others described how their partners destroyed treasured objects or pets. Some women
recognized that they were in danger when their arguments increased in frequency or
escalated, their partner’s substance abuse increased, or they announced their intention to
end the relationship. Increased jealousy, access to weapons, greater isolation, threats to
harm, and inability to walk away from a verbal conflict also indicated heightened risk.
Pre-participants paid particular attention to their partner’s body language to warn them of
impending violence:
As soon as you woke up, you looked at the other person, you knew you were
going to be in a bad situation all day.
His body language is very strange. He gets stiff and awkward. For me, what I
looked for with him was the body language and the way it just exudes anger.

152
PEP Graduates. Graduates identified the following red flags or indicators of a
potentially abusive partner in their own relationships: their partner’s general lack of
stability, poor relationships with his mother, former partners, children, or employers, and
disregard for her opinions which manifested, in retrospect, as outrageous attempts to
exert power and control:
[PEP]’s helped me to understand that if you can’t be yourself, if you can’t be
silly, if you can’t ask for what you want, then you’re not being authentic in a
relationship, and that’s the first sign that you’re in an abusive relationship.
They mentioned several warning signs underscored in the PEP curriculum
including the partner’s threats to harm himself or others, access to weapons, increased
use of drugs or alcohol, any physical abuse or intimidation, and perception that the
woman plans to exit the relationship or similar loss of his control:
I think if the person is under financial stress or something has changed. These are
not excuses, but that’s what I’ve seen, that’s what I think happens. When
something doesn’t go the person’s way or the control leaves them at some part of
their life, that can be a dangerous situation.
Graduates assessed danger based on their intuition:
I left like I was in danger. It was strange. My intuition said, ‘You have to get out.
Get out now!’ I listened to it, but then I went back.
How would I assess it? I would think it would be the level of fear within me and
the level of anxiety in the other person.
You know that you are. There’s an inner knowing.
Vivien lacked confidence that her experience of multiple abusive relationships had taught
her how to assess danger:
I don’t know if I would be a good gauge to know if I was in a lethal situation. I
only know about that intellectually. I don’t know it through experience.

153
She elaborated that she knows she is at heightened risk of death if her partner begins to
strangle her, but in the situation, she thinks “he would never kill me. He’s just trying to
teach me a lesson.” He had convinced her that he loved her more than anyone else in the
world, “He would never kill me or anything because supposably, he couldn’t live without
me.”
Denial interfered with Marlena’s assessment of danger. She accepted the
possibility that an abusive incident could become lethal unintentionally if, for example,
he hit her and her head clipped the table corner as she fell to the ground. Eve observed
her abuse escalating during the final months of her marriage:
I felt like there’s got to be a snapping point. I saw myself being on the news and
being a statistic;
but the minimization which previously had helped her cope colored her judgment:
At that time, I thought I was going crazy, that I was imagining it or exaggerating
or that I wasn’t seeing it for what it really was. I was being too sensitive.
Some graduates suggested that despite a suspicion that a situation may escalate to abuse:
You never know when it’s really coming. You never know when the word is
going to come, never know when the slap is going to come. You’re walking on
eggs. [Carolina]
Interestingly one graduate felt that she needed to emphasize the unlikelihood that she
would need to assess danger levels inside an intimate relationship again:
If I was in a position like that, if my life was in danger, wow, that would be
incredible! With everything that I have learned, I don’t think I would be in that
situation. I don’t believe I would put myself in that situation. I would know
better.
Increasing self-awareness

154
Dismantling denial and increasing self-awareness are complementary processes,
and evidence of both overlap. The following section highlights indications of women’s
heightened self-awareness as a result of identifying domestic violence and its
consequences in their own lives. Their ambivalence about continuing their abusive
relationships often signaled increasing self-awareness about their motivations and
choices.
Pre-participants. Although pre-participants who ended their abusive
relationships expressed relief and optimistic anticipation:
I actually am looking forward to the future, doing the things that I want to do;

My life has started over again. It’s starting new and fresh, and I love every
minute of it, so I have no desire to go back to what I was going through;

I don’t have to be looking out or if he’s gonna strike at me or swing at me. I don’t
have to worry about any of that stuff. I’m free to do what I want, so he has no
chance of getting back with me;
they differed in their levels of clarity and self-assurance about next steps:
I feel like I’m invincible. I’m on top of the world now.

Maybe I’m not where I want to be right now, but I know where I’m going.

I want to give up…It’s good right now, but when my moods change, I don’t know
if it’s like once a month, or women’s time, I get where it’s out of control, but I
don’t know. It hasn’t been that long. I’m scared.

I know what is right and what is wrong. It’s just that I’m not strong enough
myself to push through it.

I have to be aware of all these things that are still angering me about the
relationship and address those. Otherwise, it’s not gonna get fixed. The major
thing that I’ve learned about this is if I don’t say something, it’s not gonna fix
itself.

Some pre-participants were self-aware, but lacked appropriate skills for affecting change:

155
I know the problem, and I am aware of it immediately, but again, I am doing the
same thing.

It’s interesting. I know what I want, but it’s just, ‘How do I get there?’

They expressed frustration with themselves due to their ambivalence about maintaining
their abusive relationships:
I know I’m weak, and I don’t trust myself, and I’m scared. I have conflicting
emotions going on that are just driving me crazy.
I don’t want to but I don’t know. I don’t know why I keep talking to him.
He’s telling me, ‘No, you made the wrong decision because I have all these
qualities that you want, and I can do all these things, and I can change to the way
you want.’ I’m just not 100% sure that he’s actually gonna be able to keep up
with it or do it or be that way because one day he’s nice and one day he’s not, so I
don’t know. Each day I get angry at myself like, ‘Why are you doing this?’
[Claudia]

Sometimes I feel I’m crazy to want to keep going.

They reflected on how the honeymoon phase of the cycle of violence supports
their ambivalence, “I’m just not certain about [leaving]. That’s why I think I’ve stayed in
the relationship so long is because when I see the person I fell in love with, I’m happy.”
Consider the following statements by Carla:
There’s times when I want to leave him, and there’s times that I don’t, but the
times that I do want to leave him, I feel like I don’t know how, like I don’t know
how to do it. I’ve tried several times, and I haven’t been successful. We’ve
always gotten back together and made our amends and everything.

Most days I do, I love him, and we’re happy together, and sometimes it’s over
something petty that I just want to give it all up.
Carla seemed confident that employment, coupled with her boyfriend’s desperation to
sustain their relationship, would resolve their problems:
I think once he’s able to get a job, a lot of the stress between us will kind of
diminish…Some of our financial worries will be lifted, and we just won’t be

156
around each other 24/7 like we are now. Sometimes we need a break from each
other.

What I know with him is that he loves me and that he wouldn’t mean to do
anything to hurt me. I know that he would do anything to be with me and his son.
No matter what it would take, he would do it. If it meant going to the ends of the
earth, he would do it. If it meant going to the anger management, if it meant
stopping drinking, he would do it because he’s so afraid of losing us that he would
do whatever it takes to be able to keep us in his life. I know that.
Acknowledging her ambivalence, she explained her inability to end her relationship:
I think I don’t know how because I love him so much. Maybe the reason why I
don’t know how is because I don’t really want to.
She believes her relationship will improve with their combined effort:
We can work things out. It takes everyday to work at it and to strive to make it
work. It’s not just going to come overnight. It’s gonna take time to be able to
mend the relationship.
Others expressed doubt that their partners would change:
Once you’ve learned a certain behavior, it’s bound to come back. Even if he’s
taking these classes, who says that under high pressure situation, it’s really going
to have a lasting effect and really going to change something? [Claudia]

Demonstrating her ambivalence about continuing the relationship, she recalled how his
behavior had improved when he moved in with her “except for the fact that he was
enjoying my money and that he was a little bit too pushy”:
I don’t know how I can be 100% sure. I mean he first has to be unwavering.
That’s what I think. He says no, I have to be 100% sure and then he can change,
but how can I do that?
Pre-participants continued their involvement with abusive partners for diverse
reasons, including financial motivations, their partner’s manipulation, their commitment
to the relationship, a desire to preserve a “family unit” for their children, loyalty,

157
loneliness, codependency, insecurity, fear, their family’s ostracism, and ignorance of
options :
In my situation, I couldn’t make ends meet by myself. I still can’t financially. I
can’t make it. That’s what kept me with him for so long. [Carmen]

I had 4 children with him. I didn’t have any experience really out there working.
You’re stuck. You’re a mom at home. I was there for the family constantly.
That was my job. [Cecilia]

He would fake a seizure, and nobody’s there to take care of him…Things like that
made me feel like I have to be his hero because of what he’s been through, his
personal issues. [Carmen]

I told him a lot of times, ‘I just feel like pity almost,’ and like, ‘You don’t want
me to be with you because I just feel sorry for you,’ but that’s how he always gets
me to go to him. [Claudia]
I just thought that was how it should be because my parents were like that. My
dad was the authority, and my mom just did whatever he told her to do. [Tara]
I was being told to stay with him by his parents and shockingly by the police at
one point and time. [Estelle]

Ginger shared how she knew a relationship with her partner was undesirable from the
beginning “but stopping it for some reason was hard.” Some pre-participants wished to
continue their relationships, including Helena whose probation terms forced her to
secretly meet her husband and punished her when she disclosed they had become
pregnant, “We always wanted to have a baby together, when we were clean and dirty.”
Theresa had set up a series of tests for her partner to pass including participating in
individual therapy and conjoint treatment. If she assesses no positive change, she plans
to leave.
Pre-participants were highly aware of the impact of their abuse experiences on
their self-esteem:

158
I once saw this tattoo on somebody’s arm that looked like their skin had ripped
open, and you could see inside of them, and the picture inside the skin was a half
face. It looked so wrinkled and old, and one drop coming down. It was just so
sad. I’m like, ‘That’s me.’ You guys see me smiling, laughing, joining in with
the conversation, ‘Oh, no problem, woo hoo,’ but that’s me. That’s who I feel
like I am inside. [Jade]

I could point that bruise out to you, but I can’t point out where he told me I was a
piece of shit. It’s just still there in my head…feeling that I wasn’t good enough for
so long, that everybody’s right about me, this whole doomed feeling of myself
that should never have been there. [Ginger]
They also recognized how their low self-esteem contributed to the maintenance of the
abusive relationship:
I guess I allowed him to do what he wanted to do to me because I didn’t feel good
about myself…I was a very negative person. I didn’t care about myself. I felt
like I was worth nothing. [Elvira]
It felt in the beginning like an obsession kind of feeling. It wasn’t so much that I
liked him or that I loved him. It was that I couldn’t get enough of him putting me
down, of not being there for me, ditching me even…I relate it back to my family,
what I saw from my mom. It’s the best way I know how to describe it.” [Ginger]
Believing them that you’re not worthy of anything other than this, that what
they’re doing is really your fault. If you were a better person, then this wouldn’t
be happening to you.
The abuse affected their general ability and willingness to engage socially:
You don’t necessarily give out your trust as a free thing anymore because it’s like
you let somebody that close to you hurt you like that. You don’t have trust for the
rest of humanity, or at least I don’t for a while.
I tend to be too trusting and naïve, and I’ve become more withdrawn and reserved
and cautious now after an abusive incident. It broke me…I had a walking
nervous breakdown. [Ingrid]
It’s made me much more cautious of what I say and how I say it, even to others.
Others spoke of the physical toll the abuse exacted on their bodies:
I’ve actually been in public situations where I’ll just start feeling really hot, and
I’ll start shaking for no reason, and then next thing I know I’m hyperventilating.

159
Somebody’s handing me a paper bag. I’ll have panic attacks which I never had
panic attacks before I was in an abusive relationship. [Estelle]

I feel defeated not only because of the domestic violence but because of the
problem with my failing health. [Melody]

I was not aware that I had high blood pressure. I am sure that it was bad for my
blood pressure.

They felt isolated, betrayed, shocked, guilty, depressed, insecure, “devastated, hopeless,
helpless, and hurt.” Some pre-participants also mentioned turning to illegal drugs,
alcohol, antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications to cope with their situation.
Only Hope denied that the abuse had any impact:
It hasn’t. Just everybody has something. It’s not an excuse to not be able to
support yourself or your kids. It’s just part of life.
Conversely, others discussed how abuse experiences interfere with perceiving reality:
It’s very difficult to transition or to even distinguish reality from what you’re
thinking because my mind can go into denial about everything. [Ingrid]
It leaves you without orientation. You practically don’t know how to go on.
Describing how the trauma resulting from their physical abuse had reverberated into the
present:
Even like yesterday, my son came up from behind me to hug me, and he’s tall
because he’s 14, and it scared me. [Crying] I jumped first and then realized it was
just my son, giving me something he hasn’t done for a long time since this had
happened…That was the first time I reacted like that, and so then I quickly
covered that up for him so he wouldn’t feel scared that I was scared. I did tell him
though that he had scared me coming from behind to hug me because that was
how my husband had attacked me. [Tara]
Melody acknowledged that she continues to have difficulty creating and implementing
appropriate boundaries with others in her life although her marriage to her abusive
husband has ended:

160
I am allowing it to happen. I am doing the same thing I used to do. People hurt
me emotionally the way my husband used to hurt me, and I don’t do anything to
get out of it. I allow it.
PEP Graduates. Graduates spoke about how their participation in PEP cultivated
their self-awareness:
It’s influenced my life by helping me to keep looking within myself to see what is
it about me that has this be in my life, these behaviors, whether it’s abusive men
or abusive behaviors I have towards myself or allowing certain things around my
kids, what is it about me.

I put my thoughts into words, and I think when I do that, it helps me understand
me better.

When I took the first 3 classes, it impacted me so much. It was as if someone
threw a bucket of water on me, and I said, ‘Oh God, this is how I am living? I am
living this way?’ I thought it was incredible.

This self-awareness appears to function as a protective factor while women negotiate
their lives in the aftermath of an abusive relationship:
The evidence that I have for that is that now I have grown, and my interior
landscape is much different. I’ve often visualized myself back in that relationship
because I do miss him and I do love him, but I know that it couldn’t go on for
more than 5 minutes because his level of health is not on the same level as mine.
Not that that’s good or bad, but I’ve grown, so certain things just wouldn’t work
with the way that I think about myself anymore.

I think you need to be aware, very aware, and go with your gut definitely. Go in
with ‘this doesn’t feel right’ or ‘this has the potential to be a really unsafe
situation, do I really want to put myself in that situation?’

I’m learning more about me, where I went wrong, why I didn’t set those
boundaries…Digging deep inside of me to see what was my part in this whole
situation because obviously I can’t change anyone else around me. I can only
change me and who I am…I used to think helping people and always being there
for them, trying to solve their problems for them; I thought those were strengths,
but in reality, those were my weaknesses.

They identified financial and emotional reasons for maintaining their abusive
relationships:

161
Economic stability, definitely security. I’d never been alone before in my life.
I’d been married since the age of 16.
Now I’m in it for the money. I don’t mind saying it. We have a comfortable life.
There’s enough in there. I want it all. He’s gonna die before I am because he’s 5
years older and less healthy although he’s healthy enough to live for another 10 or
15 years. I want it all. I’m greedy, just plain greedy. [Marlena]
I didn’t think I could make it on my own. I was a corporate wife and a housewife.
I totally depended on him.
I came from a divorce. I came here. Here I met this person. I didn’t even get to
know him. Why? Well, because I was in need. I did not have any family here,
and I didn’t know anyone.
He was a father figure to my children, and I was a mother figure to his son.
The guilt of breaking up and getting back together and breaking up and getting
back together. I can’t keep a relationship together? What’s wrong with me?
Those kinds of questions motivated me to try and make it work, so that I could
show that I could do it. I could do something.
It was comfortable. It was familiar.
Since I never had one as a child, I always wanted to have a home.
I have always wanted to have a family. I wanted to have a family that was
different than the one I had at home, but it didn’t happen that way. The same
cycle was repeated.
Greta wanted to provide a positive example to her children:
I don’t want them to think for them like, ‘Never gonna work, it’s never gonna get
well.’ You can. It’s gonna get well if you both forgiving and sharing and to stay
away from the arguing.
She explained that despite her siblings’ predictions that she would find no one to love
her, her husband accepted her and her son who was not biologically his and works 2 full-
time jobs to support their family. None of the men she had met previously were willing
to do this:
I [feel] hopeless for me. I appreciate that God gave me a guy like this who take
care of me and accept me with my children.

162
Graduates expressed awareness of how shame impeded their disclosure.
Formerly a counselor to domestic violence survivors, Sasha acknowledged:
It’s a totally different thing when you experience it yourself because of the shame
factor that doesn’t really go away. It’s been almost a year, and I’m finally starting
to get over the shame and humiliation over all that happened, not just the punch in
the face but being let down by the justice system.
Parallel to their experiences in the cycle of violence:
There’s this hope that it’s always going to change, and the shame that you let it go
on…The biggest part of the shame is that I stayed so long and allowed it to
happen.
Referring to fear of social stigma as a barrier to disclosure:
It’s not easy to just say, ‘Okay, this is what happened to me.” It’s not easy. None
of those things are easy. I used to be so ashamed to tell anyone.

I used to feel like everyone would focus their attention on me if they knew about
me. I thought that because I was [at Laura’s House], people would point a finger
at me, even my family.

Women described how their abuse experiences resulted in a loss of their sense of
self:
I forgot about myself. I only lived to make him happy…I was like a thing. I was
programmed to do the same thing everyday.

One grows up with fear and doesn’t even know it makes one impotent.

It does not allow you to achieve goals. Especially in my case, it has been like
that. I have not been able to better myself as a woman. I just stay there. I wish I
could do something more for myself, but I can’t.

More graduates than pre-participants disclosed experiencing symptoms related to PTSD
including flashbacks, nightmares, and sleep difficulties. One graduate who continued to
live with her abusive partner shared her despair:
Sometimes I feel I will never be able to let go of that trauma. I will have that
trauma forever. It is very strong. It is something that I feel will always be there

163
even if I take classes or whatever. I feel that it will be there always. It is like I
am waiting for it to happen again.

Applying her conceptualization of Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS) to her own life,
Carolina elaborated:
The dance, the relationship, and the music is the abuse, but the dance is the
continuous back and forth and back and forth, and you’re projecting out. I think
it’s aspects of myself. It was aspects that I hadn’t integrated myself, so I found
someone else to act that out for me until I could deal with that and integrate that
aspect of the masculine.
Graduates understood that their lack of self-esteem contributed to their choice of
intimate partners, especially if they experienced or witnessed abuse as children:
Obviously if you’re in an abusive relationship, you’ve got a self-esteem issue
going on. I really didn’t care about myself that much, so I didn’t care what
happened to me. [Nora]

I bought into that, so I just created someone to live that out for me. [Carolina]

My primary caregivers just programmed me with all these concepts and beliefs
about who I am…My conduct now was based on what they told me. [Mary Jo]

Small successes like a better job, more sleep, transferring from a community college to
university, or joining a sorority increased graduates’ self-esteem. Self-reflection
including independent study and/or participation in therapy also diminished ambivalence,
increased self-awareness, and bolstered self-esteem:
It was like I was divided in two, the part ‘I love him no matter what’, the emotion
and the reason, my thought, my brain saying, ‘This guy is not good for you,’ two
different things. Torturing myself, basically allowing myself to feel that.
Questioning myself, why I was so attracted to that guy, also he didn’t feel right.
It was like this time I really made that voice inside of me, not just for a blink of a
moment, but very strong voice in me that said, ‘No, this is not good for you, so
listen to myself,’ and the voice for some reason was stronger. [Mary Jo]
I’m learning more about myself, and every day that I’m closer to being out of this
relationship, I become more self-confident and a better person and a stronger
woman.

