Goodman Lisa A, Epstein Deborah, Hailes Helen P, Slocum Allison, Wolff Jonathan, Coyne Kelly, McCraney Amy
Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA.
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, USA.
J Interpers Violence. 2022 May;37(9-10):NP7315-NP7342. doi: 10.1177/0886260520969233. Epub 2020 Oct 27.
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.
反家庭暴力倡导者开始质疑长期以来界定家庭暴力庇护所的两项基本政策——对庇护所位置严格保密以及除工作人员和居民外禁止其他人进入庇护所——这两项政策都会加剧幸存者的社会孤立,且包含一些强制性规定,与更广泛的压迫性动态产生痛苦共鸣。作为回应,越来越多的社区开始试验开放式庇护所,这种庇护所打破传统,公开其位置并允许访客进入。尽管这一创新与传统大相径庭,但几乎没有研究探讨其理论基础、益处和挑战。本研究填补了这一空白。研究问题:我们采用定性描述方法来探究开放式庇护所负责人的经历和观点。参与者包括来自11个州的14位开放式庇护所负责人。我们对每位参与者进行了半结构化电话访谈,重点关注他们庇护所的(a)性质和历史;(b)基本原理;(c)与保密和开放相关的政策及项目;(d)益处和挑战;(e)对特定幸存者亚群体的影响;以及(f)用于建立或加强幸存者关系的做法。开放式庇护所:(a)通过一系列广泛措施促进人身安全;(b)采取一系列政策,促进不同程度的位置公开和访客可及性;(c)面临挑战,比如需要获得多个群体的认可;(d)改善幸存者的状况,包括减少羞耻感;改善维权关系;增加获得服务的机会以及社区对庇护所生活的参与度;加深与网络成员的关系;进而在幸存者结束庇护所生活很久之后,增加其身心健康的前景。研究结果为有意在有意义的关系网络背景下促进幸存者安全与康复的庇护所指明了一条新路径。