CPN is designed and maintained by ONline @ UW: Electronic Publishing Group.

Topics: Families, Gender, & Children

Texas Council on Family Violence Builds Civic Partnerships with State Agencies.

The Texas Council was founded as an organization that could work with both the Texas state government and local battered women's shelters. One of its top priorities has been to secure state funding for shelters, while at the same time creating a relationship with the Texas Department of Human Services to insure that battered women's shelters remain autonomous, community-based, and community-supported. The Council's work has helped the Texas government to act as a catalyst for civic efforts against family violence, not replacing them with government "owned" programs or, on the other hand, ignoring a public problem of such consequence. Story and case study plus.

Contents

Story: The Texas Council
Case Study Plus: Working with the State: The Texas Battered Women's Movement and the Politics of Engagement

Story: The Texas Council

The Texas Council on Family Violence was founded in 1977 by a coalition of grassroots feminist activists involved in the battered women's movement. The Council was created as a feminist movement organization that could work with both the Texas state government and local battered women's shelters. One of its top priorities has been to secure state funding for shelters, while at the same time creating a relationship with the Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) to insure that battered women's shelters remain autonomous, community-based, and community-supported.

It has accomplished these goals by several means. First, the Council helped to draft the legislation that would allow for public funding of battered women's shelters. This would provide shelters with a more stable funding base. Second, it drafted a stipulation that qualifying shelters needed to be operation prior to receiving state funding. It also stipulated that over a six year period state funding would decline, so that state dollars would not account for more than 50% of a shelter's funding. This would insure that shelters began with, and would continue to develop, community support. Third, the Council developed ongoing relationships with DHS personnel. This gave the Council the opportunity to stress that while DHS "owned" other welfare programs, it "funded" family violence programs.

The Council has used its expertise in the area of family violence and shelters to provide information to DHS and to local shelters through contractual relationships with the state. In addition, the Council contracted to evaluate local shelters for DHS. Since the Council is a member-based advocacy organization, this led to a certain amount of conflict between some local shelter members and the Council. When an advocacy group contracts with the state it raises the possibility of conflict of interest. Whom does the Council represent: the state? shelters? itself? Negotiating these complex relationships has been an important challenge for the Council.

Through its work the Texas Council on Family Violence has helped further the movement against domestic violence and strengthen local battered women's shelters. In addition, it has prompted the Texas government to act as a catalyst for civic efforts against family violence, not replacing them with government run programs or, on the other hand, ignoring a public problem of such consequence. Claire Reinelt has been a grassroots feminist activist for the past 15 years. She has also worked as a consultant and evaluator for various community-based projects.

Case Study Plus: Working with the State - The Texas Battered Women's Movement and the Politics of Engagement

by Claire Reinelt

Undoubtedly the most pressing work before us is to build our own autonomous institutions. It is absolutely crucial that we make our visions real in a permanent form so that we can be even more effective and reach many more people.

- Barbara Smith, Home Girls (1983)

Where we have not yet succeeded as a movement is in the structural arena. We have not brought this vast, decentralized revolution of consciousness and the small projects characteristic of the women's movement into sufficient engagement with the political structures to create lasting structural changes that would institutionalize some of the new possibilities for life that we seek.

- Charlotte Bunch, Passionate Politics (1987)

Introduction

By the late 70s, the boundary between liberal and radical feminism had blurred (Taylor 1983). Feminist activists within alternative institutions increasingly attempted to transform the politics and practices of mainstream institutions. [1] Women within mainstream institutions began organizing collectively to challenge institutional forms of gender inequality. [2] Self-defined feminists were moving into positions of power within bureaucratic structures (Eisenstein 1991). And liberal feminist organizations, like NOW, adopted proposals that required more than legal reform (Eisenstein 1981; Taylor 1983). This blurring of movement and institutional boundaries transformed feminist political strategies.