164
The majority of graduates identified positive effects resulting from their
experiences including greater self-awareness and new opportunities to create and enforce
healthy boundaries:
I know myself now. I have boundaries. I think I’m a strong person. Maybe I’m
not where I want to be right now, but I know where I’m going.
If it wouldn’t have happened, I feel that I would have kept going in this pattern,
being so confused, and I feel like finally I’m able to see things clearly.
Disclosing an extensive history of abuse, Vivien explained:
It’s impacted me in a positive way because being in a domestic violence
relationship forced me to make a decision, put some type of boundary, or some
type of line in my life, like how much am I going to take?
Leaving her abuser increased her feelings of personal competence:
I never thought of myself really as someone that could do that, and it’s forced me
to be alone for the first time in my life and to learn who I am or who I would like
to be and experiment with those.
Some women indicated that they had acquired knowledge and skills to make better
choices:
It made me grow up a lot. I thought I knew everything which is a sign of
immaturity, thinking that you know everything. It helped deepen me… I’m still
hurt, deeply wounded by what happened, but I think I’ve come out a better
person, a better version of me… It helped me become more self-aware about the
choices that I was making, the people that I was surrounding myself with.”
[Sasha]
It’s helped me grow as a person tremendously. I feel like I’m a new person…It’s
helped me be a stronger person, discovering more about myself, discovering more
weaknesses that I thought were strengths.
Analyzing choices
Increasing self-awareness allows women to explore their choices prior to and
within the abusive relationship as well as the extent to which those choices were

165
circumscribed or affected by various personal and environmental factors. Study
participants often believed they were at fault or even caused their partners to abuse them.
This next section presents pre-participants’ and graduates’ personal evaluations of their
choices, focusing on how women take responsibility appropriately for their experiences
in contrast to self-blame.
Pre-participants. Pre-participants disclosed feeling angry, depressed, stressed,
embarrassed, ashamed, guilty, stupid, crushed, and uncertain about the choices they had
made in their most recent abusive relationship. Some expressed satisfaction with their
decisions to leave their partners:
I’m feeling pretty much on the top of my game right now because I have an exit
plan.

I feel bad that I didn’t get out of that relationship before. I feel good that I got out
of it. It didn’t [take me] more time, no more than 2 years. I feel that I made a
good decision about getting out of the abusive relationship, and I don’t regret it.

In retrospect, many of them wished they had made different choices:
I guess I wouldn’t have stayed, or I wouldn’t have fallen in love with somebody
like that. I don’t know. That’s stupid. I mean you can’t change the past.

I feel that I should’ve been stronger. I should have demanded more for myself.
I should have been stronger in my own feelings, of what I thought. I never spoke
up for myself. I’m beginning to, but not as much. I still make the choice of
answering the call when he calls. I shouldn’t.

I’m very ashamed for a lot of the choices I did make.

Addressing what was really going on and getting help for it if I wanted to
continue the relationship, getting help for it instead of just sweeping it under the
carpet – I think that was pretty immature.
Enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program in lieu of incarceration, Helena
pointed out:

166
I’m not really allowed to make any choices right now. The only choice that we
really made together was to have a baby, so I feel good about that choice except
for the whole not being able to be together kind of thing kind of sucks.
The diversion program, if not the parents who provide her housing, made all of her
decisions, including prohibiting contact with her partner:
Basically, if they don’t lift the no contact order, I’m going to be raising a baby by
myself, so that takes away from – It’s making it more like a burden than a
pleasure.
Theresa pointed out that although she attempts to exercise choice, once there is a finding
of domestic violence, the legal system confiscates her agency:
Once this happens to you, they think, ‘Oh, she’s not capable of taking care of
herself.’ You almost begin to lose your voice. I’ve even tried to call the DA and
say, ‘Can you drop the charges?’ It’s like at this point you have no say because
you’re just a poor stupid girl.
Melody entered a shelter to escape her husband but currently lives with an increasingly
abusive landlord. She insists she has no choice to alter her circumstances:
I know it is wrong. I am suffering so much. This is damaging to me, but I will be
fine. I am going to get better with my job. I will move forward. I will get back
on the saddle. I just have to get healthy. I can’t. I can’t. It is as if I can’t. I
can’t. I do not have a choice. I don’t have. I can’t pretend. Do you understand?
Cecilia elaborated on how she abdicated choice early in the relationship, “I feel like I
didn’t make any choices in the beginning.” She moved with her boyfriend to his
hometown 3 months after meeting him. She struggled to find employment, and:
He immediately pretty much started taking care of me and then made the offer of
marriage and then I’m like, ‘Sure,’ without knowing what I wanted in a man.
Estelle disagreed with the use of the word “choice” since:
I never really made a choice in that relationship other than yes, I’m having a C-
section on this day and this time. Other than that, I didn’t really make any
decision, not even for food [or] where we were living. I really didn’t make any
choices.

167
Past traumas and present vulnerabilities shaped relationship decisions. Coping
with the trauma of sexual assault when she was 17 years old:
I just always wanted to be around people that I felt safe with and bigger than me
that could protect me. At that point, I already knew not to make them my partner
but just have them as my friend. [Elvira]
Despite being single for 5 years and recognizing his intention to exploit her access to
drugs, she expressed confusion about how her most recent partner had persuaded her to
enter a relationship with him:
I just wanted to be safe, but he definitely was not a person to be safe
around…Before it was like I didn’t care, I wasn’t all there. I was always on drugs
or alcohol, so I couldn’t even think. It was like whatever anybody asked me for, I
was like, ‘Okay, whatever.’
Recognizing patterns from their families of origin, some women alternated between self-
compassion and self-blame:
I don’t have any regrets because everything in life that you go through, everything
happens for a reason. I’ve learned from everything that I have been through.

I feel ashamed…because of me not being able to say no or run away and just hide
or get help. I ended up using drugs or being forced into sexual activity that I
didn’t want. It was just very hard for me to say, ‘No, enough is enough.’ If I
would have just said ‘No, enough is enough, it would have made everything
better. [Jade]
There’s something that attracts you to going into those kind of relationships
because when you were a child, you had seen domestic violence. I had
counseling before, and what I have realized is that you always are attracted to
what you lived in your childhood. [Georgina]
Although it appears that she acquiesced to avoid conflict which had the potential to
become violent, Jade insisted, “There was at times that I had every chance to say no, and
I made a bad decision.” Ginger asserted that her capacity to exercise choice had
expanded since leaving the relationship, “If I go back, if I talk to him again, if I let him

168
suck me in again, those are my own choices, in a sense. I have choices right now. I
didn’t have choices when I was there.”
Although pre-participants identified environmental factors which influenced their
decisions to enter or continue relationships with their abusive partners, their responses
were tinged with guilt or self-blame:
I was facing financial hardship. I was just looking for an easy way out when I
should have just took the long road and continued going to school instead of
relying on him. [Carmen]
Several identified guilt specifically with regard to the effects of their decisions on their
children.
Many pre-participants took the lion’s share of responsibility, sometimes naming
themselves the primary aggressor:
Our domestic violence was like both parties. It was when we were using. I would
say it was probably 75/25, and I was the aggressor, not like physical but more
verbal. I started the fights. [Helena]

I feel very responsible. I feel more responsible than him in the sense of he
doesn’t realize he’s being abusive. I do. [Ginger]

I would just always be on him about drinking. It would probably be different if I
just let him do what he wanted to do. [Hope]

I always let him do what he wanted to do. I never told him I didn’t like it when
he was doing something, even the drinking like, ‘Let him be what he wants to be.’
I think I contributed to it because then he expected me to accept whatever he
changed into. [Tara]

Other pre-participants, while they did not claim primary responsibility for the abuse,
accepted some:
We [she and her son] both have ADHD. That’s probably one of the reasons why I
probably had problems with the relationship with my husband because I would
never remember to do something that he wanted me to do. [Tara]

169
I think everybody gets their 50%. It goes both ways. If a person thinks it’s all 1
person’s fault then I think they’re self-defeating themselves because they have to
take responsibility for getting involved with the person at the beginning.

I’m not saying it’s my fault. He should know better not to do this in the first
place, but it just seems like I know the right thing to say at the right time and the
right button to press. [Theresa]

In a way this was both of our faults because I didn’t come out and get help, and I
didn’t take care of it when it first happened. That’s my fault. The first physical
assault, that’s when I should have sought help. That’s my fault for not taking care
of that. [Theresa]

So rather than bending and trying to make everybody happy and keeping peace in
the family or in the household, I think my 50% of the failed marriage is that I
should have done a lot more standing up… I allowed it to happen by pacifying his
behavior. [Alicia]

Taking responsibility appropriately involves acknowledging gaps in knowledge or
skills, as well as missed opportunities to create or enforce boundaries which preserve
one’s safety. A few pre-participants offered examples of taking responsibility
appropriately:
I didn’t know how to put my foot down and say, ‘Enough is enough.’ That’s why
I’m responsible as far as allowing [it] to get that far. It was more that I was
scared more than anything because I didn’t know how to reach out for help, not
necessarily know how, but didn’t want to. I didn’t want people to look down on
me. I have a lot to do with the situation because I didn’t take action on what I
should have. As far as the actual abuse itself, I know I didn’t do anything wrong
to cause it.

I feel like if I would have stopped it from Day 1 or if I would have just stayed out
of that relationship from Day 1, none of this would have happened, but I allowed
it. I think it was like the whole drug abuse and stuff. I wasn’t all there. [Elvira]

I know when I’m being abused. It know that it’s wrong. I know that he shouldn’t
talk to me the way that he does, but I still let it happen for what reason I don’t
know because I can say, ‘That’s wrong’. [Ginger]

I didn’t have a healthy boundary with him. I gave him too much and then was
demanding respect. You can’t go backwards in a relationship. [Ingrid]

170

A couple of pre-participants disclosed how their feelings changed from initially blaming
themselves to holding their partners accountable for their abusive acts:
Every once in a while I feel like it was my fault for getting abused because if I
would have just gotten up and did it, it would not have happened, or if I would
have, this is going to sound crazy, but if I would have ordered him the pizza, he
wouldn’t have choked me the first time, or if I would have just left him alone for
only 3 hours, he would have been just fine. Now I’m realizing that there’s no
justification for what he did. [Estelle]

Reflecting both a lack of awareness and low self-esteem, pre-participants
suggested that they seemed to be attracted to partners who mistreated them. Elvira’s
extended family was involved heavily in local gangs:
I have a magnet for all these bad boys, and I know it’s because I grew up in that
environment, but I want to stay out of that environment. I have to get out of that
circle because I don’t want to be attracted to those kind of guys anymore, and
those are the first ones I get all the time.
Describing her efforts to change her script:
I’ve met guys too that are the boring type for me, and I’ve had a blast with them
because I love dancing, and they’ll take me out dancing. As long as it’s my type
of music, I’ll dance, and I’ve had a good time with them, but again, I still have
this magnet.

Demonstrating her insight, she recalled a recent encounter:
Not so long ago, I met this bad boy. He’s already telling me he loves me and I’m
never going to find anybody that loves me like him, and I’m like, ‘Dude, you just
met me like 3 months ago. How can you already love me?’ I’m learning to love
myself. I can’t tell you I love you.
Reflecting on her most recent abusive relationship, Ginger recalled that she met her
partner during a troubled period in her life, “You’re putting it out there, and that’s what
you get back.”

171
Indicating what they needed to achieve safety, pre-participants proposed building
self-sufficiency, identifying red flags, resolving codependency, increasing self-esteem,
accessing social support, and participating in corrective experiences:
I need to stop feeling sorry for myself and take care of myself by myself.

Learning how to pick the right guy.

I need to release this codependent behavior. It’s me.

I need to recognize red flags and boundaries and get a lot of self-esteem back in
order to keep my head straight.

People to talk to. Like I said, if you talk to enough people, when you start falling
backwards, they can tell you, ‘Hey, wait a minute.’

Accomplishments, stuff that you can pull from and be confident in, know that,
‘Hey, I’m good at this. I’m not totally incapable like he says. I’m smart.’

While some women acknowledged their capacity to change in order to enhance their
safety, others primarily focused on the behavior of a current or future partner:
I obviously need somebody that’s not going to leave the door open, unlocked. I
don’t want to feel vulnerable. I don’t want to feel like I have to walk on eggshells
around the person in order to avoid upsetting them. I want to be able to speak my
mind and not worry about the house falling down on top of me. I want to feel
safe that somebody’s going to take care of things if I can’t. [Theresa]

I usually don’t have to worry about him getting physical or violent unless he’s
drinking, and he’s agreed that he’s not going to drink. [Carla]

In addition to acknowledging gaps in knowledge and skills and missed
opportunities to implement boundaries, taking responsibility appropriately involves an
appreciation for existing personal and environmental barriers to safety. Pre-participants
identified more barriers than graduates including mutual debts; their children’s
preferences to reside in an area with which their abusers are familiar; embarrassment;

172
fear; friends’ and family’s positive perceptions of the abuser; ongoing contact with the
abuser, especially with regard to child custody and support; the abuser’s promises to
change; codependency; poor boundaries; low self-esteem; difficulty navigating the legal
system, particularly with regard to financial concerns; perceived or actual lack of access
to legal resources; lack of employment, stable income, housing, transportation, or legal
immigration status; and ignorance, “I don’t know” as barriers to achieving or maintaining
safety. Some pre-participants seemed to ignore environmental obstacles to safety:
There’s nothing physically, emotionally or mentally other than [child custody]
standing in my way. I’m not allowing anything else.

As of right now, only me, I only have myself to blame from here on out.

Only Carla acknowledged threats in her environment, including lack of employment and
safe, affordable housing.
While some pre-participants acknowledged that they lacked financial or family
support, others were uncertain, indicated they did not lack any resources, or suggested
nominal additions to their safety plan, such as obtaining a restraining order, installing an
alarm in their homes, changing locks, or purchasing pepper spray. One pre-participant
planned to approach Laura’s House if she found that she needed resources in the future,
while a few others hoped to obtain mental health therapy for themselves and their
children. Women who intended to continue their relationships identified conjoint therapy
or mental health treatment for their partners, one of whom specified her own gaps in
problem solving and safety planning skills, while another sought to more assertively
communicate.
PEP Graduates. While some women did not recognize their capacity for choice:

173
I never realized that I had a choice, that I didn’t have to deal with it. It was just
kind of like, ‘Oh, I’ve done this my whole life, I can take care of one more
person;

I didn’t know I had a choice in picking this relationship because I was very
young, I think I was just trying to flee from my family;
other graduates described how they exercised choice both preceding and subsequent to
their abusive relationships:
I feel totally responsible for the choices I made because I realize that I had my
own issues that I was working out from my own childhood, and I brought him
into my life to meet certain needs.

How do I feel about my decisions? Oh, I feel really good and proud of myself
every single day because every day I still love him and every day I wonder what I
would say if he showed up on my doorstep but every day I make the decision that
if he does, then I’m gonna call 911 instead of melt.

Those who believed they had made choices in a fog:
When you’re in the unhealthy relationship, your mind doesn’t think straight, not
necessarily,
now felt disappointed, satisfied, foolish, regretful, stupid, frustrated, hurt, and sad.
Marlena explained that she felt satisfied with her decision to preserve the
marriage while her children were young:
I believed I needed to stay together because of the kids…I was able to be at home.
I was able to be a stay at home mom.
Although “in retrospect I don’t know if I’m glad I stayed or not,” her comments echoed
the thoughts and feelings of study participants presently weighing the potential effects of
ending or maintaining their abusive relationships on their children:
I was bound and determined. I’d eat beans and sit on apple crates, but I will be a
stay at home mom, and the only way to do that, because by now, my husband’s
earning a good income, is to stay married to him and do the best I could as a
mother.

174
During the interview, as she reviewed her own decisions, she gleaned advice for younger
women:
Hav[e] something in your own life to get your mind off of it. Have some plan of
action, be it leaving or staying. I wish I had lived out on my own prior to
[marriage].

Some graduates indicated that they had ignored red flags and expressed regret for not
taking or pursuing action at key junctures:
In 2003, I called the police. I was scared, and I hung up. They called back. They
came out. My husband’s a doctor, so my mom said, ‘Oh, don’t follow through
because he’ll lose his license. Don’t tell anybody,’ so I was talked out of it, and I
shouldn’t have done that;
or discussed how they sought inappropriate intervention:
The kind of help that I was getting was couples counseling, and it wasn’t deep
enough. It wasn’t targeted enough at what I needed…If you have a healthy
relationship, I think it could be good, but what I needed was so much more
surgical in nature.
Overall, women who had achieved some distance from their abusive relationships
wondered how “I really could have let myself go to this kind of downward spiral.” In
comparison to pre-participants, graduates showed more compassion for themselves:
Based on my conditioning, I don’t think I could have made any decisions any
differently than how I did it because I truly did the best that I could at the time
with the information that I had.

I sold out my family. I would lie to my mom all the time. I didn’t care. All I
cared about was him and making him happy… I compromised my religion. I’m
Christian. I wasn’t going to have sex until I got married, and I did with him, like
compromised my body. I don’t feel guilty about it. I just feel like it was a
learning experience. I’m not living that way, so it’s okay now.

If it wouldn’t have happened the way it did, I don’t think I would be at the place I
am today. I’ve grown so much. I definitely wouldn’t want to go back in that
situation but it played out okay for me.

175
In retrospect and now in a sense, I feel that I was supposed to go through that to
grow. If I didn’t know then, at least right now I feel like, ‘You know what? Like
every struggle that I go through, I learn. There is a lesson to be learned’. I sort of
feel like, ‘Too bad all that happened, too bad I went through that,’ but I can
overcome it, and I learned from it, and I’m better now. I’m stronger. I’m wiser.
Graduates demonstrated taking responsibility appropriately or acknowledging
gaps in knowledge or skills, as well as missed opportunities to create or enforce
boundaries which preserve the woman’s safety, sometimes infusing their explanations
with spiritual concepts:
My need for emotional love, the neediness that I had – I felt partially responsible
for not taking care of myself prior to meeting this kind of person, then also not
listening to the signs as it was happening.

Now that some time has passed, I see that I have the responsibility. Basically I
didn’t listen to myself. I knew within 6 months, what kind of person he was. I
take responsibility that even knowing that he was that way, I was afraid. I was
afraid of loneliness. I was afraid of resources or financial help. I was just afraid
of the world out there.

I was aware that I didn’t like my life, that what I was living was not right, but I
didn’t know how to get out, so for that reason, I feel responsible and I don’t.

I feel responsible because I know that nobody put me in that relationship.
Because of the interior landscape of who I was, I produced someone in my life
that would kind of be the key in the lock for all those things. If I’m somebody
that feels like I don’t have any worth then I’m gonna have someone in my life
that’s gonna agree with that and is gonna play a part in that. I know that I was not
healthy and so I, therefore, manifested someone in my life that wasn’t healthy.

I couldn’t say, ‘Because of you! Only you! You! You!’ I had to turn that
around and own that there’s something. I’ve created this. You can tell where we
are on the inside by what we’ve created on the outside.

Carolina disclosed:
I take responsibility because I was still very much a little girl and wanted a daddy,
wanted somebody to take care of me. I didn’t want the responsibility of taking
care of myself.
Clarifying the distinction between blaming herself and taking responsibility:

176
It’s a double-edged sword, and I’ve experienced both, so I say this having gone
through that. We have to own our own power.
Several graduates admitted that they ignored the red flags they recognized and
consciously sought to preserve an unhealthy relationship.
Only 2 graduates accepted blame, “30% - I helped antagonize him.” Greta
claimed that she questioned him too much, cussed at him, and instigated conflict. She
blamed herself for believing her sister-in-law’s accusations of her husband’s infidelity,
cursing at him, calling the police, and reporting it in a way that initiated a domestic
violence case against him. Both women intended to preserve their marriages.
Some graduates did not accept blame for the abuse, but felt guilty for failing to act
due to the effects on their children:
Sometimes I feel guilty because I stayed in that stormy relationship. I should
have put a stop to it since the beginning when my son was little. I think my son
would not have been affected so much if I would have left sooner.

I feel so much guilt about not doing anything about it. It was in my hands to give
her a different life, but I didn’t do it. I didn’t look for help before when I should
have done it.

