I
have to admit it. There have been times
in my life as a direct service provider that I have said “if I am working
harder than my client, there is something wrong.” What I am realizing now, though, is that the
fault was not with my client. It had to
do with my expectations and the fact that I was focusing on my goals for her,
rather than letting her define what success meant. Even if we had come to an agreement on the
goals, there is a good chance that the client was submitting to what I was
promoting. Survivors are very skillful
at deferring to others in order to feel safe in a relationship in which they
perceive the counselor/shelter manager/advocate may have “power over” or access
to things that the survivor needs.
In
a study by the Full Frame Initiative in California, available here http://fullframeinitiative.org/how-do-survivors-define-success-report-recommendations/
it is noted that too often we define success based on our own expectations or
the those of our funders and we forget to ask survivors how they define success
for themselves. We can get so caught up
in promoting an end to the abusive relationship, permanent housing, employment,
parenting skills, etc., that we end up creating a menu of goals for survivors
to choose from rather than sitting down and really delving into what is meaningful
for the person. The above mentioned study
found that a change in the abusive relationship was considered success by only
7% of the persons who participated in the study. In fact, “across all survivor responses, they
most often credited themselves, family members, and God/faith as the top enablers
of moments of success, as well as the top supports for coping in between.” “This
is not a wholesale dismissal by survivors of the importance of services, but a
reflection of the place that services and professional relationships hold in
achieving personal success.. . . clearly services and formal supports help
survivors take steps towards that ‘authentic self’ but they are not the only or
even most important factor.”
We
work very hard to be empowering in our work with survivors and feel that the
support and services we provide are a way to do so. However, we forget that empowerment can be
brought forth in a person through strong connections in the community. Isolation, a tool of the abuser, may have
limited connections and through new connections the survivor may be able to
find herself and be engaged in ways that are more meaningful than those we can
provide in our structure and limitations.
We also know that in our best efforts to provide support through
empowerment we still are trying to help survivors navigate systems that are
less than empowering and are often abusive.
This can lead to stalling and disengagement if survivors feel this is
all we have to offer.
The Full Frame Initiative study
recommends that “programs do
‘success planning’ in addition to “safety planning” based on survivors’ idea of
success. Practitioners should learn to ask about what successful relationships
and opportunities survivors do have.” We can also provide more opportunities for
success in non-traditional support groups or by increasing engagement within
the community. These will provide those “moments
of being connected” and “belonging to something bigger than me”, and “accomplishment
and opportunity” that survivors seek.
The full report will give you recommendations for moving
forward.