In keeping with these transformations, battered women's organizations, along with other feminist organizations, began seeking and receiving government funding in the 1980s. This move to seek outside funding was controversial for some battered women's movement activists because they believed that it compromised the political integrity of shelter organizations (Morgan, 1981; Andler & Sullivan, 1980). Others saw it as an opportunity to reach new communities and constituencies (Simon, 1982; Matthews, 1992). In fact, government funding facilitated both the expansion of the movement and changed its political character. It also changed how certain government agencies approach the delivery of human services.

For activists of all kinds who are working to rebuild civil society and reinvent government, the lessons of battered women's movement's interaction with state is instructive. For government to become a catalyst for civic efforts at social change, community organizations and the myriad other institutions and associations that make up civil society need to work together collaboratively, and then work in cooperation with the state.

Conceptualizing the Impact of State - Nonprofit Organization Interaction

This paper takes a case study approach to understanding the inter-relationship between public and nonprofit organizations. I will discuss how feminists within the Texas battered women's movement engaged with the state in order to bring a feminist movement agenda to local shelter activists, state agency employees, and legislators, among others. The Texas movement is of particular interest because it has been instrumental in the funding, evaluation, and administration of state funds to battered women's shelters through a series of contracts with the state.

State-level shelter activists in Texas practice what I call a politics of engagement. A politics of engagement is based on a belief that long-term social change depends on mobilizing and educating women in their communities by creating autonomous institutions, and on establishing relationships and structures of communication with those who work in and set policy for mainstream institutions. This political approach starts with the insight of radical feminists that autonomous institutions are essential for women in a patriarchal society. At the same time it views mainstream institutions as absolutely necessary terrains of political struggle.

Moving onto the terrain of the state is full of political contradictions for movement activists. On the one hand there are new political opportunities for organizing and education; on the other hand, there are increased opportunities for divisions within the movement and for co-optation of the movement's agenda. The challenge for state-level feminist activists is to negotiate a path that provides support for services to battered women and at the same time promotes a feminist program for change. This paper will present a case study of actual feminist practice in order to understand how some feminists are defining and implementing their visions in the 1990s. [3]

The Texas Council on Family Violence and the Texas State Government

Texas shelter activists moved quickly to define an agenda and a workable structure for the new organization. A working board of eight people was set up. Each board member was responsible for coordinating Council activities in one of several areas such as legislation, fundraising, membership and research. As with many shelters, the Council decided on a modified collective structure. The board had a chair who was responsible for running board meetings, but decisions were made by consensus.

In 1979, the Council coordinated the passage of a bill to establish a pilot project to provide state funds for six Texas shelters. This was the beginning of the Council's effort to involve the state in funding local shelters. The Council's decision to seek state funding was uncontroversial. In fact, the Council formed in large part for this purpose. State funding was seen as a means to create a more stable funding source for local, community-based shelter programs. [4]

The legislation that Council activists drafted to increase state funding was carefully written to insure that shelter programs continued to be autonomous, local, community-based programs with primary funding coming from community sources. State contracts were to be awarded only to those shelters that had been "in actual operation offering shelter services 24 hours a day with a capacity for not less than five persons for at least nine months before the date that the contract [was] awarded." This provision was designed to discourage those who might form a shelter solely for the purpose of getting state funds, reflecting the Council's belief that such shelters were less likely to be grassroots, community organizations. While this commitment to community-based organizations is consistent with feminist practice, it does not acknowledge that some communities, particularly those that are poor, may find it extremely difficult to organize without state funds (Matthews 1989).

The law further provided a declining scale of state support over a six year period so that after six years no more than 50% of a shelter's funding could come from the state. By limiting the amount of state support, the Council sought to encourage local shelters to continue raising funds in their communities in order to build acceptance and support for their work. Community support is one of the strongest guarantees that a shelter will continue to survive. Shelters that lack community support lose touch with the population and are not as responsive to community needs.

Strong local shelters with broad community support also strengthen the statewide movement. It is more likely that legislators will support the Council's legislative and funding agenda if there is a community-supported shelter in their district. In addition, those shelters that are well-established in their communities have more staff resources to contribute to political and educational work organized through the Council.