Graduates were more likely to identify problems with self-esteem as the source of
their attraction to unhealthy partners. Mary Jo believed she was subconsciously attracted
to bad guys. She linked her attraction to a distorted conceptualization of masculinity:
Challenging guys, I saw it like a sign of attractiveness, like a sign of manhood.
Very attractive to me that kind of guy that doesn’t open up, doesn’t know what
he’s thinking, the uncertainty, the insecurity, the roller coaster. It’s addictive.
Coupled with the “low self-esteem, not being clear on your own worth, and not trusting
your intuition,” Sasha asserted:
I think that abusive men can spot your weaknesses, and so for instance in my
situation, I had a deep need to be emotionally loved, and because I hadn’t had that

177
because my father was not emotionally available for me, I met someone who gave
me all of that. It was my weakness. He saw it, and he capitalized on it.
Although increased self-awareness might help to minimize compulsively entering or
continuing abusive relationships to meet one’s emotional and psychological needs, it may
not be sufficient for avoiding them altogether:
Didn’t matter, my therapist, my books. At the end, at the real moment when I was
going into a bar, looking for a guy, I would choose the wrong guy. [Mary Jo]

Graduates identified the following barriers to safety: deficiencies in stable
income, employability including health problems, educational levels, childcare,
knowledge about available resources, feelings of self-efficacy, and ability to enforce
boundaries. However, they also discussed psychological barriers of feeling trapped, fear
of confrontation, commitment to marriage, fear of the unfamiliar, isolation, and
ambivalence. They emphasized financial limitations that prevented them from changing
residence and legal failures that deprived them of restraining orders, “I would like to have
a restraining order in place but I have a judge that wasn’t sensitive to my needs”. Vivien
searched for employment that will allow her to transfer to another area once she accrues
sufficient funds to change residence. Mary Jo described her lack of support system:
I’m from another country. All my family is there. Because of this process of
recovery, I have hardly any friends left because I noticed that I didn’t like it or I
noticed things that I didn’t like about them, so it’s a lonely path. In that way, it’s
talking about a support system in order to feel safe. I don’t have that support
system.
A fourth graduate concurred that having a support system might have helped her
“understand the patterns earlier” and “enact some strategies earlier on so you don’t get
yourself so far in, so deep into the whole thing.”

178
Graduates expressed satisfaction with their current levels of safety due to the
precautionary steps they had taken:
I’m comfortable where I am because of the security system that I have on my
house. I have a block on my phone. I have a security guy that’s in our complex.
Let him know what my ex looks like. I let the police know. [Sasha]
However, they acknowledged how they sought to change themselves in order to end
violence in their lives:
I needed to be more firm like the measures that I took at the end, to let him know
who I was really. I wanted to set my boundary, ‘You know what? You are not
going to be this to me’…I do feel safe, and I have to trust myself that I’m not
going back to what I was before. [Mary Jo]
Many women expressed that they did not know how to enhance their safety beyond the
steps they had already taken. However, 10 percent of graduates stressed the importance
of ongoing participation in therapy.
Summary
While psychological empowerment develops on relevant knowledge about
domestic violence, its consequences, and available resources, the first component along
this psychological empowerment continuum demands its application to the individual’s
personal circumstances. The development of this awareness of how domestic violence
manifests in a woman’s life involves the following 5 processes: dismantling denial,
identifying abuse experiences, assessing danger, increasing self-awareness, and analyzing
choices.
Pre-participants defined their denial as a lack of awareness or vision, using
metaphors like fog, “sleepy mode”, and “bandages over their eyes”. Women talked about
using denial subconsciously to cope with abuse and consciously to avoid taking action.

179
Exhibiting various degrees of denial, women minimized their experiences, dismissing
physical intimidation, endangerment, and nonphysical forms of abuse. Graduates also
discussed how denial facilitated their maintenance of their abusive relationships. The
cycle of violence, particularly the cycle’s honeymoon or reconciliation phase, supported
their denial. Graduates’ breakthroughs often occurred when the abuse impacted their
children, law enforcement or social services intervened, or they participated in
independent study, individual therapy or PEP.
Decreasing denial permitted women to identify the onset of abuse in their
relationships and dynamics of power and control including isolation. Although they may
not have used the terms, pre-participants identified how their partner’s physical, sexual,
verbal, economical, emotional, and mental abuse mirrored the tension-building,
explosion, and honeymoon/reconciliation phases of the cycle of violence. Many
graduates admitted that they did not realize the extent of their abuse experiences prior to
PEP.
Pre-participants reported that the onset of abuse in their relationships coincided
with other life changes such as financial difficulties, a new career, pregnancy, or
marriage. Although fewer graduates commented on the onset of abuse in their
relationships, they discussed how changes in their relationships coincided with changes
they made in themselves. Confusing their partner’s control for love or affection,
graduates observed how they became further and further isolated as their partners
monitored their voicemails, curtailed interactions with friends, or limited their

180
employment. Eventually, graduates censored themselves and withdrew from friends and
family to avoid others’ detection of their relationship problems.
Graduates demonstrated a better understanding of warning signs of heightened
risk of abuse reoccurrence than pre-participants. Some pre-participants believed there
were none or did not know if there were any warning signs in their relationships. Both
pre-participants and graduates identified similar examples, but graduates discussed how
their denial had interfered with their assessments of risk.
Women’s increased self-awareness often manifested as ambivalence about their
abusive relationships. Despite satisfaction related to their decision to end them, pre-
participants expressed uncertainty about how to move forward. Despite their self-
awareness, others lacked skills to make changes, and some felt frustrated by their
ambivalent feelings toward their partners. Their partners’ actions during the cycle’s
honeymoon/reconciliation phase fostered hope while others doubted their partners would
change. PEP cultivated graduates’ self-awareness which helped them address their
ambivalence, identify red flags, and evaluate their boundaries. Pre-participants identified
various financial, emotional, and social reasons for continuing their abusive relationships.
They recognized how the abuse diminished their self-esteem and how their low self-
esteem bound them to their abusive relationships. Graduates identified similar reasons
for maintaining their relationships and understood how shame, fear of social stigma, and
low self-esteem influenced their decisions to stay. However, self-reflection which might
have included independent study and/or therapy diminished graduates’ ambivalence and
increased their self-awareness and esteem.

181
Both pre-participants and graduates disclosed negative feelings about their
choices related to their most recent abusive relationships. Some pre-participants
discussed how they lacked choice both within and outside their relationships due to legal
or economic constraints or their partner’s control. Past traumas and present
vulnerabilities including learned behavior patterns from their families of origin
influenced their decisions, and pre-participants vacillated between self-blame or guilt and
compassion. In contrast, graduates appreciated how they exercised choice preceding,
within, and subsequent to their abusive relationships. Despite recognizing how they
ignored red flags, failed to follow through, or pursued inappropriate remedies, they
showed compassion for themselves. In contrast to the majority of graduates who took
responsibility appropriately and identified low self-esteem as the source of their attraction
to unhealthy partners, many pre-participants claimed a larger share of responsibility for
the abuse, sometimes naming themselves the primary aggressor. Only a few pre-
participants acknowledged gaps in knowledge or skills, missed opportunities to create or
enforce healthy boundaries, and existing personal and environmental barriers to safety.
These women intended to increase their level of safety by increasing self-sufficiency and
self-esteem, identifying red flags, reducing codependency, accessing social support, and
building on strengths and preliminary successes. Other pre-participants retained their
focus on their partner’s behavior. While some pre-participants seemed oblivious to
environmental obstacles to safety or believed they had adequate resources, others
acknowledged their lack of financial or family support or intended nominal additions to
their safety plans. Graduates expressed satisfaction with their current levels of safety due

182
to the precautionary steps they already had taken. However, they acknowledged how
they sought to change themselves in order to end violence in their lives.
Engagement: Preliminary exercise of relevant skills to promote safety
If awareness is the application of general knowledge about domestic violence to
women’s individual circumstances, engagement moves from a cognitive understanding of
how domestic violence exists in their lives to women’s development and preliminary
exercise of relevant skills to promote safety. Describing how critical awareness
facilitates engagement, one graduate explains:
As I keep asking [questions], I become more and more empowered because it
makes me responsible for what I allow into my life. It took the victimization out
of it and the drama out of it and really just brought it down to practical
application, if I was willing to do it.
This chapter identifies 2 skills that are crucial to achieve safety in the context of women’s
experiences of intimate partner violence, safety planning and the identification,
implementation, and enforcement of appropriate personal boundaries. The following
sections compare and contrast pre-participants’ and graduates’ skills as illustrated by
their interview responses.
Safety planning
Safety planning is a concrete skill which builds on women’s development of
awareness, especially identifying abusive behavior and assessing lethality. Although in
many instances, women use safety planning to strategize their exit from an abusive
relationship; women apply similar concepts to enhance their safety while still involved
with an abusive partner.

183
Pre-participants. Pre-participants used the terms “safety planning” and “safety
plan” loosely, sometimes referring to a vague intention to leave their partners. In these
cases, the first step the women described was creating an emotional distance from their
partners which would allow them to begin planning their exit:
You’re holding back yourself now because you know that ultimately, you want to
leave this person, but you don’t want to get too emotionally involved anymore
because you don’t want to go backwards, you want to move forward in your plan.
[Fiona]
Subsequent steps revolved around building self-sufficiency, pursuing higher education or
other vocational training and seeking viable employment. At this point, women avoided
conflict in an effort to maintain the situation while they gathered needed resources and
skills to successfully exit the relationship:
Let it go and keep moving with your plan because what’s important is just your
children and your life and not all the other things that you could get caught up in
fighting over because that person is still trying to control you and you know it, so
it’s better to let it go.
A CalWORKs benefits recipient, Jade discussed the safety plan she had developed in
collaboration with her mother and Domestic Abuse Services Unit (DASU) worker:
With my DASU worker, it’s more so along the lines of making sure that I am
aware and educated when it comes to classes and groups, what I can do to get
help for myself along with making sure that I get this restraining order served.
Also make sure that my loved ones and childcare and everyone else around me
knows what the situation is, so that way nothing can harm my children or myself,
just making sure that I go through each step to maintain what I need to do, so I
can move forward.
The majority of pre-participants, particularly those who had ended their relationships or
intended to continue them, saw no need to develop a safety plan. Those who intended to
leave desired no communication with their partners and/or planned to move away.
Although they did not label these actions part of a safety plan, pre-participants offered

184
examples of effective safety planning. After her husband repeatedly attacked her while
she lay asleep, Alicia booby trapped her bedroom so she would awake if someone entered
the room. If her daughter slept elsewhere during the night, she slept at a neighbor’s
home. Other actions women described to promote their safety were: requesting a less
conspicuous parking location in their apartment complex, attempting to separate finances
and resolve mutual debts, learning self-defense, calling the police, obtaining a restraining
order, preparing a safe place to escape if the situation at home escalated, storing money,
making copies of important documents, hiding emergency telephone numbers in a safe
place, and identifying local domestic violence related resources.
PEP Graduates. Surprisingly, graduates also used safety planning loosely,
referring to it as an exercise, rather than a process or activity. Citing a page in her PEP
handouts:
I did at one time when I needed it. I kind of half way filled it out.
However, the majority of graduates were familiar with the term and defined it in the
context of planning to exit an abusive relationship. Many graduates explained that they
mentally had constructed a safety plan, but had not taken concrete measures to implement
it, suggesting ongoing struggles with minimization and denial of abuse:
We didn’t live together, and I had a car, and he really didn’t, so if I needed to get
out, I could. I didn’t really have one because I wasn’t living with him or
anything. [Nora]
I don’t feel I’m in that kind of danger, that I need to do that. [Marlena]
I just don’t want to have to have it go there.
In addition to believing that her partner would never kill her, Vivien refrained
from safety planning because:

185
I felt that if I increased or maintained my safety when I was with him, that it was
disloyalty to him and that it meant that I didn’t love him, that I disrespected him,
so I never. That’s why I would never take photos or ever call the police and make
the report on him because I loved him, and I knew I wasn’t going to leave him, so
I never tried to increase or maintain safety except for with him which was just
trying to conform more to what made him happy.
Unfortunately, when she finally took action, a judge refused her petition for a restraining
order. Facing additional financial barriers that hinder her from moving to an unknown
residence, she has resolved to be self-reliant:
What I needed to be safe from the outside fails me, so I have to just go from what
I can do for myself.
Identifying, implementing, and enforcing appropriate personal boundaries
Although they may not have used the term “boundaries” in their responses,
women who identified their abuse experiences described boundary violations. Whether
or not the survivor implements a consequence for their partner’s violation of their
boundary characterizes the survivor’s boundary as healthy or weak. Although this may
sound like it blames the victim, its purpose in PEP is to increase self-awareness and
provide necessary knowledge and skills to transform women’s behavior and decrease the
likelihood of abuse reoccurrence in the long run.
Pre-participants. Although a substantial proportion (35%) of pre-participants
admitted ignorance, other women defined a boundary as a limit, drawing a line, standing
up for yourself, space, and indicating to another that their behavior is unacceptable to
you. One-fifth of pre-participants identified the process of pursuing a restraining order
or ending the abusive relationship as an example of creating and implementing a healthy
boundary. PEP cites the New World Dictionary to define a boundary “as a line or thing

186
marking a limit or a border.” Comparing a boundary to a fence a homeowner builds
around her property, the curriculum explains:
She makes the decisions about what is good for her and what is not. A woman
who lives in an abusive relationship may have a partner who makes all of her
decisions for her. When someone else makes your decisions, it is difficult to
know what you actually want. Knowing yourself and understanding what is best
for you is the first step in learning to set boundaries.
Nine pre-participants either identified themselves as “codependent” or disclosed
that their most recent abusive partners had abused drugs or alcohol:
I usually try to please others before I please myself, but in reality, I’m pleasing
myself by pleasing others first.
I responded to whoever liked me, be that they would want me in some way.
For some reason, just more so, others come before myself. I’ve always been that
way.
I know that I enable him.
Often repeating intergenerational patterns, women believed their partners needed them
and felt their involvement would save their partners from their own destructive behaviors,
including substance abuse, self-harm, and domestic violence.
Some pre-participants did not recognize how setting boundaries involved
exercising personal agency. For example, Jade said her children were her boundary,
indicating that she uses their welfare as a guideline for her decision making. Struggling
to comply with drug court’s mandates, Helena explained that her program’s restrictions
eliminated personal boundaries. In addition to a 6 o’clock curfew and bed rest for a high
risk pregnancy, she must test three times, attend 4 meetings, and participate in group and
individual therapy on a weekly basis. Fiona linked boundaries with her confidence in her
educational qualifications:

187
A healthy boundary in my own life would be my education. No one could ever
touch my education because it was something that I earned, and a healthy
boundary is not trying to tell me that I’m not educated. That boundary is up, and
I’m clear that I’m an educated and knowledgeable person.
Although her rejection of any suggestion that she is uneducated might be an example of
enforcing a healthy boundary, her response to the criticism represents the boundary. Her
education is only the boundary’s subject.
A tenth of pre-participants believed that appropriate boundaries differ between
people since individuals may have higher or lower tolerance for certain behaviors.
Ginger easily connected weak boundaries to her poor relationship choices:
I have problems with boundaries. That’s why I meet the men I do.
Although she has the knowledge and awareness to define and identify abuse, she is
unable to translate those abilities to the realm of creating and implementing healthy
boundaries:
It almost seems foreign to me, like a different language.
Claudia concurred:
I let myself get manipulated a lot. I had the boundary, and I knew. That’s why I
get angry sometimes at myself. I know that thing’s wrong, but then that person
can twist my brain so that it will seem like I’m wrong, and then I’ll get confused.
I’ll get so confused like, ‘How can it make so much sense this way, but it was
completely clear to me the first time around?’ I know where I personally think
there’s a boundary in something, but then the person will already anticipate that
and work over it, and then I’m not strong enough to actually push myself to stick
to my own, or actually I’ll begin to agree.
Pre-participants described an unhealthy boundary as a situation characterized by
weak or nonexistent boundaries where “a person walks all over you.” They believed that
unhealthy boundaries are caused by the victim’s lack of assertiveness and that failure to
enforce boundaries aggravated existing problems:

188
I just give in all the time, and that’s not good because it makes it worse for me
later because he knows you gave in that time, you’re going to give in next time,
and I’m struggling with that.
Because of me not being able to say no or run away and just hide or get help, I
ended up using drugs or being forced into sexual activity that I didn’t want.
I think once that person’s crossed this boundary that has left you uncomfortable,
then it’s easy to cross it again.
Pre-participants discussed growing up in families with too rigid or too flexible boundaries
and giving their partners too much, too soon. Their partner’s subsequent violence
prevented enforcement of boundaries, if they had any:
It’s like they’re causing you to have no boundaries because you’re at their mercy
about it.
Their intimate relationships were hardly the only realm in which they struggled with
erecting appropriate boundaries. Despite her husband’s criticism that she had the
intelligence level of a child, Cecilia talked about how people around her enjoyed her
childlike personality. While friends often seek to rescue her, strangers will speak to her
as if she is inferior to them:
I’m like, ‘Hey! I am 20 years older than them!’ It’s like I shouldn’t come off like
that, so it’s changing, I think.
Despite her awareness of her dependence on male approval, she continues to struggle
with “the real strong desire to have the [positive] attention from a man.”
Many pre-participants described starting the process of erecting healthy
boundaries in small steps. Despite her family’s heavy involvement in neighborhood
gangs, Carmen learned that she could communicate her boundaries nonviolently:
If someone gets crazy, I could walk away now. Before I couldn’t, and I had to
train myself hard. I would just fight anybody. I wouldn’t care. I was just
unhealthy, not caring of any consequence.

189
Elvira learned to decline invitations to enter relationships with men, and her relatively
new skill of refusal has improved boundaries with her young children. She views her
ability to say no as a manifestation of her self-respect which she expects others to honor:
If I am respecting myself, where I’m learning how to respect myself, other people
have to respect my decision.
Ingrid’s abuse experiences resulted in stronger boundaries involving her personal safety,
including being very discriminating about who she accepts a ride from and to whom she
provides her telephone number or address:
I tend to be too trusting and naïve, and I’ve become more withdrawn and reserved
and cautious now after an abusive incident.
Claudia refused to change her plans to study abroad despite her partner’s protests.
Cecilia visualizes meeting her ex-husband to exchange their children and ending any
conversation as soon as her husband speaks to her disrespectfully. Although she
sometimes falls back into the pattern of listening to her ex-husband while he verbally
abuses her by telephone, Estelle described starting to eclipse verbally abusive
conversations with her brother as a preliminary exercise.
PEP Graduates. Analogously, nine graduates either identified themselves as
codependent or disclosed that their most recent abusive partners had abused drugs or
alcohol:
I felt like I was taking care of him constantly…I need to spend as much time [as
possible] with him because I felt like when I went away from him, he would do
drugs, and he would turn into this monster.
I was just so tired and so worn down that I was just like, ‘Well, I’ll just stay in
this situation.’ It just became like a habit, something that I couldn’t get out of. It
was like I was addicted to him. He was addicted to me, and he was addicted to
drugs. It was just a bad situation.

