Community-based advocacy services are important in enabling victims to escape domestic abuse and rebuild their lives. This study evaluated a domestic abuse service. Two phases of research were conducted following case-file analysis (n = 86): surveys (n = 22) and interviews (n = 12) with victims, and interviews with key individuals (n = 12) based in related statutory and community organizations. The findings revealed the holistic model of legal, practical, mental health–related, and advocacy components resulted in a range of benefits to victims and enhanced interagency partnership working. Core elements of a successful needs-led, victim-centered service could be distilled.
AdlerM. A. (2002). The utility of modeling in evaluation planning: The case of the coordination of domestic violence services in Maryland. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 203-213.
2.
AllenN. E.LarsenS.TrotterJ.SullivanC. M. (2013). Exploring the core service delivery processes of an evidence-based community advocacy program for women with abusive partners. Journal of Community Psychology, 4, 1-18.
3.
BarronJ. (1990). “Not worth the paper?” The effectiveness of legal protection for women and children experiencing domestic violence. Bristol, UK: Women’s Aid Federation England.
4.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
5.
BurkeB. (1998). Evaluating for a change: Reflections on participatory methodology. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 43-56.
BuzawaE. S.BuzawaC. G. (2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response (3rd ed.). London, England: Office for National Statistics.
8.
CampbellR. (2002). Emotionally involved: The impact of researching rape. New York: Routledge.
9.
CampbellR.AdamsA. E.PattersonD. (2008). Methodological challenges of collecting evaluation data from traumatized clients/consumers: A comparison of three methods. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 369-381.
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. London, England: Office for National Statistics.
11.
DempseyM. M. (2009). Prosecuting domestic violence: A philosophical analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
DunnJ. L.Powell-WilliamsM. (2007). “Everybody makes choices”: Victim advocates and the social construction of battered women’s victimization and agency. Violence Against Women, 13, 977-1001.
13.
EarnerI. (2010). Double risk: Immigrant mothers, domestic violence and public child welfare services in New York City. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 288-293.
14.
FederL.NiolonP. H.CampbellJ.WallinderJ.NelsonR.LarrouyH. (2011). The need for experimental methodology in intimate partner violence: Finding programs that effectively prevent IPV. Violence Against Women, 17, 340-358.
15.
FugateM.LandisL.RiordanK.NaureckasS.EngelB. (2005). Barriers to domestic violence help seeking: Implications for intervention. Violence Against Women, 11, 290-310.
16.
GoodmanL. A.EpsteinD. (2007). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
17.
HagueG.MalosE.DearW. (1996). Multi-agency work and domestic violence. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
18.
HagueG.MullenderA.ArisR. (2003). Is anyone listening? Accountability and women survivors of domestic violence. London, England: Routledge.
19.
HarneL.RadfordJ. (2008). Tackling domestic violence: Theories, policies and practice. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
20.
HesterM.DonovanC.FahmyE. (2010). Feminist epistemology and the politics of method: Surveying same sex domestic violence. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 251-263.
21.
HesterM.PearsonC.HarwinN. (2007). Making an impact: Children and domestic violence (2nd ed.). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.
KasturiranganA. (2008). Empowerment programs designed to address domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 14, 1465-1474.
24.
KulkarniS. J.BellH.RhodesD. M. (2012). Back to basics: Essential qualities of services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 85-101.
25.
MacyR. J.JohnsN.RizoC. F.MartinS. L.GiattinaM. (2011). Domestic violence and sexual assault service goal priorities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3361-3382.
26.
McDermottM. J.GarofaloJ. (2004). When advocacy for domestic violence victims backfires: Types and sources of victim disempowerment. Violence Against Women, 10, 1245-1266.
27.
Mirlees-BlackC. (1999). Domestic violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey Self-Completion Questionnaire (Home Office Research Study No. 191). London, England: Home Office.
28.
MoeA. M. (2007). Silenced voices and structured survival: Battered women’s help seeking. Violence Against Women, 13, 676-699.
29.
National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children. (2009). Domestic violence campaign briefing 2: Support services for children and families affected by domestic violence (England). Retrieved from http://www.ccrm.org.uk/images/docs/nspcc.pdf
30.
OakleyA. (2000). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
OrfordJ. (2008). Community psychology: Challenges, controversies and emerging consensus. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
33.
PapineauD.KielyM. C. (1996). Participatory evaluation in a community organization: Fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19, 79-93.
34.
ParmarA.SampsonA. (2007). Evaluating domestic violence initiatives. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 671-691.
35.
PawsonR.TilleyN. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London, England: Office for National Statistics.
36.
PlichtaS.FalikM. (2001). Prevalence of violence and its implications for women’s health. Women’s Health Issues, 11, 244-258.
37.
Scottish Parliament. (2000). Domestic abuse in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Parliament Information Centre.
38.
SullivanC. M.BybeeD. I. (1999). Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 43-53.
39.
WadsworthY. (2001). Responsive evaluation: New directions for evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
