Search

Heightened attention to police brutality has created momentum for alternative, community-based responses to violence, including that inflicted by an intimate partner. But to build effective alternatives, we must know what survivors already do in moments of acute danger when they do not call the police. This study sought to explore these moments from an ecological perspective. Using a qualitative descriptive methodology, we conducted 25 interviews with a diverse sample of intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors. Each described the first, the worst, and the most recent IPV incident, whom they reached out to and why, the outcomes of their help-seeking, and the individual, interpersonal, and psychosocial influences on the process. Even in the face of severe violence, what participants most wanted was someone who would listen without judgment. Direct interpersonal factors that influenced their help-seeking included their partner's controlling behavior, as well as their network members' capacities, perspectives on IPV, and feelings about the survivor. Broader influential factors included the radiating effects of IPV and other forms of trauma in survivors' networks. Participants offered recommendations on how domestic violence (DV) programs could both strengthen survivors' networks and provide them with targeted community support in moments of grave danger. As we continue to develop community-based alternatives to police intervention, DV programs have a critical opportunity to build on survivors' own recommendations. This process must address the ongoing effects of trauma that hamper the ability of so many network members to support survivors in crisis.

Antidomestic violence advocates have begun to question two essential policies that have long defined domestic violence shelters-strict secrecy regarding shelter location and prohibitions on shelter access to all except staff and residents-both of which serve to increase survivors' social isolation and entail coercive rules that resonate painfully with broader oppressive dynamics. In response a growing number of communities have begun experimenting with open shelters, which break from tradition by making their locations public, and allowing visitors. Although this innovation is a sharp departure from tradition, virtually no research exists to explore its philosophical underpinnings, benefits, and challenges. This study addresses this gap. Study Questions: We used a qualitative descriptive approach to explore the experiences and perspectives of open shelter directors. Participants included 14 open shelter directors from 11 states. We conducted semistructured phone interviews with each participant, focusing on their shelter's (a) nature and history; (b) rationale; (c) policies and programs related to secrecy and openness; (d) benefits and challenges; (e) effects on specific survivor subgroups; and (f) practices used to build or strengthen survivors' relationships. Open shelters: (a) promote physical safety using a broad array of measures; (b) adopt a range of policies that promote varying degrees of location disclosure and visitor accessibility; (c) face challenges, such as the need to gain buy-in from multiple constituents; and (d) Improve survivor outcomes, including decreased shame; improved advocacy relationships; increased access to services and community involvement in shelter life; and deepened relationships with network members; in turn increasing prospects for physical and psychological well-being long after survivors' shelter stays are over. Findings suggest a new path for shelters interested in promoting survivor safety and healing in the context of a web of meaningful relationships.