190
A lot of times I felt like I don’t know who I am without this relationship.
I also see the codependency part of me, that parts that wants to help, even though
it’s not healthy or I shouldn’t. Just kind of knowing to what extent can you help
someone? What extent are you handicapping them?
I feel that if someone suffers, it will be my fault.
Referring to her exchange with fellow PEP participants:
I’ve listened to so many stories, and the common thread is we all wanted to be
needed.
Graduates offered somewhat esoteric definitions of boundaries:
I’d say that a healthy boundary for somebody keeps the power and the freedom
within their own self and doesn’t allow that to be usurped by anybody else outside
of themselves.
[A] healthy [boundary] is speaking your truth, owning your power.
A healthy personal boundary is one that protects you and guards your emotional,
physical, and spiritual self.
Learning about boundaries taught some graduates that they had the right to function as a
person separate from their partners or families. Although a few pre-participants
mentioned that respecting boundaries requires that the listener refrain from manipulating
the speaker’s thoughts and feelings, the majority of graduates stressed this component of
a healthy relationship.
Several women used metaphors to describe boundaries, including a “safety zone,”
a “closed door,” or “locked gate” through which others may gain entry. Unlike pre-
participants, graduates discussed and practiced linking boundary violations with
consequences. Graduates anticipated that if they encountered people who did not respect
their boundaries, they would immediately sever contact:

191
If you’re not respecting my personal boundaries, I will distance myself from you
completely.
You set it, and you decide that if anyone crosses it, they’re not in my life
anymore.
They were motivated to implement healthier boundaries because of their children:
It was only through having my children be there that I was able to put in the
boundary and say, ‘This is where it stops. It doesn’t go any further than this,’ and
so it forced me to make that decision whereas if it wasn’t, maybe I would have
never done anything about it. I would have stayed with the same unhealthy
person, so it forced me to find out that I do have boundaries and that I do have
responsibilities to my kids and that I am strong enough to do what needs to be
done even though it’s scary. [Vivien]
Their responses demonstrated that identifying a healthy boundary and implementing it
are separate processes:
I was just always so shocked by stuff people would say to me, and I didn’t know
what to say back. I was just like, ‘Well, they shouldn’t do that in the first place,’
but I didn’t know how to tell them, ‘This needs to stop.’
On many occasions, I prefer to evade. For example, I have not gotten to the point
where I can say, ‘I don’t like what you are doing.’
Graduates recognized how poor boundaries affected multiple aspects of their
lives, from friendships to employment relationships. Strengthening their sense of self
facilitated the implementation of appropriate boundaries, leading to change in key
relationships. Although her mother has abused her verbally since childhood, Nora
reported that her words no longer have the same effect they once did:
If she says something, it just falls off of me. It’s more like, ‘I’m sorry you feel
that way. I know for a fact that I’m not like that.’
Like pre-participants, some women practiced implementing boundaries with safer
individuals, such as their parents, siblings, adult children, business partners, employees,

192
landlords, roommates, friends, or an ex-partner with whom they had ongoing
communication due to their children in common.
Participating in PEP provided a “forum” that taught women about boundaries,
“permission” to practice them, and an opportunity to “get feedback and empowerment
from it.” Whereas previously they had felt that implementing boundaries was a negative
behavior, “mean,” “rude,” or “bitchy,” enforcing appropriate boundaries required no
nastiness:
You might be a great person, but you’re just not good for me. [Nora]
Eve expressed amazement that she had been able to separate from her husband.
Previously, she focused her thoughts on the honeymoon phases of her relationship’s
cycle, recalling all the ways in which her partner expressed his devotion; whereas,
Now I have this mind that says all the other stuff is completely unacceptable, even
at the smallest amount of it. I never thought I would get here, to where I can hold
that kind of boundary from him. If I can have that boundary with him, I know I
can have that boundary with anybody.
She and others discussed how they resisted entering relationships with men who were
eager to court them:
I guess he’s a friend. I’ve known him for close to 20 years, and he would like to
have a relationship with me, and there’s no way that I want to have a relationship
with anybody but especially him. I know that sometimes I feel like I should just
cut the friendship off, but it’s hard because it’s 20 years that I’ve known him, and
the reason why I think it’s unhealthy is because he’s very aggressive. He thinks
his opinion is better than anybody else’s opinion, and he does call me stupid a lot.
I know that’s wrong, and I told him that…I only see him maybe once every
couple of weeks. That’s about as much as I could take of him, and the times that I
have talked to him, he talks down on me like that. I just kind of let it go in, and it
really hurts, and I don’t say anything or do anything and then I don’t talk to him
for a couple weeks. Then he’ll call, and he goes, ‘Well, how come you don’t ever
talk to me?’ I said, ‘Well, I’m busy.’ I don’t tell him because I don’t want to hurt
his feelings. I’m learning more and more here. That’s where I got that it’s not
rude, and it’s not me hurting his feelings if I state that what he’s doing is wrong.

193
That’s a good thing. That’s not a bad thing, so I got that out of my head. I finally
did talk to him and then he got all upset, and he goes, ‘Well, because what you’re
doing is stupid, and you don’t do this,’ and I go, ‘See, that’s what I mean. You
don’t seem to understand that that hurts me.’
Although she persuaded him to stop insulting her in her toddler’s presence, she
recognized that she must work towards absolute intolerance of this type of behavior.
Graduates’ experimentation and preliminary successes with creating and implementing
boundaries in these contexts further encouraged their efforts to regain or recreate a
stronger sense of self.
Summary
The study found that increased awareness leads to preliminary exercise of safety
planning and the identification, implementation, and enforcement of appropriate personal
boundaries. Both pre-participants and graduates used the term “safety planning” loosely,
referring to it as a vague intention to leave their partners or as an exercise respectively.
Although the majority of pre-participants indicated that they did not need to develop a
safety plan, they offered examples of implementing appropriate strategies to enhance
safety. Like pre-participants, graduates used the term to refer to leaving an abusive
relationship. Although they reported mentally planning for safety, graduates did not
implement the plans they developed.
Although about a third of pre-participants did not know what a boundary is and
others did not recognize how boundaries involve personal agency, 20 percent identified
the process of obtaining a restraining order or ending an abusive relationship as an
example of creating and implementing a healthy boundary. Pre-participants continued to
struggle with codependency, believing that their partners needed them to save them from

194
their substance abuse, self-harm, or destructive acts toward others. Recognizing that
unhealthy boundaries pervaded their relationships, pre-participants started this process of
identifying, implementing, and enforcing boundaries in small steps with safe individuals.
Graduates differed from pre-participants in how they stressed consequences for
boundary violations. They pointed out that a person who respects their boundaries does
not try to subtly manipulate their thoughts and feelings. Graduates also recognized that
unhealthy boundaries characterized their relationships with diverse individuals.
However, their efforts to strengthen their sense of self led to changes in their
relationships with friends, family members, colleagues, and employers. Their
participation in PEP directly influenced their attitudes toward personal boundaries and
provided a safe space in which to practice and solicit feedback about changes in how they
related to others.
Practice: Experimenting with new behaviors and refining skills
While engagement is the preliminary exercise of relevant skills to promote safety,
“practice” involves experimenting with new behaviors in order to refine these skills.
Interviews showed how practice involves responding to abusive behaviors, doing
something different to get different results, and generalizing knowledge and skills to
other relationships. The following sections compare and contrast pre-participants’ and
graduates’ actual and anticipated practice or behavior as described in their interview
responses.

195
Responding to abusive behaviors
Women described how they responded to their partner’s abuse by implementing
various safety strategies and safety planning. They contemplated how they would
respond if they confronted an immediate risk of violence reoccurrence. In addition to
explaining how they sought to maximize their safety after leaving an abusive partner,
they disclosed changes in their willingness to ask for help and whom they asked,
accessing both formal and informal sources of support.
Pre-participants. One-quarter of pre-participants never implemented any
strategies designed to maximize their safety inside their abusive relationships, 10 percent
claimed that none existed, and another 10 percent only attempted them when planning to
exit their relationships. Inside the abusive relationship, the most commonly reported
strategy was to placate the partner, implying a belief that the survivor held responsibility
for instigating the violence:
Just be quiet and not provoke the other person…I just learned how to be quiet and
leave him alone.
I would hide from him in the house. I would go find something else to do, so I
wouldn’t be near him…More I avoided him, actually made him worse. I felt if I
was doing something, kept busy all the time, kept cleaning, staying away from
him, just anything to be preoccupied, rather than sit down and be near him. [Tara]
I know exactly what kind of discussions are going to bring out a tantrum
basically, so I try to avoid them or if I do bring them up, I do it on the phone long
distance. [Claudia]
To shut my mouth and pretend that nothing was happening, to show everyone that
nothing was happening. That was the way I was. That lasted 30 years. [Melody]
Self-censorship was another strategy that was mentioned. Tara described how she
never disclosed her academic qualifications to their family and friends because she was

196
afraid to offend him. Two women who intended to continue their relationships at the
time of the interview discussed how they attempted to walk away from a heated argument
to avoid its escalation. The most recent abuse incident reported by both women involved
severe physical violence after they tried to implement this “time-out” strategy. Their
partners subsequently explained that they feared abandonment if the women left.
Safety planning often started only when the women intended to leave their
partners. This planning included things like hiding money, important documents, and
emergency clothes in a safe place, and establishing a safe place to escape if their partners’
violence escalated. Once they decided to leave, they planned to avoid or suspend
communication with their abusers, avoid known places or people, call the police if he
approaches, obtain a restraining order, install new locks, change residence, enter shelter,
maintain a confidential address, talk to supportive others, and postpone child visitation
until the court intervenes. Another strategy women employed was increasing their
vigilance:
I’m very careful. I’m very observant now. I look to see if anyone’s following
me. In my car, I wait, and I look around because it’s scary. I was like that after
the restraining order didn’t go through.
They say a restraining order, but there really is no safety except being aware of
your surroundings and carrying a cell phone. [Ingrid]
Only one woman, who intended to continue her relationship, specifically mentioned her
choice to abstain from drinking alcohol in order to enhance her safety in the relationship,
while two others sought conjoint therapy. Only two women mentioned expanding self-
sufficiency by seeking employment or increasing access to credit.

197
If confronted with an immediate risk of abuse reoccurrence, most pre-participants
expressed unrealistic anticipations of leaving the premises without barrier. Others
intended to call the police, placate the abuser until escape became feasible, or fight back.
Alicia disclosed that she would be “pleasantly surprised” if her husband became violent
since his physical abuse would allow her to call the police and ideally obtain a court order
restraining him from their residence, offering “more of an end in sight”. She reported a
gardening accident earlier in the year that many of her friends believed were the
consequences of his physical abuse:
I would have jumped at the chance that he had done that to me because even if I
had the ugliest nose for the rest of my life, it would be so well worth it just to get
this over with.
Another woman feared that she would freeze as she had during previous abuse incidents.
Pre-participants described how denial, the honeymoon phase of their
relationship’s abuse cycle, and environmental barriers complicated their efforts to
terminate their abusive relationships. Claudia described how her partner had threatened
to leave her if she ever cheated on him. After telling him that she wanted to break up, she
started dating a fellow classmate. Rather than leaving her, he reframed her actions as
infidelity and ironically excused the behavior as her mistake:
I’ve been thinking about it a lot. I feel like I lowered myself in order to try to get
rid of this person, and now this person is trying to forgive me and say, ‘It’s okay,’
and I just don’t know how to stop it. I obeyed all his rules, even his rules that I
lowered myself and go out and kiss some other guy, then he’s gonna leave me,
and now he’s changed the rules…I don’t know how to win the game anymore. I
don’t know how to end it anymore. No matter what I do, they still stay obsessed.

198
Some women described how, at one point, the tactics which the abuser had employed
previously during the honeymoon phase to prevent them from leaving no longer had the
same effect:
He ended up moving in the house and saying, ‘Let’s go to counseling,’ and I was
already done. I did counseling with him. I did everything with him, and I was
done trying, so I left. [Carmen]
Others described how their tenacity had increased exponentially. For example, Carla
described how she now attempts to negotiate the outcome she wants rather than simply
accept “no” for an answer.
Many women implied that the only meaningful safety strategy was to leave the
abusive relationship before it escalated:
There’s not much you really can do unless you just leave.
After leaving, the women stressed the importance of working on themselves:
I’m just trying to come here and get out of bed and keep working and stop feeling
sorry for myself…trying to read and not think about that I’m alone and ‘poor me’
and just try to be normal. [Hope]
Seeking help, physically, mentally, not necessarily physically but mentally and
emotionally, whether it just be telling somebody what you went through so you
can relieve it from your insides, maybe even journaling will help, being able to
openly share. [Jade]
I’ve kept myself away from relationships right now because I want to take care of
me and what I need to get better at.
Jade elaborated on the importance of finding a support group or network “that will help
you deal with what you’ve been through,” build self-esteem, and “understand within
yourself that it wasn’t just your fault.” Explaining the connection between poor self-
esteem and abuse reoccurrence:

199
If you have low self-esteem and you don’t feel that you can do anything for
yourself, then more than likely, you’ll just go back to it again and again.
Creating a safety plan that supports her healing, she sought a supportive ear and wrote in
her journal whenever she felt anxious. Despite her current abstinence, she also sought
alcohol and other drug abuse resources to address her substance use within the
relationship. Another disclosed the abuse to her brothers and asked them and her
neighbors to contact the police if they heard her husband returning home intoxicated.
Some pre-participants disclosed difficulty with maintaining their safety
resolutions, particularly with regard to avoiding or suspending communication with their
abusers. Although she never remained alone in his presence, Tara kept answering his
telephone calls. Referring to her attraction to bad boys in her gang-dominated
neighborhood, Elvira wondered how she could maintain relationships with her extended
family while simultaneously maintaining distance from her previous “circle”:
I have to get out of that circle because I don’t want to be attracted to those kind of
guys anymore, and those are the first ones I get all the time. I can’t think of any
other way of dealing with it for now, but as soon as I find one, I’m going to try it.
Women stressed the importance of drawing on their social support networks by
disclosing the secret of their abuse:
The more you talk about, the more you’re going to hear back. When you have a
doubt in yourself and you want to go back, you’re going to be told by however
many people you let know.
Be around people who know what you’re going through, so if they do see the
abuser, they can have an extra pair of eyes looking out for safety.
The majority of pre-participants, however, discussed the difficulty they
experienced with asking for help. For example:

200
I feel like I should take care of myself. I should be capable of taking care of
myself.
Usually, they had asked for help when their problem had escalated to crisis proportions.
Many women reported that their help-seeking behavior recently had changed,
exemplified by their recent involvement with Laura’s House. Three women specified
that their participation in substance abuse rehabilitation or 12-step programs had
influenced positively their help-seeking behavior. They were now more willing to ask for
help when they needed it and accessed formal assistance when available.
Among the informal sources of assistance pre-participants had accessed were
pastors, family members, adult children, friends, fellow congregants, and 12-step
program sponsors or members. Women described seeking viewpoints from diverse
sources and then sifting through their advice to pick the most appropriate guidance. Most
informal support persons offered emotional support, while many also provided financial
help. Women carefully selected to whom they disclosed their problems to avoid harsh
personal judgment or criticism or to protect their partners’ reputations:
I’ll hint that I need help. I don’t usually right out front come out and ask unless
I’m really comfortable with that person or I know that they’re not going to talk
down because of the fear of rejection, the fear of being put down, or I told you so.
[Jade]
Two pre-participants disclosed their reluctance to seek support from family due to past
conflicts unrelated to their domestic violence. After disclosing her struggle to assert
herself, Cecilia discussed how she regularly must refuse help from others in order to
fulfill her goal of becoming more self-sufficient:
It seems like I have a lot of friends that want to take me under their wing. It’s
funny because I want to get out of that because I don’t want [it].

201
Formal resources included emergency shelter, transitional housing, restraining
orders, law enforcement, legal representation, mental health therapy for chronic mental
illness or trauma symptoms related to abuse experiences, and information available on
the Internet, radio, or television. Some women were reluctant to access formal sources
because they were unaware of free or low-cost services. Carmen described how she
entered shelter after she was refused a restraining order. Hope admitted than she had
only come to Laura’s House because she had exhausted her informal sources of support.
Pre-participants described highly negative experiences with police and attorneys.
One woman who had obtained a restraining order reported that responding police officers
had questioned her account, doubting how quickly she had bruises on her arms after the
purported incident:
The police aren’t very helpful, and they’re degrading when they come out. A
woman has to be extremely strong to pursue any legal help. It’s not really there
for them. It’s a degrading, degrading thing to go through, the legal system.
[Ingrid]
Nonetheless, 5 months after the incident occurred, she is glad that she called 911.
Ambivalent about continuing her relationship, Claudia reluctantly filed a police report
and was shocked when they arrested her boyfriend and incarcerated him. In contrast,
Estelle received no response from law enforcement, as unbeknownst to her, the officer
was a friend of her husband’s family. Explaining that the police could take no action as
the length of time since the incident had surpassed 72 hours, he left the room without
photographing her injuries. She later hired an attorney who convinced her that a
restraining order would be ineffectual considering that she and her ex-husband had joint
custody of their children. He finally quit before the case resolved.

202
Pre-participants reported benefitting from domestic violence emergency shelter,
transitional housing programs, police intervention, restraining orders, individual mental
health therapy, and parochial and family support. They attempted to access child support
enforcement services and homeless shelters, but were not successful. Finally, they were
aware of social support networks other than family, legal advocacy services, and family
therapy, but had not yet accessed them or did not intend to use them. Some women
indicated a complete lack of resources, including safe, stable housing, employment, legal
immigration status, friends or other sources of social support. Ingrid seriously doubted
whether support resources could even be helpful:
For whoever’s being abused, it’s degrading. You feel alone, and there is no
support out there. Coming here for an hour does not make things better when you
have to go home. There is really nothing except prayer for me.
Twenty percent of pre-participants indicated that they had sufficient resources:
I don’t think I need anything but just to trust myself.
I feel that I have all the resources available to me whether it be through my family
or the DASU (Domestic Abuse Services Unit) unit and the CalWORKs program,
you guys here, or through the courts. If there’s something that I need, all I have to
do is ask, and I know I can get it. [Jade]
I have a therapist. I have women’s groups that I attend. I have a wrap around
team and sponsors, so I have a lot of resources. [Elvira]
Those who reported having access to sufficient resources pointed out that having access
was not the same thing as knowing how to use them or apply them appropriately.
PEP Graduates. Graduates stressed accessing formal and informal resources and
introducing inconspicuous alterations to their daily routines to maximize safety when
planning to escape an abusive relationship. Recalling examples of informal resources,
graduates mentioned moving in with family, disclosing the abuse to neighbors,

203
employers, or coworkers, informing children’s school officials about restraining orders in
effect, establishing a safe place to escape if violence escalated, and building a support
network. Formal resources included domestic violence shelters, restraining orders,
police, and local domestic violence-related resource centers where legal advocacy
services and educational groups are available. Interestingly, although graduates lacked
confidence in their efficacy, the majority of them recommended pursuing a restraining
order as a relevant safety strategy. Changes in their everyday lives involved avoiding
spaces that precluded hasty escape, setting a safe support person on speed dial, watching
for warning signs of increased danger, and storing guns or knives.
Like pre-participants, PEP graduates described placating their partners to prevent
escalation:
Doing something nice for him as soon as he walked in the door. No matter how
late it was, getting up out of bed, coming downstairs, reheating a meal for him,
and being there to have some sort of conversation with him. Always agreeing
with him, not posing any sort of interference. [Mona]
Feed him first, then talk to him. Don’t confront him on a bad day, either his or
mine, and then he’s more amenable to listening. I really need to do this, walking
on eggshells. [Marlena]
The woman tr[ies] to make everything perfect, so the abuser doesn’t have any
reason to be upset.
Marlena intended to preserve her marriage to ensure her financial stability. She
explained how she learned to survive inside the relationship:
It took me two years of living with my husband to learn how far I could push the
buttons and not get hurt. I was a slow learner, but I did learn. I’m better at how
to do it, just with practice, and I have to be patient.