Council activists saw the state as a potential resource for their own activities as well. In the enabling legislation they wrote language that required the Department of Human Services (DHS), which would administer the funds, to "contract for the provision of training, technical assistance, and evaluations related to shelter and service program development." This provision was meant to insure that the Council would be actively involved in carrying out the mandate of the legislation. Their role was further reinforced by another section of the bill that stated, "in implementing this chapter, the department shall consult with individuals and groups having knowledge of and experience in the problems of family violence."

The legislation was passed in 1981. Soon after, the Council received a contract from DHS to visit every shelter in order to prepare them for state funding. DHS contracted with the Council because they perceived it in their interest to do so. When DHS received the legislative mandate to administer the Family Violence Program, they had no knowledge of family violence or shelters. The legislation required that they contract for technical assistance, and the most knowledgeable source on family violence and shelters was the Council. In addition, the Council had the community and legislative support to make it highly unlikely that DHS would choose to contract with another organization.

This first contract marked the beginning of a contractual relationship with DHS that in 1991 generated $260,000 for movement-building activities in addition to the money that local shelters received. DHS contracts funded a toll-free technical assistance hotline, a resource library, the Council's newsletter, training conferences, an information database, site visits, a statewide public education campaign, and money for Council members to participate actively in shaping DHS' administration of the Family Violence Program (Texas Council on Family Violence 1990).

The initial contract, along with a grant from the Levi-Strauss Foundation, made it possible for the Council board to hire a staff. Two shelter activists from the Austin Center for Battered Women, who had been instrumental in obtaining the grant and contract, became the Council staff. [5] Under the new contract, they began visiting every shelter that qualified for state funding.

When an advocacy group contracts with the state for funding it raises the possibility of conflict of interest. Whom does the Council represent: the state? shelters? itself? Under this first contract the potential for conflicts of interest was not very great since its purpose was purely informational. With this limited state agenda the Council staff was able to spend a lot of time talking with shelter directors about their programs and about the Council's agenda. The contexts for the visits were in fact very favorable since it was the Council that had been instrumental in securing state funds for the shelters.

Evaluating Local Shelters

When the Council sought the evaluation contract they were aware that some local shelters might misperceive their relationship with the state. Not all shelters were equally aware of the Council's history. When the Council first formed there were only six shelters in existence. At the time of the evaluations there were 29. [6] Those shelter activists who had been involved in the formation of the Council had a very different relationship to it than did those that were formed afterwards. Having a part in creating a movement organization from scratch is a much different experience than coming into an already established organization.

Some of the new shelters were formed through the active nurturance of Council members; others developed on their own. Most shelters were Council members, but some perceived the Council as a professional organization for shelter providers, rather than a movement organization. Others did not feel that feminism spoke to their communities.

The evaluations took place during a day-long visit to each shelter. [7] The Council staff conducted the visits with the shelter staff in the presence of the DHS regional contract managers. The participation of the contract managers was required by the Council. They felt that contract manager participation was a political opportunity to educate state employees about battering and shelters as well as a chance to define the state's relationship to local programs. [8]

During the evaluation visits contract managers would sometimes refer to the shelter program as a state program, whereupon the Council staff would correct them in no uncertain terms by saying that these were locally-based community programs that the state was helping to fund. Often a conversation would ensue about the difference in the state's relationship to shelters compared with other programs that DHS administered. The substance of the conversation was always that while DHS "owned" other welfare programs, they "funded" family violence programs.

The consistency with which the Council staff corrected DHS misconceptions about the state's relationship to shelter programs underscores the strategic importance they placed on maintaining the autonomy of local shelters. If DHS began to perceive shelter programs as "their" programs, then the shelter movement would lose a significant tactical edge. By maintaining the autonomy of local shelters, the movement strengthened its claim vis-à-vis the state to define how shelter would be provided.

The evaluation instrument that the Council designed had several purposes. [9] First, it met the needs of DHS by assessing whether shelters were complying with the law. Second, it provided a mechanism for the Council to gather information about how shelters handled batterers, children, staff/board relations, and other areas such as budget planning, personnel policies, and shelter organization. With this information, Council activists hoped to be better able to advise and consult with shelters. And lastly, the evaluation instrument was designed to open up dialogue on issues like advocacy vs. counseling, the use of volunteers, public education, developing community resources, and shelter accessibility that would give the Council staff an opportunity to discuss shelter philosophy and politics with shelter staff and DHS contract managers.

Most shelter directors actively engaged with the Council staff during the evaluation visits. They used them as a resource and saw them as an ally; they discussed problems and engaged in philosophical and political discussions that were learning experiences for both the Council staff and shelter directors. This was particularly evident in one South Texas shelter run by the Catholic Charities. The shelter director, a middle-aged Hispanic woman, operated the shelter with a philosophy of "charity" that included viewing battered women as victims who primarily needed therapy. She was very reticent about doing public outreach. As she explained, this is "macho" country, by which she meant that it was dangerous for women to challenge male power by discussing the rights of women—including the right not to be beaten.

The Council staff who conducted the evaluation visits had never provided shelter in a hostile environment. Their shelter experiences had been in a liberal, urban city where politicians and community leaders were generally receptive. The visit to South Texas caused the Council staff to reflect on how regional, racial and cultural differences shape how a community provides shelter. The Council staff worked hard to empower the Catholic Charities shelter staff to take the political risks of raising the issues of violence against women in their communities. Not only would a public presence build community support, it would also increase their opportunities for diversifying their funding base. The two direct service staff (also Hispanic) responded positively to the Council staff's suggestions, but the shelter director was afraid to "rock the boat".

The success of the battered women's movement in the 1990s will depend on how it handles issues of diversity and difference (Ristock 1990). At the time of these evaluations the Council's philosophy statement did not include any mention of how culture, race, and sexuality impact on battering relationships and on the movement's political agenda. They were afraid early on to raise issues of homophobia and racism because they believed such a focus would weaken their efforts to pass legislation to fund battered women's shelters, to transform how police officers view battered women, and to encourage all shelters to become members of the Council. Recently the Council has taken on these issues more directly through a series of training workshops aimed at new shelter staff that includes a work session on homophobia and lesbian battering and one on racism and women of color. [10] The Council's willingness to confront these contentious and emotional issues signals their own greater feelings of political strength and their recognition that understanding and working across differences is essential political work in the 1990s. [11]

Local Shelter Resistance

In writing up the evaluation reports the Council staff included a full assessment of all the shelter's policies and practices. These reports were used simultaneously to give feedback to the shelter and to report to DHS. Such mixed goals were problematic. Giving feedback to local shelters is an internal movement activity aimed at strengthening and supporting local shelters. To be useful, it should include frank assessments about the strengths of the program and the areas where improvement is needed. Reporting to DHS is an official act that can have consequences for the local shelter's share of state funding. By not distinguishing these two activities the Council placed itself in an extremely contradictory position. Some local shelters protested that "their" organization was divulging negative information about them to their funders. Feedback from local shelters on the evaluation visits led the Council to reevaluate this strategy.

The Council wanted to maintain a mechanism for discussing philosophical issues and providing technical assistance to shelters, but they did not want to be in a position of providing DHS with the knowledge about and content of these discussions and they did not want to adversely affect their relationship to local shelters. As the Council's director said to me, "we have become much more circumspect about what we reveal to DHS." The Council made a decision not to continue evaluating shelters for DHS; nonetheless they do still engage in evaluative activities by investigating complaints or questionable practices engaged in by shelter staffs. While DHS may ultimately be asked to intervene if a complaint or grievance is not resolved internally, the goal is to create internal processes for handling them.

Power and Political Engagement

Successfully pursuing this dual agenda requires not only a more complex understanding of the state but also a revised understanding of the dynamics of power. Earlier movement activists understood power as the ability of the state, institutions, and those who held positions of authority to impose their will on others. Power was competitive, individualistic, and zero-sum. If some had it, then others did not. As feminist politics changed, power was redefined as the ability to act, the ability to transform oneself and the world. Power was no longer defined only as something that others possessed and wielded over you. Through working together collectively, creating organizations, and challenging patriarchal practices, feminists began to experience their own power, based on energy, strength, effectiveness, not domination and control (Hartsock 1979).

Empowering movement activists to challenge bureaucratic and institutional practices has been one of the Council's important political contributions. During one regional meeting that I attended with local shelter activists, the Council staff spent a good deal of time demystifying the power of the state. Local shelter activists were angry that their contract manager was slated to be changed during a bureaucratic reshuffling. Feeling powerless to influence the DHS decision, much of their anger was directed towards the Council for not protecting their interests. The Council staff redirected the focus of local activist anger to the DHS decision and empowered those activists to collectively work to change it. This turned what began as a hostile encounter between the Council staff and local shelter staffs into a common struggle to find effective ways to challenge oppressive bureaucratic practices. Feelings of powerlessness that had caused anger and resignation were replaced by feelings of collective power.

Empowering others to act and take responsibility for their decisions is a political strategy that Council activists have also used with those within mainstream institutions. One of the most frustrating aspects of engaging with mainstream institutions is the bureaucratic and hierarchical processes that delay action and derail communication. From the beginning of its relationship with DHS, the Council sought to create structures and patterns of communication that held DHS personnel accountable for both decisions and indecisions. Through a joint Council-DHS advisory committee, extensive written correspondence, and regular phone calls, Council activists have been more effective than other advocacy organizations in demanding timely, honest, and open consideration of issues that affect the Family Violence Program.

In the beginning the Council's approach was particularly awkward for some DHS staff people because they were being asked to engage with the Council staff in ways that were highly unusual for agency personnel. In one case, a DHS staff person, responsible for the Council's contracts with the agency, was initially quite antagonistic toward the Council and felt threatened by its power and its approach to dealing with the agency. Through extensive and persistent communication, Council activists gradually developed a relationship of trust and understanding with her, until she actually became an active advocate for the movement within DHS.

Conclusion

Feminism is a dynamic process. It is guided by values that include nurturance, democracy, cooperation, empowerment, inclusion, transformation, maximizing rewards to all and ending oppression (Martin 1990b). These values provide a moral framework for action but do not entail specific organizational forms or political strategies. Because the process of social change is neither predetermined nor linear, all activism is historically contingent and shifting, replete with its own contradictions. Instead of denying this reality, many feminists in the 1990s accept this as the condition of their activism.

The battered women's movement has changed from its early days of grassroots autonomy. But this change cannot adequately be characterized as either a radical break from the past or a quiet slippage towards ever greater bureaucratization. Instead feminists continue to move into more and more arenas of political activism; they are developing innovative organizational and communicative structures and strategies; and they are continually challenging the structure and practices of mainstream institutions. Their work has the potential to reinvigorate civic organizations and associations of all kinds, and redefine the role of the state. And while many of these changes may appear less radical than the early feminist organizing efforts of the 1970s, they may in the long run result in more profound and long-lasting transformation.

Notes

Bibliography

Allen, P. 1970. Free space: a perspective on the small group in women's liberation. New York: Times Change Press.

Andler, J. and G. Sullivan. 1980. The Price of Government Funding. Aegis (Winter-Spring):10-15.

Barrett, M. 1980. Women's Oppression Today. London: Verso.

Bunch, C. 1987. Passionate Politics: Feminist Theory in Action. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Connell, R.W. 1987. Gender and Power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Dehoog, R.H. 1990. Competition, Negotiation, or Cooperation: Three Models of Service Contracting. Administration and Society 22, 3: 317-340.

DiMaggio, P. 1983. State Expansion and Organizational Fields. In Organizational Theory and Public Policy. R.H. Hall and R.E. Quinn, eds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Dobash, R.E. and R. P. Dobash. 1992. Women, Violence and Social Change. London: Routledge.

Douglas, C. 1990. Review of Daring to Be Bad by Alice Echols, Off Our Backs 20(4): 16.

Echols, A. 1990. Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America, 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

________ 1990. Response to C. Douglas review of Daring to Be Bad. Off Our Backs 20(7):26.

Eisenstein, H. 1991. Gender Shock: Practicing Feminism on Two Continents. Boston: Beacon Press.

Eisenstein, Z. 1981. The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism. New York: Longman, Inc.

Evans, K. 1980. A Feminist Perspective on Ethics of Communication Explored in the Context of an On-going Group of Women with Decision-Making Responsibility. Paper presented at the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence Conference.

Ferguson, K. 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Ferraro, K. 1981. Processing Battered Women. Journal of Family Issues 2(4) : 415-438.

__________1983. Negotiating Trouble in a Battered Women's Shelter. Urban Life 12(3): 287-306.

Ferree, M.M. 1987. Equality and Autonomy: Feminist Politics in the United State and West Germany. In The Women's Movements of the United State and Western Europe. eds. M. Katzenstein and C. Mueller. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Franzway, S., D. Court, and R.W. Connell. 1989. Staking a Claim: Feminism, Bureaucracy and the State. Sydney, Australia: Allen Unwin.

Fraser, N. 1986. Toward a Discourse Ethic of Solidarity. Praxis International, 5:4, 425-429.

Fraser, N. 1989. Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse, and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Freeman, J. 1972. The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 17: 150-164.

____________1975. The Politics of Women's Liberation. New York: David McKay.

Gronbjerg, K.A. 1987. Patterns of Institutional Relations in the Welfare State: Public Mandates and the Nonprofit Sector. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16: 64-80.

Hartsock, N. 1979. Feminism, Power, and Change: A Theoretical Analysis. In Women Organizing: An Anthology. B. Cummings and V.Schuck. eds. Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

hooks, b. 1984. Feminist Theory: from margin to center. Boston: South End Press.

Jackall, R. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, J. 1981. Program Enterprise and Official Cooptation in the Battered Women's Movement. American Behavioral Scientist, 24:6, 827-842.

Katzenstein, M. 1990. Feminism Within American Institutions: Unobtrusive Mobilization in the 1980s. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 16 (1): 27-54.

Katzenstein, M. 1992. Feminist Activism and Discursive Politics in the Catholic Church. Paper presented at the Conference on Feminism and Organizations, Washington, D.C., February 14-16.

Leidner, R. 1991. Stretching the Boundaries of Liberalism: Democratic Innovation in a Feminist Organization. Signs: Journal of Women Culture and Society, 16(2): 263-289.

Lipsky, M. and S.R. Smith. 1989-90. Nonprofit Organizations, Government and the Welfare State. Political Science Quarterly, 104,4, 625-648.

Lobel, K. ed. Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering. Seattle, WA: Seal Feminist Press.

MacKinnon, C. 1982. Feminism, Marxism, method, and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs 7(3): 515-544.

Mansbridge, J. 1980. Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books.

Martin, P.Y. 1990a. Rethinking Feminist Organizations. Gender and Society 4(2):182-206.

___________ . 1990b The Implications of Feminism for Organizations. Paper Presented at the Eastern Sociological Society Meetings, Boston, MA. March 1990.

Martin, P.Y., S. Seymour, K. Godbey, M. Courage, and R. Tate. 1988. Corporate, Union, Feminist and Profamily Leaders' Views on Work-Family Relations. Gender and Society, 2, 385-400.

Matthews, N. 1989. Surmounting the Legacy: The Expansion of Racial Diversity in a Local Anti-Rape Movement. Gender and Society 3: 518-32.

McIntosh, M. 1978. The state and the oppression of women. In eds. A. Kuhn and A.M.Wolpe. Feminism and Materialism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Moraga, C. and G.Anzaldua. 1981. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings By Radical Women of Color New York: Kitchen Table:Women of Color Press.

Morgan, P. 1981. From Battered Wife to Program Client: The State's Shaping of Social Problems. Kapitalistate 9:17-39.

Morgen, S. 1986. The Dynamics of Cooptation in a Feminist Health Clinic. Social Science Medicine, 23, 2, 201-210.

Ostrander, S. 1987. Shifting the Debate: Public/Private Sector Relations in the Modern Welfare State. Journal of Voluntary Action Research 16, 7-10.

Reinharz, S. 1983. Feminist Research Methodology Groups: Origins, Forms, Functions. In Feminist revisions: what has been and might be. Vivian Patraka and Louise Tilly, eds. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

Riger, S. 1994. Challenges of Success: Stages of Growth in Feminist Organizations. Feminist Studies 20,1.

Ristock, J. 1990. Canadian Feminist Social Service Collectives: Caring and Contradictions. In Bridges of Power. L. Albrecht and R. Brewer, eds. Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.

Robbins, S. 1993. Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Rodriguez, N. M. 1988. Transcending Bureaucracy: Feminist Politics at a Shelter for Battered Women. Gender and Society 2(2): 214-227.

Rothschild-Whitt, J. 1979. The Collectivist Organization: An Alternative to Rational-Bureaucratic Models. American Sociological Review 44: 509-527.

Saidel, J. R. 1991. Resource Interdependence: The Relationship Between State Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations. Public Administration Review, 51,6, 543-553.

Schecter, S. 1982. Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women's Movement Boston: South End Press.

Simon, B. L. 1982. In Defense of Institutionalization: A Rape Crisis Center as a Case Study. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 9:485-502.

Sirianni, C. 1993. Learning Pluralism: Democracy and Diversity in Feminist Organizations. In Democratic Community: NOMOS XXXV ed. I. Shapiro and J. Chapman. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Smith, B. 1983. Home Girls: A Black Feminist Anthology. New York: Kitchen Table: Women of Color Press.

Stacey, J. 1990. Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in late Twentieth Century America. New York: Basic Books.

Staggenborg, S. 1988. The Consequences of Professionalization and Formalization in the Pro-Choice Movement. American Sociological Review 53: 585-606.

Sullivan, G. 1982. Funny Things Happen on Our Way to Revolution. Aegis: Magazine on Ending Violence Against Women 34:12-32.

Taylor, V. 1983. The Future of Feminism in the 1980s: A Social Movement Analysis. In Feminist Frontiers: Rethinking Sex, Gender and Society. eds. L. Richardson and V. Taylor. Reading Ma.: Addison-Wesley.

Taylor, V. and N. Whittier. 1992. Collective Identity in Social Movement Communities: Lesbian Feminist Mobilization. In Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. A. Morris and C. Mueller, eds. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Texas Council on Family Violence. January 1990. The River.

Tierney, K. 1982. The Battered Women Movement and the Creation of the Wife Beating Problem. Social Problems 29(3): 207-220.

Watson, S. ed. 1990 Playing the State: Australian Feminist Interventions. London: Verso.

Wharton, C. 1987. Establishing Shelters for Battered Women: Local Manifestations of a Social Movement. Qualitative Sociology 5 Lisa Albrecht and Rose Brewer, eds. 610(2):146-163.

White, E.C. 1985. Chain, Chain, Change: For Black Women Dealing With Physical and Emotional Abuse. Seattle, WA: Seal Feminist Press.

Wilson, E. 1977. Women and the Welfare State London: Tavistock.

Zambrano, M.M. 1985. Mejor Sola Que Mal Acompanada: Para La Mujer Golpeada/For the Latina in an Abusive Relationship. Seattle, WA.: Seal Feminist Press.

Back to Families, Gender, & Children Index