204
Greta, the only graduate who consistently denied her partner’s abuse and intended to
continue the relationship, advised women to assume their partners could not hear them if
they ignored their greeting when they returned home:
Don’t question him. Maybe he didn’t say, ‘Hi,’ or ignore you. Just stay the way
you are, and that way it’s not causing domestic.
Reflecting her own plans, she points out the need for both partners to forget the past, and
perpetuating the cycle of violence, “They have to be trying to start everything all over.”
Drawing on their own experiences, graduates highlighted the importance of
planning their exit carefully, including gradually distancing themselves from their
abusers socially, emotionally, and economically:
Write a ‘Dear John’ letter, leave while they’re at work, which is what I tried to do
with this guy. I tried to leave at 6:30 in the morning while he was sleeping.
[Sasha]
Make things look as if they’re the same while you’re getting help.
I think the most important thing is to do your homework and have everything
done before you leave because once you leave, that’s it. That should be the only
time. [Carolina]
In addition to prescribing absolute abstinence from any communication with the ex-
partner and reducing accessibility by changing telephone numbers, addresses, email
accounts, and shopping routines, graduates emphasized seeking therapeutic intervention,
specifically individual counseling. Nevertheless, experience showed them that
implementing safety strategies involved risk:
When I started getting help, I tried to maintain it by requesting confidentiality
with law enforcement, but that was completely disrespected. They even made
friends with him and kept contact afterward which really, really hurt. I felt like
that wasn’t even legal, but I didn’t know what else to do. I knew that looking for
safety and trying to maintain safety could in itself be dangerous. I was always
taking the risk that way. [Vivien]

205
If confronted by an immediate risk of abuse reoccurrence, graduates believed they
would defend themselves physically, call 911, or placate their partners until escape
became feasible. Graduates who were coping with ongoing threats expressed uncertainty
about their ability to maintain their safety. After leaving her partner, Helena received a
couple of telephone calls warning her that he intended to harm her. She once returned
home from work and discovered that her front door handle had been removed. She
described praying and attempting to visualize a constructive response to an immediate
threat.
Graduates described how their risk escalated once their abusers detected their
intention to leave them:
When I wanted to leave him was when it got scary. I saw a side of him that I
didn’t really think would ever come out. I felt really safe with him because he
was a huge, huge man, and he was very aggressive, so I felt protected and safe
from anything I had ever been afraid of, but then when I decided to leave him, he
became something to be afraid of instead of to be protected by.
Oftentimes, their partners’ attempts to reconcile intensified, and graduates’ initial
attempts to terminate their relationships were unsuccessful. However, when women
accessed family support or increased their knowledge, awareness, and skills through
independent study and therapy, they were more likely to overcome the psychological
barriers to safety:
The reason part of my brain got stronger than the emotions.
For some, the next step involved dealing with their grief:
Letting go of that fantasy, the hope – it really does feel like kind of a death.
Although more than one graduate intended to continue their abusive relationships,
only Greta consistently denied that her partner had abused her and adamantly maintained

206
that she had instigated him and exaggerated her report to punish him without cause. She
expressed her desire that he return home and indicated that she participated in PEP in
order to petition the court to modify her restraining order. She explained to the court
clerk that she needed his financial support and did not anticipate that her partner “is
gonna give me more worse in his life.” She believed that if she did not forgive him, he
would deteriorate further. Although they had witnessed the domestic violence, she feared
her children would suffer from their parents’ poor example if they did not also witness
their reconciliation. Three other graduates discussed how they had placed their partners
on probation, waiting to observe changes in their behavior before they decided to
continue or terminate their relationships.
Graduates described a similar reluctance to seek help that changed over time.
Like pre-participants, they avoided asking for help until their problem escalated to crisis
levels:
If I can’t do it on my own, then I not only wait until the situation is a dire
situation, I let whatever the problem is just unfold and surface, and hopefully, it
will resolve itself. [Vivien]
Greta believed seeking help demonstrated a personal failure:
Sometimes you need it because you’re not strong enough. Your mind and
feelings not strong enough. You fail. You scared, so you need help.
The denial which helped them cope in their abusive relationships extended to their own
assessments of their physical and mental well-being. Sasha refused treatment from
responding paramedics after her ex-boyfriend had punched her face. Her willingness to
seek help changed when her denial diminished and she became aware of how, “I wasn’t

207
the same person anymore. I didn’t know what was happening to me. I was upset and
depressed.”
Graduates described seeking help from spiritual advisors, family, friends, legal
advocates, therapists, police, and attorneys. Women who intended to continue their
relationships refrained from sharing their stories with informal sources in order to avoid
judgment or protect their partners’ reputation. However, leaving their abusers sometimes
forced women to seek help for the first time. Disclosing their abuse freed them from
isolation they had imposed on themselves in order to preserve the relationship. Mostly
likely due to their level of isolation in their abusive relationships, some graduates were
surprised at the extent to which their families supported them after their disclosure. At
the same time, they often were shocked and confused by lukewarm responses from
police, public servants charged with protecting them.
Seven and two graduates named a therapist and God respectively as a person
whom they relied on for help. Describing their spiritual beliefs, women explained:
God helps me because I get centered, and I’m able to accept things and know that
I don’t have to have everything come from within me although that’s kind of my
core belief that everything has to come from within me. [Vivien]
My relationship with God [is]… the glue. Yes, there’s a lot of help here, but
spiritually I wouldn’t be able to stand on my own two feet because I think there’s
more than just information that holds a person together. From my belief, you
need to have that. [Eve]
Graduates reported benefitting from financial assistance provided by victim
compensation boards, individual therapy, friends and family, and informational resources
via the Internet, books, classes, and groups. They were aware of police, domestic
violence-related resources in the area where they intend to relocate, and higher education

208
or training options but had not yet accessed them. Several graduates intended to continue
or begin individual therapy or participation in other groups offered at Laura’s House,
particularly the 6-week, closed codependency group.
Seven graduates indicated that they had sufficient resources:
It’s given me a source to come to for sources. If I need something, I know I can
come to Laura’s House. [Marlena]
I don’t think any other except a place like this to check in.
I’m able to take the tools that I learned in PEP, make the phone calls, do whatever
it takes after I get the information to accomplish it.
Some felt they were starting anew or still lacked needed resources. Those who reported
having access to sufficient resources pointed out that having access was not the same
thing as knowing how to use them or apply them appropriately. The key to effectively
applying skills to leverage available resources lay in healthy self-awareness and self-
concept:
In me being more empowered within myself, me knowing who I am more, and
knowing what I want to create and knowing that I can create it if I’m willing to
use the skills that I learned.
Doing something different, getting different results
Women started making changes in their lives by experimenting with new
behaviors in public arenas such as school or work. However, they often experienced
difficulty generalizing these preliminary successes to their personal relationships. After
taking steps to improve their safety, they observed changes in their feelings and
behaviors, especially with regard to anger. Finally, they described their proactive
measures to create positive change through participation in individual therapy and other
supportive services.

209
Pre-participants. Cecilia spoke extensively about how her successes at work
altered her self-perception. She is amazed when instead of reacting with scorn or
frustration, her coworkers respond to her mistakes with compassion and encouragement.
She confronts daily opportunities to approach situations with confidence rather than “in a
wimpy way”. As a trainer at a gym, customers look to her as an expert, and analogously,
she sees herself as capable:
A couple people told me recently, ‘She’s a smart person’ or something, and I hear
that, and I just get a huge smile on my face where before I wouldn’t believe it.
Now I’m like, ‘You know, I am. I can name all the muscles in the whole body.’
Estelle described a similar experience since enrolling to become an ultrasound technician.
Whereas initially she hoped she would pass, she now ranks within the 95
th
percentile of
her class. However, some women acknowledged the difficulty they experienced in
transferring gains in one area of their lives to others. For example, appropriate
boundaries, goal-setting, risk-taking and achievement in educational or career endeavors
failed to manifest in women’s personal lives.
Pre-participants disclosed various ways that they have changed since taking steps
to achieve greater safety. Women disclosed greater self-acceptance, self-respect,
assertiveness, and capacity to tolerate painful emotions. Since separating from her
husband, Tara described becoming “more determined to try and get what [she] wants.”
Whereas before she did not expect to meet her needs, she now asks for what she wants,
and facing obstacles, will attempt to negotiate her desired outcome. Finally in a safe
place to process her past traumas, Jade observed:
I just see that I’m just such a better person now. I can smile about anything and
everything. When I have a reoccurring memory or reoccurring dream or
something like a flashback or something about a bad situation, I can actually talk

210
about it now instead of just fighting or repressing it and holding it within, so I’m
breaking in that shell.
In a different context, a pre-participant who remains in an abusive relationship, but has
decided in therapy to leave her partner admits:
I am not going to say that my situation has gotten better. I am better, but my
situation remains the same, but I am trying to overcome it little by little because I
am focusing more on what I want and what is best for me. I don’t pay much
attention to all of his insults and all that he says.
I am now learning that you have to be yourself. No one can say, ‘You are this,’ or
‘You are going to do this’. I mean you have to be your own person, not the
someone that another is creating, so now that is what I am trying to do. I am
trying to figure out who I am and what I am capable of achieving.
Women described how they channeled their anger into constructive pursuits such
as exercise to lose excess weight, enrolling in classes, sewing, drawing, painting or
distracted themselves by watching a movie, going for a walk, driving, recalling a funny
memory, or talking on the telephone with a friend. While some women embraced anger
as a positive emotion:
Anger’s not bad. It’s how you use it, how you react. It’s power, [Carmen]
others feared the consequences of their anger and avoided expressing angry feelings:
If I’m angry at something, I sit and stew over it for a while because I’m afraid to
react. Every time I reacted in anger, he would get angry, so I recoiled from that
and so now it’s hard for me to express that. [Tara]
Anger is very temporary for me because I hate being angry. It’s against our
religion…because I’m a Christian. You can be angry, but it should be fleeting. It
shouldn’t last very long. [Fiona]
Women also disclosed negative behaviors while angry such as physically fighting,
yelling, crying, or drinking alcohol. However, most women either claimed that they did
not feel angry often or tried to suppress anger when it surfaced.

211
Ten percent of pre-participants reported that they recently changed how they
handled anger. They were less likely to give up on what they wanted and more likely to
confront the person whose behavior angered them. Elvira had a history of crystal
methamphetamine addiction and fought with men and women regularly. Since abstaining
from substance use and completing an assertion class, she laughs:
All I can do is just laugh about it. I can’t do anything else. I can’t even get angry
because it just takes too much energy. I can use that energy with my kids.
[Elvira]
Pre-participants were proactive in creating positive change in their lives. By
pursuing individual therapy and other supportive services, women constructively faced
and accepted their past traumas. Cecilia claimed that she looks forward to negotiating
co-parenting with her ex-husband because:
That’s gonna strengthen me like crazy, having to deal with someone like that on a
regular basis and rising above it and becoming stronger and not letting it get me
down. It’s working already. You only grow when you’re in a lot of chaos and
challenges, and I figure if life’s easy, I’m not gonna be learning anything.
Women who had not yet participated in counseling disclosed their intention to pursue
individual therapy, coordinate therapy for their children, or, if they sought to preserve the
relationship, conjoint treatment with their partners.
PEP Graduates. Graduates disclosed dramatic changes in their lives since
leaving their abusive partners. Cognizant of the cycle of violence and their partner’s
exertion of power and control or outside the abusive relationship altogether, women
described their freedom in expressing their opinions, acting silly, and making decisions as
they no longer faced his compulsion or threat of harm if they failed to ask permission:
It’s gotten to the point where I have no drama in my life now. [Nora]

212
Their self-awareness influences their relationship choices with friends and potential
partners:
I’m able to realize those wrong things in my life that felt so wrong [but] that I
kept doing them. I finally know why, and I’m figuring out how to change those
and how to have better relationships in the present and in the future.
If they’re not good for me, then sad to say, I just get rid of them, out of my life.
[Nora]
Women spoke about how they consciously avoided overextending themselves in order to
take care of others or tolerating harm in order to preserve unhealthy relationships,
breaking long-standing behavior patterns. Rather, they tried to communicate what they
would accept and what they would not, without reactivity. Their stronger boundaries
resembled detachment:
For example, when he used to drink, I used to get really sad but now I say, ‘Oh
well.’ If he is drinking, I take my kids to the movies or to eat. In the past, I used
to cry and get depressed, but now you can’t cry for him anymore. I used to ask
him, ‘Where were you?’ and I would start crying, and now I don’t. If he doesn’t
talk to me, he doesn’t talk to me. I am not waiting for him…I used to say, ‘I can’t
go out because my husband is coming home soon, but now if he doesn’t find me
at home, too bad. I am out doing something.’
Successes in one part of their lives generated confidence that they could succeed
in other realms. Once having doubted her ability to separate from her partner, Vivien
said:
I’m really proud of myself because I know myself now as someone that I didn’t
know myself as before or never identified myself with being, someone that could
be strong enough to make this decision or to delay my gratification for something
that I believe in and I value. I respected people like that before, and now I can
respect myself as someone like that. [Vivien]

213
Graduates focused on the ways in which they created change in themselves, addressing
their codependency, poor boundaries, and previous traumas. Disclosing cutting and self-
harm since childhood, Vivien explained:
I’m having to find new behaviors that are uncomfortable for me now. That
pattern of self-abuse is very comfortable, and I’m having to practice them in
conjunction with my therapist until those things become normal for me instead of
my old patterns.
Graduates’ first action after recognizing their anger was to distance themselves
from the object of their angst by mentally counting to 10 and/or taking a time-out where
they physically removed themselves from the situation. They emphasized staying away
until they could address the problem calmly. Later, they revisited the conflict, attempting
to negotiate resolution with the other person involved. Alongside their attempts to divert
their anger into exercise, self-care, or creative endeavors, however, most women still
suppressed their feelings:
Most of the time, I try and bottle it down and keep it down because I don’t want
to be someone who’s an angry person, and I certainly don’t want my boys to see
me as an angry person. I try and keep the emotion down and do what I can do to
change the situation without letting the emotion surface. [Vivien]
In contrast, the graduate who disclosed her involvement with a Sufi spiritual study group
presented the most sophisticated response to anger:
I be present with it and own that was what I was experiencing at the time.
Usually when I’m really with it, if it’s appropriate, I express it. If it’s not
appropriate, it sort of goes away, but I’ve been working on this for a while…I
don’t have a lot of guilt. I don’t have a lot of anger because I think there’s a
connection there. [Carolina]
At the point of interview, 40 percent of graduates disclosed participating in
individual therapy, and among them, each intended to pursue ongoing individual therapy
or participate in other supportive services such as the 6-week, closed codependency

214
group or self-esteem or anxiety workshops at Laura’s House. Women described how
their participation in individual therapy facilitated their healing:
I’m really just dealing with my true self that I’ve had to examine through PEP,
and through counseling, I really want to work with me, not the diva me, but the
real T. [Sasha]
The ongoing counseling has helped me tremendously to find myself when it’s not
there and to recognize who I am when I forget. [Sasha]
Carolina compared her early participation in therapy to “detoxing”:
The first seven weeks was like, well, I’ve never been a heroin addict but, a heroin
addict getting off heroin because it was so toxic. It was just like detoxing. I
would still come here twice a week, and I really didn’t want to go on living. I’ve
been there, done that, and I’m here, and it’s changed my life. If this place hadn’t
been here, I’d still be in the situation or not here.
Graduates emphasized how their individual therapy and PEP participation complemented
each other, allowing them to clarify new gains in knowledge and solicit feedback on how
they implemented new skills both inside and outside the group setting. Women used
individual therapy to discuss their fears of entering new relationships and distorted beliefs
that all their intimate relationships will be abusive or they will never enter another
intimate relationship.
Generalizing knowledge & skills to other relationships
Women discussed their hesitation to enter new intimate relationships, wondering
how they could avoid subsequent abuse. By implementing healthier boundaries as
parents, they sought to avoid repeating behavior they had experienced in their families of
origin, repair relationships with their children, and break the intergenerational
transmission of domestic violence. Finally, women evaluated how they responded when
another person attempts to block them from achieving their goals.

215
Pre-participants. Pre-participants were hesitant to explore new relationship
possibilities:
I don’t think I’m in any place to even be looking. I think it would be ridiculous
for me, like I deserve what I got, so I don’t think I have any business in any kind
of relationship. [Hope]
Separate from what they should or should not do, some women had no desire to enter a
new relationship, at least not now. Some feared entering another abusive relationship:
When I do think of other relationships, it’s scary, thinking how do I know that
he’s not going to be the same way? How do I know all men are not the same
way? I don’t know.
Women’s responses suggested that they did not know how they could avoid non-abusive
relationships in the future:
It’s not like you can set up – how awkward would that be – interviewing for
prospective boyfriends, ‘Do you have any history of psychological disturbance?’
How is that going to sound? [Theresa]
Although some women first sought to resolve the “baggage that you’ve carried on from
either childhood or past relationships that you should take care of before you start a new
relationship” to increase the likelihood that the next relationship would be a healthier one,
two women disclosed that they currently were involved with a partner who was not their
most recent abuser. Despite having entered this new relationship, Estelle admits her
ambivalence:
I don’t even know if I have a desire for another relationship at all. Sometimes I’m
like, ‘Yeah, it’s nice to be wanted, nice to be loved.’ I can be a single mom for
the rest of my life and not really care. On the same side, I’m terrified of being
alone.
Facing the likelihood of raising 2 children with severe developmental disabilities, she
wonders if she can parent them alone.

216
Pre-participants discussed how their status as parents influenced their decisions,
often striving to behave in ways markedly different from how their own parents treated
them:
My mom and my dad were, ‘No, no, no! Do as I say!’ not as I did. That is the
worst thing you can ever say to anybody. I think it’s so hypocritical. I don’t want
to be like that. [Jade]
Mothers wanted their children, especially their daughters, to witness how they refused to
tolerate ongoing abuse. When her husband first physically abused her, Tara’s daughter:
was away at college when it happened, and I didn’t want her to think that I was
weak. I didn’t want her to think later that if it ever happened to her, that she
should be weak too because we had been for so long.
Most pre-participants reported intensifying their involvement with their children in an
effort to prevent the intergenerational transmission of violence into the latter’s adult
families. Some women appeared to be confused about how to best support their children
who had either witnessed or experienced abuse. Struggling to support her adolescent son
who had been targeted by his father, Tara encouraged the boy, “You’ll be a better father
then because you won’t do that to your children.” Jade refrained from any response:
Let’s just say my oldest son said, ‘My daddy doesn’t want me anymore. My
daddy doesn’t care about me anymore.’ I don’t say anything in regards to try to
change his mind on it per se because I don’t want him to think that I’m enabling
his father.
Her son is 5 years old. She expressed frustration with how she constantly disciplined her
boys in an effort to compensate for the lack of discipline in their home when she lived
with their father. Although it had only been a short time since they had moved in with
other family, she already observed a positive change in their behavior, signified by more
frequent laughter and fun. She intends to participate in family therapy with her son and

217
enroll him in individual treatment although her expectations of how effective/helpful they
will be seem distorted:
There is ways to get how they feel out, and I want to know so I can learn from it,
so I can be capable of changing what I’m doing now to help support what he
needs in his life. Even though he’s so young, he’ll see what I need to do and he’ll
see a change in effort in me.
Although participation in individual therapy may help him express his feelings, it is not
intended to provide greater clarity to him about his mother’s behavior.
Along with implementing stronger boundaries with their most recent partners,
they began creating and enforcing healthier boundaries with their children:
If I say no, then I stick with my no’s whether it’s with that guy or with my kid. I
don’t want to give in so easy with my son either because he has to understand that
he’s not always going to get what he wants in life. [Elvira]
When I say something, let’s say, ‘No,’ I mean that. I’m not going to budge. With
the discipline with the kids, it used to be like that. It’s kind of been awry the last
few years, but I think I’m honing in again, more like how I used to be, more
structure. [Cecilia]
Alicia struggled with guilt for having placed her daughter in childcare after her husband
coerced her to maintain highly lucrative employment rather than stay at home. She
knows that “I allow her on the wrong side of the boundaries all the time”. In anticipation
of co-parenting with her soon-to-be ex-husband, she has tried to prepare her daughter:
I said, ‘Any time I tell you something about Dad, you should be able to go to Dad
and say, ‘Is this true?’ because everything I tell you is the truth, and I’m not
elaborating. I’m not coloring it, flowering it, nothing. I’m just giving you the
facts.’
By implementing appropriate boundaries consistently, some women sought to repair
relationships with their children that their abusive intimate relationships had damaged
significantly:

218
It’s getting better. They’re learning to trust Mom. He’s created such a distrust in
them that it even showed up with the custody evaluator. [Cecilia]
Overall, they anticipated that if they avoided abusive intimate relationships in the future
(or its recidivism, for those who intended to continue the same relationships) and sought
help from external resources as needed, their children not only would recover but also
thrive.
When another person attempted to block them from achieving a goal, pre-
participants became frustrated, and if the obstacle persisted, they became angry or upset.
Most women would not openly protest or fight back. Usually, they would withdraw and
eventually abandon the idea despite feeling resentment. Presumably, when they did not
choose to submit, their survival in abusive relationships taught them how to achieve their
objectives without calling attention to their actions. Ten percent of pre-participants
reported that their response to another’s interference had changed since ending their
abusive relationships. They are now more likely to persist and experiment with other
ways in which to realize their goals.
PEP Graduates. The majority of graduates believed they were not ready to enter
a new relationship. They sought therapy and other supportive services to increase their
capacity to identify red flags and maintain healthy relationships with men who treat them
well. Interestingly, one woman articulated her fear that:
If there is someone that wants to have a good life, I feel like I will reject that
person.
Along the same lines, she wonders if in a subsequent relationship, she will adopt the
abuser’s role and victimize her partner.

219
Graduates struggled with implementing appropriate boundaries with their
children. Recalling her physical abuse as a child, Vivien regretted spanking her own
children:
It’s nothing like the way I grew up, but for me to use any type of force or
violence, it [is] never okay, so I think the boundary should [be to] stop if I feel
like I can’t handle it. Take whatever tools there are instead of resorting to
whatever feels familiar to me.
Others described similar difficulties with dealing with their anger around their children.
For example, Grace attempted never to show anger around her 2 ½-year old daughter
because she did not want her daughter to learn to show anger. Some women felt
tremendous guilt about neglecting their children while they negotiated their abusive
relationships, and these feelings influenced their relationships with them.
Graduates placed less value on others’ attitudes toward their goals. Reflecting
stronger personal boundaries, they were more likely to persist in them regardless of
others’ responses:
I’d probably try and just let them say what they want to say and try not to
interfere as much as possible because I know after going through what I have
gone through that I’m going to do what I need to do and what’s best for my kids,
and I don’t have to prove it to anybody or explain myself to anybody. [Vivien]
Women anticipated distancing themselves from loved ones who could not be supportive
of their intentions. Although some women continued to experience difficulty with
confrontation, they would not allow another’s opinion to obstruct their plans.
Summary
Safety planning usually started when women intended to leave their abusive
partners. Both pre-participants and graduates focused on how to plan a safe exit from an
abusive relationship. However, graduates emphasized accessing formal and informal

220
resources. Inside an abusive relationship, the most commonly reported safety strategy
was to placate the abuser, followed by self-censorship and increased vigilance for
potential danger. Pre-participants’ plans to respond to an immediate risk of abuse were
often unrealistic, as they expected to withdraw from the situation without their partner’s
interference. Although pre-participants emphasized that the only meaningful safety
strategy was to end the abusive relationship before further escalation, they stressed the
importance of working on themselves, including accessing a support group or network to
help them integrate their experiences. Despite this awareness, they had difficulty asking
for help. At the same time, their decision to disclose their abuse meant they no longer
had to isolate themselves from others to maintain their secret. Both pre-participants and
graduates reported that their help-seeking behavior recently had changed. They accessed
informal and formal sources of support although they carefully chose to which informal
support persons they disclosed in order to avoid judgment or criticism. Both pre-
participants and graduates pointed out that a sufficient level of resources involved not
only access but also knowledge and skills related to their application.
Both pre-participants and graduates described how they tried to act differently in
order to produce better outcomes although they experienced different levels of success.
Pre-participants had difficulty transferring their gains in setting boundaries, taking risks,
and meeting goals in public arenas like work and school to their personal relationships.
In contrast, graduates had learned how to apply their knowledge about healthy boundaries
to make different choices related to both friendships and intimate partner relationships.
Breaking long-standing patterns, they stopped tolerating harm to themselves in order to

221
please others and communicated the behavior they would accept and refuse without
reactivity. Since taking action to increase their safety, pre-participants felt higher self-
worth, were more assertive, and confronted past traumas which had been too painful for
them to face before while graduates enjoyed their new-found freedom to express their
opinions, act silly, and make independent decisions. Third, most pre-participants feared
the consequences of anger, avoided its expression, and disavowed or suppressed it
although 10 percent indicated that they now leverage their anger to persist in their goals
and confront the person who violated them. Graduates described implementing a time
out strategy where they distanced themselves from the object of their anger, sometimes
physically removing themselves from the premises, until they could address the problem
calmly. Like pre-participants, however, they attempted to suppress their feelings by
channeling their anger into exercise, self-care, or other constructive activity.
Highlighting their motivation to change their lives, both pre-participants and graduates
used individual therapy and other supportive services to integrate their experiences,
improve relationships, and facilitate healing.
Pre-participants and graduates described how they transferred their knowledge
and skills related to domestic violence to their non-intimate partner relationships. Both
groups expressed hesitation to enter new intimate relationships. The majority sought to
address personal characteristics they believed increased their vulnerability to abuse.
Graduates participated in individual therapy and other supportive services to increase
their capacity to identify red flags and maintain healthy relationships with loving
partners. Despite their desire to circumvent the intergenerational transmission of

222
domestic violence to their children’s intimate relationships, pre-participants seemed
confused about how to effectively intervene. By implementing appropriate boundaries
consistently, however, some mothers sought to repair relationships with their children
who had witnessed or experienced abuse. Graduates described similar challenges, as they
struggled with their feelings of anger and guilt related to their perceived failures as
parents. Analogous to the proportion of women who recently changed how they dealt
with anger, 10 percent of pre-participants reported that they had changed how they
respond to another person’s interference, increasing their level of persistence and
experimenting with alternative means to achieve their goals. In contrast, graduates
placed less value on others’ attitudes. Reflecting stronger personal boundaries, they were
more likely to persist in their goals regardless of others’ responses to them.

223
Chapter 4: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to contribute to practice-based evidence related to
clinical work with women who have experienced intimate partner violence by
qualitatively exploring whether and how a popular group-based intervention fosters the
development of psychological empowerment. This dissertation focused on a 10 week,
copyrighted group intervention widely implemented in Orange County, California called
the Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP). In exploring PEP as a potential best
practice, this research examined PEP as a social interaction co-created by PEP
participants and facilitators, including what, how, and why it succeeds. First, it explored
how women’s historical and cultural contexts influence their development of
psychological empowerment. Second, it examined how psychological empowerment
differed between pre-participants and PEP program graduates.
The existing literature on practice with domestic violence survivors consists of a
handful of studies which are primarily descriptive and utilize methodologically weak
designs. Results are mixed; therefore, there is little guidance with regard to which
interventions are most effective. Only 1 study, also a doctoral dissertation, examines an
empowerment-oriented group program that implemented an educational intervention
based on a feminist rather than a trauma treatment perspective (Shin, 1999).
Furthermore, few studies describe the ethnic and racial composition of their study
samples or even attempt to recruit diverse samples in the first place, raising questions
about the relevance of their conclusions when attempting to design appropriate
interventions for diverse consumers. The lack of attention to the influence of ethnicity,

224
race, and immigration status in previous domestic violence practice research may be one
reason for the existing practice literature’s mixed findings.
Although the current project’s exploratory design does not address the
methodological problems of previous research, it addresses the lack of attention to not
only empowerment-oriented group practice with domestic violence survivors but also the
influence of ethnicity, race, and other social factors on their experiences. Second, unlike
Parson’s (2001) and Shin’s (1999) explorations, the present study’s design used women’s
stories (Breton & Nosko, 2005) to conceptualize psychological empowerment and the
process of its development. The study contributes to practice-based evidence and
promotes a critical best practice approach by partnering with both service providers and
consumers to explore the development of psychological empowerment with a
heterogeneous population of women united by their lived experience of domestic
violence. Complementing evidence-based practice, practice-based evidence involves
“evidence of effectiveness in naturalistic, unselected clinical samples” (Margison, 2001,
p. 174). Fulfilling one objective of critical best practice analysis, this study focused on
best practices within “working realities” and “developing achievable standards of
excellence from the ‘bottom up’” (Ferguson, 2003, p. 1009). The findings discussed
herein contribute not only to the practice literature on domestic violence, but also to
theoretical literature on psychological empowerment and its development.
Influences of Women’s Historical and Cultural Contexts on Psychological
Empowerment
The study explored how the historical and cultural contexts of women who have
experienced intimate partner violence influence their development of psychological

225
empowerment. Study participants disclosed abuse experiences during their childhood,
adolescence, and early adulthood which they perceived as having increased their
vulnerability to intimate partner violence as adults. These experiences included
witnessing domestic violence as children, being verbally, physically and sexually abused
by their parents, surviving sexual assault, and suffering abuse by past intimate partners.
Women repeated patterns that they observed as children in their parents’ households
related to gender roles including finances, child-rearing, and employment. Both pre-
participants and graduates discussed how the cultures of their families and neighborhoods
normalized violence, neglect, or abuse and shaped their relationship choices.
Only 3 of 20 pre-participants and 1 of 20 graduates reported that they had grown
up in families with nurturing parents. The women’s stories illustrated how individuals
are at greater risk of experiencing intimate partner violence if they have witnessed or
experienced abuse during childhood or suffered previous abuse by an intimate partner, a
finding prevalent in the existing literature (Black et al., 1999; Harway & O’Neil, 1999).
Other risk factors found in the literature that the women reported were use of drugs or
alcohol, participation in high-risk sexual behavior, lower education levels, and
unemployment (Crandall et al., 2004; Heise & Garcia-Moreno, 2002; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 2000). The literature also points out that women experience higher risk if they
are more highly educated than their partners; 5 pre-participants and 1 graduate reported
that they either had completed more education or had higher earnings or earning potential
than their partners.

226
While 3 pre-participants believed that their partner’s ethnic culture was a factor in
his aggressiveness, other pre-participants recognized that the culture of their urban, gang-
dominated neighborhoods normalized and even encouraged violence. Similarly, 3
graduates believed that “machismo” elements within their Hispanic culture encouraged
them to accept their partners’ abuse. The women’s responses support existing research
suggesting a greater likelihood of intimate partner violence when partners live in
communities characterized by traditional cultural expectations regarding gender,
including tolerance for domestic violence (Heise & Garcia-Moreno, 2002; Counts,
Brown, & Campbell, 1992). Interestingly, all 7 monolingual Spanish speaking graduates
participated in the group facilitated by Rekha, the therapist who deviated the most from
Freire’s principles of empowerment education. In informal communication, Rekha
intimated that women in her group expected an authoritative facilitator who would tell
them what to do. If they expected her to tell them what to do, perhaps they also relied on
her analysis to understand cultural influences on their experiences. One graduate
disclosed that Rekha had used the term “machismo” to refer to Hispanic men’s
aggression toward their intimate partners. The women’s comments about machismo
elements in Hispanic culture may have reflected Rekha’s opinions.
Although the majority of pre-participants identified as White and the majority of
graduates identified as Hispanic/Latina, study participants were racially, ethnically,
linguistically, and socioeconomically diverse. Considering its racial and ethnic diversity,
the study anticipated that women would speak more extensively about the role of culture,
including immigration status and social class, in their experiences of intimate partner

227
violence, its consequences, and barriers to safety. In hindsight, it seems clear that the
study’s intersectional analytic approach assumed that participants possessed a certain
level of awareness about how their personal experiences have broader social, political,
and economic causes and consequences.
More focused interview questions and persistent probing might have elicited more
data about the interactions between different aspects of participants’ social identities and
dominant systems of oppression, such as racism, ethnocentrism, and sexism. However,
greater alignment with Freire’s principles of empowerment education by all facilitators
also might have resulted in members’ greater appreciation of how different aspects of
their social identity intersect with each other to influence their experiences. For instance,
a substantial portion of graduates had participated in the same PEP group facilitated by
Rekha. Perhaps due to her more directive style and cultural factors including deference
to authority figures and expectations for psychological treatment, members of Rekha’s
group were least likely to investigate their problems’ sources in culture and society.
The Personal Empowerment Program
©
: Does PEP Live Up to Its Name?
This study found that PEP partially fit the definition of empowerment practice.
This approach to clinical intervention examines how themes of power, powerlessness,
and oppression affect personal, family, and community-level problems and their
intersections and strives to expand personal, interpersonal, and political power to
facilitate improvement in subjects’ quality of life (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez et al., 1995;
Solomon, 1976). Study findings offered substantial support that PEP facilitates
psychological empowerment among its participants, particularly the PEP curriculum and

228
its supportive group dynamics. However, some of the facilitators’ styles, strategies, and
techniques seemed to stifle prolonged group discussion, “short-change” important
content, and foster a dependence on professional therapists. By focusing exclusively on
personal and family-level problems and targeting expansion of personal and interpersonal
power, PEP neglects the influence of community-level factors and the importance of
expanding political power. Although it builds on participants’ strengths and promotes
mutual aid, support, skill-building, and education, PEP disregards self-help,
consciousness-raising, and social action.
The implementation of PEP at Laura’s House hardly aligned with Freire’s (1973)
model of empowerment education. Comprised of listening, dialogue, and action, Freire’s
framework involves people’s coming together to name and bear witness to each others’
problems, investigating their problems’ sources in culture and society, and brainstorming
strategies to achieve their objectives for personal and community transformation (Romero
et al., 2006; Wallerstein, 1992; Wallerstein, 1994; Wallerstein & Auerbach, 2004). PEP
hardly frames participants’ personal problems as individual manifestations of structural
inequalities. Despite acknowledging that personal empowerment demands efficacy in
navigating the immediate environment, PEP only targets improvements in participants’
individual attitudes and behaviors and totally neglects the role of social action to address
domestic violence survivors’ unmet needs.
Although facilitators refrained from problem solving for members, they stopped
short of “problem-posing”. Freire (1973) used the term to refer to a process whereby
participants of empowerment education identify the source of their problems in society

229
and culture rather than blaming themselves. Facilitators helped members link their abuse,
namely their partner’s tactics of control, with their related economic, social, and
psychological difficulties and emphasized the inequality and imbalance of power within
women’s intimate relationships as the basis of their problems. However, this discussion
hardly expanded beyond the relationship dynamics of the extended family, including
women’s children, spouses, and parents.
Empowerment-oriented interventions are premised on a collaborative relationship
based on mutual trust and shared power among all involved parties (Gutierrez, 1990;
Gutierrez et al., 1995). Analogously, Freire’s framework equalizes the relationship
between students and teachers. In contrast, PEP facilitators are positioned as experts and
participants evolve from beginning to advanced learners. Participants are never on the
same level as the therapists. Although they often took a step back to permit dialogue
among participants, facilitators more often lectured to them using the curriculum’s highly
structured syllabus.
The facilitators dominated the group’s time by reading aloud long excerpts from
handouts, creating a seminar environment and labeling women’s experiences for them.
Inadequate time management forced participants to review handouts alone, contributing
to gaps in knowledge about the cycle of violence, resources available for immigrants, and
safety planning. Facilitators also insisted that PEP was only a preliminary intervention,
insufficient for “actual healing”. Despite a two-month waiting list for individual therapy
during the study’s data collection phase, facilitators consistently recommended

230
concurrent or consecutive individual therapy. Their insistence seemed to encourage a
dependence on formal resources as opposed to self-sufficiency.
Although it succeeds in supporting the development of participants’ psychological
empowerment, the program’s implementation notably diverged from the principles of
empowerment-oriented practice and empowerment education offered by Freire (1973).
Perhaps an indicator of its departure from empowerment practice, there is no effort to
identify and implement opportunities for participants to become involved in PEP’s
design, implementation, and evaluation (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Gutierrez et al.,
1995; McTaggart, 1991; Tandon, 1989; Wallerstein, 1994; Zimmerman et al., 1992). All
facilitators at Laura’s House are marriage and family therapy professionals. However,
the curriculum does not require facilitators to have this level of education or type of
training. This practice of exclusive reliance on marriage & family therapists may have
hampered an empowerment-based approach to clinical delivery of the intervention as
their training positioned them as experts and prioritized treatment of deficits over the
creation of a collaborative relationship characterized by shared power and the
development of self-sufficiency. The study’s findings raise questions about how
professionals from different disciplines, who may neither agree with nor have been
trained as empowerment-oriented practitioners, implement an empowerment-based
intervention.
PEP’s curriculum asks women to share their experiences in order to end isolation
and dismantle denial. By stressing personal responsibility without blaming victims, the
program helps women recognize how they must choose to act differently in order to

231
achieve different results. Starting with identifying abusive patterns in their first
relationships, the curriculum guides women to engage with their feelings and transfer
skills of identifying, creating, and enforcing appropriate boundaries to partners, friends,
family members, and their children.
The curriculum’s interactive exercises, rather than the facilitator’s strategies,
allowed group members to exercise authority over their experience. The checklists
provided members limited opportunities to identify, though not define, their problems
related to intimate partner violence. By emphasizing acceptance of participants’ choices
to end or continue relationships with their abusive partners, the curriculum’s authors
created a safe space in which members choose the actions they will pursue in response to
any changes in their consciousness. Acknowledging that domestic violence violates
victims’ psychological space and physical bodies, it prioritizes decreasing denial about
participants’ abuse experiences and increasing skills to achieve safety within or outside
an abusive relationship.
Although group members seldom interacted with one another spontaneously,
sharing their stories and entering dialogue about their problems with fellow members
increased their identification with each other as domestic violence survivors and
validated their experiences. After the first few sessions, graduates felt less fear, more
self-knowledge, and greater confidence. Unlike other social contexts with friends or
family members, they could risk being vulnerable in the group without facing harsh
judgment. They challenged each other’s denial, but concurrently offered support to
respond constructively to their problems. While discovering commonalities with other

232
survivors comforted some members, others were demoralized by their new awareness of
the adverse effects of domestic violence. Although acknowledging how their abuse
experiences impacted their mental health felt uncomfortable, most women subsequently
found that their increased awareness empowered them to address their problems.
However, both graduates and facilitators reported that the group had limited influence on
women who participated involuntarily, having been mandated by a judge to attend.
Rather than dispensing advice, facilitators provided examples to clarify
curriculum content and modeled desired skills and behavior. They invited participants to
share their successes and failures with the group. Lum (1996) conceptualized four
empowerment-oriented social work practice strategies labeled enabling, linking,
catalyzing, and priming. Facilitators and advanced members performed “enabling” when
they consistently identified individual and group strengths, validating each other’s
thoughts and experiences and highlighting their successes. By asking members to share
their experiences related to the curriculum’s checklists and exercises, facilitators
demonstrated “linking”, defined as planning and implementing interventions which
supply a space for people with common experiences of oppression to connect. Although
they executed “catalyzing” by drawing attention to the curriculum’s listings of specific
domestic violence-related resources, they stopped short of mediating between individuals
and historically oppressive systems or institutions, which is called “priming”.
Psychological Empowerment as a Process vs. an Outcome
Perhaps the study’s most important finding is that psychological empowerment
develops along a continuum among women who have experienced intimate partner
violence. By applying knowledge about domestic violence, its consequences, and

233
relevant resources to their personal circumstances, women transition from a state of
awareness about how domestic violence manifests in their lives (awareness) to a phase
where they begin to appreciate and implement preliminary skills to improve safety
(engagement), gradually moving to a level where they experiment with new behaviors
that diminish the likelihood of entering subsequent abusive relationships (practice).
Praxis, or reflection on action, informs awareness, initiating another cycle of
psychological empowerment development starting at increased awareness, moving into
deeper engagement, and informing more sophisticated practice.
The study originally intended to explore psychological empowerment processes
and outcomes as opposed to the development of psychological empowerment. Based on
the literature, it assumed that empowerment could be both a process and an outcome
(Israel et al., 1994; Itzhaky & York, 2000; Swift & Levin, 1987; Wallerstein, 1992) but
took the form of one or the other in a given context. In contrast, the study’s findings
suggest that it is a continuum of cyclical phases. Each phase exists as a means and an
end point simultaneously.
As a process, empowerment is a “mechanism by which people, organizations, and
communities gain mastery over their lives” (Rappaport 1984, p. 3). An empowerment
process is any experience that facilitates access to and control over resources which
increase the likelihood of desired outcomes, such as opportunities to increase knowledge
and skills, organize with others toward a common goal, or expand social networks
(Zimmerman, 1999; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1989). These processes result in a higher

234
quality of interaction between the subject and his or her environment. In this way, PEP is
an example of an empowerment intervention.
The literature defines an empowerment outcome as a feeling, thought, and/or
behavior. As a feeling, it is an internal sense of control (Rappaport, 1984), a belief in
one’s intrinsic or extrinsic value (Solomon, 1976), or a sense of personal efficacy
(Kieffer, 1984). As a thought, it is critical consciousness of how the personal is political
(Kieffer, 1984), and as a behavior, it manifests as the subject’s achievement of self-
determined goals (Solomon, 1984) or participation in building individual or collective
resources (Kieffer, 1984). Kieffer (1984) combines all of these elements in his
conceptualization of participatory competence consisting of personal efficacy, critical
consciousness, and participation. Similarly, Zimmerman (1995) defined psychological
empowerment as a set of intersecting relationships between intrapersonal, interactional,
and behavioral components.
The present study used Zimmerman’s definition to orient its activities. It
anticipated that psychological empowerment would be an end point, a woman’s increased
capacity to engage in healthy intimate relationships (outcome) that results from her
successful integration of relevant knowledge and skills (process) to recognize abuse
(outcome) and access resources in her local environment (outcome) to improve safety.
Although the study’s findings included all of these pieces, it found that the development
of psychological empowerment is based on a foundation of knowledge, builds
consecutively on awareness, skills, and behavior, and is perpetuated by women’s
reflections on their actions. While Friere (1970), Kieffer (1984), and Zimmerman (1995)

235
conceptualized praxis as participation in social action to achieve collective goals, the
study found that women’s reflections on their new behaviors informs higher levels of
awareness which instigates subsequent cycles of psychological empowerment
development.
Differences in Psychological Empowerment between Pre-participants and
Graduates: Comparisons along the Psychological Empowerment Continuum
The study did not anticipate similarities between pre-participants and graduates in
their levels of knowledge. However, as a group, graduates and pre-participants identified
the same red flags and effects of witnessing domestic violence on children and
demonstrated no knowledge of immigration relief available to undocumented survivors.
Although pre-participants were less familiar with more academic concepts and their
labels, such as the cycle of violence and posttraumatic stress disorder, graduates also
possessed partial knowledge of relevant concepts. Perhaps graduates’ knowledge was
similar to pre-participants’ levels because they did not always have an opportunity to
review the curriculum in its entirety. The groups often ran out of time, and facilitators
either skipped sections altogether in order to stress certain concepts over others or asked
members to review handouts independently after the session ended.
Pre-participants and graduates showed the most difference in their levels of
awareness, or the degree to which they applied their knowledge of domestic violence to
their personal lives. Graduates used their “new lens” to see how they had confused their
partner’s control for love and isolated themselves from their support networks to avoid
detection of the abuse. While both groups had similar knowledge of warning signs of
heighted risk of abuse reoccurrence, graduates identified the extent to which their denial

236
had interfered with their past risk assessments. They asserted that PEP had helped them
address their ambivalence, identify red flags, and evaluate their boundaries; whereas, pre-
participants struggled with mixed feelings or reported that they lacked skills to make
desired changes.
While pre-participants emphasized their absence of choice related to their
relationships, graduates acknowledged they had ignored red flags or pursued
inappropriate remedies for their relationship problems. Paradoxically, pre-participants
claimed responsibility for the abuse in contrast to graduates who acknowledged gaps in
knowledge and skills, missed opportunities to create or enforce healthy boundaries, and
existing personal and environmental barriers to safety. Perhaps due to the program’s
emphasis on defining and identifying healthy and unhealthy boundaries in their personal
relationships, graduates more often demonstrated taking responsibility appropriately.
Although the phases of engagement and practice seem to overlap, practice
involves greater experimentation and refinement of behaviors which decrease the
likelihood of entering subsequent abusive relationships in the long run. Graduates and
pre-participants demonstrated similar deficiencies in safety planning. Although they
implemented appropriate strategies to enhance safety, they lacked skill in developing and
implementing safety plans. The study observed that facilitators often omitted exercises
that asked members to write out a formal safety plan. Pre-participants experienced
greater difficulty with identifying, implementing, and enforcing appropriate personal
boundaries than graduates. Although both groups recognized how unhealthy boundaries
pervaded multiple relationships in their lives, graduates benefitted from the forum

237
provided by PEP to practice and solicit feedback about changes in how they related to
others. Their stronger senses of self improved their relationships.
The cycle of psychological empowerment development revolves around praxis or
reflection after women’s practice. Women participate in praxis after taking some action,
and their self-reflection contributes to higher levels of awareness. Graduates’ reflections
in response to interview questions support that their participation in PEP positively
influenced their progression along the psychological empowerment continuum. Their
participation instigated increases in self-knowledge and expanded their comprehension of
which behaviors constituted domestic violence. Second, the group increased their
capacity to identify red flags in their past and present relationships in addition to which of
their thoughts and behaviors contributed to their involvement with abusive partners.
These new perspectives helped them to relinquish blaming attitudes and inspired hope for
subsequent healthy relationships. Finally, their participation directly impacted their skills
related to safety planning, identifying, implementing, and enforcing personal boundaries,
and leveraging legal and other resources.
Pre-participants more frequently elaborated upon their responses to interview
questions, sometimes treating the interview as if it were an initial therapy session. Since
fewer pre-participants than graduates were connected to therapeutic resources at the point
of interview, perhaps they were more willing to share personal information with the
interviewer, generating more detailed findings for this group with regard to some aspects
of the psychological empowerment continuum than for graduates.

238
This study discussed mandated participation because both graduates and
facilitators used the term. However, the Orange County Superior Court or other entities
never mandate PEP participation the way they do the 52-week batterers’ intervention
program required of perpetrators.
Each graduate who participated in the study indicated that she enrolled in PEP
voluntarily. Women who are mandated to participate choose to enroll in PEP in order to
achieve other goals related to their restraining orders, public benefits, or child custody.
Women are motivated to participate in order to modify stay-away orders that dissuade
their partners from moving in with them. A stay-away order can only be enforced by the
petitioner. If her partner returns to the home, he will face negative consequences only if
the woman notifies law enforcement. The restraining order alone does not prevent the
woman from living with her partner. She is unable to violate the order since she is a
petitioner. Typically, the abusive partner will persuade the woman to modify the
restraining order as a condition of reconciliation. Second, women who wish to avoid
work will participate in PEP to reduce the number of hours of employment-related
activity they must perform in order to maintain their level of public assistance. Lastly, if
allegations of domestic violence are founded by child protective services, the social
worker might encourage the non-offending parent/victim to participate in PEP to impress
the dependency court by demonstrating her commitment to avoid abusive intimate
relationships.
Women’s use of the word “mandated” to describe their PEP participation may have
reflected a perceived absence of choice and raises concerns about whether they truly

239
understood that their study participation was strictly voluntary. In order to ensure
informed consent, both facilitators and interviewers stressed that study participation was
voluntary and interviewers constantly checked in with participants to ensure that they
were comfortable in continuing, ending the interviews immediately if participants
indicated a desire to do so.
Limitations
While this study provides important insight into the process of empowerment
development among domestic violence survivors, there are limitations of the design that
must be acknowledged. As a pilot effort, the current project is an exploratory study. The
limitations involve the lack of external validity of the findings. By solely recruiting
domestic violence survivors involved with a human services agency, this research
excluded the experience of women who did not access formal resources for support.
Accessing Laura’s House shows some degree of psychological empowerment in
comparison to those who may be more isolated. Although women who were mandated to
attend by authorities might have lacked awareness of how domestic violence and its
consequences manifested in their personal lives, they were often knowledgeable about
and connected to resources by county employees. The study did not differentiate women
who had participated in other domestic violence-related services prior to their
involvement with the research. Some pre-participants had received individual and group
therapy at domestic violence shelters other than Laura’s House, transitional housing
programs, and outpatient counseling centers prior to their involvement with PEP, and
some graduates had participated in individual therapy or were participating concurrently

240
while in PEP. Not considering the influence of other supportive services may have
deflated the influence of PEP on graduates and affected conclusions made about group
differences between pre-participants and graduates. Finally, the study did not observe
substantial differences by race or ethnicity with respect to transitions along the
psychological empowerment continuum. This might have been due to the small sample
and insufficient numbers of different racial and ethnic identities represented in each
group of pre-participants and graduates for meaningful analysis. The absence of
substantial differences by race or ethnicity hampered the study’s analysis of
intersectionality and its effects on the development of psychological empowerment.
However, the study’s lack of findings also may suggest that meaningful differences
related to race or ethnicity do not exist.

241
CONCLUSION
This study addresses the lack of attention to not only empowerment oriented
group practice with domestic violence survivors but also the influence of ethnicity, race,
and other social factors on their experiences. It contributes to practice-based evidence
related to clinical work with women who have experienced intimate partner violence by
qualitatively exploring whether and how the Personal Empowerment Program
©
(PEP)
fosters the development of psychological empowerment. By using women’s stories to
conceptualize empowerment, the study has important implications for the definition of
psychological empowerment as a continuum rather than a process or outcome.
Considering the study’s empirical evidence that psychological empowerment
development occurs even in the absence of self-help, consciousness-raising, and social
action, and in the context of directive and dominating facilitators who frequently skipped
key content, the findings raise the possibility that a group context and elements of mutual
aid, support, skill-building, and education are core components of psychological
empowerment.
Despite its popularity in the practice world, this study represents the first
exploration of how participation in the Personal Empowerment Program
©
influences the
development of psychological empowerment. Lack of evidence compels providers,
consumers, and local funding sources to support PEP based on the authority of
sponsoring agencies. Women enroll in PEP with the expectation that they will graduate
the program with higher levels of personal empowerment. However, the facilitators and
agencies which employ them do not necessarily know what this looks like or what this

242
means for participants. Participants have a right to information about what PEP might
offer them.
Although PEP’s curriculum is empowerment-based, its implementation by
practitioners who may not share similar practice and/or disciplinary values inhibits
progress in critical consciousness and potentially limits the development of psychological
empowerment among its members by not connecting their experiences to sources of
oppression and inequality in the wider socio-cultural context, a component essential to
major theories of empowerment. The findings support the following recommendations
for empowerment-oriented group work with domestic violence survivors:
1. Examine deficit models that implicitly blame the victim and exclude critical
consciousness or awareness of the influence of society and culture.
2. Address internalized oppression among group members, including internalized
sexism.
3. Promote awareness of social, political, economic, and cultural patterns in
women’s stories.
4. Identify existing or potential strengths as resources rather than fostering
dependence on formal help sources.
5. Allow women to formulate their own vocabulary to label their experiences rather
than supplying terms such as abuser or battered woman.
6. Identify ways to prolong the group’s support to graduates over time that leverage
existing strengths as resources and facilitate collective action for social change.

243
Despite PEP’s deviance from the principles of empowerment practice and Freire’s
(1973) model of empowerment education, empowerment theory offers an appropriate
explanation of PEP’s benefits. The group dynamics of sharing stories, identification, and
validation and participating in dialogue along with the integration of mutual aid, support,
skill-building, and education demonstrate the implementation of empowerment practice.
Conversely, PEP’s goal of increasing participants’ knowledge about healthy relationships
in order to recognize warning signs of abuse, access resources to improve safety, and
engage in non-abusive relationships in the long run overlaps only with the first goal of
empowerment education to enhance individuals’ attitudes and behaviors, while
neglecting the others related to critical awareness and social action. An alternative
theoretical framework such as social learning theory might better explain PEP’s benefits
than an empowerment model. On the other hand, the study might have identified the core
components of psychological empowerment. Its findings demonstrate that psychological
empowerment develops in a communal context that integrates mutual aid, support, skill-
building, and education.
Domestic violence advocates must experiment with how psycho-educational
groups for domestic violence victims might incorporate critical consciousness.
Additional research is needed to verify how such interventions impact the development of
psychological empowerment and how they might further inform the exploratory
conceptual framework that emerged in this study. Finally, additional research must
address the existing gap in knowledge related to how ethnic and racial identity converge
with other social factors to shape women’s development of psychological empowerment.

244
REFERENCES
Abel, E.M. (2000). Psychosocial treatments for battered women: A review of empirical
research. Research on Social Work Practice, 10 (1), 55 – 77.

Abu-Lughod, L. (1995). A community of secrets: The separate world of Bedouin women.
In M. Friedman & P.A. Weiss (Eds.) Feminism and community (pp. 21-44).
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Alexander, P.C., Neimeyer, R.A., & Follette, V.M. (1991). Group therapy for women
sexually abused as children: A controlled study and investigation of individual
differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 218-231.

Alexander, P.C., Neimeyer, R.A., Follette, V.M., Moore, M., & Harter, S. (1989). A
comparison of group treatments of women sexually abused as children. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 57, 479-483.

Allen, J.G., Kelly, K.A., & Glodich, A. (1997). A psycho-educational program for
patients with trauma-related disorders. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 61, 222-
239.

Aleman, A. (1997). Understanding and investigating female friendship’s educative value.
Journal of Higher Education, 68, 2, 119-159.

American Community Survey. (2003). Orange County [online]. Retrieved on April 7,
2009, from
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Chg/2003/ACS/Tabular/050/0
5000US060591.htm.

Bergen, R.K. (1996). Wife rape: Understanding the response of survivors and service
providers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Biklin, S. & Bogdan, R. (1986). On your own with naturalistic evaluation. (New
Directions for Program Evaluation, 30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bialik-Gilad, R., Nagana, R., & Ferreira-Pinto, J. (1991). Talking posters: A Freirean
approach: The American Red Cross Experience. Border Health Special, 7, 1, 14-
18.

Black, D.A., Schumacher, J.A., Smith-Slep, A.M., & Heyman, R.E. (1999). Partner, child
abuse risk factor literature review: National network of family resiliency, National
network for health [online]. Retrieved on March 1, 2005, from
http://www.nnh.org/risk.

245
Bogdan, R. & Biklin, S. (1992). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to
theory and methods 2
nd
edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bograd, M. (1999). Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersections of race, class,
sexual orientation and gender. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25, 275 –
289.

Breton, M. & Nosko, A. (2005). Group work with women who have experienced abuse.
In G.L. Greif & P.H. Ephross (Eds.), Group Work with Populations At Risk 2
nd

edition (pp. 212-225). New York: Oxford University Press.

Brewster, M.P. (2002). Domestic violence theories, research and practice. In A.R.
Roberts (Ed.), Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies (pp. 23-
48). New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

California Department of Justice. (2003). Domestic Violence Related Calls for Assistance
Orange County, 2000-2003 [online]. Retrieved on April 7, 2009, from
http://www.ocalmanac.com/Crime/cr11.htm.

California Office of Women’s Health. (2006). Women’s Health: Findings from the
California Women’s Healthy Survey, 1997-2003 [online]. Retrieved on April 7,
2009, from
http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/dataandstats/reports/Documents/OWHReports/CWHS_9
7-03Report.pdf.

Campbell, J., Jones, A.S., Dienemann, J., Kub, J., Schollenberger, J., O’Campo, P., et al.
(2002). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 162, 10, pp. 1157-1163.

Carroll, J. & Minkler, M. (2000). Freire’s Message for Social Workers: Looking Back,
Looking Ahead. Journal of Community Practice, 8, 1, 21-35,

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC). (2003). Costs of Intimate Partner
Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta, G.A.: CDC, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Coffey, A. & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.

Coker, A.L., Smith, P.H., Thompson, M.P., McKeown, R.E., Bethea, L., Davis, K.E.
(2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men
and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 4, 260-8.

246
Counts, D.A., Brown, J., & Campbell, J. (1992). Sanctions and sanctuary: Cultural
perspectives on the beating of wives. Boulder, C.O.: Westview Press.

Cox, J.W., & Stoltenberg, C. (1991). Evaluation of treatment programs: Battered wives.
Journal of Family Violence, 6, 395 – 413.

Crandall, M., Nathens, A.B., Kernic, M.A., Holt, V.L., Rivara, F.P. (2004). Predicting
future injury among women in abusive relationships. Journal of Trauma-Injury
Infection and Critical Care, 56, 4, 906-12.

Crenshaw, K. (1995). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and
violence against women of color. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K.
Thomas (Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that informed the movement
(pp. 357 – 383). New York: The New Press.

Dilthey, W. (1961). Pattern and meanings in history (H.P. Rickman, trans.). New York:
Harper & Row.

El-Bassel, N., Gilbert, L., Rajah, V., Foleno, A., & Frye, V. (2001). Social support
among women in methadone treatment who experience partner violence. Violence
Against Women, 7, 3, 246-274.

Ferguson, H. (2003). Outline of a critical best practice perspective on social work and
social care. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 8, 1005-1024.

Fournier, R. (2002). A trauma education workshop on posttraumatic stress. Health &
Social Work, 27, 113-124.

Fox, J.A. & Zawitz, M.W. (2004). Homicide trends in the United States. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Foy, D.W., Eriksson, C.B., Trice, G.A. (2001). Introduction to group interventions for
trauma survivors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 246-251.

Foy, D.W., Glynn, S.M., Schnurr, P.P., Jankowski, M.K., Wattenberg, M.S., Weiss, D.S.,
Marmar, C.R., & Gusman, F.D. (2000). Group therapy. In E. Foa, T. Keane, & M.
Friedman (Eds.), Effective treatments for PTSD: Practice guidelines from the
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies (pp. 155-175, 336-338). New
York: Guilford Press.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for Critical Consciousness. New York: Seabury.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury.

247
Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for
Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Graham, D.L.R. & Rawlings, E.I. (1987). Bonding with abusive dating partners:
Dynamics of Stockholm Syndrome. In B. Levy (Ed.), Dating Violence: Young
Women in Danger (1991) (pp. 11-135). Seattle: Seal Press.

Guba, E. (1987). Naturalistic evaluation. (New Directions for Program Evaluation, 34).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic
inquiry. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 4, 30, 233-52.

Gutierrez, L.M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective.
Social Work, 35, 2, 149-153.

Gutierrez, L.M., DeLois, K.A., GlenMaye, L. (1995) Understanding empowerment
practice: Building on practitioner-based knowledge. Families in Society, 76, 9, p.
534.

Harris, A. (1995). Race and essentialism in feminist legal theory. In R. Delgado (Ed.),
Critical race theory: The cutting edge (pp. 253 – 266). Philadelphia, P.A.: Temple
University Press.

Harway, M & O’Neil, J.M. (1999). What causes men’s violence against women?
Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage.

Heineman Pieper, M. (1985). The future of social work research. Social Work Research
& Abstracts, 21, 3-11.

Heise, L. & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002). Violence by intimate partners. In E. Krug, L.L.
Dahlberg, J.A. Mercy, et al. (Eds.), World Report on Violence and Health (pp. 87-
121). Geneva: World Health Organization.

Holiman, M. & Schilit, R. (1991). Aftercare for battered women: How to encourage the
maintenance of change. Psychotherapy, 29, 345 – 353.

Imre, R. (1991). What do we need to know for good practice? Social Work, 36, 198-200.

248
Israel, B.A., Checkoway, B., Schulz, A., Zimmerman, M. (1994). Health education and
community empowerment: Conceptualizing and measuring perceptions of
individual, organizational, and community control. Health Education Quarterly,
21, 2, 149-170.

Itzhaky, H. & York, A.S. (2000). Empowerment and community participation: Does
gender make a difference? Social Work Research, 24, 4, 225-234.

Johnson, D.M., Worell, J. & Chandler, R.K. (2005). Assessing psychological health and
empowerment in women: The Personal Progress Scale Revised. Women &
Health, 41, 1, 109-129.

Kieffer, C.H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in
Human Services, 3, 9-36.

Kim, S. & Kim, J. (2001). The effects of group intervention for battered women in Korea.
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 15, 6, 257-264.

Klein, E., Campbell, J., Soler, E., & Ghez, M. (1997). Ending domestic violence:
Changing public perceptions/halting the epidemic. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage.

Klein, R.H. & Schermer, V.L. (2000). Introduction and overview: Creating a healing
matrix. In R.H. Klein & V.H. Schermer (Eds.), Group psychotherapy for
psychological trauma (pp. 3-46). New York: Guilford Press.

Knight, C. (2006). Groups for individuals with traumatic histories: Practice
considerations for social workers. Social Work, 51, 1, 20-30.

Labonte, R. (1992). Heart health inequalities in Canada: Models, theory and planning.
Health Promotion International, 7, 2, 119-128.

Larance, L.Y. & Porter, M.L. (2004). Support group membership as a process of social
capital formation among female survivors of domestic violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 6, 676-690.

Lawrence, S. (2002). Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That
Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being. Research Forum on
Children, Families, and the New Federalism. National Center for Children in
Poverty, Issue Brief.

Lincoln, Y. (1997). From theoretical to practical discourses: Contributions of
postmodern thinking to educational practice. Paper presented at the Endowed
Spring Lecture, School of Education, Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, VA.

249

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1989). Ethics: The failure of positivist science. Review of Higher
Education, 12, 3, 221-40.

Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Lum, D. (1996). Social work practice and people of color 3
rd
edition. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.

Lyon, E. (2000). Welfare, poverty and abused women: New research and its implications.
Policy and practice paper #10. Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic
Violence. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Mancoske, R.J. Standifer, D., & Cauley, C. (1994). The effectiveness of brief counseling
services for battered women. Research on Social Work Practice, 4, 53 – 63.

Margison, F. (2001). Practice-based evidence in psychotherapy. In Mace, C., Moorey, S.
and Roberts, B. (Eds.), Evidence in Psychological Theories. London: Brunner-
Routledge.

Maton, K.I. & Salem, D.A. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering
community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 23, 5, 31-656.

Max, W., Rice, D.P., Finkelstein, E., Bardwell, R.A., Leadbetter, S. (2004). The
economic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States.
Violence & Victims, 19, 3, 259-72.

Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
2
nd
edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Minkler, M. (1985). Building supportive ties and sense of community among inner-city
elderly: The Tenderloin Senior Outreach Project. Health Education Quarterly, 12,
303-314.

Orange County Community Indicators Project. (2006). Orange County 2006 Community
Indicators. Retrieved on November 9, 2007, from
http://www.oc.ca.gov/ceocommunity.asp.

Oxman-Martinez, J., Krane, J., & Ducey, K. (2000). Violence against women and ethno-
racial minority women: examining assumptions about ethnicity and race.
Canadian Ethnic Studies, 32, 1 – 18.

250
Parsons, R.J. (1991). Empowerment: Purpose and practice principle in social work.
Social Work with Groups, 14, 2, 7-21.

Parsons, R.J. (2001). Specific practice strategies for empowerment-based practice with
women: A study of two groups. Affilia, 16, 2, 159-179.

Parsons, R.J. & Cox, E.O. (1992). Empowerment through group collectivity: An old
approach to building community. Paper presented at the Annual Program
Meeting, Council on Social Work Education, Kansas City, KS.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods 3
rd
edition. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.

Perkins, D.D. (1995). Speaking truth to power: Empowerment ideology as social
intervention and policy. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 5, 765-
794.

Perkins, D.D. & Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and
application. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 5, 569-579.

Pinderhughes, E.B. (1983). Empowerment for our clients and for ourselves. Social
Casework, 331-338.

Plichta, S.B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: Policy
and practice implications. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 11, 1296-323.

Popple, P. (1985). The social work profession: A reconceptualization. Social Service
Review, 560-575.

Prestby, J.E., Wandersman, A., Florin, P., Rich, R., Chavis, D. (1990). Benefits, costs,
incentive management and participation in voluntary organizations: A means of
understanding and promoting empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 18, 1, 117-149.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over
prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1, 1-25.

Rappaport, J. (1984). Studies of empowerment: Introduction to the issue. Prevention in
Human Services, 5, 107.

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory
for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 2,
121-148.

251
Rennison, C. (2003). Intimate partner violence, 1993-2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Department of Justice, NCJ197838.

Rich, R.C., Edelstein, M., Hallman, W.K., Wandersman, A.H. (1995). Citizen
participation and empowerment: The case of local environmental hazards.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 5, 657-676.

Riger, S. (1993). What’s wrong with empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 21, 3, 279-292.

Roberts, T.A., Auinger, P., Klein, J.D. (2005). Intimate partner abuse and the
reproductive health of sexually active female adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 36, 5, 380-5.

Roberts, T.A., Klein, J.D., Fisher, S. (2003). Longitudinal effect of intimate partner abuse
on high-risk behavior among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine, 157, 9, 875-81.

Rodwell, M.K. (1998). Social work constructivist research. New York: Garland
Publishing Inc.

Rodwell, M.K. (1995). Using research for social justice: An example of constructivist
research with street children in Brasil. Paper presented at the Southern
Sociological Society Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA.

Romero, L., Wallerstein, N., Lucero, J., Fredine, H.G., Keefe, J., O’Connell J. (2006).
Woman to woman: Coming together for positive change – using empowerment
and popular education to prevent HIV in women. AIDS Education and
Prevention, 18, 5, 390-405.

Rubin, A. (1991). The effectiveness of outreach counseling and support groups for
battered women: A preliminary evaluation. Research on Social Work Practice, 1,
332 – 357.

Rycroft, P.J. (2001). An evaluation of short-term group therapy for battered women.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (07), 3861B.

Saathoff, A.J. & Stoffel, E.A. (1999). Community-based domestic violence services. The
Future of Children, 9, 3, pp. 97-111.

Saegert, S. (1989). Unlikely leaders, extreme circumstances: Older black women building
community households. American Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 3, 295-
316.

252

Saltzman, L.E., Fanslow, J.L., McMahon, P.M., Shelley, G.A. (2002). Intimate partner
violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements.
Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury
Prevention and Control.

Schnurr, P.P., Friedman, M.J., Lavori, P.W., & Hsieh, F.Y. (2001). Design of Department
of Veteran Affairs Cooperative Study No. 420: Group treatment of posttraumatic
stress disorder. Controlled Clinical Trials, 22, 74-88.

Silverman, J.G., Raj, A., Mucci, L., Hathaway, J. (2001). Dating violence against
adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual
risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of American Medical
Association, 286, 5, 572-9.

Simon, B. (1994). The empowerment tradition in American social work. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Smith, M. & Lincoln, Y. (1984). Another kind of evaluation. Journal of Extension, 5-10.

Solomon, B. (1976). Black empowerment. New York: Columbia University Press.

Speer, P.W. & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to
empowerment and power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 5,
729-748.

Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and
Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory 2
nd
edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Swift, C. & Levin, G. (1987). Empowerment: An emergency mental health technology.
Journal of Primary Prevention, 8, 71-94.

Tjaden, P. & Theonnes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner
violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ
181867.

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America. NIJ.

Toleman, R. & Rapheal, J. (2000). A review of the research on welfare and domestic
violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 4, 655-682.

253

Trickett, E.J. (1994). Human diversity and community psychology: Where ecology and
empowerment meet. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 4, 583-592.

Tutty, L., Bidgood, B., & Rothery, M. (1996). Evaluating the effect of group process and
client variables in support groups for battered women. Research on Social Work
Practice, 6, 308 – 324.

Tutty, L., Bidgood, B., & Rothery, M. (1993). Support groups for battered women:
Research on their efficacy. Journal of Family Violence, 8, 325 – 343.

Tyson, K. (1995). New foundations for scientific social and behavioral research: The
heuristic paradigm. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Wallerstein, N. (1994). Empowerment education applied to youth. In A.C. Matiella (Ed.),
The Multicultural Challenge in Health Education (pp. 153-176). Santa Cruz: ETR
Associates.

Wallerstein, N. (1992). Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: Implications for health
promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6, 197-205.

Wallerstein, N. & Bernstein, E. (1988). Empowerment education: Freire’s ideas adapted
to health education. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 4, 379-394.

Wallis, D.A.N. (2002). Reduction of trauma symptoms following group therapy.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 67-74.

Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of social sciences. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Weick, A. (1982). Issues of power in social work practice. In A. Weick & S. Vandiver
(Eds.), Women, Power, and Change. Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press.

Werner, D. & Bower, B. (1982). Helping Health Workers Learn. Palo Alto: The
Hesperian Foundation.

Williams, D. (1986). When is naturalistic evaluation appropriate? (New Directions for
Program Evaluation, 30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Worell, J. & Remer, P. (2003). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowerment diverse
women 2
nd
edition. New York: Wiley.

254

Wright, D., Woo, W., Muller, R., Fernandes, C., & Kraftcheck, E. (2003). An
investigation of trauma-centered inpatient treatment for adult survivors of abuse.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 393-406.

Zimmerman, M.A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and
community levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Siedman (Eds.), Handbook of
Community Psychology (pp. 43-63). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Zimmerman, M.A. (1993, April). Empowerment theory: Where do we go from here.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association,
Chicago, IL.

Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 5, 581-599.

Zimmerman, M.A. (1990). Taking aim on empowerment research: On the distinction
between individual and psychological conceptions. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 18, 1, 169-177.

Zimmerman, M.A., Israel, B.A., Schultz, A., Checkoway, B. (1992). Further explorations
in empowerment theory: An empirical analysis of psychological empowerment.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 6, 707-727.

Zimmerman, M.A. & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived control, and
psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 5,
725-750.

255
APPENDIX A: Focus Group Guide

1. What is personal empowerment? What does it look like?
2. What strategies to do you use in PEP to facilitate empowerment?
3. How do women perceive and experience them?
4. How do their experiences during the course of their participation facilitate their
empowerment?
5. In what ways does PEP change how participants think about their intimate
relationships?
6. In what ways does PEP impact their relationships with others?
7. In what other ways does PEP influence participants’ lives?
8. What skills do participants learn?
9. In what ways do you think these skills can help participants gain access to resources
that help them to achieve their goals?
10. What relevant skills do you feel participants do not learn in PEP?
11. What are the reasons participants do not learn these skills?
12. What motivates participants to complete PEP?
13. What makes participants interested in PEP once they start?
14. What makes participants want to stay?
15. How do participants first learn or hear about PEP?
16. Are there times that participants want to drop out of PEP? Why?
17. If you could change anything about PEP, what would you change? Why?

256
APPENDIX A: Pre-Participant Interview Guide

Knowledge
1. What constitutes abusive behavior?
a. What are the types of abuse?
2. How does domestic violence impact those who experience it?
3. What is the cycle of violence?
4. Have you ever heard of the following terms? If yes, please describe what you know
about it:
a. Posttraumatic stress disorder
b. Stockholm Syndrome
c. Battered Women’s Syndrome
5. What are personal boundaries?
6. What is the difference between a healthy vs. unhealthy personal boundary?
7. How does witnessing domestic violence between their parents affect children?
8. What behaviors are commonly seen in children who have witnessed domestic
violence?
9. What resources are available to assist children who have witnessed domestic
violence?
10. Can you tell me about how the following might assist someone who is experiencing
domestic violence:
a. A restraining order?
b. Immigration relief? (VAWA waiver, u visa)
c. Low-cost legal assistance?
11. What are the characteristics of a potentially abusive partner?
12. What are the warning signs of increased lethality risk?
13. What are the characteristics of a healthy relationship with an intimate partner?
14. What are some strategies that might improve a person’s safety inside an abusive
relationship?
15. What are some strategies that might improve a person’s safety after s/he has left an
abusive partner?

Skills/Behavior
16. How do you behave when you realize that someone is acting to prevent you from
achieving the outcome you want?
a. How does your behavior change when this person is your intimate partner, if
at all?
17. What do you do when you feel angry?
18. What do you do when you need help from others?
19. Which people do you rely on to help you when you face problems?
20. How does each person or group help you?
21. Have you accessed any legal assistance with regard to your experiences of domestic
violence?

257
22. Have you developed a safety plan, e.g. a plan to improve your safety within this
relationship?
23. How will you respond if you experience an immediate risk of abuse by your intimate
partner?
24. How might you assess if you are in a potentially lethal situation with an abusive
partner?

Self-awareness: Thoughts/Feelings
25. To what extent has your experience as a child in your parents’ household impacted
your life as an adult?
a. What behaviors or actions stand out the most?
26. Can you think of any examples of a healthy boundary in your own life? An unhealthy
boundary?
27. How has your experience of domestic violence impacted you?
a. Probe personal experiences of types of abuse.
28. To what extent do you feel responsible for what you have experienced?
29. Please respond to the following questions with regard to your current or most recent
abusive relationship:
a. What are your feelings about the choices you have made within your current
or most recent abusive relationship?
i. Probe feelings of shame and guilt
b. What motivated you or continues to motivate you to continue the relationship?
c. To what extent do/did you want to continue this relationship, if at all?
d. How do you feel about your desire to continue the relationship?
e. How has your relationship with your partner affected your children?
30. To what extent is your story similar to others who have experienced domestic
violence, if at all?

Safety
31. Please answer the following questions with regard to your current or most recent
relationship:
a. Tell me about your relationship with your intimate partner.
b. How safe are you in this relationship?
i. Probe the presence of warning signs of abuse.
c. How have you tried to increase or maintain your safety within this
relationship, if at all?
d. Have you experienced any change in your relationship up to this point?
e. What needs to change in order to improve your safety?
f. What blocks the change from happening?
g. How have you responded to each of these barriers?
i. Name each barrier she identifies in order to solicit a response with
regard to each.
h. How would you like to deal with these barriers differently than you have
already, if at all?

258
i. What do you need to be safe?
i. Probe knowledge, skills, support.
j. To what extent do you have the resources that you need to be safe?
k. What resources would you need to improve your safety that you do not have
already?

If the current or most recent relationship is not an abusive one, pose the questions above
with regard to the most recent abusive relationship.

259
APPENDIX A: PEP Graduate Interview Guide

Knowledge
1. What constitutes abusive behavior?
a. What are the types of abuse?
2. How does domestic violence impact those who experience it?
3. What is the cycle of violence?
4. Have you ever heard of the following terms? If yes, please describe what you know
about it:
a. Posttraumatic stress disorder
b. Stockholm Syndrome
c. Battered Women’s Syndrome
5. What are personal boundaries?
6. What is the difference between a healthy vs. unhealthy personal boundary?
7. How does witnessing domestic violence between their parents affect children?
8. What behaviors are commonly seen in children who have witnessed domestic
violence?
9. What resources are available to assist children who have witnessed domestic
violence?
10. Can you tell me about how the following might assist someone who is experiencing
domestic violence:
a. A restraining order?
b. Immigration relief? (VAWA waiver, u visa)
c. Low-cost legal assistance?
11. What are the characteristics of a potentially abusive partner?
12. What are the warning signs of increased lethality risk?
13. What are the characteristics of a healthy relationship with an intimate partner?
14. What are some strategies that might improve a person’s safety inside an abusive
relationship?
15. What are some strategies that might improve a person’s safety after s/he has left an
abusive partner?

Skills/Behavior
16. How do you behave when you realize that someone is acting to prevent you from
achieving the outcome you want?
a. How does your behavior change when this person is your intimate partner, if
at all?
17. What do you do when you feel angry?
18. What do you do when you need help from others?
19. Which people do you rely on to help you when you face problems?
20. How does each person or group help you?
21. Have you accessed any legal assistance with regard to your experiences of domestic
violence?

260
22. Have you developed a safety plan, e.g. a plan to improve your safety within this
relationship?
23. How will you respond if you experience an immediate risk of abuse by your intimate
partner?
24. How might you assess if you are in a potentially lethal situation with an abusive
partner?

Self-awareness: Thoughts/Feelings
25. To what extent has your experience as a child in your parents’ household impacted
your life as an adult?
a. What behaviors or actions stand out the most?
26. Can you think of any examples of a healthy boundary in your own life? An unhealthy
boundary?
27. How has your experience of domestic violence impacted you?
a. Probe personal experiences of types of abuse.
28. To what extent do you feel responsible for what you have experienced?
29. Please respond to the following questions with regard to your current or most recent
abusive relationship:
a. What are your feelings about the choices you have made within your current
or most recent abusive relationship?
i. Probe feelings of shame and guilt
b. What motivated you or continues to motivate you to continue the relationship?
c. To what extent do/did you want to continue this relationship, if at all?
d. How do you feel about your desire to continue the relationship, if at all?
e. How has your relationship with your partner affected your children?
30. To what extent is your story similar to others who have experienced domestic
violence, if at all?

Safety
31. Please answer the following questions with regard to your current or most recent
relationship:
a. Tell me about your relationship with your intimate partner.
b. How safe are you in this relationship?
i. Probe the presence of warning signs of abuse.
c. How have you tried to increase or maintain your safety within this
relationship, if at all?
d. Have you experienced any change in your relationship up to this point?
e. What needs to change in order to improve your safety?
f. What blocks the change from happening?
g. How have you responded to each of these barriers?
i. Name each barrier she identifies in order to solicit a response with
regard to each.
h. How would you like to deal with these barriers differently than you have
already, if at all?

261
i. What do you need to be safe?
i. Probe knowledge, skills, support.
j. To what extent do you have the resources that you need to be safe?
k. What resources would you need to improve your safety that you do not have
already?

If the current or most recent relationship is not an abusive one, pose the questions above
with regard to the most recent abusive relationship.

PEP Participation
32. In what ways has your participation in PEP changed how you think about your
intimate relationships?
33. In what ways has PEP impacted your relationships with others?
34. In what other ways has PEP influenced your life?
35. What skills did you learn?
36. In what ways do you think these skills can help you obtain resources which will help
you achieve your goals?
37. What skills do you feel you did not learn in PEP?
38. What are the reasons you did not learn these skills?
39. What motivated you to complete PEP?
40. What made you interested in PEP once you started?
41. What made you want to stay?
42. How did you first learn or hear about PEP?
43. Were there times that you wanted to drop out of PEP? Why?
44. If you could change anything about PEP, what would you change? Why?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The Personal Empowerment Program© (PEP) is a 10-session weekly psycho-educational group designed to empower victims of domestic violence by increasing participants' knowledge about healthy relationships in order to recognize warning signs of abuse, access resources to improve safety, and engage in non-abusive relationships in the long run. Lack of evidence compels providers, consumers, and local funding sources to support PEP based on the authority of sponsoring agencies (Gambrill, 1999). This study contributes to practice-based evidence and promotes a critical best practice approach by partnering with both service providers and consumers to explore the development of psychological empowerment with a heterogeneous population of women united by their lived experience of intimate partner violence. As a grounded theory study, this research is a collaborative project with a local domestic violence shelter and outreach organization headquartered in Orange County, California.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Thriving beyond domestic violence and abuse

PDF

The revolution will come home: gendered violence and transformative organizing from the Philippines to the U.S.

PDF

Social work grand challenge: build healthy relationships to end violence: conjoint couples group therapy to reduce intimate partner violence for Army couples

PDF

Intimate partner violence in the Black community: empowering Black families through education and engagement to increase survivor safety via a strengthened social support network

PDF

A sociocultural and developmental approach to intimate partner violence among a sample of Hispanic emerging adults

Asset Metadata

Creator Islam, Nadia (author)

Core Title Exploring the development of psychological empowerment among survivors of intimate partner violence: does the Personal Empowerment Program live up to its name?

School School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 06/04/2009

Defense Date 05/12/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag domestic violence,empowerment,empowerment-oriented social work practice,intimate partner violence,OAI-PMH Harvest,practice-based evidence,psychological empowerment,qualitative evaluation

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Parker Dominguez, Tyan (committee chair), Kaplan, Elaine B. (committee member), Palinkas, Lawrence A. (committee member)

Creator Email nislam@laurashouse.org,nislam@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2285

Unique identifier UC1435155

Identifier etd-Islam-2667 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-250423 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2285 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Islam-2667.pdf

Dmrecord 250423

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Islam, Nadia

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu