EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOMICIDE BEREAVEMENT AND

EMPLOYMENT: HOMICIDE SURVIVORS DESCRIBE THE MEANING, VALUE, AND

CHALLENGES OF WORKING FOLLOWING TRAUMATIC LOSS

A Dissertation Presented to

the Faculty of Simmons College School of Social Work

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

By Denise E. Hildreth

© April 2016

i

Exploring the Relationship between Homicide Bereavement and Employment: Homicide

Survivors Describe the Meaning, Value, and Challenges of Working Following Traumatic Loss

Denise E. Hildreth

Simmons College School of Social Work

Michelle Putnam, PhD, Chairperson

ABSTRACT

The homicide of a family member presents survivors with unique grieving challenges that

affect all areas of life. There is a growing body of research and practice literature that reflects

efforts to describe the multidimensional bereavement experience of homicide survivors, as well

as methods to assist and support them. However, a discussion of their employment challenges

and needs is largely absent. This qualitative study examined the juxtaposition of homicide

bereavement and employment through interviews with 20 individuals, all people of color,

bereaved by the homicide of a close family member who were living in Boston and working at

the time of the murder. Specifically, this research explored the effect that homicide bereavement

has on the survivor’s employment and the influence of employment experiences on the grieving

and coping process. The research findings suggest that the homicide of a family member is a

devastating, traumatizing, and destabilizing loss, creating physical, emotional, and spiritual

challenges that affect one’s ability to function and cope. As an integral part of one’s life,

employment was found to be inevitably affected by the participants’ bereavement experiences

and new identities as homicide survivors. Relatedly, survivors’ employment experiences, both

positive and negative, had an effect on their bereavement process and ability to cope and move

forward in the wake of the murder. Furthermore, the findings suggest that having a supportive,

ii

flexible, and coping-conducive workplace characterized by patience, empathy, understanding,

and sensitivity could serve a stabilizing function, helping survivors cope and effectively maintain

employment while grieving. This study has the potential not only to contribute to the growing

research, but to inform clinical practice with this population and, perhaps most centrally, shape

employment policy and practice around homicide bereavement.

iii

“I died. This is my best description...you ride roller coasters? ... I think the intensity of riding the ride is hearing the click, click, click ... and then the roller coaster starts to roll ... your stomach

goes, like crazy, and you reach instinctively for that bar ... it's like reaching for that bar, but never having it and never falling any further to level off.”

- Cleopatra Pendleton, mother of Hidiya Pendleton, 15 year old girl murdered in Chicago on January 29, 2013 when asked what happened after she was informed of her daughter’s death

CBS 48 Hours May 18, 2013

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply grateful to the 20 Boston family members of homicide victims who trusted me

with their stories. It is to these women and men, and the family members they lost, that this

dissertation is dedicated. Their willingness to share their experiences of loss and survivorship has

created the possibility for greater understanding around the unique challenges of homicide

bereavement and, hopefully, change employment practice and policy. Alongside my participants,

I am immensely thankful for the support of the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute staff members.

These individuals welcomed me into their professional community, treated me as a friend, and

guided me through the many phases of this project. It is through their generosity, patience, and

belief in my ability to conduct this work with sensitivity and integrity that this study was made

possible.

In addition, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Michelle Putnam. It was her early

interest in my work and willingness to invest in my development as a researcher that allowed me

to gain the confidence and skills needed to become a social work scholar. Like Dr. Putnam, my

other committee members, Dr. Mary Gilfus, Dr. Kristie Thomas, Dr. Kenneth Doka, and Dr.

Edward Rynearson provided critical guidance and input at key points along my dissertation

journey, each contributing richly to the way I understood and conducted this research.

Finally, I’d like to thank my family, including my parents, in-laws, siblings, and extended

family members whose sacrifices and support allowed me to fulfill this dream of doctoral

education. Most especially, I am grateful to my husband and children whose steadfast dedication

to me and this project allowed me to get to this point. My husband, Michael Hildreth, sustained

me through this process with his calm, steady demeanor, unfailing humor, confidence in my

abilities, and refusal to let me give up. He unselfishly made my goals his own and created the

v

space I needed to think, write, and immerse myself in this research in a way that would do it

justice. My children, Sam and Maddie, grew from young children into teenagers during my time

as a doctoral student, maturing as my research did. Being able to share in their lives, interests,

and activities provided a constant source of positive energy, fueling me to push on. I am

incredibly proud of the ways they have been able to understand, appreciate, and support my

choice to do this work and the social justice goals behind it.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1Statement of the Problem 1Purpose and Goals of the Study 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 5Bereavement and Grief 6Complicated, Prolonged and Persistent Bereavement 10

Homicide Bereavement 14Bereavement and Employment 19Bereavement-Related Employment Policy 22Literature Review Conclusion 25Theoretical Framework for Understanding Bereavement and the Workplace 26

Symbolic Interaction Theory 28Attachment Theory 30Trauma Theory 32

Ecological Perspective & the Lens of Critical Race Theory 34

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 38Study Design & Rationale 38

Community Partner Collaboration and Participation 39Research Questions 42Definition of Terms 42Study Sample and Inclusion Criteria 43

Sample Stratification 43Sampling Strategy and Participant Recruitment 45

Study Participants 47Data Collection 52Instrument Piloting and Inclusion of Co-Interviewer 53Data Sources 54

Ethical Considerations 55Data Management and Analysis 58Credibility, Trustworthiness and Rigor of the Research 61

vii

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 68Homicide is a Unique, Devastating & Traumatizing Loss, 69Challenging all Areas of Life

Shock, confusion, and overwhelming grief 71Homicide is “not normal”: Sudden, untimely, violent, and senseless 75Stigma, racialization, and disenfranchisement 79Victimization and anger 80Physical and emotional effects 83

Working While Grieving a Homicide is Challenging 87Being unable to work and taking bereavement time off 87

Amount of time off 87 Purpose of time off 92

Returning to work 96Managing grief and sadness in an unprepared workplace 99Grief related job loss 105

Working While Grieving a Homicide is Beneficial 109Work as a protective factor, buffer, and coping resource 109

Work as normalcy, stability, respite from grief 109Work as social support and coping resource 114

Support in the immediate aftermath of the murder 114Support upon return to work: Creation of coping- 118conducive employment settingsSupport over time: Supporting the long term needs of 129homicide survivors in the workplace

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 137

Summation and Interpretation of FindingsThe homicide bereavement experience as a unique, devastating 137& traumatizing loss, challenging all areas of life Homicide bereavement and employment influence one another: 141The benefits and challenges of working

The benefits of employment – work as a protective factor 142during homicide bereavementThe challenges of employment – work as a risk factor 145during homicide bereavementCreation of a coping-conducive workplace: supporting the 148working homicide survivor

Implications for Bereavement Theory 152Strengths and Limitations of the Study 159Implications for Social Work Practice 162Implications for Clinical Work 165Implications for Policy 169Implications and Recommendations for Future Research 171

viii

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 172

REFERENCES 173

APPENDICES Appendix A: Memorandum of Understanding with Community Partner 190 Appendix B: Simmons College Institutional Review Board Approval Letter 192Appendix C: Recruitment Flyer 193Appendix D: Screening Form 194Appendix E: Participant Letter 197Appendix F: Brief Participant Questionnaire 198Appendix G: Job Satisfaction Questionnaire 204Appendix H: Informed Consent Form 206Appendix I: Resource List 209Appendix J: Original Interview Guide 210Appendix K: Revised Interview Guide 213

Appendix L: Professional Transcriber’s Assurance of Research Confidentiality216

TABLES

Table 1: Study Participants 49

Table 2: Victims’ Individual and Incident Characteristics 50Table 3: Participants’ Employment Characteristics at the 51

Time of HomicideTable 4: Study Findings by Major Themes and Sub-Themes 65Table 5: Participant Job Satisfaction 66

FIGURES

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework Map 27Figure 2: Conceptual Map Illustrating Findings 67

1

Introduction

Statement of the Problem

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program defines murder as

“the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human being by another” (Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 2015a). The FBI estimates that 14,249 people were killed by homicide in the year

2014, which represents a decrease of .5 percent from 2013, and an overall decrease of 3.2 percent

from 2010 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015a). Of those whose gender and race was

known, over 77% were male, over 51% were Black (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015b),

and firearms were used in 68% of the offenses (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015d). Of

murder victims for 2014 whose relationship to the offender was known, about 79% were killed

by someone they knew and about 35% were killed by family members (Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 2015e). An estimated 715 victims of 2014 homicides are known to have died as a

result of gang violence (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015c). While the exact number of

close family members affected by the homicide of a family member is difficult to quantify, it can

be roughly estimated using available national statistical data. According to 2015 statistics

reported by the United States Census Bureau, the average number of people in a U.S. family

household is 3.14 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Using this number to calculate a conservative

average, the potential number of individuals affected by the homicide of a family member may

exceed 30,000 annually.

Family members of murder victims, frequently referred to as co-victims and homicide

survivors (Hertz, Prothrow-Stith, Chery, 2005; Miller, 2009; National Center for Victims of

Crime, 2008), are significantly affected by the crime committed against their family member.

While they are not the direct victims of the violence that has been perpetrated, they become the

secondary, and often invisible victims left in the wake of a traumatic loss that carries with it

2

unique physical, emotional, social, cognitive, and spiritual challenges (Amick-McMullan,

Kilpatrick & Resnick, 1991; Armour, 2002a; Baliko & Tuck, 2008; Currier, Holland, &

Neimeyer, 2006; Parkes, 1993; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993). The willful, violent, and

traumatizing nature of a homicidal death, the sudden nature of the loss, the social stigma

associated with murder, and the fact that its circumstances are typically played out in public

through the media and criminal justice system make the process of homicide bereavement

different from other types of bereavement (Armour, 2006; Asaro, 2001 a, b; Doka, 2002; Horne,

2003; Rando, 1993).

For those whose family member has been murdered, the normal and natural reactions,

thoughts, and feelings of loss and sadness related to grieving are compounded by traumatization

that disrupts one’s basic assumptions about the world (Janoff-Bulman, 1992) making it difficult

to make sense of, find meaning in, and accept the death (Armour, 2002a; Currier, et al., 2006;

Rynearson & McCreery, 1993). Individual circumstances surrounding the death, such as

whether or not the perpetrator is known and/or related to the family, whether or not the body has

been recovered, and whether the case has been solved and a perpetrator sentenced further

compound the bereavement experience of survivors (Armour, 2006; Horne, 2003), placing them

at risk for significant long-term difficulties, including Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and

complicated grief reactions (Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 1991; Baliko & Tuck,

2008; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2003; National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008; Parkes, 1993;

Rando, 1993; Redmond, 1989; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993). In spite of this, the support and

service needs of these co-victims are too often neglected, increasing barriers to coping (Boston

City Council Public Hearing, #0965, August 11, 2010).

3

There is a growing body of research and practice literature that reflects efforts to describe the

unique, multidimensional bereavement experience of homicide survivors. These studies and

discussions include a distillation of the factors that complicate homicide bereavement and the

significant physical, emotional, social, and cognitive challenges it creates in the lives of family

members (Aldrich & Kallivayalil, 2013; Amick-McMullan, et al., 1989; Amick-McMullan,

Kilpatrick & Resnick, 1991; Armour, 2002a,b, 2003, 2006; Baliko & Tuck, 2008; Campesino,

2007; Currier, Holland & Neimeyer, 2006; DeYoung & Buzzi, 2003; Hertz & Prothrow-Stith, &

Chery; 2005; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2003; Mezey, Evans, and Hobdell 2002; Miller, 2009a;

Murphy, et al., 2003; Parappully, 2002; Parkes, 1993; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993), as well as

efforts to cope and suggested methods of providing support and assistance to survivors (Aldrich

& Kallivayalil, 2013; Burke, Neimeyer, McDevitt-Murphy, Ippolito, & Roberts, 2011; Miller,

2009b; Rynearson, 2006; Sharpe & Boyas, 2011; Shear, et al., 2005). However, there is much

more work to do in this area, including understanding how homicide bereavement interacts with

other aspects of survivor’s lives.

Employment is one of these areas as a discussion of the employment challenges and needs of

homicide survivors is largely absent from both academic and gray literature. Several studies and

discussions (Campesino, 2007; DeYoung & Buzzi, 2003; Hertz, Prothrow-Stith, & Chery, 2005;

Mezey, Evans, and Hobdell 2002; National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008; Parkes, 1993;

Rynearson & McCreery, 1993) briefly reference the employment and financial effects of

homicide bereavement and suggest that this has an important influence on grieving, but they do

not explore or explain the connections. The need to attend to the employment challenges faced

by homicide survivors as they attempt to grieve and cope has been confirmed by the testimony of

survivors themselves (Boston City Council Public Hearing, #0965, August 11, 2010; Ryan,

4

2010). Yet, no research study has placed the relationship between homicide bereavement and

employment at the center of inquiry. No study, to date, that I am aware of, has looked at the

ways in which employment and workplace support may act as a benefit or buffer in mediating

the effects of homicide bereavement, the ways in which standard employment provisions and

limitations assist with or impede homicide-related grieving, the ways in which the various time

demands associated with a homicidal death (i.e. involvement with an investigation,

attendance/participation in a trial) may complicate the lives of survivors and affect their ability to

hold a job, the ways in which homicide bereavement affects one’s ability to carry out

employment tasks and obligations, and the ways in which the need or decision to return to work

after a homicide affects family members’ ability to attend to their acute and long term grieving

needs. These are the types of questions required to begin to fill a significant gap in the research

literature so that social work interventions (and those of allied professions and fields) and

employment policies can be reviewed and revised in order to support homicide survivors through

their bereavement and their daily lives as workers. Although being a homicide survivor is often a

relatively rare experience, it is a known experience, and one that falls within the capacity of our

society to support.

Purpose and Goals of the Study

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the employment experiences of

individuals bereaved by the homicide of a close family member. It seeks to explore the ways in

which survivors’ employment experiences affected their grief, and the ways in which survivors’

grief affected their work. It does so by working with the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, a local

homicide support organization, to become integrated and immersed with the Boston survivor

community and engaging a small number of members of that community in discussions about

5

their personal experiences. Study details are presented after the next section which reviews the

extant scientific and theoretical literature on homicide bereavement, grief, and employment, and

provides a scholarly framework for contextualizing and understanding these very personal

experiences.

Literature Review

The estimated 30,000 family members bereaved by homicide each year are unique mourners.

This is overwhelmingly supported by research and practice literature. For homicide survivors,

the feelings of sadness and loss that typically accompany the death of a family member are

complicated by the sudden, violent nature of murder. Unlike other types of deaths which may be

expected as part of the normal course of life, homicide is non-normative and traumatic,

shattering one’s assumptions about the world and challenging the ability to cope. At the same

time, the loss is further compounded by the public nature of murder, the symbolic meaning

assigned to it, involvement with the criminal justice system, and, often, intrusion by the media.

For homicide survivors, each of these interrelated factors can influence the bereavement and

coping process, creating challenges in all areas of life (Amick-McMullan, et al., 1989; Amick-

McMullan, Kilpatrick & Resnick, 1991; Armour, 2002a,b, 2003, 2006; Baliko & Tuck, 2008;

Campesino, 2007; Currier, Holland & Neimeyer, 2006; DeYoung & Buzzi, 2003; Hertz &

Prothrow-Stith, & Chery; 2005; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2003; Mezey, Evans, and Hobdell 2002;

Miller, 2009a; Murphy, et al., 2003; Parappully, 2002; Parkes, 1993; Rynearson & McCreery,

1993) and, potentially, influencing one’s employment.

The literature relevant to scholarship on homicide bereavement and employment is vast. As

there is little overlap between these areas of study, bridges must be built and core ideas distilled.

In this review, I attempt to pull forward core research and practice knowledge related to these

6

concepts and relevant to the proposed study’s conceptual framework and overarching aims. Thus

some interesting, but less relevant, literature will not be covered but will be noted as relevant for

exploration for those who are inclined to do so. First, I review what is most relevant from the

research on bereavement, including research that examines the needs and challenges of those

persons bereaved by homicide. Next, I review research and practice knowledge related to

working while grieving in order to bring these two worlds together. Finally, I highlight relevant

public policy issues related to supporting individuals bereaved by homicide in the workplace.

Bereavement and Grief

Bereavement is often confused with grief, but theoretically, and in practice, they are

segmented into different concepts. Stroebe, Hansson, Schut, and Stroebe (2008) define

bereavement as “the objective situation of having lost someone significant through death (p. 4)

and grief as “the primarily emotional (affective) reaction to the loss” (p.5). Thus, bereavement is

a state and grief is an emotional process. During the last century, researchers and practitioners in

the bereavement field have described and explained the ways in which people grieve through a

variety of theoretical perspectives that focus on the nature, course, and consequences of the

bereavement experience (Archer, 2008; Bonnano & Kaltman, 1999; Stroebe, et al, 2008). While

theory and practice wisdom have evolved and expanded significantly over time, the early work

of Freud (1917/2005) in his seminal paper, “Mourning and Melancholia” is largely credited with

opening the theoretical discussion on mourning and bereavement and influencing ongoing

knowledge generation in the field (Archer, 2008; Bonanno & Kaltman, 1999; Stroebe, et al.,

2008). Freud originally defined mourning as “the reaction to the loss of a beloved person” (p.

203) manifested in various ways, including “painful mood” (p. 204), lack of interest in the

outside world, inability to choose a new love object, and an inability to focus on anything other

7

than the memory of the family member who has died. This concept still informs

conceptualizations of grief. The healthy experience of bereavement, as conceptualized by Freud,

involved “the work of mourning” (p. 204) that ultimately required a letting go of bonds to the

deceased. Failure to engage in this necessary grief work due to avoidance or ambivalent feelings

about the deceased, according to Freud, could ultimately manifest itself in complicated or

pathological ways, producing a state of melancholia and interfering with an individual’s

adaptation to life beyond the loss.

Following Freud’s work, Lindemann’s (1944) paper, “Symptomatology and Management of

Acute Grief,” is noted for providing new insight around the clinical presentation of grief-related

physical and psychological symptomatology, specifically the delineation between normal and

“morbid” (p. 12) reactions to bereavement. Largely focused on survivors who had lost family

members in the 1942 Cocoanut Grove nightclub fire in Boston, Lindemann detailed common

physical characteristics noted in his bereaved patients, including lack of strength and exhaustion,

digestive distress, and lack of appetite, as well as uniformity in their psychological distress,

including a sense of unreality, emotional distance from others, guilt and hostility, changes in

normal daily activity, and preoccupation with the deceased. Lindemann extended Freud’s

assertion that detachment through grief work was necessary for the bereaved to recover from

their loss. In addition, he outlined grief reactions that extended outside the trajectory of normal

grief, including delay of reaction to the loss, psychosomatic medical problems, and lasting loss

of social interactions. These morbid reactions and symptoms, according to Lindemann, could

generally be resolved with professional treatment, provided the patient was motivated to

participate in the required grief work, namely accepting the pain of bereavement and verbalizing

feelings associated with his or her grief.

8

Among the best known contributions to the bereavement field are the works of Bowlby (1961,

1980), Kubler-Ross (1969), and Parkes (1972, 1996). Each of these scholars put forth stage

theories of grief with distinct phases through which they suggested bereaved individuals passed

in order to accept the loss and move on with life. Bowlby’s model was based on his evolving

work in the area of attachment, while Parkes based his theory mainly on his work with widows.

Kubler-Ross, in contrast, based her model on her work with terminally ill patients facing their

own deaths. While each of these scholars emphasized individual variations in terms of the

presentation and duration of each stage of grief, they were unified in the assumption that the

bereavement process takes on a typical pattern and similar progression with more acute early

feelings and symptoms proceeding toward recovery over time.

Although stage theories of grief, particularly Kubler-Ross’s model, have been widely utilized

by practitioners as a way to understand the experience of the bereaved, these models have been

largely untested and widely challenged (Doka, 2011). There has been some recent research

supporting the notion that individuals who are bereaved by a natural death follow common

phases of disbelief, yearning, anger, depression, and acceptance in the process of recovery,

experiencing a general lessening of grief over time, generally within six months after the death

(Maciejewski, Zhang, Block, & Prigerson, 2007). Nonetheless, researchers and practitioners

have criticized and acknowledged the limitations of stages of grief models and the assumption

that individuals, even those who have lost a family member through a natural death, pass

predictably through discreet stages to ultimately resolve grief (Walsh & McGoldrick, 1991).

These models, therefore, have been generally viewed as oversimplifications of the bereavement

experience that fail to take into account individual variance (Doka, 2011; Weiss, 2008). This

oversimplification has been further noted as potentially promoting a sense of universalism of the

9

grief process without attention to differences in cultural practices and ethnic norms and

pathologizing groups whose mourning practices and styles of grieving are diverse and

understudied (Valentine, 2006). With particular relevance to this dissertation study, other

researchers have questioned the usefulness of stages of grief models as they pertain to those who

have faced an untimely or particularly traumatizing loss (Armour, 2002 a,b; Neimeyer, Botella,

Herrero, Pacheco, Figueras, & Werner-Wildner, 2002; Simpson, 1997). With survivors of

homicide, the bereavement process has been found to be more intense, complicated, and longer

lasting than for those whose family members did not die violently. The expectation of recovery

from grief has been found to be diminished or absent, as is the ability to make sense of and

accept the death, let go of the family member, and move on with life (Armour, 2002a, b;

Bucholz, 2000; Currier, et al., 2006; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993), making stage of grief

models even less applicable.

Given wide criticism of stage of grief theories, bereavement experts have put forth other

models that are non-linear and, thus, perhaps more adequately and accurately capture the

individualized nature of the bereavement experience. Worden (2009), for example, offers a

model that conceptualizes mourning as a non-linear process involving four tasks: accepting the

reality of the loss; processing the pain of grief; adjusting to a world without the deceased; and

finding an enduring connection with the deceased in the midst of embarking on a new life.

Taking a different approach, but one that equally recognizes the complex, non-linear nature of

the bereavement process, Stroebe & Schut (1999) have created a dual process model of

bereavement whereby coping is focused on simultaneously managing loss-oriented and

restoration-oriented stressors. Unlike stage of grief theories, each of these models conceptualizes

the bereavement process as one that is dynamic and individualized, calling the bereaved

10

individual to not only manage the loss of the person who has died, but to re-conceptualize and re-

create their lives without them. These more flexible models with their emphasis on the tasks and

challenges of grieving, rather than a linear process toward ultimate acceptance of and recovery

from the loss, are perhaps more realistic and useful conceptualizations of the bereavement arc for

most individuals, but particularly those bereaved by homicide.

Complicated, Prolonged, and Persistent Bereavement

Thanatologists, scholars who study death and dying, emphasize that grief is an often highly

challenging, but natural reaction to the death of a family member and that most bereaved

individuals experience normal feelings of sadness and disruption that gradually lessen over time,

allowing them to integrate and adapt to the loss and resume their previous level of functioning

(Shear, 2011; Prigerson, Vanderwerker, & Maciejewski, 2008). From a practice perspective,

therefore, experts stress the need to identify those individuals most likely to encounter challenges

in the bereavement process, stating that there is currently no empirical support for the provision

of routine intervention following most experiences of bereavement (Neimeyer, 2000; Stroebe,

Folkman, Hansson, & Shut, 2006). However, a small percentage of bereaved individuals, about

10-15%, suffer from chronic, long-term distress following the death of a loved one (Bonanno,

Boerner, & Wortman, 2008) and may benefit from professional assistance. Those bereaved by

homicide are frequently cited as members of this subset (Parkes, 1993; Rando, 1993, Rynearson

& McCreery, 1993), as sudden and unexpected deaths and those that are accidental, traumatic,

and violent (Rando, 1993) elevate the potential risk for developing complications associated with

grieving (Currier, Holland & Neimeyer, 2006; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2003).

The research and practice literature from the past 20 years reflects considerable discussion

surrounding the distinction between normal and atypical forms of grief with several researchers

11

and practitioners contributing to the debate (Rando, 1993; Prigerson, Vanderwerker &

Maciejewski, 2008; Parkes, 2005-2006; Shear, 2011; Stroebe, Folkman, Hansson & Schut,

2006). Those at the forefront of the discussion have variously used a related group of terms

including complicated, traumatic, and prolonged, to describe forms of grief that are more acute

and do not follow a predictable path toward resolution. Although the factors and symptoms that

characterize more complicated forms of grief have expanded and extended over time, there is

general agreement in the field that they involve several key factors including: higher levels of

overall distress; intensity, duration, and symptoms that deviate from cultural norms; and

impairment in social, occupational, and other important areas of functioning (Shear, 2011;

Stroebe, et al., 2008).

In spite of greater recognition that grief reactions may, for some individuals, be long lasting,

highly distressing, and potentially debilitating, there is currently no distinct mental health

diagnostic category classifying complicated, traumatic, or prolonged grief (American Psychiatric

Association, 2013). This diagnostic gap has been a source of difficulty in bereavement research

and practice (Shear & Shair, 2005) and has driven the efforts of researchers who contend that

alternative diagnoses such as Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and Major

Depressive Disorder that have been applied to chronically bereaved people are alone insufficient

in capturing their unique experience, symptomatology, and needs (Lichtenthal, Cruess, &

Prigerson, 2004). In recent years, a panel worked with input from several groups of bereavement

experts with the intention of developing criteria for the type of grief that does not lessen or

resolve over time and to integrating these criteria into the recently updated version of the

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM-5, released in 2013 (Shear, 2011). Among the

expert suggestions for revision to the DSM5 were the inclusion of a separate diagnostic category,

12

termed Complicated Grief, within the Trauma and Stress Related Disorders grouping (Shear,

2011). As the work group advocating this change had conceptualized it, Complicated Grief was

characterized by longing and inability to integrate the loss of the deceased at least six months

following their death. In order to meet the diagnostic criteria for Complicated Grief, grieving

individuals would have to display symptoms that were present for a period outside cultural

expectations, and may include: suicidal thoughts, intrusive thoughts of the person who has died,

rumination related to the death, recurrent feelings of anger or bitterness related to the death, and

difficulty trusting other people who haven’t experienced a similar loss (Shear, 2011).

A second expert workgroup suggested another diagnostic alternative: that this type of

complicated, unabated grief instead be termed Prolonged Grief Disorder, and included as a

separate diagnostic category within the DSM5 (Prigerson, Vanderwerker, & Maciejewski, 2008).

Similar to proponents of the Complicated Grief designation, these researchers suggested that

those suffering from Prolonged Grief Disorder are unable to integrate the loss of the person who

has died and experience disruptive symptoms of separational distress that persist for at least six

months, including: a sense of shock and disbelief about the death; strong yearning for the person

who has died; a sense of emptiness and meaninglessness; confusion about one’s role in life or a

diminished sense of self; inability to trust others; bitterness and anger; difficulty moving on with

life; and significant impairment in social, occupational, and other important areas of functioning

(Prigerson, Vanderwerker & Maciejewski, 2008).

After taking these suggestions and others into account, the DSM5 subgroup working on this

diagnostic issue provisionally suggested a third title, Bereavement-Related Disorder, to describe

the types of symptoms described here and suggested that it be placed as a sub-type of

Adjustment Disorder within the DSM5 (Shear, 2011). However, the final decision rendered by

13

the DSM5 Task Force was to designate these symptoms under yet a different title, Persistent

Complex Bereavement Disorder. Rather than including this syndrome within the official mental

disorder diagnoses, Persistent Complex Bereavement Disorder was placed in the “Conditions for

Further Study” section of the manual with other conditions for which further research and

evidence is needed (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Thus, complicated grief remains

without clear diagnostic criteria.

Some experts have argued that efforts to construct diagnostic criteria for patterns of

prolonged, persistent, and complicated grief may lead to pathologizing the bereaved (Parkes,

2005-2006; Stroebe, et al., 2008). Yet, a working diagnostic framework for acknowledging and

measuring symptoms, however the technical issues are ultimately resolved in foregoing versions

of the DSM, seems both necessary and useful in order to develop appropriate evidence-based

interventions and have those recognized as important to improving individual health. Given the

nature of homicide bereavement, it seems that homicide survivors may be particularly

susceptible to patterns of grief that are both longer lasting and more complicated as many of the

components used as criteria for Complicated Grief, Prolonged Grief Disorder, and Persistent

Complex Bereavement Disorder have been noted in studies and discussions focusing on their

experience (Armour, 2002a,b; Currier, Holland, & Neimeyer, 2006; Miranda, Molina, &

MacVane, 2003; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993).

As an additional diagnostic consideration, homicide survivors, as uniquely bereaved

individuals that have either witnessed directly or later learned about the violent and unexpected

death of a loved one, meet the main stressor criteria for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (American

Psychiatric Association, 2013). Many display its classic symptoms, including feelings of fear

and horror, re-experiencing the trauma, increased arousal, avoidance of stimuli associated with

14

the event, and significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning (Amick-

McMullen, 1991; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2000; Parkes, 1993). The unique combined effect of

complicated/prolonged grief and trauma reactions on the lives of those bereaved by homicide can

be profound. This has important implications for professional practice as there is empirical

evidence that symptoms of complicated/prolonged grief combined with symptoms of PTSD

present an increased risk of physical, mental, and social impairments to individuals, including

hypertension, chronic pain, alcohol and cigarette use, higher rates of hospitalization, reduced

quality of life, work impairments, and poorer mental health (Boelen & Prigerson, 2007; Kendall-

Tackett, 2009; Mezey, Evans & Hobdell, 2002; Simon, et al., 2007; Weisberg, et al. 2002;

Zhang, el Jawahri & Prigerson, 2006). In sum, complicated/prolonged grief and PTSD can result

in poor physical and mental health for homicide survivors.

Homicide Bereavement

Among the earliest contributions to the homicide bereavement literature are the efforts of

Amick-McMullen and colleagues (1989) who, in their study of 19 homicide survivors, were

among the first to emphasize the role of posttraumatic stress as a factor that complicates and

potentially prolongs grief. They not only found that members of their sample exhibited

posttraumatic stress symptomatology, but had a high frequency of symptoms when compared

with survivors of other types of trauma. They followed their initial study with a telephone

survey, finding that among their randomized, nationally representative U.S. sample of 12,500

people, over 9% had lost a family member or friend to homicide. Among those who reported

that they were immediate family members of a victim, over 23% reported experiencing

symptoms of PTSD at some point in their lifetimes, with almost 5% meeting the full criteria for

PTSD within the past 6 months (Amick-McMullan, et al., 1991). This research confirmed earlier

15

evidence that the experience of the homicide of a family member is traumatic and that distressing

symptoms related to the trauma significantly affect grieving. In addition, this was the first and

only nationally representative sample of homicide survivors, providing the only available data on

the estimated percentage of family members affected by the homicide of a loved one.

Following Amick-McMullan, et al. were studies by Parkes (1993), Rynearson & McCreery

(1993), and Kaltman & Bonanno (2003) whose respective samples of 17, 18, and 87 adults found

evidence that the experience of the sudden, unexpected, and intentional death of a family

member increased the incidence of psychosocial problems during bereavement, including high

levels of grief and posttraumatic stress symptoms, intense feelings of rage and guilt, and an

undermined sense of trust in the world. Similarly, individual studies by Parappully (2002),

Murphy, et al. (2003), and DeYoung & Buzzi (2003), each examined the bereavement

experience of parents who had lost a child through violent death and had related findings.

Parapully’s sample of 16 parents reported significant posttraumatic distress symptoms that were

ultimately minimized through a variety of specific coping techniques. Murphy, et al. found high

rates of long term PTSD among parents, with 70% of their 173 respondents reporting that it took

them 3-4 years to put their child’s death into perspective regardless of the cause of death.

DeYoung and Buzzi’s sample of 8 parents reported that the ambiguity created by unknown

details and lack of resolution of their individual cases interfered with grieving and an ability to

move toward reconstructing their lives. A limitation of each of these studies is their relatively

small, homogeneous samples of help-seeking individuals. Additionally, while Parkes and

DeYoung & Buzzi do not report the racial distribution of their samples, the others acknowledge

that their participants were mostly Caucasian. However, the findings remain important given the

limited amount of research in this area.

16

None of the studies noted above explored in depth the relationship between employment and

coping among homicide survivors. Although, their general findings suggest that risks to

employment may be created by prolonged and traumatic grieving and that potential barriers to

coping may be created by the need to work. For example, Rynearson & McCreery (1993) report

that the income level of their sample members decreased by almost half in the year following

their family member’s homicide, while Parkes (1993) reported that symptoms of PTSD

prevented his patients from going to work. In addition, parents involved in the DeYoung &

Buzzi study (2003) reported that it was difficult, if not impossible to return to work and that the

issue of work and employment created great stress in their lives. These challenges were echoed

in a study completed in the United Kingdom by Mezey, Evans, and Hobdell (2002) who found

that in their sample of 35 family members of homicide victims, post-traumatic stress symptoms

and generalized distress were frequently accompanied by loss of employment, with 27% of their

sample losing or leaving their jobs after the homicide.

Among the more recent contributions to the homicide bereavement literature is the work of

Armour (2002a,b, 2003, 2006), Campesino (2007), Currier, Holland & Neimeyer (2006), Burke,

Neimeyer, and McDevitt-Murphy (2010), Baliko & Tuck (2008), Hertz, Prothrow-Stith, & Chery

(2005), Sharpe & Boyas (2011), and Burke, Neimeyer, McDevitt-Murphy, Ippolito, and Roberts

(2011). Both Armour and Campesino conducted qualitative inquiries into the experience of

families bereaved by homicide. Armour’s study sample included 38 predominantly Caucasian

family members of victims. Campesino’s investigated case examples of two Hispanic mothers

whose sons were killed in acts of gang violence. Each provides a rich profile of the unique needs

of homicide survivors, including the ways in which the bereavement experience created

significant physical, emotional, social, and cognitive challenges in the lives of their participants.

17

Like other studies, they do not specifically address the employment effects of homicide

bereavement in their findings, but each investigator suggests that the multidimensional

experience of trauma and loss creates long term distress that fundamentally alters and affects all

areas of life. Campesino (2007) specifically refers to the challenges her participants faced in

managing their employment obligations and desire to attend the trial of their son’s killers, stating

that the fear of being fired at times prevented them from being in court and resulted in feelings of

intense guilt. Across Armour’s work (2002a, b, 2003, 2006), she finds that the social stigma

associated with the murder and involvement with the media and criminal justice system were

additional factors that complicated bereavement among her sample members. Armour’s work

aligns with that of Goodrum & Stafford (2001) whose interviews with 32 individuals bereaved

by homicide and 19 criminal justice professionals found that involvement with the criminal

justice system is not only a source of frustration, but can act as a barrier to coping for survivors.

In sum, factors emerge from these research studies that suggest that the context of dealing with

the aftermath of a family member’s murder, including interactions with the criminal justice

system and media matter in the daily lives of survivors.

Again, although there is limited research on homicide bereavement in the workplace, pieces

of the literature on homicide bereavement and social supports point to the relevance of

understanding the role of employment in homicide grief process. Burke, Neimeyer, and

McDevitt-Murphy (2010) examined the effect of various forms of social support on the

development of complicated grief, PTSD, and depression among 54 African Americans who

were bereaved by homicide. Looking to fill a gap in the research literature, these authors

asserted the need to examine the ways in which African Americans, a population

disproportionately affected by homicide, adapt to the homicide of a loved one. While they did

18

not specifically examine support provided in the context of the workplace, these researchers

found that members of their sample with larger social networks experienced greater general

support, though they were no more likely to receive bereavement specific support. In addition,

larger support networks were related to lower levels of complicated grief and the percentage of

negative relationships in the support network were related to higher levels of complicated grief,

depression, and PTSD. Finally, grief specific support was associated with lower levels of PTSD.

Expanding work specifically focused on Black and African-American homicide survivors and

their efforts to cope, Burke, Neimeyer, McDevitt-Murphy, Ippolito, and Roberts (2011) and

Sharpe & Boyas (2011) undertook studies to examine the influence of religion and spirituality.

Burke, et al.’s study involved 46 African America homicide survivors and focused on the

relationship between religious coping and complicated grief. Sharpe and Boyas’s study (2011)

involved a small sample of 8 African American family members of homicide victims who were

interviewed with a focus on their use of spiritual coping. Results from each of these studies

indicate that religion and spirituality play an important role in coping among African American

survivors. Again, while neither of these studies focused on employment in the context of

grieving the loss of a family member to homicide, their findings could perhaps inform inquiries

that do. Both highlight the need to be thoughtful of survivors’ use of religion and spirituality as

resources in coping with homicide. In addition, Sharpe and Boyas highlight the importance of

collective coping and caring for other grieving family members as a theme that emerged from the

narratives of their participants. Based on their work, it is reasonable to assume that each of these

factors, social networks and spirituality, have relevance for coping. In particular, workplace-

based social networks may be relevant for understanding the role of work in homicide

19

bereavement and interactions or intersections of work environments and individual spirituality

may affect survivors’ experiences in the workplace.

Baliko & Tuck (2008) examined homicide bereavement from the nurse’s perspective,

conducting in-depth interviews with 10 adults who had lost a family member through acts of

violence. Their phenomenological study confirmed earlier findings, with participants describing

their experience as a “living a nightmare” (p. 29) whereby their sense of identity in relation to the

victim was stripped and their sense of normalcy shattered. Also speaking from the medical

perspective, Hertz, Prothrow-Stith, & Chery (2005) discuss their work with the homicide

bereavement community and summarize the literature, highlighting the potential for negative

physical and mental health effects on survivors. In addition to providing guidelines for medical

professionals working with homicide survivors, they suggest in their final comments the need for

further examination of factors that potentially mediate the effects of homicide survivorship. In

addition, they suggest the need to examine the individual and systemic economic effects of

homicide bereavement, including days missed from work and number of visits to health care

providers.

Bereavement and Employment

People do not grieve in discrete spaces. As described in the edited volume by Davidson &

Doka (1999), individuals grieve wherever they are: at home, at work, at school, and in all the

other social spaces that they occupy. Yet, in the workplace, it is socially expected that bereaved

individuals will compartmentalize their grief, appropriately managing their emotions in order to

attend to their work obligations (Lattanzi-Licht, 1999, 2002). Furthermore, depending upon

one’s individual cultural background and practices, bereavement can be largely viewed as a

private endeavor (Walter, 2009) and one that should be kept especially separate from the

20

workplace. These notions exist in an occupational climate where most employees are afforded

relatively little time off from work, generally 3-5 days, to grieve the loss of a family member

(Maxim & Macavey, 2005). Social and individual expectations that grief be left at home and

that mourners recover quickly in order to return to their previous levels of functioning and

productivity can lead to feelings of frustration and disenfranchisement for the employed

bereaved (Lattanzi-Licht, 2002). In addition, according to a study by Eyetsemitan (1998), these

work-grief expectations can result in “stifled grief” (p. 470), denying the bereaved an

opportunity to complete the grieving process, with serious potential consequences to their

wellbeing.

Regardless of social expectations that working and grieving occur separately, or the wish of

some bereaved individuals to remain private in their grief process, the feelings and concrete

activities associated with bereavement (planning a funeral, attending to financial issues) often

follow individuals into other areas of life, including their workplace. When the death of a family

member is public and profiled in the media, the ability for individuals to impose limits on their

grief becomes all the more difficult. When the death is a homicide, the concrete tasks related to

dealing with the death, including identifying the body, participating in the criminal investigation,

and arranging for crime scene clean-up, among other activities, are multiplied and traumatic.

Those bereaved by homicide are simultaneously attending to these tasks while supporting family

members, as well as dealing with their own powerful feelings and the physical, emotional, social,

cognitive, and spiritual challenges that are known to be part of the homicide bereavement

experience. This distinct grieving process, for working individuals, occurs within a social

context that includes the workplace. For some, working while grieving a homicidal death is

21

likely to induce even greater challenges, while for others, working may produce benefits and

create an environment of support.

According to Walter (2009), who describes the grieving process for those who are employed

in general as “living in two worlds” (p. 407), moving between the worlds of work and home can

offer both advantages and disadvantages. He suggests that spending time at work, where other

co-mourners and reminders of the deceased are not present, can serve as an escape, assisting the

bereaved in feeling a sense of emotional stability and normalcy in routine and functioning. In

addition, the workplace can be a source of social support in the grieving process if one’s co-

workers and supervisor are able to offer gestures of empathy and encouragement (Lattanzi-Licht,

2002). On the other hand, working while grieving can be difficult for some mourners, especially

if workmates are unsure what to say or do not know how to provide support (Walter, 2009). The

ability to feel emotionally supported at work may be especially compromised for employees

whose family member has been murdered. Depending on the circumstances, homicide can be

stigmatizing for the bereaved (Doka, 2002), subjecting them to social judgment, discrediting

their right mourn, and effectively creating an experience of “disenfranchised grief,” potentially

limiting expressions of sympathy and support by others. A return to work can compromise the

well-being of a grieving employee if he or she simply finds it too difficult to manage emotions

while adequately attending to employment tasks (Walter, 2009). According to Lattanzi-Licht

(1999) it is not uncommon for bereaved workers in general to experience difficulties attending to

work related tasks as a result of the exhaustion, depression, and difficulty concentrating that are

often part of the normal grief trajectory. The traumatizing and devastating nature of a homicidal

death multiplies the difficulties that mourners face, perhaps making it even more difficult to

adapt to a return to work and the related expectations that come with it (Lattanzi-Licht, 1999;

22

National Office for Victims of Crime, 2012). For those bereaved by homicide who must work

out of necessity, balancing work and bereavement may be especially challenging.

Bereavement-Related Employment Policy

Through the United States Victims of Crime Act of 1984 and Crime Victims’ Rights Act of

2004, the federal government established a national Office for Victims of Crime and set forth

basic protections for crime victims (United States Department of Justice, 2014). As an extension

of these federal policies, the states, including Massachusetts, established offices of victim

assistance and issued related statements of victims’ rights that provide basic protections to crime

victims and their immediate family members (Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance,

2014). These provisions generally relate to providing victims and their family members with

protections during the court case and access to certain services, including the assistance of

advocates and counseling through locally grant funded programs. Also under this umbrella of

services, states administer Victims of Violent Crime Compensation, a fund of last resort that is

available to victims and family members, including those bereaved by homicide, to assist with

costs such as crime scene clean-up, funeral costs, counseling, and loss of financial support for

dependents (Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance, 2014).

While these federal and state policies and the supports that flow from them are critically

important to those bereaved by homicide, they do not provide for necessary employment-related

protections or compensation for wages lost during bereavement time-off. To date, no federal or

state legislation exists to provide homicide survivors with special employment or bereavement

leave provisions, in spite of evidence of their unique needs and challenges which may contribute

to difficulties returning to work or maintaining employment (National Office for Victims of

Crime, 2012). While the United States Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 (FLSA 29,

23

USC 201) regulates fair pay and work hour requirements, the FLSA does not regulate and

enforce time off for vacation, illness, or bereavement following the death of a family member. In

fact, there is no specific legal mandate in the United States for bereavement time granted to any

employee, including those bereaved by homicide (United States Department of Labor, 2013a).

Rather, bereavement time off is a matter of employer’s discretion and generally takes the form of

a three to five day paid or unpaid time-off benefit, regardless of the circumstances of the death

(United States Department of Labor, 2013b).

While the widely accepted standard bereavement time off of three to five days may feel

restrictive to most individuals bereaved by the death of a loved one, they seem particularly

insufficient for homicide survivors, given their unique situations. Not only might it be

challenging for homicide survivors to return to work following the standard bereavement leave,

but their ability to effectively perform employment related duties soon after a traumatic loss may

compromise their work performance and, ultimately, pose a threat to their job security.

Moreover, their ability to take intermittent time off to utilize formal and informal treatment and

support options or attend the trial for their loved one’s case may be limited by employment

obligations. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993 may provide an option for

some family members of homicide victims to take up to 12 additional weeks off (continuous or

intermittent) as a way to extend their bereavement time off. Although not technically a

bereavement time-off policy, provisions of the FMLA allow workers to request employment

leave to attend to serious health conditions that impair their ability to manage the functions of

their jobs. While the FMLA offers a viable time-off option for some bereaved, it is not available

in all employment settings or to all workers. Under federal statute, the FMLA applies to public

agencies, public and private elementary schools, and companies with 50 or more workers.

24

Furthermore, it stipulates that, in order to be eligible for FMLA, an employee most have worked

for the employer for at least 12 months and at least 1,250 hours during that time (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2012). Thus, there is a policy vacuum for those bereaved workers working

part-time or in small employment settings. Even for those eligible workers for whom FMLA is

offered, there are important limitations to consider. While the FMLA carries the assurance that a

grieving employee’s medical coverage will be maintained and their job protected, the leave time

that it affords is unpaid (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). Thus, this may not be a viable option

for those family members who cannot go without regular income. This may be especially

threatening for individuals identifying as racial and cultural minorities, those of low socio-

economic means, and/or families with only one working person on whom the family’s income

security depends.

For some homicide survivors who rely on regular paychecks to meet their basic financial

obligations, it may be possible to utilize short-term disability funds or exhaust paid vacation and

sick time, if these benefits are available to them. For those survivors working in part-time or in

unskilled positions for which these benefits are not offered, there seem to be no real social policy

protections, potentially leaving no choice but to return to work whether they feel ready or not.

Thus, not only may grief and trauma affect one’s ability to work, but one’s need to work may

affect the ability to grieve and cope.

There have been attempts to improve employment protections for individuals affected by

violent crime. In 2008, the Crime Victims Employment Leave Act (H.R. 5845) was introduced to

Congress by then Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, but never became law. The bill

aimed to extend the current benefits afforded by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) by

offering victims unpaid, job protected leave to attend court proceedings related to a violent crime

25

committed against them or their immediate family member. While it did not extend to the

provision of protected bereavement leave for homicide survivors, the bill was an initial step in

recognizing the unique employment and time-off needs of crime victims. At the state level, some

individual states have employment protection laws for victims of domestic violence and sexual

assault which allow them to prepare for and attend court hearings, obtain medical treatment or

mental health counseling, these statutes vary widely and there is currently no federal law which

universalizes these benefits or extends them to family members of those who have been

murdered (National Office for Victims of Crime, 2009).

While the Crime Victims Employment Leave Act represented a critical move to fill a policy

gap on behalf of victims, including homicide survivors, the bereavement literature does not

reflect any specific evidenced-based research that connects bereavement and employment

implications that could support the initiation and implementation of similar bills. In sum, the

substantial void in the empirical literature on the intersection of homicide bereavement and

employment makes it difficult to advocate for policy change. The research study described here

has the potential not only add to knowledge about the experience of homicide bereavement, but

inform policy by adding evidence to and re-fueling the dialogue on necessary benefits to

maximize coping and preserve quality of life for this population.

Literature Review Conclusion

The literature reflects important contributions to understanding the unique nature of homicide

bereavement, including the risks and potential physical, emotional, and social effects related to

this experience. However, very little research attention has focused specifically on the effect that

homicide bereavement has on the survivor’s employment and the effect employment has on the

grief process for homicide survivors. Thus, the ways in which one’s employment may potentially

26

act as a protective factor that assists with coping, as a risk factor that interferes with coping, or

both, has yet to be explored in a comprehensive way. This study seeks to help fill this gap by

examining the experience of bereaved, employed homicide survivors and the ways that their

work influenced, and was influenced by, their bereavement.

Theoretical Framework for Understanding Bereavement and the Workplace

Considerable effort on the part of researchers and practitioners has been invested in attempts

to understand the grief and bereavement process. In spite of these efforts, there is no one

integrative theory of bereavement capable of adequately capturing the essence of the highly

individualized experience of bereavement, given the considerable variations among people and

cultures. Thus, leaders in the field of thanatology suggest that there continues to be a

“multiplicity” (Stroebe, et al. 2008, p. 578) of theoretical perspectives on bereavement that are

utilized in examining and explaining the ways that people understand and experience the death of

a loved one. This multiplicity perspective is particularly necessary when exploring homicide

bereavement, a unique experience that is shaped not only by the death of a family member, but

by the trauma of murder, making it difficult to define within theoretical constructions of

“typical” bereavement (Armour, 2002a; Hertz & Prothrow-Stith, 2005).

Recognizing the parallels between traumatic victimization and the loss of a family member by

homicide, those working in the field of homicide bereavement have utilized a combination of

theoretical frameworks, integrating theories of bereavement with theories of trauma (Green,

2000; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993) in an attempt to understand the phenomena. This study

adopt this approach of integrating theoretical perspectives in an attempt to describe and capture

the “synergism of trauma and loss” (Rynearson & McCreery, 1993, p.258) that characterizes

homicide bereavement, while also taking into account the critical significance of the social

27

environment. Specifically, this study combines the theoretical underpinnings of Symbolic

Interaction Theory, Attachment Theory, Trauma Theory, and Critical Race Theory with the

ecological perspective that is a hallmark of social work practice. These theories are briefly

reviewed below within the context of homicide bereavement.

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework Map

Ecological Perspective

Lens of Critical Race Theory

Symbolic Interaction

Theory

Trauma TheoryAttachment Theory

28

Symbolic Interaction Theory. Symbolic Interaction Theory was developed through the work

of George Herbert Mead (1934) and Herbert Blumer (1969) who theorized that meaning is

socially constructed as people engage in dynamic interactions with other individuals and society

through an ongoing, interpretive process that relies upon the use of symbols (Allan, 2006;

Blumer, 1969). Symbols may take the form of language, gestures, or objects and are assigned

specific meaning and significance in the context of relationships with another person or social

group. Through a constant process of “self-indication,” (Blumer, 1969, p. 80) individuals make

note of symbols in the environment, interpreting their meaning and accordingly determining

actions. The meaning derived from these interactions shapes subsequent behavior, as well as the

way in which one understands oneself as a social object that is defined in relationship with

others. Symbolic interactionists posit that an individual’s actions are also influenced by an

ongoing process of role-taking whereby one puts oneself in the position (or role) of another

person in order to determine their intentions and how to respond to them. Two parts of the self,

the “I” and the “Me,” emerge through this internal dialogue (Blumer, 1969, p.111). It is through

the Me that individuals examine their own behavior and through the I that they act and interact

with others in the environment. Joint or collective social action also follows an interpretive

process as society is made up of several individuals acting on and with one another.

The constructs of Symbolic Interaction Theory contribute to an understanding of the

bereavement experience and the process of “meaning reconstruction” that is considered to be a

critical component of grieving (Neimeyer, 2000, p. 548). The experience of a loved one’s death,

whether by natural or tragic circumstances, is not simply an objective loss, but one that is

symbolically meaningful and shaped by one’s cultural and spiritual context, including shared

rituals and culturally embedded expressions of emotion and support (Raphael, 1983; Valentine,

29

2006). In addition, the way in which one interprets and makes sense of the personal loss of a

significant other is part of an internal dialogue through which one processes information and

attributes meaning to the loss (Goodrum, 2005). Among other things, stories of shared

experiences, artifacts that belonged to the person who died, and significant places of shared

memories all take on new symbolic meaning (Handsley, 2001), as do unrealized goals and

interrupted life plans. This is illustrated in the work of Forte, Barrett, and Campbell (1996) who

argue that Symbolic Interactionism, with its emphasis on the social construction of reality and

creation of the self through relationships with others, provides a useful framework for

understanding the nature of bereavement, its effect on individuals, and efforts to recover. They

contend that, through interactions and the use of symbols, people co-create meaning and shared

understandings of their own identity with significant others who become “internalized extensions

of our sense of self” (p. 31). When a family member dies, an individual’s self-definition as

symbolized through words such as “mother,” “son,” or “spouse” undergoes fundamental

changes. When the death is a murder, it carries particular symbolic significance for families and

society in terms of the violence involved, the assignment of blame, the untimeliness of the death,

the public nature of the crime, and the need to seek justice (Handsley, 2001). An act that is often

perceived as senseless, a death by murder is difficult for individuals and society to understand,

interpret, and assimilate. In addition, deaths by homicide are frequently stigmatized, especially

if the perpetrator is a family member and has been subsequently incarcerated, or if the victim is

thought to have contributed to his or her own demise by engaging in violence, often gang-

related, prior to his or her death. In these circumstances, survivors may experience a sense of

disenfranchised grief where their right to grieve is limited by the public’s perception of the

manner in which their family member died (Doka, 2002). On an individual level, this type of

30

profound loss produces a challenge to the bereaved survivor’s “self narrative” (Neimeyer, 2005-

2006, p. 43), making it difficult to frame and integrate the loss into the context of their life story

in a way that makes sense. From a Symbolic Interactionist perspective then, the bereaved not

only mourn and grieve for the person, but for the relationship and its symbolic significance, the

world as it was known and understood, and for the self as it had been previously and

meaningfully defined.

Attachment Theory. Attachment Theory, as initially conceptualized through the

investigations of John Bowlby (1961, 1969, 1973, 1980), has been widely applied to

bereavement and is considered one of the most enduring and influential in the field (Stroebe, et

al., 2008). Bowlby examined patterns of mother-child attachment behavior, theorizing that this

early relationship is primary and critical to child development, whereas the loss or absence of

one’s primary attachment figure is the dominant factor in creating distress and disturbance.

Attachment behavior, according to Bowlby, continues into adult life, is essential to human

relationships, and vital throughout the life cycle, providing individuals with a sense of security

and emotional stability. He describes separation from attachment figures as both frightening and

difficult and, in his third volume, Loss (1980), expands his work to apply to the process of grief

and mourning following the death of a loved one. Likening the mourning process to the healing

of a physical wound, he reviews the universal need for individuals to maintain a sense of

closeness to attachment figures in order to feel secure and safe stating, “the loss of a loved one is

one of the most intensely powerful experiences any human being can suffer…to the bereaved

nothing but the return of the lost person can bring true comfort” (p.7). In cases where people are

passionately attached, it is the final physical loss of proximity and disruption in the attachment

bond that threatens one’s sense of security and coherence, having the effect of shattering one’s

31

world and creating intense longing and distress for the bereaved (Bowlby, 1980). Similar to

children whose parents fail to return amidst their protests, bereaved individuals are theorized to

gradually reorganize their attachment bonds, reinvesting themselves in new relationships and

activities (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2008). Unlike Freud’s emphasis on the need for the bereaved to

sever bonds with the deceased, Bowlby (1980) conceptualizes the final phase of grief as a period

of reorganization whereby the bereaved both continue a symbolic bond with the deceased and

create new attachments.

Like Bowlby, contemporary researchers and practitioners widely suggest that grief and its

physical and psychological manifestations are related to “attachment distress in the form of

yearning and longing for the loved one who has died” (Neimeyer, 2005-2006, p. 39-40). Thus,

Bowlby’s theory has served as a foundation for discussion and empirical investigations that have

both tested the attachment framework and extended his original conceptualizations (Jacobs, et

al., 1987-88; Parkes, 2009; Wijngaards-de Meij, et al., 2007). Some have focused on the nature

of attachment relationships, suggesting that those with secure attachment patterns may

experience fewer symptoms during bereavement (Stroebe, Schut, & Stroebe, 2005; Wijngaards-

de Meij, et al., 2007). Others have utilized Bowlby’s theory as a framework for advancing a

“continuing bonds” perspective (Field, 2008, p. 113), suggesting that maintaining an ongoing,

symbolic connection to the person who has died allows family members to retain a sense of

continuity of identity and cope better with the loss (Field, 2008).

More relevant to the experience of homicide bereavement, researchers have suggested factors

that may influence an individual’s ability to achieve the ultimate phase of reorganization as

theorized by Bowlby. Bowlby himself (1980) noted particular circumstances that could make

the attachment loss particularly acute and thus, complicate the course of bereavement, including

32

deaths that are sudden or untimely and those that involve violence and mutilation. This has been

extended by others who have identified factors that make movement through bereavement more

difficult. According to Weiss (1993), among the ways in which one’s recovery from the death of

a loved one can be impeded is the feeling that the loss is senseless, especially if the death came

without warning, as well as feelings of responsibility or protectiveness over the well-being of the

person who has died. In addition, Stroebe, Schut, and Stroebe (2005), suggest that the experience

of a traumatic loss, as in a homicide, may change the manner in which individuals, even those

with secure attachments, grieve, making the process more complicated and affecting the ability

to recover.

Trauma Theory. In focusing on the effect of horrible events on the lives of people who have

been victimized, experts in the field of trauma practice and research (Herman, 1997; Janoff-

Bulman, 1992; McCann & Pearlman, 1990) contribute to an understanding of the experience of

those who have lost a family member through a traumatic death. McCann & Pearlman (1990)

define traumatic experiences as being those that are sudden, unexpected and non-normative,

exceed one’s ability to meet its demands, and disrupt one’s frame of reference. Extending this

definition, Brewin, Dalgleish, & Joseph, (1996) describe the trauma experience as:

A violation of basic assumptions connected with survival as a member of a social group. These include assumptions (not necessarily conscious ones) about personal invulnerability from death or disease, status in a social hierarchy, the ability to meet internal moral standards and achieve major life goals, the continued availability and reliability of attachment figures, and the existence of an orderly relationship between actions and outcomes (p. 675)

These authors provide a clear conceptualization of the ways in which the trauma experience

challenges the basic worldview of survivors, including perceptions about themselves, their

relationships, and the world at large. Within this context, murder is a violent, unnatural, and

preventable death (Figley, 2006), and like other experiences of trauma, presents survivors with a

33

complex pattern of questioning, difficulty, and distress (Parkes, 1993; Rando, 1997; Rynearson,

2006). Indeed, prominent authors in the bereavement field (Bonanno & Kaltman, 1999; Currier,

et al., 2006; Green, 2000; Rando, 1993; Parkes, 2009; Rynearson, 2006) have emphasized the

parallel patterns of reactions that exist between trauma survivors and those who are bereaved by

a violent death, including posttraumatic stress reactions, depression, rage, guilt, and a diminished

sense of trust in others (Rando, 1993; Parkes, 1996) and have thus utilized a theoretical

synthesis that integrates both grief and trauma into the study of homicide bereavement.

Within the conceptualization of homicide bereavement as a form of trauma, two theoretical

perspectives combine to provide a lens through which to view the experience of survivors.

Parkes’s (1996) discussion of assumptive worlds and Janoff-Bulman’s (1992) Theory of

Shattered Assumptions connect to describe the nature of inner working models that define one’s

worldview and the ways in which bereavement and traumatic experiences affect and potentially

threaten them. Parkes (1996) describes one’s assumptive world as an active, evolving,

constructed model of reality that each individual creates throughout his or her life and uses to

guide thoughts and behaviors. Similarly, Janoff-Bulman (1992), theorizes that individuals’ lives

are guided and shaped by three shared, fundamental assumptions: that the world is benevolent,

that the world is meaningful, and that the self is worthy. She hypothesizes that in spite of

obvious social problems and daily difficulties, most people believe that the world is a good, safe,

and just place, that events in the world generally make sense, and that the self is generally good,

capable, and moral. She describes these core assumptions as “the bedrock of our being” (p. 5)

and those that we are least likely to be aware of or challenge. From the perspective of Parkes

and Janoff-Bulman then, people rely on the constructs of their assumptive world and basic

fundamental assumptions to provide a relatively stable and predictable life path.

34

Parkes (1996) asserts that the death of a loved one is by its nature a psychosocial transition,

requiring a fundamental shift in one’s assumptive world. Homicide is distinctly different from

other types of death, however, as it is intentional, violent, unanticipated, preventable, and often

random. A deeply traumatizing experience, the murder of a family member is both shocking and

senseless (Rando, 1993) and, as a result, challenges one’s fundamental meanings and constructs

in a unique and catastrophic way. This has the effect of shattering the assumptive world,

challenging belief systems and expectations, and threatening the ability to cope (Janoff-Bulman,

1992; Parkes, 1996; Rando, 1993). With this and other types of intentional victimization, one’s

sense of trust in the world and other people is tainted as the possibility of harm and malice

becomes personal and real, destroying the general sense of safety, security, and invulnerability

that people typically feel (Janoff-Bulman, 1992; Parkes, 1996). Depending on the circumstances

of the murder, this can mean an “undermining of trust in others, including the family, the police,

the legal system, and God” (Parkes, 1993, p. 53). The sense of upheaval and disruptions to

fundamental assumptions that is created by the combination of grief and trauma can manifest

itself in concrete ways in the lives of survivors by creating chronic fear, rage, and helplessness

(Parkes, 1993) and disrupting the continuity and orderly functioning in one’s day to day

existence (Green, 2000). In this way, not only must the bereaved reconstruct their identity to

account for the void created by the loss of the loved one, but they must reconstruct their

assumptions about their larger social world and their place in it.

Ecological Perspective & the Lens of Critical Race Theory. The theoretical synthesis of

Symbolic Interaction Theory, Attachment Theory, and Trauma Theory frames the homicide

bereavement experience as one that is symbolically meaningful and uniquely challenging for

individuals as disruptions in important attachment relationships intersect with the traumatic

35

experience of losing a family member unexpectedly through murder. By conceptually linking

systems of meaning making with concepts related to attachment and trauma, these theories help

to explain the ways in which homicide bereavement is unique and complex, presenting the

bereaved with challenges that go beyond typical grief, affecting all areas of life, potentially

including their employment.

The ecological perspective of social work practice combines with these theories to add a

critical component to the theoretical foundation underlying this study. This perspective

emphasizes the interconnection between the person and his or her environment and holds an

appreciation for individual characteristics, family relationships, culture, community, social

system effects, and issues of social justice in examining and assessing diverse experiences (Nash,

Munford & O’Donoghue, 2005). This overarching perspective is a hallmark of social work

practice and provides an essential backdrop for both research inquiry and intervention. It

acknowledges the critical role of the social environment in shaping and influencing one’s

experiences and emphasizes that one cannot understand an individual’s experiences or

effectively deploy resources without also understanding their social context and the various

systems that affect them. This perspective suggests that the experience of a family member’s

murder is not simply an individual experience, but a social experience, affected and influenced

by other important systems and contextual factors operating in one’s social environment. Trauma

scholars (Harvey, 1996) have emphasized the critical need to take this type of “ecological view”

(p. 4) as a way to more holistically understand the meaning and effect of traumatic events on

people, as well as ways to most effectively assist them in coping. Thus, in concert with the

theoretical framework guiding this research, the ecological perspective provides an important

36

foundation for the examination of the homicide bereavement experience itself and the potential

relationships between survivors’ bereavement and employment.

Given the unique nature of this study as one that involves a sample comprised exclusively of

people of color, its ecological framework must essentially involve a specific focus on the role of

race in shaping the participants’ experiences. The United States is rooted in a historical legacy of

racial oppression and injustice that continues to negatively affect people of color today. On the

national and local level, systems of institutional and structural racism have been perpetuated,

creating unequal access to power and essential resources for people and communities of color

(Boston Public Health Commission, 2013; Jones, 2000). Thus, in virtually all areas of society,

including our educational, health, economic, and justice systems, significant racial inequities,

rooted in racism, exist (Alexander, 2011; Irwin, Cain Miller, & Sanger-Katz, 2014). Specifically,

national data shows that compared to White people, Black and African American people are

more likely to experience health problems, be unemployed, work in lower income jobs, and

experience poverty (Irwin, Cain Miller, & Sanger-Katz, 2014). Perhaps most relevant to this

study, nationally, Black males between the ages of 25 and 34 are estimated to be nine times more

likely to be homicide victims than White males in the same age group (Irwin, Cain Miller, &

Sanger-Katz, 2014). These national racial inequities are similarly reflected locally (Boston

Foundation, 2011, 2012; Boston Public Health Commission, 2013), affecting people of color in

the city of Boston, where this research study was conducted, where all of the participants live,

and where most of the homicides involving their family members took place. Given these facts,

it is imperative to acknowledge the role of the participants’ racial identities and the likely affect

racial oppression has had on their life experiences generally, and on their homicide bereavement

experiences, specifically.

37

Critical Race Theory, as part of the ecological perspective that grounds this study, provides an

ideal lens through which to consider the role of race and racism in shaping the participants’

experiences. Critical Race Theory proposes that race is a social construction used to essentialize

and categorize people into racial groups that have no objective, fixed, or significant biological

basis. As part of this racial categorization, racial hierarchies and systems of racism are created

through which privilege, status, and access to resources is granted to some groups, but not others.

Critical Race Theory scholars assert that racism is an ordinary, pervasive, and often

unacknowledged social reality that is embedded in our social structures, simultaneously working

to marginalize people of color while advancing the interests of the dominant group, Whites.

Furthermore, Critical Race Theorists suggest that, because racism serves the essential purpose of

granting privileges to Whites, they have no real incentive to end it (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).

By interrogating mechanisms of power, privilege, and oppression, and challenging the social

structures that intentionally support systems of inequality, Critical Race theorists seek to reform

these structures. With its specific focus on the dynamics of racism and oppression and the ways

these dynamics operate within our social structures to maintain a status quo if racial inequity,

Critical Race Theory adds an important foundational element to this research study. It not only

serves as a backdrop for considering the ways that racial inequality has likely affected the

participants’ life experiences in general, but focuses the researcher on the role of racial

oppression as an environmental factor that likely shaped and influenced their homicide

bereavement and employment experiences, specifically.

38

Research Design and Methodology

The aim of this research study was to explore the intersection of homicide bereavement and

employment, specifically the ways in which bereavement experiences and employment

experiences potentially relate to and influence one another. This study explores a new area of

inquiry as there is no prior research on the relationship between homicide bereavement and

employment to my knowledge. The study was designed to answer the overarching research

questions by eliciting information directly from the voices of family members of homicide

victims. Through their narratives, the overall goals of this study were to better understand

homicide survivors’ experiences of grieving and working, highlight major themes that emerged

from this inquiry, and create a foundational framework to inform further research, practice, and

policy efforts.

Study Design & Rationale

As a beginning exploration into the ways that homicide bereavement and employment

potentially influence and relate to one another, this study employs a primarily qualitative

research design utilizing in-depth interviews with twenty participants as the primary mode of

data collection, supplemented by two discrete surveys: the Brief Participant Questionnaire and

the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. The decision to utilize a primarily qualitative approach was

based on the lack of prior research in this area, the goals of the study, and the utility of

qualitative methods in achieving those goals. Maxwell (2005) suggests that there are five

research goals for which the use of a qualitative methodology is particularly well suited: 1)

understanding the meaning of participants’ experiences; 2) understanding the context and

circumstances that have shaped the participants’ experiences; 3) identifying unanticipated

phenomena and influences; 4) understanding the process by which events and actions take place;

39

and 5) developing causal explanations. All of these goals are highly compatible with the research

aims and exploratory nature of this study. Further, a grounded theory approach to understanding

and analyzing the qualitative data was selected as this method seemed most compatible with the

study aims and overall design. As one approach to qualitative inquiry, a grounded theory study

aims to give meaning to the participants’ experiences and, furthermore, to inductively develop a

foundational explanation of these experiences (Creswell, 2007). The goals of this study were to

understand the participants’ experiences of homicide bereavement and employment and the ways

in which the two interact with and potentially influence one another from their perspectives.

Thus, a grounded theory approach seemed to be an ideal way to elicit and describe the

participants’ experiences, identify themes, establish connections between those themes, and,

ultimately, construct a foundational framework for understanding the experience of grieving a

homicide while working.

Community Partner Collaboration and Participation

This research study was conducted in collaboration with a community partner, the Louis D.

Brown Peace Institute, a homicide survivor support organization located in Dorchester, MA. The

decision to include a community partner in the overall design of the study was made purposively,

acknowledging the importance of being grounded in the survivor community as a researcher and

the integrity such a collaboration would bring to the research process and outcomes. The Louis

D. Brown Peace Institute (“Peace Institute”), is a non-profit, grass-roots, community based

organization founded in 1994 to support family members of homicide victims, raise public

awareness, and increase prevention efforts around community violence. The organization has

spearheaded and participated in numerous community initiatives on behalf of family members of

homicide victims and is embedded in the survivor community. A partnership with the Peace

40

Institute has been cultivated over the past five years, allowing me to become immersed in the

Boston homicide community and creating a pathway for the completion of this dissertation

research. As part of this partnership, the Peace Institute staff, many of whom are homicide

survivors themselves, introduced me to key stakeholders and professionals and included me in

important community events, meetings, conferences, and hearings. This created an avenue for

me to engage with and observe survivors and helping professionals and advocates involved in

homicide bereavement work. Furthermore, I acted as a volunteer for the organization,

supervising master’s level social work students at the Peace Institute from 2012-2014. This

allowed me to maintain a presence within the organization, remain aware of homicide

community events, and engage with staff, students and volunteers on a weekly basis at the

organization’s office. This period of sustained engagement had a strong influence on the ways in

which the plan for this study evolved, ensuring that its aims and procedures were well informed.

As part of the research plan, Peace Institute staff acted as advisors and consultants for the study

by reviewing and providing feedback on key documents, assisting me in obtaining the study

sample, and reviewing preliminary data findings. They will also be instrumental in making

effective use of the research outcomes by assisting me with dissemination to key stakeholders.

As a way to formalize the role of the Peace Institute in supporting this study, a Memorandum of

Understanding (Appendix A) was executed prior to beginning the research.

My ongoing engagement with the Peace Institute also served another critical function that

shaped the study – a deeper exploration of the ways in which my racial identity would influence

the research. I came into this research project following a period of significant contemplation

about the role my identity as a white female has played in all of my professional endeavors and

had thought deeply about how this would inevitably affect both my interactions with the study

41

participants and the way I understood and interpreted the data. However, I grew tremendously

over the course of the research through my interactions and engagement with the Peace Institute

staff who provided an atmosphere that allowed me to to think more deeply and talk candidly

about these themes. As an organization deeply rooted in the Boston homicide survivor

community, the Peace Institute serves primarily people of color and is, therefore, staffed by a

skilled group of professionals of various racial backgrounds who are committed to racial and

social justice. As part of their work, conversations about race and the dynamics of racial

oppression are an integral part of the staff’s open and honest critique of themselves and those

with whom they work. As a person who supervised student interns within the organization and as

someone they connected with survivors for the purpose of my dissertation research, I was

frequently part of conversations about race and racism that affected my growth as a professional

and the ways I have come to understand my own white racial identity. Foremost, these

conversations and the thinking I did as a result of them, helped me to consistently place my

identity at the forefront of my awareness as I engaged in all aspects of the research. I used this

lens as a foundation to continuously hold myself accountable and interrogate what I did and how

I did it, from conducting the interviews through data analysis and interpretation of the findings.

As a result, I feel firmly rooted in the understanding that my own experience as a racially

privileged person undoubtedly limited my ability to understand the participant’s experiences of

racism and influenced the ways I made sense of their narratives. At the same time, I also realize

that, similar to the ways that white Peace Institute staff members engaged meaningulfully in

supporting survivors they served, I could still be an effective researcher by operating as an ally,

maintaining constant awareness of the influence my own own identity has on this project, and

using my privilege to tell the participants’ stories authentically.

42

Research Questions

This research study specifically addressed the following research questions:

1) What are the unique challenges and benefits of working for those bereaved by homicide?

2) What kind of workplace, family, or community supports do homicide survivors need to

maintain employment and financial stability and grieve simultaneously?

3) What are the experiences and strategies of homicide survivors in negotiating a balance

between employment, health, and grief?

4) What are the positive and negative outcomes for homicide survivors who leave the

workforce temporarily or permanently?

Definition of Terms

Working definitions for the major concepts explored in this study are described below:

Homicide/Murder: formally defined as “the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one human

being by another” (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013a).

Bereavement: formally defined as “the objective situation of having lost someone

significant through death (Stroebe, Hansson, Schut, and Stroebe, 2008 p. 4).

Close family member: For the purposes of this study, this term is defined as a person in

one’s immediate or extended family, including a parent/primary caregiver, grandparent,

spouse/partner, child/foster child, grandchild, sibling, aunt/uncle, cousin, niece/nephew,

or in-law.

Employment: For the purposes of this study, this term is defined as engaging in at least 10

hours per week of formal or informal part-time or full-time paid work outside the home.

Informal work refers to work that may be undocumented or completed “under the table.”

43

Employment/Work Experiences: For the purposes of this study, this term is defined as

experiences that occurred in the workplace or in the context of one’s employment

including bereavement time off, employment flexibility, work role accommodations, job

protection, interactions with co-workers and/or supervisor, etc.

Bereavement Needs: For the purposes of this study, this term is defined as those tasks and

supports identified by the bereaved as necessary to their coping process including

attending court proceedings or legal meetings, medical appointments, therapy or

counseling appointments, support groups, etc.

Study Sample and Inclusion Criteria

This study utilized a non-randomized, stratified, purposeful, convenience sample of 20 adult

residents of Boston who were bereaved by the homicide of a family member and were working

at the time of the death. In order to be eligible to participate in the study, participants had to meet

the following criterial for inclusion:

a) Be a resident of the city of Boston, Massachusetts;

b) Be at least 18 years of age;

c) Speak English;

d) Have a close family member who was murdered more than six months prior to the interview

and within the past ten years;

e) Have been employed either part-time or full-time outside the home (either formally or

informally) at the time of their family member’s death;

Sample Stratification

Specific efforts to recruit racial and ethnic minorities were made, with a plan to ensure that at

least 50% of the study participants were people of color. The decision to recruit a racially and

44

ethnically diverse sample was important to this study for several reasons. Foremost, national

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014b) and local (Boston Public Health Commission, 2013)

incidence rates show that racial and ethnic minorities are the demographic subgroups most

affected by homicide. Black males are the most likely to be homicide victims (Federal Bureau of

Investigation, 2014b), frequently leaving behind their mothers and female partners (Jenkins,

2002). In addition, the bereavement literature suggests that one’s culture differentially affects

grieving (Rosenblatt, 2008) and that African Americans, specifically, experience grief differently

from their Caucasian counterparts (Laurie & Neimeyer, 2008). Finally, race is a factor that is

historically related to income and employment, another important element of this study. Among

racial groups, the Black population has the highest rate of unemployment (13.1%) (U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014) and poverty (27.2%) (DeNavas-Walt &

Proctor, 2014). Thus, race and ethnicity seem likely to affect the nature of a family member’s

experience of homicide bereavement and employment, making it an important consideration for

this study design. In addition, lack of racial diversity is a potential source of criticism of

previous studies involving those bereaved by homicide. Thus, through a purposeful sampling

plan, this study aimed to fill a gap in the research and to deepen current understandings on the

experience of homicide bereavement and employment among racial and ethnic minority groups.

In addition to seeking a racially diverse sample of participants, the sampling strategy also

focused on recruiting participants who were residents of the city of Boston. This sampling

decision was made thoughtfully with the intention of hopefully using research outcomes from

one of the nation’s largest cities to provide insights relevant to homicide survivors in urban

settings across the nation. The homicide rate for Boston has fluctuated over the past several

years, spiking in 2010 with 72 murders (Boston Police Department, 2010) and then gradually

45

dipping to 38 in 2013 (Cramer, 2013). The murder rate in the city went up again in 2014, with

54 homicides reported. In 2015, the murder rate dropped again, with a total of 38 (McGinnes,

2015). Given these statistics, Boston mirrors many urban settings across the country where

homicide remains a siginificant social issue and thererfore, seemed an ideal setting for this study.

Sampling Strategy and Participant Recruitment

This study utilized a purposeful sampling strategy to specifically recruit adults living in the

city of Boston who were bereaved by the murder of a family member and working at the time. In

qualitative research studies and specifically those with a grounded theory approach, purposeful

sampling is commonly used such that “the inquirer selects individuals and sites for study because

they can purposefully inform an understanding of the research problem and central phenomenon

in the study” (Creswell, 2007, p. 125). Thus, for the purposes of this study, participants were

recruited through the study’s community partner, the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, a site that

is located in Boston and deeply rooted in the homicide survivor community. Using guidelines for

grounded theory research (Creswell, 2007), the target sample size was estimated to be 20-30

participants.

Recruitment occurred during the period of March to August 2012. Initial recruitment

procedures involved posting the study Recruitment Flyer (Appendix C) on the Peace Institute

website and its Facebook page, as well as mailing it to the Peace Institute’s full mailing list of

family members of homicide victims and professionals working in homicide bereavement and

violence prevention (about 2000 people/organizations). At the same time, Peace Institute staff

members mentioned the study to clients they interacted with and had study flyers available on

the information table in the waiting area of the Peace Institute office. In addition, in May of

2012, I attended the monthly provider’s network meeting for professionals in Boston providing

46

support to those affected by homicide. At this meeting, I provided a brief presentation of the

study, its aims and goals, and distributed recruitment flyers to the attendees, inviting them to

share information about the study with those they served. Finally, in May of 2012, I attended the

annual Mother’s Day Walk for Peace, an event sponsored by the Peace Institute to support

family members and remember homicide victims. At this event, I had an information table about

the study, talked with attendees about the study, and made recruitment materials available to

anyone interested in the study.

Recruitment information for the study described the research aims and eligibility criteria and

noted that participants would receive $30 cash as a thank you for their participation. Those

interested in participating were invited to contact me directly through the study’s dedicated

phone line or email address at Simmons College. Most prospective participants became known to

me this way. In addition, some prospective participants provided me with their contact

information when they met me and learned more about the study during the Mother’s Day Walk

for Peace. These individuals gave their permission to be contacted for a follow-up conversation

to learn more about the study. Upon expressing interest in the study, all prospective participants

were screened by me via telephone using the study Screening Form (Appendix D). This form

described the study aims and procedures and included questions to gather basic demographic

information and determine participant eligibility. A total of thirty prospective participants

participated in screening phone calls. Of these, twenty met the study criteria and were screened

in and became study participants. Of the other ten prospective participants, seven were screened

out because they did not meet the study criteria, and three later decided not to participate.

47

Study Participants

A total of twenty family members of homicide victims participated in this study (see Table 1).

Of these, eight had one or more family members who also participated in the study. I determined

that relationships between participants were not detrimental to the study as each participant was

asked about his or her unique experiences of homicide bereavement and none worked for the

same employer or shared a workplace. All of the study participants identified as people of color,

with 15 (75%) identifying as Black/African American, 3 as Cape Verdean, 1 as British West

Indian, and 1 as Black/Native American. Eighteen of the study participants (90%) were female,

and two were male. Thirteen (65%) were parents of homicide victims. Of these, twelve were

mothers. Another 5 participants were siblings, one of whom was the victim’s twin. Of the final

two participants, one was the victim’s cousin and one was the victim’s sister-in law. The

participants ranged in age from 20-60 years old, with a mean age of 43.

As a condition of their participation in the study, all of the participants were employed at the

time of their family member’s murder (see Table 3). Seventeen of the participants were

employed full-time. Of those employed full-time, seven of them also held one or more part-time

jobs at the time of the homicide. All but one participant returned to his or her primary job

following the homicide. Of those working additional part-time jobs, four decide to leave part-

time positions, stating that the additional work became too much to manage in their grief. Of

those who returned to work, two reported being fired and two reported quitting their jobs soon

thereafter for work performance and/or physical and emotional issues that they related to their

grief. Three of the study participants were unemployed at the time of their interview. Of the

seventeen who were still working, five had changed jobs since the homicide. As a direct result

48

of their homicide bereavement experience, two of the participants left their previous work

positions to take new jobs in violence prevention and victim support services.

Together, the study participants represented 15 different homicide victims (see Table 2). Of

the fifteen victims, fourteen were male and all of them identified as people of color. The victims

ranged in age from 13-38, with a mean age of 22. All but one of the homicides occurred in the

city of Boston. The length of time since the homicide occurred ranged from 8 months to 9 years,

with a mean of 4 years. Thirteen of the fifteen homicides involved gun violence. Eleven of the

victims died as a result of fatal gunshot wounds alone, two by a combination of gunshot and stab

wounds, and two by stab wounds alone. Of the fifteen cases, seven remained unsolved. Of the

other eight cases, three involved suspected perpetrators who were subsequently murdered

themselves, two resulted in a conviction, two had trials pending, and one was awaiting a new

trial after a conviction was overturned on a legal technicality.

49

Table 1: Study Participants (N=20)

Variables %

Age (mean, range) 43 (20-60)

Race/EthnicityBlack/African American 75Cape Verdean 15British West Indian 5Black/Native American 5

Gender Female 90Male 20

Marital StatusMarried/Partnered 35 Single 40 Divorced 15 Widowed 10

Education<High School 5 High School/GED 20 Some College 20 Trade School 5 2 year College Degree 10 4 year College Degree 30 Master’s/Graduate Degree 10

Religious AffiliationChristian 95

Baptist 25 Pentecostal 25 Roman Catholic 15 Protestant 5 Non-Denominational 25

Other 5

Relationship to VictimMothers 60 Fathers 5 Siblings/Siblings In-Law 30 Cousins 5

Months since Homicide (mean, range) 48 (8-108)

50

Table 2: Victims’ Individual and Incident Characteristics (N=15)

Variables %

Age (mean, range) 22 (13-38)

Race/EthnicityBlack/African American 73 Cape Verdean 13 British West Indian 7 Black/Native American 7

Gender Male 93 Female 7

Location of HomicideBoston Metro 93 Outside Boston 7

Manner of DeathGunshot 73 Stabbing 13 Gunshot and Stabbing 13

Case ResolutionSolved 53 Unsolved 47

51

Table 3: Participants’ Employment Characteristics at the Time of Homicide (N=20)

Variables %

Employment StatusPart-time 15Full-time 85

Additional Part-time job(s) 42

Employment SectorHospital/Health Care/Public Health 45Social Services 20Education/Higher Education 15Insurance Industry 5Restaurant Industry 5Food/Beverage Retail 5Government/Civil Service 5

Type of JobHealth Care Professional 25Administrative Support Person 30Direct Social Service Provider 20Administrator 5Educator 5Food/Beverage Service Worker 10Civil Service Worker 5

Weekly Income$100-299 20$300-499 20$500-699 10$700-899 25$900-999 5Over $1000 15Missing 5

Length of Time off After HomicideOne week or less 252-3 weeks 154-6 weeks 307-12 weeks 2016 weeks 552 weeks 5

52

Data Collection

Upon being screened in as eligible to participate in this study, each of the twenty study

participants was scheduled for an interview during their screening phone call. At that time, they

were assigned a confidential participant identification number and were mailed a packet of study

information. This packet included a Participant Letter (Appendix E), Brief Participant

Questionnaire (Appendix F), Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (Appendix G), and Informed

Consent Form (Appendix H). The Participant Letter reviewed the aims of the study, reminded

the participant of the date, time, and location of his or her interview, and asked that they look

over the Brief Participant Questionnaire, Job Satisfaction Questionnaire, and Informed Consent

Form in preparation for their interview. In order to maximize participation, each participant was

called by telephone 24 hours prior to his or her interview as a reminder and to answer any

remaining questions related to participation.

A total of sixteen individual interviews and two joint interviews were conducted in-person

with the study participants. Each of the interviews took place in a private room at the office of

the study’s community partner, the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, located in Dorchester, MA.

Prior to beginning each interview, the study’s Informed Consent Form was reviewed with the

participant(s) and any questions they had were answered. Following execution of their informed

consent, each participant completed the Brief Participant Questionnaire and Job Satisfaction

Questionnaire and was provided with the study’s Resource List (Appendix I) which identified

local homicide support organizations and resources should they require additional assistance

following their participation in the study. Finally, each participant was provided with a $30 cash

incentive as a thank you for their participation in the study. Following completion of the study

materials, each participant was provided with a copy of their Informed Consent Form and the

53

interview began. Audio-recorded interviews, each lasting approximately 2 hours in length, were

conducted utilizing the Interview Guide/Revised Interview Guide (Appendices J & K) that was

constructed for the purposes of the study research.

Instrument Piloting and Inclusion of Co-Interviewer. During the initial phase of the study,

two pilot interviews (Interviews #1 and #2) were conducted in order to assess the data collection

instruments and procedures and to make necessary modifications before proceeding with

subsequent interviews (Creswell, 2007; Maxwell, 2005). Pilot interviews led to some changes

and additions to the study’s original Interview Guide (Appendix J) to better reflect the intentions

of the research and more effectively target the information sought through the interviews.

Subsequent interviews were conducted utilizing the study’s Revised Interview Guide (Appendix

K).

I was the primary interviewer for each of the interviews, conducting sixteen interviews alone.

Two of the initial interviews, one pilot (Interview #2) and one non-pilot (Interview #4), were

conducted with a co-interviewer, Robin Johnson-Warrington. Ms. Johnson-Warrington is an

African-American female who is a licensed social worker and a doctoral candidate with

experience in qualitative research and interviewing. The purpose of her participation as a co-

interviewer in the early phase of the study was two-fold. First, as someone who identifies as a

person of color, Ms. Warrington helped me (a white female) review how I was approaching the

research to assess my own level of cultural sensitivity and communication of respect for the

participants’ lived experiences of bereavement. Second, Ms. Warrington’s participation as a

second interviewer during piloting helped me to assess the effectiveness of the study Interview

Guide and to assess whether there appeared to be any issues or concerns with differences in

particular participant-interviewer racial and ethnic identities that might negatively affect data

54

collection. Debriefing conversations with Ms. Warrington following Interviews 1 and 2 assisted

me in modifying the study Interview Guide to make it a more effective research instrument. Our

discussions reviewing the interview dynamics between a white researcher and participants of

color resulted in our agreement that the racial and ethnic differences would not significantly

affect data collection. The pilot interviews were subsequently included in the overall data set for

the study.

Data Sources

Audio-recorded interviews with the participants and the written transcripts that were

generated from these interviews were the primary sources of data for this research study. In-

person interviews were conducted utilizing a semi-structured Interview Guide/Revised Interview

Guide (Appendix J & K) I created after extensive review of the research literature, engagement

with the homicide survivor community, and consideration of the aims of the research. The

Interview Guide was constructed and revised with primary questions and probes, according to

best practices in qualitative research (Padgett, 2007) which emphasize the need for interviews to

provide enough structure to gather necessary information around the study’s “key domains”

(Padgett, 2007, p. 103) while being flexible to allow the conversation to evolve. Prior to

implementation of the study and pilot interviews, staff members from the study’s community

partner organization, the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, reviewed and provided suggestions

regarding the questions and probes included in the Interview Guide. Maxwell (2005) suggests

that this process of initial piloting by individuals “as much like your planned interviewees as

possible” (p.93) is an important strategy to assess the effectiveness of one’s interview questions

and inform revisions prior to the study launch. As described in the previous section, further

revisions to the study Interview Guide were informed by pilot interviews conducted with the first

55

two study participants and the debriefing conversations that took place with the study’s co-

interviewer thereafter.

In addition to the qualitative data collected from interviews with the participants, this study

also included two discrete surveys: the Brief Participant Questionnaire (Appendix F) and the Job

Satisfaction Questionnaire (Appendix G). The purpose of each of these questionnaires was to

supplement the information obtained in the interviews to ensure that demographic, employment,

and work experience data was collected equally across participants. I designed each instrument

based on my prior literature review and with the help of Peace Institute staff to collect

information I believed would be important for contextualizing the interview data and describing

the sample. The Brief Participant Questionnaire consisted of 44 questions, which focused on

demographic information, information related the homicide, income and employment data, and

information related to the participant’s physical and emotional needs and sources of assistance

and support. The Job Satisfaction Questionnaire was a 12-item survey that asked participants to

rate their satisfaction with various aspects of their job (type of work, compensation, time-off, job

flexibility, etc.) at three points in time (before the murder, when they returned to work after the

murder, and now) using a Likert scale of 1 to 5 with one being not satisfied and 5 being

extremely satisfied. Each of these surveys was intentionally designed with the study aims in

mind and with the hope of collecting rich data that could address the research questions as

accurately as possible. Like the study Interview Guide, both the Brief Participant Questionnaire

and the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire were piloted by Peace Institute staff members and

revisions were made before the study began.

Ethical Considerations

This dissertation research study was reviewed and approved by the Simmons College

Institutional Review Board in November of 2011 (Appendix B) to ensure compliance with best

56

practices for ethical research and protection of the study participants. Following initial IRB

approval, 2 requests for revision to the study materials were made and approved. In addition, a

request to continue the study one year after the initial approval was made and granted.

Throughout the study, care was taken to reduce the potential for harm and protect the rights and

well-being of the study participants. In keeping with professional social work values and ethics

and Protection of Human Subjects guidelines, I treated the study participants, at all times, with

respect and dignity, fully disclosing the aims of the study, procedures for data collection &

analysis, and ways in which the findings would be used. The study followed all Simmons

College Institutional Review Board approval protocols, insuring that participants were fully

informed of the possible emotional risks and potential benefits of participating. These benefits

and risks were clearly outlined in the study’s written Informed Consent Form (Appendix H),

which was signed by all participants prior to their interview and completion of the other study

materials.

The primary areas of risk to the participants in this study were the potential for emotional

distress as a result of participating in the interview discussions and a possible breach of

confidentiality. These risks were anticipated and safeguards to address them were integrated into

the study design. First, all interviews were conducted by me alone or with the study co-

interviewer. Both of us are licensed independent clinical social workers (LICSW) with many

years of clinical experience. Our professional training provided us with the necessary expertise to

assure confidentiality and facilitate the interviews in a sensitive and caring manner and to gauge

the emotional needs of the participants. In addition, the study participants were recruited through

the community partner organization, the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, and interviews were

held at their office. This organization specializes in providing support and advocacy to homicide

57

survivors and served as a natural source of support. Peace Institute staff was available to provide

support to study participants before and after interviews. Finally, participants were provided with

a Resource List (Appendix I) of local and state support organizations and resources should they

need additional services following their participation in the study.

In order to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the study participants, several steps were

taken. First, following screening, all participants were assigned an identification number that was

used instead of their names on all documents pertaining to the study, with the exception of the

master list of participants, Screening Form, and Informed Consent Form. The master list and

completed Screening and Informed Consent Forms were kept in a locked file cabinet in my home

office and no one else had access to them. In addition to entering into a Memorandum of

Understanding which included a confidentiality agreement with the Peace Institute, interviews

were held in a private space within the Peace Institute office, in order to maximize participant

privacy and confidentiality. Immediately following each interview, the audio recording was

uploaded onto the researcher’s password-protected home computer and then deleted from the

portable recording device. All interviews were transcribed by a professional transcription

service, the Audio Transcription Center (“ATC”), located in Boston. The ATC is a reputable and

well-regarded service that was recommended by other researchers and has a secure site for

uploading interviews in preparation for transcription. As an additional protection, the ATC

executed a Professional Transcriber’s Assurance of Research Confidentiality (Appendix L),

formalizing their agreement to maintain the confidentiality of the study participants. Thus,

although professional transcribers had access to participants’ identifying information, necessary

steps were taken to assure that their privacy and confidentiality were maintained. No one other

than me, my co-interviewer, and the transcription service had access to the interview recordings

58

or written transcripts. In reporting the study findings, all participants were assigned a

pseudonym and specific references to their family member’s names or other identifying

information were removed or altered in ways that did not interfere with the integrity of the

research. In addition, employment information for each participant was purposefully generalized

to limit the possibility that they might be identified through this information. These protections

were intended to shield participant identities and reduce the risk of a breach in confidentiality.

As part of their participation in the study, each participant was provided with a $30 cash thank

you. This compensation was intended to show appreciation for their willingness to share their

experiences and to defray any costs associated with their participation (child care, travel

expenses, etc.). In addition to this concrete benefit, most participants described other benefits

that they derived from their participation in the study. While many shared that it was difficult to

talk about their bereavement and employment experiences, a number of them described feeling

gratified by having the chance to talk about their family member and to contribute to research

intended to help other homicide survivors.

Data Management and Analysis

Interviews with the study participants and the written transcripts of these interviews were the

primary sources of research data for this study. Where the Brief Participant Questionnaire and

Job Satisfaction Questionnaire were structured as research tools to supplement the study

interviews, they were not subjected to separate, in-depth data analysis. Both of these tools were

chiefly used as supplemental references to verify and triangulate what participants reported in

their interviews and the information reported in these questionnaires was substantively reflected

in the accounting of the qualitative findings. The Brief Participant Questionnaire was primarily

used as a reference tool to fill gaps and check for consistency of the information shared during

59

each interview. The twelve items from the Job Satisfaction Questionnaire were subjected to a

simple analysis that involved loading each participant’s responses onto an Excel spreadsheet and

calculating the aggregate mean for each item. This analysis was intended to provide an

understanding of the participants’ overall satisfaction with the various items related to their

employment prior to the homicide, upon returning to work following the homicide, and now.

As the primary source of research information for this study, the strategies used for managing

and analyzing the qualitative interview data followed best practices for grounded theory

research, as described by Corbin & Strauss (2008) as this orientation seemed best suited to the

aims and intentions of the research. Each interview was audio-recorded, listened to by the

researcher, and uploaded for transcription by a professional transcription service. The recording

from each of the interviews was then transcribed verbatim. Following transcription, each

interview transcript was uploaded to QSR International’s NVivo 9, a research software system

used to store, organize, and analyze research data. As a starting point for data analysis, the

transcripts for interviews 1 and 2 were each read line by line and thematic units were identified

within the text. Using NVivo, a system of preliminary codes and subcodes was inductively

developed by me through a process of open coding. Based on examples provided by Creswell

(2007), the study’s co-interviewer independently coded interviews 1 & 2 at the same time. Then,

meetings were held between me and the second coder to discuss the codes and coding structure.

This was followed by a line by line comparison of codes generated by each researcher for

interview 2 to ensure inter-coder agreement. As suggested by Miles & Huberman (1994) this

process of comparing codes with another researcher and gaining a sense of inter-coder agreement

is helpful in focusing the data and checking the reliability of the codes. Coding of subsequent

interviews was conducted independently by me. This process involved listening to each

60

recording several times and reading the interview transcripts in order to become immersed in the

data (Maxwell, 2005) followed by identifying themes and categorizing data units into existing

and new codes that represented those themes. Through axial and selective coding and a process

of constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), codes were then connected and related to one

another, to form a provisional analysis and interpretation of the data. Throughout this process of

data analysis, I wrote a total of 34 analytic memos (Creswell, 2007) in order to document and

track the coding strategy, document new insights and connections, and provide a log of analysis

decisions as they were made.

Once preliminary findings were developed, my initial plan was to engage in a process of

member checking by inviting a small group of study participants to individually review the data

and make suggestions for modifications. However, after completing the data analysis and

consulting with my dissertation Chair, Dr. Putnam, I decided not to follow through with this

plan. Together, we discussed the emotional nature of the data collection process for participants

and the potential risk of creating stress among study participants by asking them to review the

aggregated data. We determined that the risks outweighed the benefits in this case. Therefore,

instead, I presented my preliminary findings to members of Peace Institute staff in private and

then at a community colloquium at Simmons College in which faculty, Peace Institute staff, and

other professionals working with the homicide survivor community were present. In these

forums, I received feedback on the data and my interpretation of it. Once I have completed my

dissertation, I will present the study in an open public forum and invite all participants to attend,

along with any other interested survivors or professionals working with the survivor community.

In this way, the activity of confirming or disconfirming the analysis is not exclusively tasked to

the study participants, but is welcomed across stakeholder communities.

61

Credibility, Trustworthiness, and Rigor of the Research

In all forms of scientific inquiry, it is critical that the research be thoughtfully designed to

ensure the highest level of credibility. In keeping with best practices in qualitative research,

strategies for rigor were drawn from the literature (Kirk & Miller, 1986; Maxwell, 2005;

Marshall & Rossman, 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 2008; Padgett, 2008)

and integrated into the research design in order to address the primary areas where the validity of

the study could be questioned or compromised. Where reliability is a term more often used in

quantitative studies, this study has been designed with the goals of data dependability and

trustworthiness in mind, as these are more often the aims of qualitative work (Creswell, 2007;

Padgett, 2008).

A primary defining element in qualitative research is the intensive involvement of the

researcher. While objectivity is not an expressed goal in this type of research, it is nonetheless

considered important to the validity of a study for the researcher to disclose and examine his or

her perspectives and biases and the ways that these influence the work (Creswell, 2007;

Maxwell, 2005; Miles & Huberman, 1994). The researcher’s ability to be self-reflective and

maintain a sense of reflexivity throughout the research process is critical to the trustworthiness of

the findings (Padgett, 2008).

Throughout the past several years, I have engaged in intensive self-reflection specific to my

interest in undertaking this study for my doctoral research and how my own professional and

personal identity might influence this work. This has included ongoing conversations with key

advisors and mentors, the writing of researcher identity memos, open disclosure of my

motivations for pursuing this project, and an interrogation of the role of my racial identity.

Specifically, I am not an insider of the homicide bereavement community. I am not the family

62

member of a victim, nor am I a clinical professional serving them. Rather, my interest in

pursuing this research initially stemmed from contact with the family of a teenager who was

abducted and murdered, observations of their lives in the years that followed, and service on an

advisory committee for the foundation they created in her memory. In addition, I am a white

woman who engaged in a study with an sample fully comprised of people of color, inevitably

affecting and potentially limiting the research. A continuous acknowledgement and examination

of these aspects of my identity, my reasons for engaging in this research, and any biases I bring

to this work has been critically important to maintaining the integrity of the research.

As part of this dissertation research project, I purposefully initiated an ongoing, long-term

relationship with the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, a homicide survivor support organization

and the community partner for this study. In addition to volunteering as a supervisor for

master’s-level social work interns at the organization, my involvement with the Peace Institute

has included conversations with the executive director and staff members, and attendance at

board meetings, outreach and memorial events, and public hearings. As a result of this

engagement and partnership, my knowledge of and sensitivity to the complexities of homicide

bereavement have grown dramatically. In addition, my association with the Peace Institute has

allowed me, as an outsider, to gain greater credibility within the homicide bereavement

community. Each of these factors has enhanced and enriched the research study described here.

On the other hand, while this type of sustained engagement with the participant community is

considered beneficial to the research (Creswell, 2007), it does influence the research and can

increase researcher bias (Maxwell, 2005; Padgett, 2008). Thus, although my outsider status has

allowed me some objectivity, I have clearly been influenced by these experiences, interactions

with members of the homicide survivor community, and my prolonged engagement with the

63

issues. Each of these components of my identity creates a sense of subjectivity that can threaten

the trustworthiness of the research data. However, ongoing memo writing and early debriefing

with the study’s co-interviewer were specifically included in the study design to minimize this

effect.

In addition to the role of the researcher, the specific data collection methods employed in a

study have an obvious effect on the trustworthiness of study data and findings. With respect to

this study, it is important to acknowledge that the qualitative, interview design was intentionally

open ended and flexible to allow for spontaneous, in depth discussion between the researcher and

participants. Each interview took a slightly different path, depending upon the person being

interviewed and whether they were being interviewed by the primary researcher or the co-

interviewers together. With this variability in mind, the research design decisions for this study

were made thoughtfully to contribute to greater dependability of the findings. The deliberate

sampling methods used in this study were meant to ensure that a range of homicide survivors’

experiences were included, with a specific focus on those most affected by homicide – people of

color. The inclusion of a second interviewer for the initial interviews was intended to increase

the participants’ ability to be open and detailed in describing their thoughts and experiences and

to increase my cultural attunement skills so that the data were strong and rich. In addition, the

process of piloting and revising the Interview Guide, as the primary research instrument in the

study, was intended to provide assurance that it is a reliable tool through which the research

questions could be answered.

Beyond data collection, the data analysis techniques involved in a study can influence the

trustworthiness of the findings. To minimize threats to validity, several data analysis protocols

were included in this study’s design and were intended to increase the accuracy of the data and

64

any interpretations made in data analysis. First, the use of audio taping and verbatim

transcription of the interview discussions assured that the data used for analysis was accurate.

Second, the use of accepted coding methods, the inclusion of a second coder, and extensive

memoing to track coding and analysis decisions ensured that the data analysis process was

rigorous. Third, reviewing data findings with stakeholder audiences to ensure that the data

analysis accurately portrays the participants’ experiences was (and will be) useful to help

validate study findings. Finally, the data analysis included triangulation of the research findings

(Maxwell, 2005; Padgett, 2008) with the research and practice literature, field observations,

researcher memos, and the supplemental research instruments.

65

Table 4: Study Findings by Major Themes and Sub-Themes

Theme 1: Homicide is a Unique, Devastating & Traumatizing Loss, Challenging all Areas of Life

Shock, confusion, and overwhelming grief Homicide is “not normal”: Sudden, untimely, violent, and senseless Stigma, racialization, and disenfranchisement Victimization and angerPhysical and emotional effects

Theme 2: Working While Grieving a Homicide is ChallengingBeing unable to work and taking bereavement time off

Amount of time off Purpose of time off

Returning to workManaging grief and sadness in an unprepared workplaceGrief related job loss

Theme 3: Working While Grieving a Homicide is BeneficialWork as a protective factor, buffer, and coping resource

Work as normalcy, stability, respite from griefWork as social support and coping resource

Support in the immediate aftermath of the murderSupport upon return to work: Creation of coping-conducive employment

settingsSupport over time: Supporting the long term needs of homicide survivors

in the workplace

66

TABLE 5: Participant Job Satisfaction

(0 = not working at time, 1-5 = not satisfied-extremely satisfied)

Variables Mean

Before After Now Murder Murder

Overall job satisfaction 3.80 3.05 2.82

General Job SatisfactionType of work and work activities 3.85 2.74 3.12Work setting or environment 3.70 3.21 3.24Relationships with co-workers 3.55 3.63 3.35Relationship with direct supervisor 3.40 3.26 2.94Compensation/pay 3.00 2.63 2.53

Satisfaction with Job PoliciesTime-off 3.20 2.84 3.41Job flexibility 3.45 3.16 3.65(adjustments in work schedule)Accommodations at work 3.55 3.82 3.18(adjustments in duties)

Satisfaction with Job Response to GrievingSupport in caring for family’s needs 3.70 3.32 3.47Support in caring for own health needs 3.35 3.26 3.29Support in caring for own emotional 3.40 3.42 3.18and/or spiritual needs

* for all calculations, missing values and 0=not working at time, were removed

67

Figure 2: Conceptual Map Illustrating Findings

Employment

Can Enhance Coping With Homicide Bereavement

Employment Makes Homicide Bereavement Challenging

Homicide Bereavement Makes Employment Challenging

EMPLOYMENT

HOMICIDE BEREAVEMENT

68

Findings

The 20 participants who engaged in this study described the homicide bereavement

experience as an extremely destabilizing one that caused significant upheaval for them and their

families. All people of color, they reported that the unique grief that accompanied their family

member’s murder created physical, emotional, social, and spiritual challenges that threatened

their ability to function and cope, affecting all areas of their lives – including their employment.

Of the relationship between work and homicide bereavement, Monica, a 40 year-old Cape

Verdean nurse whose brother was killed, shared, “I think your job is very important when you're

going through something like this. Because it can either make you or break you.” When asked

whether her grief and homicide survivorship affected her work and vice versa, Cassandra, a 38

year-old African American woman who worked at a human services organization at the time of

her brother’s murder, offered the following:

That's a very good question. Immediately, I probably would have said yes. But then it's

like, I've got to think about why I'm saying yes. Like -- If I was at another job, you

know, doing something totally separate of this and I’m still a s-- you know, and I'm -- I'm

a survivor, of course -- it would be -- I guess it would be -- Yes. Because it doesn't really

matter what work you do. Of course it does. You're showing up every day. You could

throw family into that equation and just say, "Did your survivorship affect your family?

You know what I mean? Like it would be -- it could be anything. Of course! Because

it's not like it leaves you. It's with you and it's present, your -- your emotions, your -- the

-- your emotions, the -- your -- the emotional, physical, mental, all of that. Things come

into play every single day -- and every aspect of your work, everything that you do. How

do you respond to anything?... And so -- you know? -- like so, yes!...It's part of

69

everything.

Like Monica and Cassandra, the other participants described their homicide bereavement and

survivorship in similar ways, stating that it was connected to all aspects of their lives and thus,

connected to their employment experience. In each of their interviews, they detailed the many

ways that their employment and bereavement reciprocally influenced one another in the

immediate aftermath of the murder and as time went on. Overall, three main themes emerged

from this juxtaposition: 1) Homicide is a Unique, Devastating & Traumatizing Loss, Challenging

all Areas of Life; 2) Working While Grieving a Homicide is Challenging; and 3) Working While

Grieving a Homicide is Beneficial. These themes and their related subthemes are described in the

sections that follow.

Homicide is a Unique, Devastating & Traumatizing Loss, Challenging all Areas of Life

While each of the 20 study participants experienced their family member’s murder in their own

way, there was an overarching commonality among their narratives – that the homicide

bereavement experience is one that is unique, leaving family members not only devastated by

grief, sadness, and loss, but traumatized by the sudden, violent, and untimely nature of the death.

This combination of factors left them feeling overwhelmed with grief and, especially early on,

made it difficult to function and cope. As a way to begin to define the catastrophic affect of a

family member’s murder and its influence on all areas of their lives, including their job, the

participants described the upheaval they experienced as they learned of the death and struggled

to make sense of and manage the loss. Of the moments following her son’s shooting, Crystal, a

49 year-old African American mother and corporate employee, shared:

There was like a lot of people running. I actually came upon my son before a lot of -- like

I, I was standing over (my son), and -- and -- and just looking like I think it’s (him), I

70

didn’t want to believe that what I was looking at was -- was him…So when I saw this --

he had on jeans and the sneakers, it looked familiar to me, it just was -- you know I was

in shock. Um, so when they -- my neighbor actually identified him. Um, and I just fell

to the ground. My husband and I both just fell to the ground.

Like Crystal, many participants described feeling an intense and debilitating grief that

overwhelmed them physically and emotionally as they either directly experienced or were

notified of their family member’s murder. Monica captures these feelings poignantly as she

describes rushing to the hospital and being informed that her brother had died after being shot:

Oh my God, you feel like you're going into a dark cave. And it's like, you know you're

getting bad news. You know that feeling? Like, you just know you're getting bad news.

But then there's nobody there for you. And then, all I remember was, like, I, I blacked

out, and I fainted. And a security guard was holding me.

Similarly, Cassandra described the effect of learning of her brother’s murder as a sort of physical

and emotional disintegration, characterized by hopelessness, powerlessness, and loss of control:

The doctor came out. I didn’t even want to hear it. Because I already knew. Like I felt

like I knew. And I just walked away. And I called my dad, who was in (another state).

And I was like, “you have to really pray for me right now, because I really think that, you

know, I’m uh -- I’m like going to lose my mind or something.” and, of course, he -- he

doesn’t like really know what I’m talking about. and I said, “you know, (he)’s been –

(he’s) dead. and he was killed. I don’t know what happened. but I know that he’s dead.

like I know he’s dead.” and so my dad prayed with me and -- but it didn’t really help. but

I think like it helped somewhat, you know. and I’m just -- I guess I’m crying because I --

71

that was a time where I felt like I wasn’t really in control of myself -- oh, the only -- like

one of the only times -- uh of the two times. and so I uh just blacked out.

Shock, confusion, and overwhelming grief. As they struggled to absorb the news of

their family members’ murder, participants described the immediate aftermath as an intensely

shocking, confusing, and painful period. Although two participants were able to spend time with

their family members who were briefly placed on life support, most were abruptly and

unexpectedly faced with saying goodbye, something that seemed unreal and inconceivable.

Brenda, a 56 year-old African American mother and administrative assistant, shared:

Once they told me he was dead, I went on outside, I finally said to (hospital staff), I want

to see my son, because I didn't believe them. So they finally brought me in the room.

My baby's laying on this slab, mouth open, eyes open, blood everywhere. Little four-by-

four here, but I could tell that it was a hole. I closed his eyes. I closed his mouth. And I

rocked my baby and I was rockin' him and rockin' him. And then he breathed. So now

I'm yelling at the doctors because I'm saying, you know, my baby's not dead. You all lied

to me. And then they told me he just took his last breath. Well he took his last breath in

my arms.

For all participants, leaving the hospital without their family member was agonizing, rendering

them feeling empty, broken-hearted, and unsure how to go on. Victoria, a 43 year-old Cape

Verdean mother and administrative assistant, described:

He was gone. And I stayed with (my son) in the hospital until, like, two hours. I didn’t

want to come home. I cleaned his blood off his face, and, and I -- I just didn’t want to

leave him. It was hard, seeing somebody that you have in the womb grow, feel their

movement, life -- grow up so hard. And then to see him -- for somebody just to -- just

72

because you have a problem, you wanted his stuff, or whatever it was. For you to do that,

for you to take his life because you had a gun on you. You feel powerful to take

somebody’s life.

As they returned home to face life without their loved one, most participants shared that they

were barely able to comprehend the reality of the murder, even as they participated in their

family members’ wakes and funerals. Crystal, for example, described herself as a “zombie” who

felt numb during her son’s memorial service. Relatedly, Camille, a 48 year old African American

administrative assistant, shared that her son’s murder felt like a nightmare from which she kept

expecting to wake up. In the days following her son’s homicide, Beatrice, a 47 year-old African

American nurse, felt similarly:

I...I’d say I was lost for a moment. I was – thought I was -- I didn’t think it was a dream,

but it didn’t seem real. I know there was a lot of people coming and going around me

and telling me how sorry they are, and I’m wondering, why? I said, why are these people

telling me sorry? There’s nothing wrong. I was in denial at the time. There’s nothing

wrong. And I kept doing that for quite a while.

For Regina, a 44 year-old African American retail clerk, the days that followed her son’s murder

were, likewise, characterized by a sense of disbelief that left her feeling not only stunned, but

disorganized and unable to function:

It was really hard for me. The first -- those first days -- I couldn't really -- it was like

plannin' the funeral, what's he goin' wear, what you goin' to do -- what you goin' to cook,

who goin' come, where you gonna -- I'm like, “I don't know none of this. I don't know it;

I don't know it, don't ask me what you goin’ have -- what you want to say, what you want

to put on the obituary?” I couldn't think. I couldn't function.

73

In addition to the shock and confusion they experienced, the participants each described their

initial bereavement period as marked by intense sadness and overwhelming emotional distress.

As a way to illustrate this, Rose, a 46 year-old African American mother and pharmacy worker,

likened the loss to a physical wound that was inescapably painful:

…pain, it hurts, it hurts, you know if you can put your hand on an iron and take that, then

fine. But that's how it feels, it hurts that bad. So after you burn, it's like it takes hours to

cool, and your hand's gonna be sore, it's gonna be blistered for weeks, you know it hurts.

It just does not go away. So you know, no matter how many years or how many days,

you know, it just is pain you know. It's just pain.

Like Rose, the other participants universally described their early grief as all-consuming and, at

times, debilitating. Camille recalled:

After the burial and everything was over, um, (family and friends) found themselves

trying to, you know, um, keep checking on me to make sure I was OK. I would spend,

um, hours on the couch, listening to certain songs, and I would literally be there bawling

my eyes out for long periods of time.

Similarly, Dorothy, a 60 year-old African American mother who worked in human services,

characterized the period following her son’s death as a “scary darkness” that she felt would never

end, adding:

So I just felt like I was going to live the rest of my life totally miserable and I knew I

could never get past that and -- and that sick feeling. That real sick, sick depressed

feeling that just stays with you day and night. That was a big part of the problem that you

can never get rid of, you know? Can never get rid of it.

74

In some cases, participants shared that their post-homicide grief and sadness were so intense that

they considered drastic measures to seek relief. Dorothy, for example, shared that she was so

distressed that she thought about asking someone to “shoot (her) up” with drugs to try to ease her

pain. Others stated that they wanted to die, considering suicide as a remedy to their grief. Here,

Victoria explains:

And I think maybe, sometimes, you know in the beginning, I wanted to die. I wanted to

kill myself. I wanted to run in the streets, get hit by a car. I wanted to die. That’s when I

wanted to die. God forgive me.

In addition to the profound sense of grief and loss they felt individually, the participants

universally shared that the murder took a significant, devastating toll on their families. Many

shared that their grief was intensified as they witnessed the effect of the loss on other relatives,

particularly their parents, their surviving children, and the children left behind by their family

members who were killed. David, a 50 year old African American civil servant, provided this

illustration:

My son, he just had a moment and he said that he hadn't cried in a while. But I was

downstairs and I heard a wretch come out of my son and by the time I got up, I saw my

wife just rocking with him, you know holding him. And it gets me to the point of why

did this happen? Why is my family going…? We didn't do nothing to nobody.

While most participants described their family members as critical sources of support and some

shared that the murder had perhaps brought them closer, others described the ways it placed a

strain on family relationships. Cassandra, for example, shared that she found it difficult to

manage her own grief and her parents’ grief at the same time, especially in the immediate

aftermath of her brother’s death when they were trying to plan his funeral and things felt

75

particularly chaotic. Throughout this time, she shared that they “pointed fingers and blamed” one

another for what happened and that this exacerbated relationship difficulties that pre-dated the

murder. Of the effect her cousin’s murder had on her family, Selina, a 23 year-old Cape Verdean

woman and fast food worker, similarly shared:

…the family, like, changes completely. It comes with a big change…. Family-wise,

nobody -- I think there’s a lot of tension. It’s all this tension. Everything was --

everything was never perfect, you know? Nothing’s ever perfect, but after he got killed, it

was like a lot of tension in the house, because so many questions. It’s like, did anybody

really know anything that was going on? And I don’t know, no one really is close

anymore.

Overall, the participants described the murder as an emotionally devastating event that

irreparably damaged the family unit and left a hole that could never be filled. To illustrate this,

Nicole, a 24 year-old African-American healthcare employee who lost her brother-in-law, stated:

The way the family is, is, um, we, we, we love to have a good time. So it’s -- we

automatically know when someone’s not there…we can all be going out to eat, and

nobody’s really thinking too much about it. But then it’ll just be something -- just a flash

of somebody passing something over, and it just -- the, the instant reminder of him not

being there, it’s -- that’s what -- it just, continuously -- you know, it, it just makes it a lit--

a little harder, to try to, like, deal with it, you know what I mean?

Homicide is “not normal”: Sudden, untimely, violent, and senseless. According to the

study participants, the unique devastation and upheaval they and their family members

experienced was strongly linked to the sudden and untimely manner in which their loved ones’

lives were taken. Unlike other death losses where a family member is old or ill and death is

76

perhaps anticipated, the participants described the murders as coming without warning or

preparation, prematurely ending the lives of young, generally healthy people. Janet, a 56 year old

African American/Native American mother and teacher, explained:

It’s not like cancer or anything, where I had a chance to prepare for it and say, you know,

she’s comin’ down to the end, and I’m going to take a month off to be with her, and blah-

blah this...but I could prepare for that. This was like hello, your daughter’s dead, what

are you going to do?

In addition to being unexpected and untimely, the participants viewed the violent, intentional,

and malicious way in which their family members died as fundamentally incomprehensible,

rupturing the typical, expected, “normal” course of life. Here, Brenda shares:

Somebody killed my child, they literally killed my child. I mean sometimes it's hard for

me to phantom (sic) that somebody literally killed my kid…that's not normal. It's not

normal to have somebody go out there and kill somebody. At least to me it's not, it's not

a normal part of life.

For most of the participants, the intense distress they felt was further exacerbated by the fact that

the murder felt unexplainable and seemingly senseless. While a few were aware that their family

members had been involved in previous incidents of violence or situations that could place them

at risk, the majority shared that they could think of no explanation for the murders. For these

participants, the deaths seemed to be random and/or unjustified acts of community violence,

taking the lives of average, non-violent people. Tanya, a 20 year-old African America

community service worker, for example, shared that she felt nagged by unanswered questions

about why her brother who she described as “just a kid tryin’ to be someone,” was murdered.

Regina described a similar struggle in reconciling why her son was targeted, stating: “He didn’t

77

hang out with no thugs, no killers, no, nobody like that, so who would want to gun him, I mean,

gun him down?” Many other participants, likewise, shared that their bereavement was

complicated by a preoccupation with ongoing questions about who killed their family member

and why. James, a 30 year-old African American health worker, stated:

Oh, it’s nerve-wracking, you know? It’s, it’s, it’s stressful, you know, not -- then not

knowing who the person was, why it happened. And then you know, like -- it’d be

different if you know, like, you -- know, your loved one, or, or someone you know was a

bad person. Then you figure, like, oh, well, they deserved it. You know, they wasn’t a

good person. They, they were out there in the streets. They was living the -- that bad life

that, you know, they, they had corrupted. You know? To know in my mind and my

heart, like, well, my brother wasn’t like that. You know, he didn’t even fall into that

category.

In their efforts to make sense of the murder, some participants wondered if they might have

somehow contributed to their family member’s death. Regina, for example, imagined:

I’m thinkin’, like, “Did I do somethin’ for God to be like -- to punish me?” ’cause he

know that’s my heart, and I know, but I’s -- but I asked him, and, you know, that’s

another issue, too. That’s another thing, to have another day -- that’s, I guess, somethin’ I

deal with, and, because I asked God, too -- “Was it somethin’ I did, bad?” and I said I

wasn’t, and it’s like a punishment, you know?

In a related way, other participants wondered if they could have done something differently to

prevent their family member from being killed. James, for example, shared:

I wish I was there to protect him, you know? To... You know, I would rather be like,

“Hey, man. If you don’t know why you’re doing this, or what’s the... Kill me.” You

78

know, he’s still young, you know? You know, when I saw that blood -- oh, I wish

someone was there with him. And I felt like if someone was with him, he wouldn’t have

got murdered. Someone saw him in a vulnerable state, and they took advantage of it.

They took his life. But if they would have saw that he had someone there with him, it, it

might have, wouldn’t have went down that way.

With few answers about why the murders happened, many participants came to view the deaths

as cases of mistaken identity, random acts of violence, or acts of revenge between gangs where

their family members were innocent victims. David, for example, shared that the police

described his son’s murder as a “casualty of war” that came with community violence. He and

many other participants characterized having their family members die violently and senselessly

as an additional, compounding emotional injury, causing them to look at the world in a new,

more negative, and cynical way. Crystal explains:

It’s just hard to comprehend, you don’t -- you don’t think that just because your -- your

child might not be involved in gang activity, or you know negative activity, doesn’t

necessarily mean that nothing bad won’t happen. Because they live -- we live in a

wicked world.

Similarly, Monica shared:

But then when you see things happen every day, like, bad things every day in the news.

You just hear bad things every day, every day. It's like, what's the point? It just really

changed the way I think about things in life. And I don't know if I'll ever be the same

again. I really don't. And I've lost a lot of passion for a lot of things. I just live to live. I

live to live. That's it. I do what I have to do, and that's it. But I don't have that passion

79

that I used to have for life. I just don't. I just know that anybody can come up to me,

shoot me, drive away, and get away with it. That's all I know.

Stigma, racialization, and disenfranchisement. As an additional factor that made their grief

unique and more challenging, most participants described feeling a sense of stigmatization and

social judgment brought on by the violent nature of the death and public perception that people

and communities hurt by violence must have done something to deserve it. Thus, regardless of

their belief in the innocence of their family members, they felt subjected to public scrutiny that

required them to defend their family member’s innocence, their own integrity, and the legitimacy

of their grief. For some, difficult and often insensitive questions or comments about the murder

made them feel more like perpetrators than victims. Crystal offered the following illustration:

The police officer asked my mother was he in a gang? And she said no, you know he

was a good boy, it was like -- and that, when my mom told me that, I was like really? It’s

like that’s what he asked you?...so then she -- now she has to feel like she has to um

defend (my son’s) honor. You know, no, he was a good boy. You know, and -- and it’s

just hard, because I recognize that yeah, there are some who are in gangs. You know?

But my son wasn’t, you know? But is that really the -- you know, I mean what if he was?

What if he was? You know did he deserve that? Does anyone deserve that? No. No one

deserves that, you know?

James, similarly, felt judged by people close to him who questioned his brother’s involvement in

activities that might have contributed to his death:

Sometimes, you get people in the house, uh, that -- you know, that -- you know, people

ask me, like, “Oh, well, you sure he wasn’t in any, any gangs?” Or, “How do you know

what -- what was he about?” You know, some people try to put that pre-judgment

80

already. And they don’t know. You know, to -- you know, you have to explain to them

that... And then, maybe, sometimes they go, “Oh, oh, I’m sorry.”

At times, the participants,’ all of whom described themselves as people of color, had experiences

of stigmatization that were complicated by veiled or overtly racist comments and/or assumptions

about their families and their loved one who was murdered. David, for example, shared:

There was a lot of things that were said that you know, parents probably are not home,

because the children run rampant, you know. The father's probably locked up, the

mother's bringing the children up and you know. But that's not my story. My story is a

little corny to some you know. We, we've worked, me and my wife, together, and we've

reared our children up a certain way, which may sound corny to others but that's our story

and we're sticking to it.

Rita, a 44 year-old British West Indian administrative assistant, similarly described feeling

vilified by the media’s inaccurate, racially stereotyped portrayal of her as “some type of mother

on welfare” who “had a whole lot of children,” fueling cruel, racists remarks and judgment by

the public:

And, you know, the comments from people and stuff you know, just made, made you feel

even worse. That I didn’t even wanna watch the TV. The way they talked to me about

my son being killed, um, that’s what I get. I was a nigger, and black, that’s what black

people do is just kill themselves off, and, you know, and I’m like, I can’t believe these

people are sayin’ this to me.

Victimization and anger. For many participants, the unique combination of factors that

defined their bereavement experience engendered deep and disruptive feelings of victimization

and anger that contributed to and compounded their grief. Several described feeling angry toward

81

the person or persons, often unknown, who took their family member’s life. Brenda, for

example, shared:

I'm hoping that um, as the years go on that I'll be able to internalize that anger, because

the anger is so deep and there are days that I'm so, so bitter, you know, those are the days

that I ask for God please take some of this bitterness from me, because I'm not a bitter

person. But (the perpetrator) has made me so, so, so bitter. I've never really been a

bitter, angry person until this.

For some participants, their anger at the perpetrator was extended to a desire for revenge. Janet

explains:

…At first you feel, you know, a lot of rage and you feel I want them killed, or I want

them, you know, you even say I want -- I’m going to get someone to kill them...But, um,

and, and sometimes, you feel like it doesn’t even matter, you know, because...because it

doesn’t really make any difference in the end; she’s already gone, so.

Other participants, especially those with unsolved cases, described feeling angry with the police

for not doing more to stop episodes of violence in the community and hold perpetrators

accountable. Rose shared:

I was sort of pissed, because I'm like if the cops knew that his name was out there, they

shoulda really protected him. That's my honest opinion. These are all our young boys,

all our young men, you know. And at the end of the day, I feel like they were all related,

you know you keep meeting people - this is just family, I just feel like we're all one big

family and I just think that these boys get lost. Like I say, I also know that I could've

been the mother on the other side.

82

Others felt victimized by and angry with police for managing their family members’ murders

with a sense of apathy and desensitization to violence. Some suggested that this too was,

perhaps, fueled by racism. Monica shared:

It's like, "can't you put two and two together?" Like, "do I have to do your job?" Like,

they just -- they just don't care. To me, I feel like they're just like, "you know what? It's

just another dead nigger, I don't care." That's how I feel. I'm sorry, that's the way I feel.

I, I really feel like that's the way they feel. “So what? That's just another dead black man.

I don't care.”

As an extension of the anger they felt toward the police, several participants also described

feeling frustrated and angry with community members who, out of fear, refused to come forward

with information that could potentially solve the murder. Dorothy explained her experience like

this:

And um the detective said that they don’t have any information because the kids in the

neighborhood, you know. Everybody says they don’t know anything. But I was just

angry because I know they know that it was the defendant (in a related case) is

responsible. And I felt like they -- there was more they could do. I know, but nothing’s

been done.

Not having their cases solved seemed to be an additional emotional wound for many participants,

intensifying their feelings of loss and leaving them stuck in a perpetual state of anger, suffering,

and unrest. Monica shared:

I'm just so angry. I'm so angry. Like, I'm sad that my brother's gone, but then I'm so

angry that there's no justice. There's no justice. It's a life taken. It's a life taken. It's a

83

young man. A 30-year-old man, with a daughter. And he can't be a father to his daughter

anymore, because he's gone. And now there's no justice.

Physical and emotional effects. Given the unique nature of their bereavement experience,

many participants emphasized the physical and emotional toll the murder took on them and the

ways this ultimately affected their employment. As a direct result of their family member’s

death, several reported experiencing new stress- and grief-related ailments or the intensification

of pre-existing illnesses. Monica and Crystal, for example, began to experience regular migraine

headaches, while Victoria had to be treated for chronic, unexplained dizziness. Brenda was

diagnosed with shingles twice in the months after her son’s death and, additionally, experienced

an inability to control the pain associated with her pre-existing fibromyalgia. Dorothy

experienced increased pain from her rheumatoid arthritis, coupled with new breathing difficulties

and heart palpitations. Rita equated her grief with a significant escalation of her already

dangerous hypertension, stating that her blood pressure became “sky high” after her son was

killed. After her son’s murder, Rose experienced an intensification of her asthma as well as a

bout of diverticulitis, which she directly connected to the stress brought on by grief:

And if I get stressed about (my son) or if I start worrying about (him), I get such a pain

like this in the side. And I said to myself, I must've carried him over there.

In addition to the many examples they provided of specific, grief-related illnesses, several

participants expressed feeling generally “sore” and/or “sick,” with no known physical diagnosis

or cause, only later recognizing the ways that their grief was affecting their overall health. James

described his experience like this:

It came to a point where…where I had to go into the hospital, due to all of this stress.

84

A nurse looked at me and said, “Hey, you’re gonna break down. I -- I’m afraid for you.

You have to go check yourself into the hospital.” And I done that. You know, and

they’re like, “Hey,” you know. Like, “Your vitals are not looking good. And we can tell

by your, your, your mind frame, your appearance.” Like, “You’re not really stable.”

In addition to the ways that their grief compromised their physical well-being, several

participants shared that the emotional distress created by their family member’s murder

exacerbated pre-existing mental health problems or was the catalyst for newly diagnosed

depression, anxiety, and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Brenda, for example, stated that she

had a “mini breakdown” when her son was killed, while Rose shared that she required in-patient

psychiatric treatment following her son’s death. Similarly, Dorothy experienced an

intensification of her pre-existing anxiety disorder, while Victoria simply described herself as an

“emotional wreck,” in the aftermath of the murder. Several, like Crystal, experienced newly

diagnosed depression stemming from their grief:

I even had gone to um my primary care physician -- I think it had been six months…But

he said something to the effect like…the process of grieving is like three months or

something like that. And um, once you go into like six months to a year, it’s like

depression. So he felt like I was like -- I -- he was diagnosing me as depressed because

when -- when he asked me questions -- certain questions, and I started talking about (my

son), I couldn’t -- I just started crying. I would just start crying. So he equated that to

like I was depressed, because I was still crying.

In addition to symptoms of depression and anxiety, several participants described specific

indicators of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, often in combination with one another, which

significantly affected their lives after the murder. These included avoidance of places or

85

situations associated with the murder, significant sleep disturbances, difficulty concentrating,

fear that another family member might also be killed, and hypervigilance. Victoria, for example,

shared:

I don’t think. I can’t sleep. I cannot sleep. In the beginning, I used to turn the lights on

in order to go to sleep. Me and the kids, I have to make sure the windows is locked

tightly. I was always, like, in fear, looking around. I’m a mess emotionally. I’m

constantly thinking. I’m in a daze, constantly. If it wasn’t for those kids, I probably

would be gone.

Other participants described additional PTSD indicators, including distressing images of the

circumstances surrounding their family member’s murder. Cassandra, for example, shared that

she replayed in her mind videotaped footage of her brother running for his life and “the horror

that he must have felt of somebody wanting to kill him for nothing.” James struggled with

similar visualizations of his brother’s death:

Even though I wasn’t there. But just seeing it on the news, and what they described -- it

gave me that mental picture of, of how he was … they stated he was running for his life,

as the person was shooting at him. He, he was trying to, you know, run for his life …

that really hurts to hear that… he was running for his life, and still didn’t make it…This

person was so persistent to kill him …that’s disturbing, you know, to, to watch that and,

you know, see bullet casings. To go -- to even go back to the murder scene, and see

blood dried up on the concrete, and see bullet holes in wood frames of buildings, and

different things. And, you know, it’s that -- it’s that flashback, like, wow. Like, wow.

Like, all of this, for what?

86

Other participants described living with intrusive visual and/or auditory memories associated

with the murder. For Monica, this involved recurrent memories of viewing her brother’s body:

Like, I needed to see my brother. I didn't -- I wasn't just gonna go see my brother at the

funeral home. I needed to see my brother. You know, it's funny, because it's something

that I don't even think about a lot. Because I try not to think about that night so much,

because this is the reason why I haven't -- I wasn't sleeping so much, because all my

thoughts -- the -- my racing thoughts was of that -- of that night. I was just -- seeing my

brother -- just seeing his face on that night. And that's not the way I want to remember

my brother. I don't want to remember him like that.

Brenda described feeling emotionally triggered by sounds that reminded her of her son’s death:

July 4th was the worst day of my life after my son, those firecrackers, oh my God. I

thought I was gonna lose my mind. Even being in my home, because they were still --

I went crazy. I don't know what this year's gonna be like, but I know last year I thought I

was gonna lose my -- that's all I just kept thinking, all I could hear is those gunshots and

that was my son that was being killed. Those firecrackers just oh my God.

Finally, several reported feeling re-traumatized by media reports of other murders or by watching

friends lose their loved ones violently. The participants described these other murders as

triggering, re-igniting their own grief. To illustrate this, Margaret, a 49 year-old African

American human services worker, described how she felt when her friend’s son was killed:

She said, "Help me." She just cried… and she said, "Help me. Help me. What do I do?

What do I do?" Because they knew that I lost my son. And she said, "What do I do?

What do I do? Help me. What do I do? The pain! The pain!" And I just -- oh my God,

I woke up the next morning, and I -- it was like (my son) had died all over again. I was

87

all messed up. I -- she just held me, and said, "What do I do? Tell me. Tell me, what do

I do?" Like, "Help me with this pain. What do I do? What do I do?" And it was, like --

it was so deep, like, she wouldn't let me go. And it was, like, her pain just went right

through me. It was like, "What do I do? Tell me." It was like your body's on fire. She

just felt all alone, and I just felt her pain.

Working While Grieving a Homicide is Challenging

Being unable to work and taking bereavement time off. Given the unique, multi-layered

bereavement challenges they faced following the homicide of their family members, all of the

participants reported that they needed time off from their jobs to grieve. Most shared that it

would have been impossible for them to work during the period following the murder given the

intensity of the emotions they felt and functional difficulties they experienced, especially early

on.

Amount of time off. The amount of bereavement time the participants took off from their jobs

varied, ranging from just a few days to several weeks, with half of them taking between four and

twelve weeks away from work. The length of each participant’s bereavement leave depended on

a number of factors including their perceptions about how much time they needed, what they felt

their workplace would tolerate, the type(s) of grief-related challenges they faced, and the type of

job or jobs they held. Among the most important factors influencing how much time the

participants took off was whether the leave was paid and how supportive the workplace was in

response to their need for time off. Most described feeling strongly supported by their

supervisors and co-workers who encouraged them to take as much time off as they needed. For

example, Florence, a 60 year-old African American mother who took a fully-paid month off

from her job in human services, reported being told by her co-workers “don’t come back until

88

you feel like you have to.” Dorothy had a similar experience, sharing:

My boss, the director. She was like “no no you can't come back, you need some more

time.” They basically just kept telling me you need more time. And I kept saying I just

need to work. I need to not think and they said you need the time and you know they

were recommending you know counseling and giving me numbers you know…People

were just like very supportive. Very supportive. I was out six weeks - six, seven weeks.

And I got a paycheck every week. You know some of the coworkers wanted to give me

their -- that have been there for years - wanted to give me their time, stuff like that. I had

so much comp time and vacation and -- and I had a lot of time and they all just said you

know, you know, they just kept saying don’t worry about it, don’t worry about it.

Like these participants, many who took comparatively more time off reported being paid

throughout their leaves, initially receiving bereavement pay and then using either their

vacation/earned time, short-term disability, or time donated by co-workers. For some, workplace

expressions of support allowed them the flexibility to leave their bereavement time off somewhat

open-ended, taking it day by day or week by week, rather than establishing a firm date that they

would return to work. This was particularly important for several participants who extended their

initial leave after realizing they were not ready to return to work. Camille, for example, shared:

Well, I didn’t have to ask for it. My director was very, very understanding, and -- and,

you know, very sympathetic to my situation, and basically said, “You’re taking a month

off.” You know, I didn’t ask for any time. He was like -- first they gave me an

additional week, yes, they gave me an additional week, and then I tried to come back, and

I still couldn’t, you know, hold it together. And then he said, “You need to take some

time. We can give you a whole month.” So then I took that month off.

89

Nicole had a similar experience, describing here how her supervisor reacted when she requested

additional time off:

“Do what you need to do. Um, and don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about work.” You

know, “Don't worry about it. And when you’re ready, and you think you are mentally

ready to do what you need to do,” you know, “just call us.” … I couldn’t... I wasn’t

gonna be able to (laughter) -- to think about what I’m doing, and then -- I’m thinking

about this, so -- and, and they were understanding. You know, and the fact that I was

able to leave and, you know, take time off. I think I didn’t -- I think I left work for two or

three months. And, was able to call back and say, “Hey,” you know, “How’s

everything?” And my supervisor was very happy to hear from me. And like, “Yeah,

well, can you come in on this date?” I’m like, “Yeah!” You know, and I’ve been back

there since then.

In contrast to the participants who were encouraged to take the time off they needed to grieve

and adjust to the murder, some did not feel as well supported. Selina, for example, shared this

account of her supervisor’s reaction to her request for time off after her cousin’s murder:

So, I -- instead of calling, I actually went in to her, like, maybe an hour or two before (my

shift), because I didn’t get a chance to really call. And I told her -- she has the most

attitude in the world, ever. Because I told her, I’m like, um, my cousin got killed

yesterday, and I won't be coming in today. And I wasn’t expecting to be like, I won't be

coming in the next day, because I was expecting her to be like, oh my goodness, you

don’t need to come in the next couple of days. But she was just like, “Oh, are you serious

that you can't come in today?” I was like, well, I’m really not coming in -- in my head, I

really wanted to be like, I’m not coming in to give some cheeseburgers in the window

90

when my cousin just got killed, you know?...So I’m like -- I just looked at her, but I never

went -- I didn’t go to work, I probably went to work maybe two weeks later.

Like Selina, other participants took relatively short bereavement leaves because they felt unable

to take the time they needed to grieve. Cassandra, for example, reported taking only a few days

off after her brother’s murder. In retrospect, she felt she “probably needed a month” to adjust to

the loss, but returned too soon out of a sense of duty to her work and because she had a

demanding and difficult supervisor. James, too, stayed out of work only long enough to attend

his brother’s funeral. He shared that, although he felt generally emotionally unstable and unready

to return to work, he had no choice because his workplace depended on him and additional time

off would have been without pay. Regina, too, took only two weeks off following her son’s

murder because her leave was unpaid and she needed the income, simply stating, “I did want the

time. But I couldn’t take the time. Because then that means no money!” She emphasized how

difficult this was and provided the following suggestions for employers of homicide survivors:

Like, if -- like, like if they needed to take off time to get off time with pay. If they had to

be -- you know, if they had to take a month, or, you know, a few weeks off or something,

at least know that there’s -- they -- their job will be secure. And that, at, you know, at

least give them maybe two weeks or something, paid. Maybe if you -- you was out for a

month -- maybe just say, “Well, we’ll -- we can give you a week or two weeks pay” at a

job. You know, something like that, you know, so that you can know that, you know,

you’re stable.

Regardless of the amount of time off they took, all of the participants agreed that the standard 3-

5 days of bereavement leave offered by most employers was insufficient for them and other

homicide survivors. For example, when asked if less bereavement time off would have been

91

appropriate in her case, Margaret simply stated, “I think anything sooner (than four weeks), I

wouldn't have kept that job…I wouldn't have went back.” Camille felt similarly, sharing:

Most places have just a standard week, you know?... Of bereavement. And I, you know

-- when -- when your news -- it’s hard enough, you know, to lose a child, you know, let’s

say because of a illness or whatever. You may be expecting it to take place at some

point. But when you lose a child unexpectedly and tragically, you know, it’s just -- it’s --

it’s -- it’s -- it’s -- it’s just a shock beyond belief. And I think, um, workplace...

environment needs to be a little bit... more sensitive when something like this happens

because, you know, everyone handles their loss very differently, you know? Some

people can come back to work the next week. Some people may need more time. So I

think it needs to be more individualized. You know what I mean? I think, you know, my

process is not your process or is not this person’s process or that person’s process. So

you can’t have a standardized week. You know, set for -- for people to supposedly pull

themselves together and get back to work, you know what I mean?

Brenda emphasized similar points:

I really believe a bereavement program should be implemented. Specifically to homicide,

yes. Because your regular bereavement, most companies have that, you get three days

for mother, brother, you see what I'm saying, but that three days can't touch a homicide.

You see, and, and I, some companies may only give you a week or two. There's no way

we can go back to work in two weeks. For me going back in five was doing good…I

guess they probably figured me being home for five weeks was enough. Five weeks was

not enough. It definitely, definitely was not enough.

92

Purpose of time off. In describing the purpose of their bereavement leave, the participants

shared that their time away from work was important in a number of ways. They characterized it

as critical time that they needed to mourn, address the physical and emotional issues that arose as

a result of their grief, care for their family members who were also grieving, manage the

logistical and legal issues associated with the murder, and generally adjust to life without their

loved one. Here, Crystal illustrates what many participants described as the need to be away

from work in order to freely express the emotions they felt in response to the loss:

The benefit of being home was just that I didn’t have to -- I didn’t have to deal with like

um -- if I wanted to cry, I didn’t have to run into a bathroom, or -- you know, or compose

myself. Because I could just let myself do -- and I did that. I -- I did that, I -- oh. Had

my days when everyone would leave -- because I didn’t want to disturb anyone. So I

would keep it together until my husband would -- he -- he stayed, he was home for I think

three months. And I would just keep it together until he went to work, and the kids went

to school, and then I could just -- just -- just have my release, and I would just look at

(my son’s) pictures, look at the cards that people had sent, and just you know, and just

cry. I needed to cry. And I spent a lot of time crying that whole year.

In a similar way, others shared that the sudden, traumatic nature of the loss required additional

time to adjust, grieve, and observe their family member’s death. Beatrice recalled that, for her,

this meant needing time at her son’s gravesite:

I went there several days, just sit there for hours and hours. I sat there for hours and days

and days, and if I could not go -- I remember one point I didn’t have a car. My car -- I’d

been in an accident with the car, and I couldn’t go because it’s all the way in (another

section of the city), so I took buses, then I walked, and it was getting dark. But I knew I

93

had to do it. I just had to go. I would take a chair with me sometimes and sit there. And

to be honest, I felt more at peace there than home.

For other participants, it felt particularly important to be at home to care for and get mutual

support from other grieving family members. David described his experience like this:

I used it all (earned time). Um, and I can remember one boss, the boss that was there

before the guy who's there now. I remember he called, he called my house, because --

maybe two months after and I said you know what, I'm going to go back. But every time

I got to the point where I think I'm going back, you know what, I'm not coming back, you

know… I just need to go back, but I need to know how my wife is doing, and if I leave

her alone... I felt that I can't leave her, and I don't know if she felt that about me. Or, I

don't know if I wanted to be alone. But as long as she was home and I was home, that

was good.

As they mourned, all of the participants also spent part of their bereavement time off interacting

with the criminal justice system as investigations into their family members’ murders got

underway. For a few, this meant attending early court hearings where they faced their loved

one’s accused killers, experiences that would have been difficult to manage while working.

Brenda recounted:

We went to court (a month after my son’s murder) for the, the hearing. Um, I forgave the

mom, I mean the mom didn't, as I said to her, you didn't raise a murderer. The street did

this. This is, you know, my family was very, very upset with me, because I gave, gave

her a hug. I'm like, she didn't do anything. It's her son, and I mean I can't heal if I can't

forgive. So this is you know, but I don't, like I said to her, there's two lives lost, because

yup I have to go to a stone to see mine, you have to go, you have to get a collect call or

94

go to any, any jail that he's gonna be in. So and, in a situation like this, there's two lives

lost, you know. Both families are hurtin'. Unfortunately you know because everybody

always thinks about the one that had the loss, but there are two losses here.

For many participants, bereavement time off also provided them with the opportunity to connect

with various resources for grief support to supplement the aid they received from family and

friends and, ultimately, ready them for their return to work. Several described God, their

faith/spirituality, and people affiliated with their spiritual community as critical coping resources.

For example, Dominique, a 29 year-old African American woman, shared that going back to

church after her brother’s murder allowed her to feel supported in her own healing. Camille felt

similarly, stating:

I mean, going to church every Sunday was very therapeutic. Because the first year was

very, very tough, because after he died…then it was missing him on Thanksgiving, and,

um -- because everyone -- when (he) came around, um, he just lit up everybody’s, you

know, eyes. Um, and then it was his birthday. Then it was his daughter’s birthday, then

it was Christmas, and then New Year’s, and then my birthday. He would always have a

nice gift for his mom. And then Mother’s Day, you know? It just went on and on. So

the first year, going through all those holidays was very, very tough. Um, so again, for

me, um, I think my saving grace was constantly going to church-- and hearing the Word,

and, um, you know, a lot of the church members, you know, reached out to me, you

know, um, if you need anybody to talk to, uh, you know, here’s my number, you know?

But just being able to find that... inner peace, in a sense, and that acceptance, you know,

really helped by going to church.

The majority of the study participants also sought coping support from community groups,

95

organizations, and individuals specifically serving those affected by homicide. For some, these

resources became a necessary anchor in their grieving process, offering connections to other

survivors who had experienced similar losses. Crystal explained:

In the early stages, I needed to talk to another mother who could relate, you know? I

mean I had my support, my mom, but I needed someone who -- And the night that we

were at the hospital, I remember getting the pamphlet of (a survivor support

organization), but we hadn’t, you know, connected at that time. And it was about

probably three months later, uh, maybe even four. Um, I had gotten a, a flyer in the mail

for their survivor’s academy. And -- and (the Director) had written a little personal

something on it. And that touched me. And um, and it was another one of those days

where I was feeling low, I wasn’t back to work, I was still not working at the time. And

um, I called the number…and I was like hi, and said I just received this, you know, and I

just went on to talk to her, and -- and she says you know, she says if you like you can

come in now. She says you can come, you can come right now. And I took her at that

word, and -- and actually I got in the car, and I ended up right there…

In addition to the support of survivor organizations and advocates, several participants reported

seeking focused clinical assistance during their time off. Sometimes supplemented with

medication, this support helped them cope with their grief and allowed them to generally feel

more stable. Many engaged in individual and/or group counseling services that focused on their

loss, often provided by a professional specializing in homicide bereavement. For example, of the

homicide support program she utilized following her son’s death, Camille stated “that program

saved me, I think,” elaborating on the benefits of counseling here:

96

Just being able to talk to someone. You know what I mean? Um, not that he -- the person

that I saw -- not that he could relate, because, um, I didn’t get that sense. But just to be

able to listen to me and let me cry and let me, you know, grieve, if you will, um, it was

very therapeutic for me to speak with someone outside of my family realm, you know

what I mean? Um, offer me an outlet just for me, an outlet just for me. You know what I

mean? Um, allowed me to cry, allowed me to understand what I feel and what I’m

feeling is natural.

Returning to work: All but one of the study participants ultimately returned to their primary

employment positions following the murder. In spite of the intense feelings of sadness and loss

they felt in the wake of their family member’s death, most shared that they knew they would

return to work following their bereavement time off because their financial security and family’s

well-being depended on it, they enjoyed their work, and/or their job was part of their long term

professional goals. Here, Dominique explains:

You know, and so, I had aspirations, you know, um -- obviously, wanted to finish school,

you know, and -- and -- and move forward with my career. Um, and keeping my job was

also on -- on my list of to-do. Um, I didn’t -- it wasn’t my intention to lose my job -- so I

knew I was going to go back.

Of the participants who did return to work, most shared that they did not necessarily feel “ready”

to return, but did so out of concern that they might otherwise jeopardize their job security or

financial stability. Of her return to work Rita, for example, shared:

I wasn’t ready. I wasn’t ready at all. But if I didn’t come back I was gonna lose my job…

So I was more like, just had to. I thought maybe I coulda came back for part time, and

they was like “no, you need to come back full time.”

97

Victoria similarly shared concerns that delaying her return to work might have resulted in her job

not being available when she came back:

I wanted more (time). They offered me up to a year… Even if I depleted my account,

my, you know, vacation or sick time I had in my bank, if it was depleted it would’ve been

on unpaid. But I could keep my job. Leave of absence. It was no guarantee that it’d be the

same position, or whatever. I don’t know if they told me to scare me off to go (to work),

or whatever.

These participants and others emphasized the need for employers to understand that homicide

bereavement is unique and that standard return-to-work expectations may be unreasonable for

survivors. Several suggested that they wished employers had offered the option of flexible

scheduling to allow them to return to work at their own pace. Beatrice, who was one of few who

returned to work gradually, described this as essential in her transition:

What my boss did for me was do it in a slow period, not just to bring me back, like, to

my, my, my regular schedule, to just push me back in there. He gave me time. I would

recommend that they give this person -- if you can’t come for a full day, come and do

whatever you can. You know, maybe a couple of hours or four hours.

Margaret, too, recommended flexibility around time off, as well as the option of a gradual or

part-time return to work. In addition, she suggested that gentle encouragement on the part of the

employer might help the survivor to return to work and move forward with their coping process:

I would give them their time off, but let them come back gradually. Let them have a place

that they could come -- that they can have a purpose. Because if you don't have

something to get outside -- do -- yourself. You know what I'm saying? Work with them.

Work with them, like, you know, like, you have to have them... Even though you give

98

them time but you also want to recommend they come back also. You know what I'm

saying?..in a way, like, you know, "It -- it's best that you come on back now." Maybe,

now, part time. Work with them. Maybe do, like, some type of, um -- some type of 90-

day plan. Even though you only get one or two mo-- one or two weeks but you still do a

-- maybe a part-time piece. Because you need that. You need that. Where you still get

your week -- because some people only get a week. And you still get your week. And if

you need an additional week, that's fine. But definitely put in there that you need to come

back, like, at least two or three days a week. Because what will happen is that they'll get

stronger.

While most of the participants were not offered the option of returning to their jobs gradually or

part-time, many shared that their workplaces acknowledged their grieving needs and

accommodated them in other ways that were helpful. Rose, for example, shared that her grief

sometimes made it difficult for her to be to work on time. In response, her supervisor created an

open arrangement that allowed her to come in late when she needed to. In a related way, Beatrice

shared that her supervisor accommodated her need to change her shift when, in the wake of her

son’s murder, it became difficult for her to work at night:

My, um, my shift that I used to do was, um, I used to work 3:00 to 11:00. So what he

did, he gave me, um, early time in the morning. He changed all my days. I had one

evening, then he changed me to the morning. So I could come in early and leave before it

gets dark or -- you know…I just don’t think I wanted to be there at night. I didn’t want to

be out on the street at night. I...I don’t think I was scared, because I would not go in that

area, but it’s just, like, every time I think of the night, the night is when I got that call. It

keeps coming back to me.

99

Dorothy shared that her workplace also made critical accommodations that facilitated her ability

to return to work after her son’s murder, acknowledging that she was still grieving. Although she

returned to work full-time, her first week back was with reduced responsibilities, allowing her to

transition slowly. Here, she explains:

Well they asked me “what do I need?” You know. Am I ready to take on a client? You

know you don’t have to do -- the first week I was there I was ready. I wanted to and they

were like no we want you to just you know go in your office, do some paperwork and

you know just you know do some of your reports and stuff that you got to finish.

Managing grief and sadness in an unprepared workplace. Regardless of the amount of

bereavement time off they took or whether they felt ready to go back to work, the participants

universally shared that they returned to their jobs still very much in the midst of ongoing grief.

Most shared that the intense sadness and loss they felt, coupled with the unique challenges of

losing a loved one violently, affected their work in the short term and long after they returned.

Especially in the early phase of their transition back into the workplace, many described the

balance of working while grieving as extremely difficult. Beatrice, for example, shared:

The biggest challenge for me going back to work was facing -- facing my coworkers,

facing my patients, facing that, um...that sympathetic look that they give you. You know,

people coming up to you to say they’re sorry. And, um, not having enough time. You

feel like it hits you. It just comes down and it suddenly hits you, and then you want to,

you want to get away and grieve for a moment, but then, you know, you have to work.

So you have to stay focused. It’s -- it was very difficult for me. Times when I just might

-- when I would recall -- not that I forget him, but when things just seem overwhelming.

And then I had to put -- push it aside to focus on work. My biggest challenge, because it

100

was very difficult. Sometimes I would hide. Just to, just to go through a period like I

would focus on him, and then go back to work, and sometimes people could tell I was

crying.

Similar to Beatrice, both Dorothy and Brenda described themselves as “fragile” as they came

back to work, even though they were generally satisfied with their jobs and felt supported by

colleagues and supervisors. Likewise, Margaret, who described her work as a cornerstone of her

coping, shared that she “kept breaking down” after she returned. These participants and many

others reflected that, especially early on, their work days were punctuated by constant thoughts

of their murdered family member. Camille explained, simply:

I just couldn’t get him out of my head, you know what I mean? It was just, like, you

know, still in shock, still very, you know, in disbelief.

Many participants shared that specific memories and reminders of their loved one made their

work days particularly challenging. Regina stated:

I was just -- I was just cryin’ -- I will turn around and be like, cryin’. If I see a kid, if I see

a young man comin’ in (to my job) - he might have the jersey on that my baby wore. His

hat, or his haircut. He might be lined or cut. And I’m tearin’. He might have a walk like

you know, and I’m just like - triggers it.

Like Regina, many described their work as interrupted by bouts of longing for their loved one,

sadness, and crying that made it difficult to do their jobs. Selina, for example, recounted:

Because it was to the point where sometimes I was taking orders, and I was crying in the

window. And I remember, one of my managers told me just to step aside. Two seconds

and then go back. But, when I mean crying, I’m crying taking an order, you know? Like,

because it’s part -- it’s like only a couple of days after, because you know, I don’t want to

101

get fired, so...So, I don’t know if it’s like a week after, or something, I just kept crying at

work, you know, overnight in the window.

Several participants shared that their grief and sadness made it difficult to focus on their work

and interfered with their ability to do their jobs effectively. Here, Brenda explains:

With my own standards of how I, how I do my job. Um, there's even times now, but not

as bad as it was in the beginning, there are even times now that I get um, that I just can't

focus um, you know so it's more like, I guess kind of like whatever I'm doing, put it aside

and work on something else, uh, because either I'll, I'll get a flashback of my son or

something, you know, depending on the time of the day what I think he might be doing

or, and it just takes, takes everything away from me.

Although they each shared that they returned to work feeling raw from the ongoing pain of their

grief and the trauma of the murder, most of the participants were not aware of specific efforts to

prepare the workplace and ready co-workers, supervisors, and consumers for their return to their

positions. Many shared that they believed their workplaces had no real guidance around the

unique grieving challenges of those affected by homicide. Thus, supervisors and colleagues had

little direction on how best to anticipate their needs, assist them in their transition back to work,

or support them in the longer term. For some, a lack of preparation in the workplace seemed to

create a dynamic where the homicide was, in Cassandra’s words, “the elephant in the room,”

causing awkwardness and discomfort between the survivor and those with whom they worked

who seemed unsure what to say or do. Cassandra explained:

This is a very delicate situation. Some people may not want to be offensive. Or they

may not want to even present it as an option, because then I may think -- I may not react

to it -- not react to it well, they're not certain how I may react.

102

Like Cassandra, several participants found that those with whom they worked were unsure how

to sensitively express sympathy in relation to a homicide. Many seemed afraid to say the wrong

thing and thus, avoided mentioning the loss. Camille, for example, shared:

You know, kind of like you feel like you have this little stigma over you, and everybody

knows your son died, and everyone looks at you with this sympathetic look. You can just

see it, but, you know, too afraid to say anything, you know?

Dorothy, too, shared that she felt like her co-workers and clients were “walking on eggs” when

she returned, causing her to take it upon herself to open communication about her son’s murder:

Second week when I went back I just decided to talk to everybody. Tell them what

happened. I went into details, you know? and told them to ask questions. Whatever they

wanted to know. So that they would be comfortable. So that I could, you know, do my

job. It’s hard to do when people don’t know, you know, what to say, what to do.

I just answered all the questions and I was crying. Some of them were crying, all men…

it made it easier once we, you know, got that out of the way. Then we could go on and

do what we had to do.

In contrast to challenges created by unprepared colleagues who avoided talking about the

murder, several participants shared that the unique nature of the loss created an unusual amount

of attention in their workplace and that this could be equally destabilizing. Brenda explained:

Well, you know, as far as you know um, constantly you know is there anything I can do

to help you, let me get into my work and if I can come up with something, I'll -- and like I

said, I know they were being helpful. But when you work for a large company and

you've got that many people merging on you at one time, it, it became almost like a

broken record for me. So like I said what I ended up doing was just staying in my office.

103

I did that, I did that for a long time, for a long time. Because I was afraid to go in the

hallways to you know to hear people you know or walk by, “did you hear what happened

to her son?”

For some participants, ongoing overtures of sympathy became distracting enough to their work

that they took steps to create space. David, for example, explained that he had to request a

transfer to a new unit because it became difficult to constantly interact with colleagues who

knew about his son’s murder:

What I ended up doing, leaving the area, the area, because everybody knew you know,

and I didn't want to keep you know. I went to a whole different unit, in (another) area,

nobody know you over there, so you don't have -- you can just work and you know, do

what you need to get the job done, and you can focus on what you're doing.

In a similar way, Dorothy shared that she had to ask her colleagues to curtail their expressions of

sympathy so that she could do her job, stating, “I had to just tell them I need to do my work,

because you uh and I had to tell them you all make me cry and I got tired of crying.” Camille

shared a similar sentiment, describing here how she finally asked her director to intervene on her

behalf:

You know, for me. Um, again, I had my director send out an email to, um, ask people,

you know, please, for right now, don’t, you know -- I don’t want to have to be privy to,

“Oh, how was” -- you know, “I’m sorry about your loss,” “How are you doing?” Dnh

dnh dnh dnh dnh. Just let everyone know that I’m coping and managing the best I could,

and what would be helpful to me is to not have to hear those words constantly echoed.

While it was sometimes challenging to manage and respond to expressions of sympathy and

support while also trying to focus on their jobs, some participants shared that it was perhaps

104

more difficult to tolerate people in their workplace who either asked inappropriate questions or

made insensitive comments related to their loss or the murder. Monica shared:

And I hate -- and I hate it -- I just hate, like, if I was teary or crying, people -- and people

will say to me, "Oh, you know, life has to go on," blah blah blah. Yech. My God, I hate

it when people say that to me… I heard some people say that. "Oh, you know, he would

want you to go on." Blah blah blah. I'm like, "How the hell do you know what he wants

me to do? Like, seriously?" So that I don't like. I don't like when people say that to

people… I think some people just don't know what to say. But I can say that that wasn't

the majority of the people th-- who said that. It was just some people. But, the majority

of the people were very sensitive. Very nice. But I just think that people, people have to

just be careful how they talk to people that have lost someone to violence.

Brenda, too, emphatically shared:

I kind of shied away, because I didn't want, I got so tired of I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm

sorry. And then oh what happened. Was he in the wrong place. I almost ended up hittin'

somebody because of that, if I had heard it one more time, was he in the wrong place at

the wrong time. And I had to forget that everybody thinks differently, but I had heard it

so much…Because you can be anywhere, these are, these are streets, free streets. You

can walk where you want to walk. I don't understand why people think that you're in the

wrong place at the wrong -- no, (my son) was where he was supposed to be at that time. I

mean who's, who's, no one with the reason to take his life, but a lot of the people will ask

me that question. So I found that I would stay in my office outside to get up to go to the

bathroom, I would not leave my office, because that meant that I had to mingle with

people. And manage questions that I wasn't ready to answer, or I guess felt didn't need to

105

be answered. I understand they themselves were trying to be helpful, but in some parts

they weren't. Like I said, if I heard that one more time, was he in the wrong place at the

wrong time, or what happened. I don't want to relive this murder. I don't want to be

telling everybody what happened.

In a related way, Dorothy and Monica found that, due to the nature of their family members’

deaths, co-workers often approached them with news of other community homicides, not

realizing that these conversations might be upsetting or even triggering. For David, too, the

public nature of his son’s murder meant that people in his workplace where aware of new

developments related to the case. At times, this meant that he was subjected to unwanted and

insensitive comments at work. Here he describes a particularly difficult interaction with a co-

worker:

What turned me off you know, I can remember a guy saying hey David, congratulations,

I heard they found the person. You know. Or, the person that murdered your -- ten days

later, they found his body, so you know. And you want to congratulate me? You want

me to reach my hand and say congratulations? Now some other family is going through

the same thing. I said you know, congratulate me when we're not hearing about this no

more. Then I'll reach you know, but congratulations?

Grief-related job loss. Most of the participants resumed working following their family

member’s murder and were successful in maintaining employment over time. However, there

were others whose homicide experience and resulting grief affected their ability to continue to

work. One of these participants voluntarily terminated her employment while still on

bereavement leave. Several others returned to work but either left their jobs or were asked to

leave as a result of grief related challenges that interfered with their work. Crystal, the one

106

participant who quit her job, left her corporate position and the workforce for a full year after her

son’s murder. Here, she describes the factors that guided this choice and, ultimately, her decision

to seek employment in violence prevention:

Four months before, at this -- at my job, one of the ladies at my job had called me to her

desk and a shooting had happened in (my community), and she says what’s happening in

your neighborhood, and what are y’all doing about it? And she caught me off guard, I’m

like what? So I said we’re praying about it. And I got -- I got -- kind of got defensive

and offended. And I went back to my desk, and I said in my -- you know, I’m saying

God, did you hear what she just said to me? I’m like, I -- I want to be a part of doing

something, I don’t want to be just sitting here and tickling these keys for the rest of my

life…so um, that -- that was four months before (my son’s) death. And then after (my

son’s death) happened, I knew I couldn’t go back. I wanted to -- I knew that when I was

ready to go back to work, it had to be doing something that was about violence

prevention, or working with kids that had issues, like perhaps the person who had the

issues with my -- that killed my son. I don’t know -- I don’t know, I just knew that I

couldn’t go back to (the company). And I -- and I wrote them a -- and wrote them the

letter. You know, that my -- the direction of my life has changed. I remember saying

that. The direction of my life has changed, in the aftermath of my son’s death.

For other participants, grief and the workplace challenges it created made their return to work

rather short-lived. Both Selina and James voluntarily left their jobs soon after returning from

their bereavement leaves, sharing that their decision to quit was directly tied to an inability or

difficulty working due to their grief. James shared:

107

You know, so I had to, mentally, set anything else around me aside, and try my best to

take care of (my patients). But then it got to the point where that wasn’t even working

out. You know, I was stressing, you know? I was worried about, you know, not knowing

this person out here who, who murdered my brother, and... You know, it was messing

things up with (my patients), with -- to the point I had to tell them, “I can’t take care of

you anymore.”

For similar reasons, other participants felt forced out of their jobs or were terminated from their

positions. Regina and Rita, for example, reporting being fired as a direct result of issues that they

connected to their grieving. Regina shared:

I was laid off, I was fired, as you could say, all right, he was like, he -- I took a day off,

because it was coming up to (my daughter’s) birthday. So, I wanted to celebrate her

birthday, so, I took off. So that next day I came back, and he was like, “Listen.” Because

I had took off the week -- you know, a couple of days before that, because you know, it

was, it was a lot just to hear, you know, everybody talkin’, and comin’ in, and askin’ all

these question. All -- “Oh, that was your son?” You know, because I got the (memorial)

pin, and I did not want to wear my pin, and they like -- “Oh, the,” -- “Oh that’s your s”--

you know, then they want to see the pin. You know, ’cause you know, I’m -- then I got to

talk, I got to explain -- I got to talk -- everything back up again, so I was like, “OK, all

right,” so I left. He said, “We don’t need -- he said, ah -- you just go and keep ta--” he

said, “You just go and stay at home today. And go and get yourself together,” like that.

And that was it.

Similarly, for Rita, her return to work was compromised by ongoing grief and stress-related

emotional and physical problems that affected her work, necessitated additional time off, and

108

ultimately led to her being dismissed from her position. She describes her experience here:

I was very stressful, things was very stressful, new things was comin’ up, making me feel

the case was gonna be somethin’ and it turned out to be nothing. So I had mixed feelings,

mixed moods, and my new boss, who didn’t know nothing about it, she was not havin’ it.

She felt as though I should have moved on by now, and, um, they conjured up some story

and had me fired.

In addition to these participants who left their primary jobs, four of the seven participants who

were working one or more supplementary part-time jobs reported giving at least one of these

positions up after their family member was murdered. Rose, for example, shared that she let go

of one of her part-time jobs because she realized that additional time working was both taking its

toll on her body and taking time away from her young, grieving daughter. Similarly, Margaret

drastically reduced her hours at her part-time job, electing to go per diem after her son was

killed, stating “It was too much for me.” Brenda resigned from her evening job, sharing that she

not only found it hard to balance both jobs, but that her second job brought back difficult

memories of her son’s murder:

I didn't go back to the night job. I tried it again and I just couldn't do it, because it was

the last place he picked me up from, and to know it's right up the street, I, I just, I have a

hard time even going in (there) to this day. You know, and knowing that it happened right

up the street. Um, so I quit there after that, and I think I went back, if I lasted two weeks

I was lucky.

For Selina too, her part-time job as a community outreach worker proved too difficult after her

cousin was killed:

109

We go to the funerals, and hold the tissue paper, and pass out the water, and go to the

funeral and help people, come to the house. I couldn’t do it anymore…And I just didn’t

-- stopped coming. I came a couple of times, and then a couple of times we were going,

we’re talking about the violence that had just happened. And it’s like, I’m a part of it, so

then we’re in the circle talking about it, and it wasn’t working for me…And it just turned

into -- and then it was -- for some reason, maybe like four or five people got killed in a

row, around that same time, and around that summer. So, (my boss) kept going to all of

them, and I just -- I had a passion for it, when I started with her, but then it just -- she just,

you know, and then she was like, you don’t want to do this, and you should just, like, let

me go.

Working While Grieving a Homicide is Beneficial

Work as a protective factor, buffer, and coping resource. While each of the participants

detailed the challenges associated with working while grieving the homicide of a loved one, most

also spoke in detail about the many ways that their jobs and the people with whom they worked

were critical to their grieving and coping process. Thus, for many, their connection to their

workplaces and return to their jobs was not only necessary, but beneficial. Although working

was a financial necessity for many, most found work to be more than a source of economic

security after their loved one died. With few exceptions, the participants’ narratives reflected the

ways that work served a largely protective function in their lives post-homicide, buffering

against their sadness and grief and helping them cope with the loss of their family member.

Work as normalcy, stability, respite from grief. The study participants described a number

of reasons for returning to work following their family member’s murder. However, a significant

theme that surfaced across many of their interviews was the perception that their jobs provided

110

them with a sense of normalcy, order, and stability at a time when their lives felt overwhelming,

disordered, and unstable. In general, it seemed that their jobs helped the participants begin to

move forward and get control of their lives back. Not only did going to work offer them time

away from their homes where reminders of their family member and the murder were most

palpable, but also respite time where they could be actively involved in other things, regain some

sense of equilibrium, and be temporarily relieved of the intensity of their grief. Of her return to

work, for example, Camille stated:

I kind of felt like I needed to get back into a rhythm.You know, a known rhythm. Um, I

didn’t want to sit at home and -- and -- and -- and constantly be sad because I felt like

that’s not what my son would want, you know? And I also felt like I had to be an

example for the other kids, you know? Um, you know, tragedy happens, you know?

Um, it’s unfortunate, you know, but, you know, you’ve gotta keep marching on. Some

way, somehow, you’ve gotta find the strength, and, you know, going back to work, in a

sense, was bringing back some normalcy.

Margaret’s narrative supported this theme. For her, workplace predictability, normalcy, and

“sameness” were critically important:

The -- to know my desk and everything were still the same. Everything was still the

same. Everything was still the same. You know, you go back to doing what you've gotta

do. Don't baby me. You know what I'm saying? Even though you -- it -- it -- it -- you

helped me, and I -- I got you, whatever you need. But let it be the same. Let it be the

same. You go back, do what you've gotta do. To go -- do the same. Let it be the same.

Let it be the same.

111

Brenda, too, equated a return to work with a return to normalcy, as well as an opportunity to take

some time away from her grief and constant thoughts of her son:

I had to, I needed to go back to work to kind of put some normalcy, because I, I found

that I was just, I was losing my mind being at home. Because everything, everything is

home…it gave me normalcy because I'm not at home looking at all his pictures, not

thinking of him 24 hours a day, I'm just thinking of him periodically throughout the day.

At home, that's all I would do.

Janet, too, saw her return to work and time away from her home as a needed change that helped

her to move forward in the wake of her daughter’s murder:

To change things around a little bit, you know. Um, I think probably if I had stayed

home, I would have been -- it would have been harder for me to, um, get away from the

horror of it. So to speak, you know, leave that part behind and move through -- just

through her death in a peaceful type of way. Yeah, it would have left me in that so.

Yeah. So, I think it was better to, um, remove myself from that situation, yeah.

Similarly, Florence, described her job as a way to keep her mind occupied on something other

than the murder of her son:

Not being home --dwelling on, you know... And, uh, once I felt like everybody in the

house was stable...Everybody else was going on with their life. Didn’t make any sense for

me to sit home -- and just feel bad. I was feeling sad and, and, you know, so...That kept

my mind occupied -- you know, took my mind off of my problems.

In a related way, Monica shared that her job not only offered a needed distraction, but a buffer

against the potentially debilitating grief she felt in response to the loss of her brother:

112

But after 30 days, I just, um, I actually wanted to go back to work, 'cause it was just hard

being at home…And, um, instead of being home looking at those four walls, it was just --

it was refreshing to not be at home. And dealing with patients again - it just kind of, like,

um -- it was a distraction for me. So -- but I had plenty of time, and I could have taken

more time if I'd wanted to. But I just felt the longer I was out of work, it might have -- I

would have became, like, kind of disabled, in a way. So I was afraid of that. Where I

would have, like, maybe got too depressed. So I was just like, "No, I think I should go

back."

Other participants reflected that working buffered against their grief and seemed to have a

healing quality. Rose shared:

I like work because it's a distraction, it's like the only place you get to let go…Um, and

you're helping people, but you can't, you can't go there and it's not the type of job like you

have space or there's sittin' down time. You can't go there and think about your stuff um,

and help the people and do your job, successfully do your job. So that was my, that was

like my way of breaking away. Um, my job like helped me, I felt like it really helped me

to heal.

Rita also felt that, in spite of the ongoing grief-related challenges she faced, her return to work

moved her toward restoring a greater sense of both emotional and physical well-being:

I wasn’t mopin’. I wasn’t just sitting there silent. You know, I was actually in and out, I

was walking, I was doing something. I’ve seen fresh air, I’ve seen people. Instead of

just watching the people walk by. So I was actually seein’ people and walkin’, I was

getting exercise, energy, sunlight.

113

Camille and Margaret expressed very similar notions. Camille described being able to return to

work as her “saving grace,” likened working to a form of “therapy,” that provided her with an

outlet that gave her reason to get up in the morning, occupied her mind, and helped her to feel

less sad. In the following excerpt from her interview, Rose extends this sentiment, characterizing

work as offering her a place of real safety, protecting her from her grief and the often destructive

feelings she had in response to it:

I, felt more dangerous by myself at home or with nothin' to do. Like I felt more

destructive, you know. And there's even some days today, like I still like, I don't like to

go home, like I'll do everything to avoid home. Like I'll do all kinds of stuff just to keep

myself busy. But work was you know it was like a key for me. As long as I had that, I

got a chance to breathe, I got a chance to let go of it.

Janet, too, described the normalcy and distraction of work as creating a place of stability,

sameness, and refuge from her grief. In the following passage, she uses the metaphor of an

umbrella to illustrate what she saw as some of the primary benefits of working after the murder

of her daughter:

I didn’t want certain things to change. If I can If -- if I can be normal in a situation and

have some sense of normalcy in my regular professional routine, then let that -- let it be

there, you know what I mean?...Because it just helps you transition through your life a

little bit, you know what I mean?...Yeah, it’s your little umbrella, you know. It might

rain, but I got my umbrella. You know what I mean, so...It’s just something, like people

have thing -- have to have things, I guess, in times like this, to occupy them. You know. I

mean, some people can be happy watchin’ TV all day long...You know, some people

need -- I have to work.

114

Work as social support and coping resource. In addition to providing a needed return to

normalcy, time away from home, and a meaningful distraction from their loss, many of the

participants described their jobs as providing significant social support that they needed after the

murder of their family members. For a number of them, co-workers, supervisors and consumers

became critical coping resources, offering expressions of empathy, compassion, and care that

bolstered and sustained them in their grief in both the immediate aftermath of the murder and

over time.

Support in the immediate aftermath of the murder. To illustrate the supportive role their

work played in their lives post-homicide, a number of participants began by describing the ways

that their workplace reacted to news of the death and, for many, served as a coping resource in

their grief early on. With few exceptions, the participants reported that those with whom they

worked expressed deep and genuine sympathy and support, rallying around them and providing

critical aid to supplement that which they received from their family and friends. For some,

support from workmates began even prior to their loved one’s deaths. Margaret, for example,

shared how her colleagues sustained her through agonizing worry during the week her son was

missing, but presumed dead. Similarly, Dorothy, described the way her co-workers and

administrators provided critical emotional aid by visiting her in shifts and helping her navigate

the hospital system while her son was on life support. In a similar way, Rose described her co-

workers as a physical and emotional triage team who she was confident would help her when she

learned of her son’s death:

And so I you know drove straight past my house, you know probably like seven minutes

later I'm parking my car to go to work. Then I get a phone call and the phone call is

saying Ma, (my son) is dead… So I'm like, who is this? Like what, he's like (my son) is

115

dead, and I just remember walking to my job like screaming and just crying, I was like

you can get help, I just remember saying, go there, can get help, just go there. They'll

help you.

Many other participants also described their workplaces as reservoirs of support, detailing the

various ways in which their loss was initially acknowledged. They provided multiple examples

of co-workers, supervisors, and, in some cases, high level administrators, showing care and

comfort by calling and visiting them at home, bringing food, sending cards, flowers, and gifts,

and attending their family member’s wake and funeral. These expressions of sympathy were

described as very meaningful demonstrations of care that bolstered them in their sorrow.

Dominique recalled:

But they all like -- my supervisor..she, and, uh, friends, and coworkers from other floors

had came to the funeral. I don’t -- I don’t even know how they got the information,

‘cause I didn’t give it to them. But, um, they -- that’s how supportive they were. And

these are people who had never been in this area – this community. Um, and they -- they

came, you know, to come to the funeral, because they cared enough about me to support.

Similarly, Monica described her co-workers efforts to support her after her brother died as

having an important, positive effect as she grieved:

I didn't realize how much I was loved. I guess when it happened, um, they had a meeting,

um -- they had a meeting to, uh -- you know, 'cause it was a crisis thing that happened --

and, uh, they focus a lot on that. That's -- they had a meeting to discuss what happened

with me, and, um, one of the guys that works is Cape Verdean. And, uh, basically he --

basically, he was telling -- you know, he was part of the meeting. He was telling about

Cape Verdean people -- how we mourn. So when they'd go to my house and visit me, to

116

-- what to expect, you know, at the funeral. And it was funny, because some of the

supervisors that I work with, a lot of them -- they didn't believe in going to funerals. But

a lot of them came to my funeral. And, um, people that I didn't even know, like, knew

me, like, were so supportive. Came to my funeral, sent me flowers, and, um -- everybody

-- it was just like, the outpouring of support was just incredible. And what they ended up

doing -- they rented a van -- my job -- and everybody ended up showing to the funeral.

So, I was just, like -- wow, this is like my second family, like -- I couldn't -- and

everybody went to the funeral, and they went to, like, the wake. And it was just -- it was

just amazing, like, I was, like "Wow, they, they actually care about me," you know?

In addition to appreciating her co-workers attendance at her son’s funeral, Rose described being

both surprised and touched by the genuine empathy and emotion they demonstrated in response

to her loss:

They came to the funeral...you know, you know they come from all over, coming to my

community, to a church. I think it was really more that, the ones that I seen crying like I

never in my life would've thought that I would've seen them crying… People that, there's

just some that cried tears that just I don't know how to explain that, you know I don't

know, even just leaving me messages and I remember them telling me that they had got

um, something from the lady from EAP if any of them wanted to come and talk or needed

assistance during that time… make sure that they were OK. Because their whole

department was just like crying, like they were just bawling, I seen people crying that I

never in my life would've thought I would see them cry… I just remember looking up

and they were all red just like crying, like not knowing what to do.

117

Beyond these expressions of sympathy, empathy, and support, a number of participants recalled

ways in which their co-workers provided other, more concrete forms of assistance following

their family member’s murder. Several described efforts undertaken by their workplace to

provide them with financial aid by collecting cash donations, providing emergency funds, and

paying for costs related to the death. Beatrice, for example, shared that she felt deeply touched

when her boss planned and paid for the catering at the gathering after her son’s funeral. Other

participants described similar efforts undertaken by their workplace to lift the financial burden of

the unexpected deaths they were facing. Camille shared:

I think it’s fair to mention that when my son passed, I had no -- he had no life insurance.

And I had no way of how I was going to bury him. I had a little bit of something, but not

-- not nearly enough to pay for a funeral, not the way I had it…and I was like, “Oh my

God.” I remember falling apart in the HR department. How am I gonna bury my son? I

cried my eyes out. They made a phone call to the credit union. Mind you, I just started

working here, and, um, -- they told me just go over to the credit union, see Mr. S., and

we’re good friends today. And I went over there, and he said, “Just bring me all the

paperwork about the funeral costs and so on and so forth,” and I did, and I took out a loan

to bury my son. They processed the loan right away, and I was able to bury my son, and

I’ll forever be grateful for that…They were there when I needed them the most...So I

would have to say that was something else that I think that went, um, above and beyond

for me.

Similarly, Rose described being very worried about the costs associated with burying her son,

sharing that in a time of significant financial stress, her workplace stepped in to provide the

funds she needed:

118

I remember them calling me like if there's anything you need and I'm like, I don't think I

have enough money to bury my son…I remember them calling me saying that this guy

from my job said for me to give him a call. And I called him and he was like, um… we'll

take care of anything that needs to be taken care of. We'll take care of completely

everything, and I'm like what? And I just opened up my mouth and it was just like, I had

to give the phone to my daughter, he was like we'll take care of everything. We'll cover

whatever you need. Give me the funeral home, you know, cemetery, we'll take care of

everything you need. So I was astound, you know what I mean, like I just, who are you?

where did you come from? I don't even know who you are. You know he was like we'll

take care, whatever, whatever you need right now we will take care of it. It wasn't like

how much, it wasn't just name the funeral home, the cemetery, whatever you need we'll

take of. So I know from that, from that act of kindness right there, because they didn't

have to do that. You know they didn't have to do that. And it wasn't a little money.

Support upon return to work: Creation of coping-conducive employment settings. In

addition to providing important forms of social support in the immediate aftermath of the

murder, several participants shared that their employers made it possible for them to return to

work by creating a coping-conducive space where the gravity and unique nature of their loss was

acknowledged, where they felt cared about, and where their need to balance grief and work,

simultaneously, was supported. In defining how this could be accomplished Cassandra suggested

that the creation of a coping-conducive workplace ought to begin with thoughtful, well informed

planning and preparation on the part of the employer. She advised:

Once you know that an employee has been affected by a homicide, I think it's incumbent

upon that employer to make sure that they educate themselves on homicide survivorship,

119

understanding what that means for them -- educate themselves and then educate their --

themselves and whoever that team is that that -- a department that will be interacting with

that staff person. Then help to put a plan in action for how to support that staff person

when they get back, you know, to work. Figure out who's the organization -- what --

what is your company, organization responsibility? um I mean, what your response is as

an organization, as a company to this homicide. And be very, very clear on that, whether

we're giving monetary support, whether we're going to -- who's going to call, who's going

to do this, who's going to do that. And uh because families feel slighted if they don't get

some type -- Like you're an employee of an organization and your -- your boss hasn't

called you to touch base or to say, "This is how we're going to lend support and this is

what we're going to put in --"Just that helps to decrease the anxiety when you return back

to work. Clear communication, clear steps on what is going to happen, how the company

or agency is going to respond to the survivor. Then I think it's also educating yourselves

on what it means to be a survivor. Because they don't get it! Like they think, "Oh,

they're going to come back to work and then it's going to be business as usual." No!

They're going to have good days. They're going to have bad days. What is the policy

around helping to support them with the good and bad days?

While no other participant specifically recommended the creation of a formal plan designed to

support working survivors, they each offered ways that their workplace provided or could have

provided the emotional aid and concrete assistance necessary to help them balance work and

grief and cope with their loss. Although their experiences and suggestions varied, their individual

narratives were unified by the notion that a coping-conducive employment setting was defined

by an overarching spirit of patience, understanding, and genuine empathy. First and foremost,

120

this centered around the informal provision of care by co-workers and supervisors who were

tolerant of and sympathetic to the survivor’s emotional needs, with particular sensitivity to the

unique nature of homicide. Brenda, for example, advised “The number one is sensitivity.

Sensitivity around the whole issue, you know. Um, be sensitive to the questions that you ask, be

sensitive to what you say.” Cassandra described this as remembering that “there’s a survivor in

the space,” who has been victimized and is likely managing the emotional and physical effects of

trauma as they return to work. James echoed this thought, sharing that the emotional effect of a

family member’s homicide inevitably comes with the survivor into his or her workplace:

You know, it’s hard to put your emotions aside. We try to, but it’s so hard to put your

emotions aside, especially when you’re working. If something just happened, you can’t

just snap it off like a light switch and say, hey, you know what? OK.

Like James, many participants felt it was important for colleagues to realize that the returning

survivor is still in pain and grieving, even though they have resumed their employment duties.

Monica, for example, shared:

I don't know. I think, I think, um, I think a lot of people, too, expected, since I was back

at work, that I was fine. And that I was ready to just be Monica again. And people would

-- people don't realize, like, I'm basically just here to see if I can just heal, and try to heal

again. Like, the, the same Monica is not here anymore. Like, she just is not, you know?

And I think people expected -- just because I was back at work -- that I was healed 100%

you know? And I was like, "I'm not, guys." You know what I mean?

Given the survivor’s need to balance working while grieving, the participants all felt it was

critically important for survivors to return to a compassionate and empathic workplace with

colleagues who could go beyond “business as usual” and acknowledge and care about their loss.

121

Selina advised:

You -- like, you’ve got to put yourself in that person’s shoes, and be like, this person just

lost someone and they're working with this, so you have to show them some type of --

use your emotions, that’s like, use your emotions sometimes, you know?

Like Selina, the other participants strongly emphasized the need for employers to create a

workplace atmosphere of genuine empathy and support where coping could be facilitated.

Crystal, for example, described the importance of having “grief-friendly” employment settings

where the survivor’s loss is acknowledged, emotions can be expressed, and support can be

provided flexibly as needed. Many other participants shared this view, including Monica, who

suggested “I think if people wants to cry, you should let them cry. You should give them that

space, that area, where they can go cry.” Beatrice shared this perspective, encouraging co-

workers and supervisors to be patient with and supportive of the survivor’s need to take a break

from their work to gather themselves if they become overwhelmed by emotions:

If you’re at -- if you’re at that place or you’re working, you need that 10, 15 minutes to

take a break, that person should be able to say, you know, “I, I, I need a break.” Or you

just disappear. If you disappear, knowing that that’s what you’re doing, you know.

Because that really, really helped me.

Beyond being sensitive to their pain and allowing space for grief to be expressed, several

participants described the importance of having workmates who were willing to extend

themselves through genuine expressions of emotional support. Many characterized their jobs and

workplaces as cornerstones of their coping, describing a wide range of individual examples to

illustrate the ways their colleagues provided grief-related care. These included supervisors who

provided referrals for grief counseling, colleagues who attended court hearings and assisted with

122

victims’ assistance applications, and workplaces that paid for vacations or provided jobs to

surviving children. In addition to these more concrete examples of care, what was perhaps most

important for many of the participants was the more routine, day-to-day, expressions of support

their co-workers offered. Nicole, for example, described her experience with her coworkers like

this:

You know, um, I think it’s just, over the time of building my own personal rapport with

them, you know, they, they just -- they felt it, you know? They felt the pain that was

coming off of me every day that I went into work. And, then, you know, they could see

it. You know, I’m, I’m a very joyful, smiling person. I’m -- I talk to everybody, and

they can -- you know, when I’m coming into my -- coming into the office, and I’m sitting

at my desk, and I’m just looking as blank as a piece of paper -- not smiling, not talking,

not communicating. You know, I think -- you know, they, they, they see that, and they

notice it, and, and, instead of it being something negative, they, they, they want to help.

They want to reach out. They want to do whatever they could do, possible, to help you

feel a little better than what you’re feeling at that time. And, and they did that. They,

they, they helped me out.

Beatrice similarly described appreciation for the way her co-workers reached out to her with

expressions of compassion when they sensed she needed emotional aid:

They were pretty good. They’d give me a hug and said, you know, “You were thinking

about him,” and they’re sorry. Stuff like that. If I needed more time, you know, to take a

break, they’ll take care of whatever I -- “What were you doing?” or stuff like that. They

were -- my coworkers, they were pretty -- they were good. They were really good.

Really, really good.

123

Janet, too, described a similar experience of receiving critical emotional support from her co-

workers:

I was good doin’ my job because I’m pretty much, um, I will call myself a strong person,

and I would call myself able to deal with my job and leave my problems home, so to

speak. But when they have to rear their head, you know, I can either go to the bathroom

or if I’m caught havin’ my moment, my coworkers would say, are you all right? You

know. Do you need some time?. Blah, blah, this or Janet, just sit down, we got this, you

know, don’t worry, you know, that type of thing.

In addition to feeling emotionally supported by coworkers, the participants described support and

flexibility from their supervisors as critical to their ability to work and grieve simultaneously.

Margaret, for example, shared that it was vital for supervisors to balance their need for

workplace productivity with compassion for the survivor:

But be there if -- I got you, though. Don't just, "Here, I give you all your work. Go do

what you've gotta do." And not -- no -- saying, "I got you. I give you what you've got--

gotta do, but I'm here for you. I'm here for you. And I want to let you know that I'm here

for you." Because you can also go back and get all of that, with no support, and you end

up cut-- blowing up the damn place. Or feeling that way, because you're still so raw.

Several others also highlighted the need for employers to be both compassionate and flexible

with workers returning after a homicide. For some, this meant providing intermittent time-off as

needed to allow the survivor to attend court hearings or care for their own physical and

emotional needs and the needs of their family. While many of the participants felt generally

supported by colleagues who were understanding of their unique needs and ongoing grieving

challenges, some described difficult interactions with co-workers that they found particularly

124

insensitive. Rita, for example, shared that some co-workers were intolerant of the grief-related

physical and emotional symptoms that caused her to miss work after she returned from her

bereavement leave following her son’s murder. She found it particularly hurtful when these

individuals suggested that she was using her son as an excuse to skip work or should simply “get

over it.” Camille, too, described a particularly negative interaction with a new supervisor when

she needed time off to attend court:

I remember when my son’s murder trial was about to start, I mean, she, you know,

pointed in my face and told me that she was not gonna give me the day off, and I told her,

“I’m not asking you for the day off. You know, there’s nothing but death is gonna keep

me from attending that murder trial, so, you know, please understand that, you know

what I mean?” I just couldn’t believe how insensitive someone could be….You know

what I mean? And, um, you know, and I just couldn’t believe that she could, you know,

treat someone that way who’s suffered a loss such as this and to be pointing your finger

in their face and telling them that you’re not gonna let them take the day off because, you

know, you’re being a burden to the staff, and again, I said to her, “I’m not asking you;

I’m telling you. I will be there. Every -- if it means losing my job, I will be there.” You

know what I mean? And I knew at some point if I was to lose my job, I -- I was gonna

get a lawyer and sue. You know what I mean? Prior to this happening, um, I’m always at

work, you know? And you can’t be that insensitive where you can sit there and say to

someone that you’re not going to allow them to attend the trial of someone who killed

their child. You know, I just, you know -- that was just heartless.

Unlike Rita and Camille, the participants more often felt supported by colleagues and supervisors

who were aware of and responsive to their unique bereavement and time-off needs. Brenda, for

125

example, shared that while she was generally able to manage her grief, there were days when she

felt particularly overwhelmed by the loss of her son. On these days, she appreciated her

supervisors’ flexibility in allowing her to go home:

Got in a routine and then just, you know, except for those days that um, I just couldn't get

it together and I guess I would email my bosses, they were very, very, very good, I'm

having a bad day. I have to go home. Brenda, just go. They would just tell me just go.

You know, and then I would come back, you know, I'm sorry. Brenda we understand.

But because who I am, I felt guilty leaving. But I just knew by staying there, I was

crying the whole day anyhow, so there was no need, I wasn't getting anything done. So

let me step away, you know, try to come back and do it again.

This theme was also important for Beatrice who described an interaction where her supervisor

not only showed flexibility and understanding, but true care and compassion when she most

needed it:

I remember one day, I just said, ‘I can’t come in today. I’m really down.’ By the hour

my boss was there with lunch… he was extremely, extremely good person to me. And

we sat and we talked. I didn’t eat, because I couldn’t eat. My hair was a mess. He was

laughing at it. Stuff like that.

For some, support came not only from co-workers and supervisors, but the consumers they

served. Here, Florence describes how her clients provided additional emotional sustenance and

helped her through her grief:

The women there, the clients -- they brought me through this. I keep saying if I didn’t

have that job I would be crazy, crazy. Those ladies were so nice to me. You know, I’d ----

goin’ there and helpin’ them, you know, and stuff, and a few of ’em, we cried together --

126

stuff like that, so it, it... You know, that was like... That was the savior, I think, of me. If I

didn’t have that job, I probably don’t know what, how I would’ve handled it. So that was

like a blessing, just having that job, so... I can’t complain, you know, about, about, about

the job and how they treated me or anything.

Many other participants also provided examples of ways that people at their place of

employment cared about their emotional well-being and were available to talk and comfort them

if they needed support throughout their work day. They described this as critically important,

allowing them to be at work and do their jobs, while also acknowledging their ongoing grief. At

the same time, many also stated that the provision of support needed to be balanced, advising

that co-workers and supervisors needed to carefully gauge and respond appropriately to the

survivors’ needs, which might be different day to day. To illustrate this point, Dorothy

emphasized the importance of being able to take cues from the survivor and deploy resources

and support as needed:

Let them be the uh conductor. The person coming back. Let them be the conductor…I

think uh with staff they just -- they -- they -- you have to be the conductor and they just

have to watch the conductor to know you know what instruments to play. Which ones

you can go and just to be handy.

Extending this idea, several highlighted the need for coworkers to be able to discern when they

needed space. Beatrice explains:

Just being sympathetic and, um, considerate, it helped in some ways, and sometimes I

just wanted them to back off, you know. It’s like sometimes they crowd you too much.

But otherwise I thought what it did for me was pretty, was pretty helpful, and I’m

grateful. And sometimes I did want them to back off. So I don’t know. It’s kind of in

127

balance. You know. Sometimes it’s good, sometimes it’s bad, because you feel --

fluctuates up and down. It goes all over the place.

Camille, too, appreciated her coworkers’ ability to provide nuanced expressions of care:

I mean, I still had my moments where, um, you know, I would have little snippets of -- of

memory -- You know, um, during my day at work, which would cause me to go into the

bathroom and cry. You know, um -- then I would pull myself together, and people can

tell, OK, something’s wrong. She’s been crying. At some point, they -- they -- they kind

of knew that, you know, when I went to that bathroom and came back, they knew I was

crying. You know what I mean? So -- and they just kind of just kept this -- I could see

that -- you know, the -- the sympathy on their faces, per say, but they didn’t utter, you

know, any words. They just let me be.

Several other participants echoed this sentiment, describing how important it was for colleagues

to provide gentle support without crowding them, allowing them to grieve while also doing their

jobs. Brenda suggested:

Don't like, not, I wouldn't say obnoxious but don't be overbearing. A lot of people, you

know they, they, they mean well, but it's, it's especially when a person first comes back.

Um, give them their space.

For Florence, “giving space” was also an important recommendation. She, too, felt it was

important for co-workers to be empathic and offer expressions of care, while not constantly

focusing on the loss:

Give the people, give people space. That’s what you don’t -- like with people always

hovering over you, “Oh, I’m sorry,” and when you’re walking everybody’s face is

looking all sad and everything, that’s not good. That’s not good. You know. I mean,

128

sometimes it’s hard, but, um, you know... And don’t be obvious about not talking about

it, or talking about it too much -

Beyond providing a balanced atmosphere of emotional support, a number of participants

described the ways that their co-workers offered concrete assistance with work tasks and

responsibilities to help ease the burden of their work as they grieved. For example, Dominique

shared that early in her transition back to work her co-workers asked her what she felt able to do,

allowing her to prioritize and choose her work tasks each day. She and others shared that co-

workers stepped in to help them when they were fighting grief–related fatigue and sadness or

were simply falling behind. Beatrice described her experience like this:

The girls, they would pick up some of my slack, you know. If I had something to do and

I was -- I’m at work and I’m just down, they would say, “You sit over there,” and they’d

do that. They’d bring me -- “Can I help you, bring you some water?” or something.

They’d sit and talk to me.

Similarly, Rose described the ways that her co-workers sensed when she was unable to complete

a work task, taking turns to cover for her:

Once I get there, you know they can look at me, you know and go down and grab this,

just giving me space, just giving me the time outside. They have me go and just answer

phones. I'm in a corner that nobody can see me you know. Or sometimes go to the back

table, just sit there. They'll go just are you OK, let us know. And they just working to

cover each other, cover my spot at that time.

Even those participants who did not feel consistently well supported by everyone with whom

they worked, shared that there were co-workers that they could count on to help them when

necessary. In the following excerpt from her interview, for example, Rita shares how her “true

129

friends” at work took on some of her responsibilities so that she could catch up on items that had

piled up while she was on her bereavement leave:

Well, for those that, you know, that were truly your friends, they embraced me and

helped me…They were doin,’ helpin’ me with my work…“I know this is your, this is the

pile that was here since you were doin’, but, I know you can teach me real quick, let me

help you. I got this XYZ, I got two extra hours to stay,” or, you know, or “just give me

somethin’,” and then I’ll just take as I need it. There were people like that. To help me

catch back up to, ’cuz, oh it was a mess when I came back.

Although they largely appreciated efforts to support and assist them, some participants shared

that this, too, needed to be balanced. Most shared that they wanted assistance to be available if

and when they needed it, while allowing their workplace to feel as normal and stable as possible.

Rose, for example, explained that she wanted her workplace to allow her to “keep going” by

providing assistance without pampering her. Monica, too, shared that she needed a flexible

workplace that allowed her to do her job, stay busy, and be productive as she grieved:

And, um, they to-- really took it easy with me, you know? They were just like -- you

know, I think a lot of them were just kind of afraid to, like -- you know, they don't

overwhelm me, so they didn't want to give me a lot of stuff to do. But, you know - and I

was just like, "You know, I'm here to work, so that's fine," you know? The busier I am, I

think, the better it was for me, you know?

Support over time: Supporting the long term needs of homicide survivors in the workplace

In addition to having a workplace that cared about and supported their grief in the short-term, the

participants emphasized the critical importance of having an employment setting that could

provide the type of ongoing, sustained support that working homicide survivors need. They

130

stressed the need for co-workers and supervisors to be sensitive to and patient with survivors’

ongoing grieving process, understanding that homicide is a unique type of loss and one that may

not follow the more typical arc of bereavement. Victoria, too, experienced her co-workers as

increasingly less sympathetic around the loss of her son, encouraging her to “move on” as time

went by.

For her and for others, the creation of a coping-conducive workplace atmosphere for homicide

survivors meant a commitment by employers to flexibly support them, acknowledging that their

loss will affect their lives and, possibly, their work over time, as described here by Brenda:

Um...when I get in those moments, when I'm thinking about my son. Like I said, it, it, it

kind of like takes my mind away. So the focus, I lose focus for a while and have to

regroup you know. And that might be the way I'm gonna be for the rest of my life most

likely. You know, my work, I'll do, I get, I've gotten better as far as how I do my work.

But I think as far as having those moments, they're gonna be there forever. You learn,

you learn how to work around those emotions. Because those thoughts, those emotions

are gonna come always, whether I'm at work, home or whatever. But as far as work is

concerned, before I would try to shun away from it. I work through it now. It's, it's a

moment, yup, what did I think he was gonna be doing or whatever, work with it, talk it

amongst myself and then go back to doing my job. You know, because I'm gonna

forever always, as he gets older, what he would've been doing, what, where he would've

accomplished or whatever, that's gonna be out there every single day.

Rather than seeing the murder as something they could heal from, the participants universally

viewed their loss as something they had progressively adapted to, managed, and integrated into

their lives. Of the loss of her son, Brenda, for example, shared:

131

Has become a part of my life. And it's going to be a part of my life for the rest of my life,

definitely. I'll, I hope that as time goes on, that I will become stronger and will be able to

cope with the grief better. But as far as the um, the, the grieving, I might do it for the rest

of my life. I really believe so…This is my child that I birth. I'm never gonna, I'm never

gonna forget my son. I'm never gonna forget that grief. Becomes a part of your life.

Really becomes a part of your life. But I just hope that I become stronger with the grief,

stronger whereas I'll be able to cope with the grief as the years go on.

In a similar way, Camille summarized what many participants described as the lifelong process

of grieving and going on after a family member’s homicide:

It just gets better with time, you know? You never forget, you know, the hurt and that

missing void will always be there. You know, but you -- you know, you -- you -- the best

way I can put it is that you learn to cope. You learn to cope. Yeah. You learn to kind of

live with the void that’s there and -- and integrate that into -- into the way you go on.

Like Brenda and Camille, many participants characterized their bereavement as an ongoing,

lifelong process that changed over time, but they expected would never truly end. To illustrate

this, Victoria stated “I will never be the same person again. And I’m very mad, because I’m

traumatized. I’m better now a little, but I’m not 100% what I was.” Nicole echoed these feelings,

describing the way in which her family members had learned to live with their grief, expecting it

to last in some form throughout their lives regardless of the types of coping support and

interventions they made use of:

So it’s just, like, it, it -- it’s always gonna hurt, and I, I don’t -- I don’t know if there is

any amount of, like, help or resources or treatment that’s really gonna be able to dig deep

enough to, kind of, settle that type of pain or grief that everybody is going through.

132

Monica described living with ongoing grief in a similar way, describing her coping as a daily

effort to do what has to be done:

I just try to live. That's what I do. I get up every day and I have to do what I have to do,

you know? I still have to be a mother. I still have to -- I still have a job I have to do

every day. I just try to live, that's what I try to do. And I try not to think about this every

day, because if I do, I don't think I could function.

All the participants similarly described the grief associated with homicide as an ongoing hurt,

punctuated by ups and downs - times when the loss felt particularly raw and times when it felt

more manageable. To illustrate this point, Crystal and Brenda both likened the homicide

bereavement experience to riding a rollercoaster, requiring them to shift and regain their balance

in response to their grief and its effect on them and their families over time. Florence described

her experience in a similar way:

…Still sad. You know, like I was sad today thinking about coming here and talking to

you. Like I have good days and bad days, and sometimes I just go in my room and just

get up and go ahead and do what I gotta do...‘Cause I don’t have any choice. What am I

gonna do? I can’t just crawl up into bed -- which I would love to do -- you know,

(laughter) but you can’t do that, so...

While each of the participants characterized their grief as an ongoing part of their lives, some

suggested that it had become less raw over time as they learned manage the feelings associated

with their loss. Dominique, for example, shared that after nine years she thought about her

brother’s murder less frequently as she had become occupied with the general distractions of life.

Beatrice, too, shared that her grief had “gotten a lot better” in the 7 years since her son’s murder,

elaborating:

133

I sure can talk about it more. I couldn’t talk about it. And I talk about it with my

daughter. And, you know, at one point I couldn’t call his name. I refused to call his

name. But now I can call his name, just like I would call him -- you know, calling my

other child if they were here.

Rita, too, shared that her grief had become less consuming in the 3 ½ years since her son’s

murder:

I just learned how to...if that feeling comes, I learned how to make it short. And, um, I’ll

have that moment, and then I keep it moving… I may cry, I may yell, cuss, at my--at my

own self. Or just have - be in a mood. But I don’t let it consume me for a full day. I

don’t let it consume me with what I need to do the rest of the day. It’ll just be a moment.

And then I get to continue. And that’s how I taught myself to move past that zombieness

that I had. Because I was a zombie.

Even as a more recent survivor, Dorothy shared that in the year since her son’s murder, she had

experienced a change in her grief. She generally described her grief as “more controlled,”

adding:

I have to say the panicky urgency is what, you know, I didn’t know from day to day if I

was going to make it through the day and now I know that I -- that I can.

Although most of the participants described their grief as becoming somewhat more manageable

over time, many shared that there were times, even years later, when they struggled to cope with

the loss and that this had an effect on all areas of life, including their work. Rose, for example,

shared that even 3 years after her son’s murder, she continued to have days where she cried so

much she was unsure she could go to work. Victoria, too, shared that there were times when she

continued to feel raw around the loss of her son, affecting her ability to do her work, even 2 ½

134

years later:

There’s days that I have to literally close my office door and cry, because when the spirit

comes upon me, I have to cry. I can’t hold it in. I could be at church, I could be driving.

It -- it comes to me at those places like that. And in my job, it comes to me. I have to

deal with it. So I close my door, you know.

Many participants shared that these ongoing, episodic grieving challenges were often prompted

by important dates, anniversaries, and missed milestones that reminded them of hopes and

dreams that were taken when their family member was murdered. David, for example, shared:

I remember last year, coming in, it was towards the dates of you know, dates affected, I'm

affected by, you know. (My son’s) birthday, it would have been his 18th birthday in

(month)…that thing was eating me up because this thing has deprived me of the

conversation of college...Prom, graduation, all that thing that you look forward to, and I

don't have that.

Beatrice experienced similar feelings of renewed grief as she interacted with her son’s friends:

But it was good to see (my son’s friends), and they’re telling me this one has a child, this

one has graduated from college. It, it, it -- you know, it was -- I was happy for them, but

I’m thinking, oh, this could have been me. He could have given me a child. He would

have been out of college.

The participants shared that, during these particularly painful times, they needed the support of

those around them, including their colleagues. Several expressed appreciation for coworkers and

supervisors who remembered important dates and expressed care and concern. Of her

workmates, for example, Rose shared:

135

Like I know that they know. They know. Like even other people at my job, like they

know it was around Easter, like last year it fell on Easter. So I know there's been people

that's been coming to me, like we know, I know it's that time.

In addition to having co-workers acknowledge significant dates and milestones associated with

their loved one, several participants also shared that they wanted the option of taking time off to

honor their loved one and grieve. Many felt it was particularly important for employers to be

sensitive in granting these types of requests. Rose, for example, explained that it would be

impossible for her to work on her son’s birthday. For her, it was deeply meaningful that her

supervisor allowed her to take that day off each year with no questions asked. Similarly,

Dorothy, described feeling grateful for coworkers who subtly arranged for her to have some time

away from work as the first anniversary of her son’s murder drew near:

When the anniversary was coming up uh they were encouraging me to take some time

off. Which I didn’t want to do… so what they ended up doing was sending me to a

conference in my home state. So they knew I’d have family so I went down there for a

week you know for the conference with everything paid. And you know uh and I know

they did that just for that because the conference that I went to uh I knew that it was just

to get me to go somewhere.

Beyond being afforded the flexibility to take time off as needed to attend to their ongoing

grieving needs, the participants as a group emphasized how meaningful it was to have their

workmates care about their loss as time went on. They described many examples of ways that

coworkers and supervisors provided continuous support that helped them to cope with the lasting

pain of their family member’s murder. Margaret, for example, found it comforting to see

memorial buttons with her son’s picture hanging on her co-workers bulletin boards, subtly

136

reminding her that they remembered him. Other participants reported that those with whom they

worked demonstrated their support in more public ways. Tanya, for example, recalled feeling

genuinely cared about when her co-worker attended the indictment hearing for her brother’s

murder case. Others had coworkers who showed support by contributing to and attending

memorials, fundraisers, and community violence awareness events as a show of solidarity.

Florence, for example, shared that coworkers attended an annual homicide survivorship event

with her while Cassandra’s co-workers spearheaded a peace rally after her brother was murdered.

David described his coworker’s effort to publicly honor and memorialize his son:

You know we was talking and he had just said something about you know, he thought

about just putting a plaque (at my job). And I said oh wow, a picture of my son? That's

not a good thing, you know just messing around you know…and I walked away from him

because I felt you know, what an honor, you know this guy is going to put a picture of

my son, a plaque…so when I came back, it was after (my son’s) birthday -- I, I got wind

of they were doing something. And um, so I called my wife and I said, I think they're

doing something. You know? And but I'm not sure, so they're asking us to be there. So I

went there that day and sure enough, they had in the lobby, you know a couple of

pictures, you know, of (my son), and then they unveiled this plaque that they hung in the

lobby and I just thought -- I mean and all the employees come out. People were still in

the lobby, buying things, and they were like what's going on, but -- and they did that, you

know. And it was all this guy's doing. You know, I felt so honored, so honored…So um,

but they, they -- that was an honor, that they bestowed upon us, and I'm forever grateful.

Forever grateful to that.

137

Discussion

This study represents a beginning exploration into the ways in which homicide

bereavement and employment interact with and influence one another. The purpose of this study

was to add to the research literature, contribute to practice knowledge, and inform employment

practice and policy decisions affecting those who are bereaved by homicide. Through interviews

with the 20 study participants and the data generated by their narratives, this study contributes to

and enriches what is known about the unique nature of the homicide bereavement experience and

adds new information around the ways in which survivors’ employment experiences interact

with and influence their experience of grieving and coping. Specifically, this dissertation study

yielded two predominating themes: that the homicide bereavement experience is a unique,

devastating & traumatizing loss that challenges survivors in all areas of life, and that homicide

bereavement and employment influence one another, with employment creating benefits that can

facilitate coping and challenges that can impede coping. In the discussion that follows, each of

these themes, their connections with one another, and the implications of these findings for

bereavement theory, practice, policy, and research will be explored.

Summation and Interpretation of Findings

The homicide bereavement experience as a unique, devastating & traumatizing loss,

challenging all areas of life. Findings from this study both support the research of other

homicide bereavement scholars and contribute new knowledge to the body of existing research

on homicide bereavement, specifically adding to what is known about the role of employment.

Although this study’s focal point was on employment, any inquiry into factors that relate to and

influence homicide bereavement must start with the homicide itself and the ways that this

experience affected the bereaved. Thus, as a pathway to describing the ways in which their

138

bereavement experiences affected their employment and vice versa, the participants began by

sharing what it was like to lose their family members to murder – what it felt like, how it affected

them and their families, and how they coped with this loss. Through these descriptions, a number

of important, common themes emerged, providing support for and extending the work of other

scholars whose research has examined and described the essence of the homicide bereavement

experience.

At its foundation, the 20 participants from this study uniformly described the experience of a

family member’s murder as a seismic, catastrophic loss that was fundamentally life shattering,

leaving them devastated, changing their life course, and challenging all areas of their lives. As a

group, they described murder as something wholly different from other, more typical, types of

death. The violent, sudden, and intentional killing of young, healthy people in the midst of life,

their family members’ murders were characterized not only as deaths, but thefts – lives stolen

without warning and often without any identified explanation. In contrast to other deaths, the

murder of a family member was viewed by all of the participants as senseless and “not normal,”

and thus, outside the realm of expected and accepted life experiences. As a death that

fundamentally did not make sense, therefore, the loss was not only devastatingly painful, but

disruptive to the participant’s equilibrium, challenging the way they made sense of the world.

They described themselves as not only shattered by the death of their family member, but

traumatized by the sudden, shocking, and violent nature of the loss. Thus, compared to other

death losses they had experienced, the participants shared that the murder caused them more

intense distress, sadness, and pain that was, at times, overwhelming and debilitating, threatening

their ability to function and cope.

139

To compound the loss of their family member, the participants described the public and

criminal nature of murder as an additional complicating factor that had an effect on their

bereavement experience. Unlike other types of death, homicide is not only a personal experience

of loss, but a public event that is reported in the media, drawing community attention and,

frequently, public scrutiny and judgment. While the participants shared that they felt supported

by many people in their lives and communities, a number of them describing feeling stigmatized

by the perception that their families where somehow deficient and/or that their family member

must have been involved in activities that precipitated their murder. For some of them, the

stigmatization they experienced was directly related to what they considered to be racialized

stereotypes broadly associated with murder victims, their families, and communities of color. As

a result, many of the participants described feeling compelled to defend their loved ones and

themselves to family, friends, and the larger community.

In addition to being a public event, homicide is an intentional, criminal act that left the

participants not only bereaved and traumatized, but victimized by the person or people who took

the life of someone they loved. As family members of a homicide victim, the participants

became victims themselves and, thus, involved in the criminal justice system and process

established to resolve the crime against them. The participants described this involvement as

another factor that complicated their bereavement, creating grieving challenges that people

bereaved by non-violent deaths typically do not experience. Unlike deaths for which there is no

perpetrator, the participants involved in this study were confronted with an often protracted

criminal justice process that served as a constant reminder of their family member’s death and

the violent manner in which their life was taken. Those whose family members’ cases were

resolved through the court system detailed the ways that court hearings and the trial caused them

140

emotional distress as they relived the murder and faced the perpetrator(s). At the same time,

though, seeing justice served was a source of comfort and validation that they saw as facilitative

of their coping with the loss and moving forward. For those participants with unsolved cases,

unresolved questions about why their family member was killed and by who seemed to leave

some perpetually unsettled. For these participants, the perception that community members, out

of fear or apathy, were unwilling to contribute to the investigation was deeply frustrating. In

addition, concerns about the commitment and competence of criminal justice professionals in

solving their case was a strong source of anger, fueling questions by some of them about racial

bias as potentially affecting progress on the investigation. Of these participants, many were

deeply troubled by the idea that not only was their family member killed, but that the person or

persons who killed them may never be held accountable. Many stated that this lack of resolution

caused them to feel doubly victimized and stalled their ability to move forward.

For the 20 homicide survivors who participated in this study, each of the factors described

here came together to create a unique bereavement experience that was characterized not only by

the deeply painful loss of a family member they loved, but by the traumatization of losing them

suddenly and violently, and the victimization of having them die intentionally at the hands of

another person. As simultaneously bereaved, traumatized, and victimized individuals, the study

participants shared that they faced physical, emotional, social, and spiritual challenges that

affected their relationships, challenged their ability to function, and threatened the sufficiency of

their usual coping resources. These findings align strongly with and support the work of other

researchers and scholars who have described the loss of a family member to homicide as a

deeply destabilizing experience characterized by the collision of trauma and loss (Amick-

McMullan, et al., 1989; Amick-McMullan, Kilpatrick & Resnick, 1991; Armour, 2002a,b, 2003,

141

2006; Baliko & Tuck, 2008; Campesino, 2007; Currier, Holland & Neimeyer, 2006; DeYoung &

Buzzi, 2003; Hertz, Prothrow-Stith, & Chery; 2005; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2003; Mezey, Evans,

and Hobdell 2002; Miller, 2009a; Murphy, et al., 2003; Parappully, 2002; Parkes, 1993;

Rynearson & McCreery, 1993). By supporting the work of others who have described the

fundamental nature of the homicide bereavement experience, this study strengthens what is

already documented in the research and practice literature. Furthermore, validating previous

research related to the essential essence of the homicide bereavement experience ensured that

this study was firmly grounded. This foundation of understanding was critical to exploration of

the study’s primary area of inquiry – the ways in which employment affects and interacts with

the homicide bereavement experience.

Homicide bereavement and employment influence one another: The benefits and

challenges of working. The main area of focus for this study was to explore the ways that being

bereaved by the murder of a family member affected survivors’ employment and the ways that

employment affected their bereavement. Specifically, this study sought to uncover whether, in

the participants’ experiences, there was any relationship between employment and bereavement

at all and to identify and describe any connections that emerged. Findings drawn from the

narratives of the 20 participants from this study support the suggestion that there is a connection

between employment experiences and bereavement experiences, with each reciprocally

influencing the other. As detailed in the previous section, the study participants described the

many ways in which their loss, bereavement, and survivorship created multiple challenges and

affected all areas of their lives. They shared that their employment was not only a space where

they spent a good deal of their time and physical and intellectual energy, but a source of their

financial security, social relationships, and occupational identity. Thus, their employment was

142

integrally connected to and overlapped with other aspects of their lives and was, therefore,

fundamentally affected by their homicide bereavement experience. Rather than leaving their

grief at home, they shared that it came with them to their workplaces, affecting not only their

ability to be at work, but the ways they viewed their jobs, interacted with colleagues and

supervisors, completed work tasks, and managed employment responsibilities. Likewise, the

ways in which their employment setting, co-workers, and supervisors reacted to their loss and

interacted with them in the short and long term had a clear effect on their bereavement.

Specifically, their employment experiences had the potential to create protective factors that

helped to facilitate coping, risk factors that interfered with coping, and, in most of the

participants’ experiences, a combination of both.

The benefits of employment – work as a protective factor during homicide bereavement.

As a group, the participants from this study described the many ways in which their employment

settings, co-workers, and supervisors provided needed support and assistance as they grieved the

loss of their family member to homicide. While most of them described both beneficial and

challenging aspects of the relationship between their bereavement and employment, the many

ways in which their employment served as a protective factor that supplemented their other

coping resources was a strong theme overall. As the primary source of income for most of them,

the participants shared that their employment was fundamental to their survival and the financial

security of their families. That said, many shared that especially during their bereavement, their

employment was more than a means of paying their bills. Rather, with few exceptions, their

workplace, the work itself, and the people they interacted with in their employment settings,

were described as critical sources of support that buoyed them in their grief and buffered against

the intense sadness they felt in the wake of their family member’s murder.

143

The participants universally shared that they needed time off from their jobs to grieve in the

early phase of their bereavement, with most taking several weeks off after their family member

was killed. During this very painful time, the majority reported that their employer maintained a

supportive presence in their lives, with colleagues attending memorial services for their family

member, calling and visiting them at home, sending cards and flowers, collecting funds to assist

them financially, and maintaining enough contact to signal that they were cared about and that

their return to work was important. With few exceptions, the participants shared that they were

encouraged and supported in taking extended time off from their jobs to grieve their loss, with

several describing their employers as very understanding and flexible in allowing them to return

when they felt ready to do so. The participants described these overtures of support as very

important to their early bereavement, allowing them space to care for themselves and their

families while feeling relatively secure that their jobs would be there when they returned. Not

only did these workplace efforts and provisions seem to contribute to their ability to cope with

the murder, but feeling cared about by their workplace also seemed to motivate the majority of

participants to stay connected with and ultimately return to their jobs.

In addition to the provision of financial assistance, extended time off, and other concrete

forms of support, many of the participants detailed the various ways in which their employment

played an active and important role in their coping. In fact, some shared that their jobs were so

critical to their post-homicide bereavement experience that had they not had a job to return to,

their ability to cope with the loss would have been significantly negatively affected. Regardless

of whether they felt fully ready to go back to their jobs following their bereavement leave or not,

most of the participants described their return to work as important and necessary to their coping.

Foremost, a return to their work setting meant, for many, a return to some semblance of

144

normalcy and stability. As the homicide of their family member had been deeply destabilizing,

essentially shattering their world, leaving them feeling powerless, and challenging them in all

areas of life, going back to work was a return to familiar routines, schedules, and responsibilities

where they generally knew what to expect and could feel a sense of competence, agency, and

control. In a larger world that had become suddenly chaotic and unpredictable with the murder of

their family member, the smaller world of their workplace remained, in many ways, unchanged.

Thus, for many, a return to work seemed, in some ways, to counter-balance the instability they

felt in many of the other areas of their lives, providing a needed sense of constancy and

stableness.

In addition to the sense of normalcy and stability that their return to work provided, many of

the participants shared that working also gave them temporary relief from the intensity of their

grief. According to these survivors, spending a portion of their day at work allowed them space

away from their homes where reminders of their family member and their loss were ever-present

and, often, all-consuming. Thus, while they never forgot their family member or the loss, they

described their job as offering a space of respite, where they could keep themselves occupied

with work assignments and responsibilities and concentrate less on the death of their family

member. In addition to providing a needed distraction from the intensity of their grief, being at

work was also described by many participants as providing them with a sense purpose that had a

healing quality. Especially for those participants working in the health, education, and human

service sector, engaging with others in need and being in the position to provide necessary

services, support, and care not only provided them with a sense of professional satisfaction and

agency, but seemed to soothe their own sadness and help them to feel better.

Beyond the many ways in which their jobs served as a necessary coping resource by

145

providing a sense of normalcy, stability, and purpose in their lives following the homicide, many

of the participants described their employment as a critical source of social support as they

grieved. Both in the immediate aftermath of the murder and as time went on, the workplace

represented, for many, an expansion of the family, friend, faith and community support network

upon which they relied for bereavement and coping assistance. In the early phase of their

bereavement, several described the ways that their colleagues, supervisors, administrators, and

consumers offered heartfelt expressions of sadness and concern. To many, these expressions of

care and support were bolstering, helping them to cope with the loss and the many ways it

affected their lives. As they began to adjust to their lives as homicide survivors, several shared

that their workplace was a compassionate environment where co-workers created space for them

to grieve and work simultaneously. This was exemplified not only by consistent expressions of

sensitivity, empathy, and an awareness of the survivor’s ongoing grief and sadness, but by

workplace accommodations that helped them to keep their jobs throughout their bereavement

trajectory. To illustrate this, many detailed the ways that their managers seemed to understand

the unique nature of their bereavement experience, showing patience and flexibility around their

time off needs and work responsibilities. Additionally, they described many of their workmates

as sources of support who effectively gauged their emotional needs and responded with subtle,

non-intrusive expressions of care and concrete assistance with work tasks.

The challenges of employment – work as a risk factor during homicide bereavement. In

spite of the benefits that many associated with working while grieving, most of the study

participants also described ways that their employment challenged their bereavement and vice

versa. Even among those who described their employment as having a generally positive

influence on their bereavement and coping, there were times when their bereavement made it

146

difficult to work and ways that their work made it challenging to cope with the unique

experience of having a family member murdered. While the majority of the study participants

returned to their pre-homicide employment settings, they were careful to convey that they did so

while still in the midst of grieving, adjusting to the loss, and managing the many ways in which

their lives had changed as a result. Thus, they shared that grieving while working created

challenges in and of itself as the loss was with them at all times, even as they engaged in work

tasks and responsibilities. Most reported being generally able to adequately fulfill their

employment responsibilities upon their return to work. Nonetheless, the majority reported that, at

times, feelings of sadness, memories of their family member, or reminders of the murder would

interfere with their ability to go to work at all or to maintain focus and effectively do their jobs

when there. For some, this required that they take days off, leave early, take breaks, or

temporarily work on other tasks, sometimes requesting assistance from a co-worker.

In addition to the ways that their ongoing grief and sadness affected their work, several

participants described the ways in which their workplace and colleagues affected their grief, at

times interfering with their ability to simultaneously work and cope with their family member’s

murder. While some employment settings had engaged in thoughtful preparation for their return

to work, anticipating their needs and putting measures in place to assist in their transition, most

did not. Thus, many of the study participants described returning to a workplace setting that was

largely unprepared for and uneducated around the unique experience of homicide bereavement

and the needs of the grieving employee. Most of the participants described their workmates as

well-intentioned people who were interested in supporting them by showing care and concern

around their loss. Nonetheless, there were those in the workplace who, given the nature of the

survivor’s loss, were unsure what to say or how best to deploy support, avoiding them instead.

147

These experiences, coupled with ongoing, overt expressions of sympathy, and sometimes

intrusive questions and assumptions about the nature of their loved one’s death, at times, had the

effect of further destabilizing them, reminding them of their loss, making them feel stigmatized,

and, ultimately, interrupting their ability to focus on their work. Most of the participants wanted

their loss to be acknowledged, appreciated genuine expressions of empathy, and valued their co-

workers efforts to assist them with their work. At the same time, they also wanted and needed

their workplace to be a place or normalcy, stability, and sameness where they could take space

from the intensity of their grief experience, focus on routine tasks, and feel a sense of agency. By

treating them too carefully, focusing too much on the loss, or subjecting the survivor to

inappropriate questions or assumptions about the murder, the employment setting had the

potential to undermine the sense of stability and return to normalcy that the participants saw as

essential.

While most of the study participants returned to their pre-homicide jobs and remained in

those jobs for some time after the murder of their loved one, there was a smaller subset of five

participants who did not. For these survivors, employment seemed, overall, to present more

bereavement challenges than benefits. For one, the anticipatory challenges of managing a job

while grieving a homicide seemed impossible and thus, she made the decision to leave her

employment position soon after her family member was killed. She returned to the workforce a

year later to take a job in a different field of work, describing her period of unemployment as

critical to her grieving and adjustment process. For three others, a return to work was short-lived

as they encountered a workplace that they perceived to be intolerant, inflexible, and generally

unsympathetic to their unique grieving needs and challenges. Two of these participants left their

jobs soon after returning following their bereavement leave. The third reported being asked to

148

leave her job indefinitely as a result of her supervisor’s perception that her grief and sadness

were overwhelming her and interfering with her ability to do her job effectively. One additional

participant returned to her position and remained in her job for a longer period of time following

her bereavement leave. However, this participant struggled with ongoing health concerns that she

associated with her grief that challenged her ability work consistently. It was these health

concerns and her supervisor’s impatience with the intermittent time off that was a necessary part

of her self-care that, she believed, ultimately led to her being fired from her job.

Creation of a coping-conducive workplace: supporting the working homicide survivor.

Implicitly through their descriptions of their experiences, and explicitly through their

suggestions, the 20 study participants made a number of strong statements around the potential

for the employment setting to be a place that could contribute to coping in the aftermath of a

family member’s murder. Regardless of the nature of their own employment experiences, they

clearly articulated the various ways that employment settings could assist survivors in coping

with the loss by providing both concrete forms of support and emotional aid to supplement other

coping resources. Universally, they described the employment setting as more than a source of

income upon which they relied to manage their financial obligations. Rather, for many, their

employment setting, the work they were engaged in, and the people they interacted with at their

jobs, were essential to their adjustment to life after homicide. Indeed, the employment setting

offered many the normalcy, stability, and social support they needed to begin to re-build their

lives in the wake of their family member’s murder. They detailed a number of important

elements needed in order for employment settings to be the type of coping-conducive spaces that

could support and facilitate homicide bereavement and simultaneous employment. Namely, they

felt that employment settings needed to acknowledge the unique nature of homicide bereavement

149

as a devastating and traumatizing loss that not only creates significant sadness and grief, but

affects all aspects of the survivor’s life, creating physical, emotional, social, and spiritual

challenges that are different from other types of death losses. With an acknowledgement of the

unique nature of homicide bereavement, they universally suggested that employers need to be

flexible and accommodating with the working survivor’s time-off needs, both in the immediate

aftermath of the murder and as time goes on. Resoundingly, they described the inadequacy of

typical 3-5 day bereavement time off policies, describing these as grossly insufficient for

homicide survivors. In addition to the need for workplace flexibility and accommodations

around time-off, the participants detailed other ways that employment settings could be spaces

that were coping-conducive. Foundationally, they advocated for a workplace culture of care and

concern for all employees, where workers could communicate openly about personal challenges

and receive needed support as a way to enhance their ability to do their jobs effectively and

maintain productivity. Specifically focusing on the needs of workers bereaved by homicide, the

participants suggested that employers create a workplace atmosphere that effectively balanced

their need for normalcy, stability, and sameness, while also providing a space characterized by

genuine empathy, understanding, and patience for their ongoing grieving needs.

The findings related to this second study theme support what little is documented in the

research and practice literature on bereavement and employment in general and extend what is

known about homicide bereavement and employment, specifically. First, these findings align

with the scholarship of Doka (1999), who describes bereavement as a process that does not

exclusively occur privately in one’s home, but one that occurs socially and plays out in the

various social settings that the bereaved occupy, including their workplace. Walter (2009)

supports this notion, asserting that “grief does not occur in a social or geographical vacuum”

150

(p.409). In spite of recognition that grief is not turned off when one enters the work setting,

others have described the ways in which the bereaved employee is nonetheless challenged by the

societal expectation that personal and work matters remain separate and, furthermore, that they

recover quickly from their grief and return to their previous levels of employment productivity

(Lattanzi-Licht, 2002). These expectations, according to Eyetsemitan (1998), can have the effect

of stifling grief, impeding the bereaved person’s ability to cope.

Rather than denying the effect of bereavement on work and artificially dividing these two

interrelated social spheres, bereavement scholar-practitioners (Lattanzi-Licht, 1999, 2002;

Zucker, 1999) and writers in the management field (Charles-Edwards, 2009) suggest that

employers can play an important role in facilitating coping by openly acknowledging the loss,

showing non-intrusive empathy and support, providing referrals for additional bereavement

resources as needed, and engaging in compassionate and flexible workplace practices that allow

the employee to manage their work while grieving. Specifically, Lattanzi-Licht (1999) suggests

that workplaces take a balanced approach that allows employees to manage their own working-

grieving needs while creating a healthy and supportive work environment that responds

compassionately as needed. Beyond being generally empathic and acknowledging the physical,

emotional, and social effects of grief, Lattanizi-Licht (1999) further suggests that supervisors can

also build in specific, concrete, work-related supports by meeting with the bereaved employee to

discuss workload modifications and providing information on and assistance with taking

advantage of bereavement leave options (Lattanzi-Licht, 1999). Likewise, Zucker (1999)

suggest that, rather than avoiding an acknowledgement of an employee’s personal difficulties

and challenges, an engaged, compassionate response by the employer not only supports the

employee, but helps the employment organization. With regard to employees who are grieving,

151

he asserts that employers can minimize productivity losses, improve relationships, and increase

effectiveness by assisting workers in managing the various emotions that are part of the

bereavement experience. In addition, Doka (1999), Lattanzi-Licht (1999), and Zucker (1999)

each suggest that supportive workplaces that employ compassionate bereavement practices can

facilitate an employee’s ability to cope with the loss, creating a space of emotional care and

temporary respite. These ideas are further supported by Walter (2009) and Charles-Edwards

(2009) who, likewise, suggest that the workplace can be a source of social support while also

providing the bereaved employee with a sense of normalcy, stability, and an escape from the

intensity of their grief.

These conceptualizations from the existing literature on the relationship between bereavement

and employment mirror, in many ways, findings from this dissertation study. Specifically, they

align with the participants’ descriptions of the challenges and benefits of working while grieving,

as well as their recommendations around what they wanted and needed from their workplace in

terms of flexible time off and a coping-conducive workplace atmosphere characterized by

balanced support, empathy, patience, and understanding. Thus, the work and writings of these

scholars are useful in providing a foundation for understanding the practical and emotional needs

of bereaved individuals as they manage working while grieving and ways that employment

settings can assist with coping. In spite of the usefulness of this existing literature as a starting

point from which to understand bereavement and employment, these scholars do not specifically

address the experience of those bereaved by homicide, except to suggest that traumatic deaths

can be more complicated, challenging the bereaved person’s ability to adapt (Lattanzi-Licht,

1999; 2002). In fact, while a number of homicide bereavement scholars briefly mention the role

of employment as a factor influencing the experiences of the bereaved (Campesino, 2007;

152

DeYoung & Buzzi, 2003; Hertz, Prothrow-Stith, & Chery, 2005; Mezey, Evans, and Hobdell

2002; National Center for Victims of Crime, 2008; Parkes, 1993; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993),

there is no empirical research, to my knowledge, that specifically examines the relationship

between homicide bereavement and employment and explores the connections between them.

Thus, this dissertation study and, specifically, the findings related to this second theme, represent

new knowledge, extending what is known about the relationship between bereavement and

employment for homicide survivors, what makes this experience unique from that of other

bereaved workers, and ways that employment settings can provide appropriate assistance to aid

and support their coping process.

Implications for Bereavement Theory

As a theoretical lens for understanding the experiences of the 20 participants, this study

utilized the basic constructs of Symbolic Interaction Theory, Attachment Theory, and Trauma

Theory within an overarching ecological framework. Together, these theoretical paradigms

informed the study and grounded a foundational exploration of the homicide bereavement

experience and the ways that employment might potentially influence this experience. As the

study was implemented and moved forward, these theoretical constructs guided the way I made

sense of the data and the ways concepts and experiences were connected with one another. The

intention of utilizing each of these theoretical perspectives was not to treat them as separate, but

rather, to integrate them into a cohesive theoretical framework for understanding homicide

bereavement, employment, and their relationships with one another. After the study findings

were drafted and a tentative framework was constructed, Critical Race Theory was added at the

suggestion of a committee member, as a way to deepen an understating of the participants’

experiences, given their identities as people of color and the likelihood that their race and

153

dynamics of racism and oppression affected these experiences. The discussion that follows is a

brief distillation of these theoretical constructs and a beginning formulation of their utility in

making sense of the narratives of the study participants.

The use of Attachment Theory and Trauma Theory as paradigms to inform this dissertation

study were rather obvious choices as the characterization of the homicide bereavement

experience as the “synergism of trauma and loss” (Rynearson & McCreery, 1993, p.258) is well

documented in the research and practice literature describing survivors’ experiences (Amick-

McMullen, et al., 1989, 1991; Armour, 2002a,b, 2003, 2006; Baliko & Tuck, 2008; Bonanno &

Kaltman, 1999; Campesino, 2007; Currier, et al., 2006; DeYoung & Buzzi, 2003; Green, 2000;

Hertz & Prothrow-Stith, & Chery; 2005; Kaltman & Bonanno, 2003; Mezey, Evans, and Hobdell

2002; Miller, 2009a; Murphy, et al., 2003; Parappully, 2002; Parkes, 1993, 1996, 2009; Rando,

1993, 1997; Rynearson & McCreery, 1993; Rynearson, 2006). Thus, the combination of these

theories as a way to understand the experiences of the 20 participants from this study was

essential. Taken together, the fundamental assumptions of Attachment Theory and Trauma

Theory not only grounded and informed the study, but the research findings ultimately supported

their usefulness in understanding and making sense of the experiences of those bereaved by

homicide. As described throughout this dissertation document, the participants’ narratives

consistently highlighted the ways in which their bereavement experience was a unique one,

characterized not only by the deeply painful loss of a loved family member, but by the

devastation of the sudden, violent, and intentional nature of their death.

In each of their interviews, the participants spoke at great length about their relationships with

their family member who was murdered, the love they had between them, and the ways in which

their lives were fundamentally intertwined. In addition, they described in great detail the ways in

154

which their family member’s death threatened their sense of security, stability and coherence,

creating intense sadness and distress, feelings of physical and emotional pain, and a strong sense

of yearning and longing to be reunited. Furthermore, as a way to seek relief from the suffering

they felt, many of the participants described the ways they sought to maintain both a tangible and

symbolic connection with their family member who died. These finding strongly align with the

fundamental constructs of Attachment Theory as originally conceptualized by John Bowlby

(1961, 1969, 1973, 1980), specifically his overarching assertion that the death of an attachment

figure is a deeply destabilizing experience for the bereaved, causing deep sadness and distress

and the need to symbolically re-configure one’s relationship with the deceased and move

forward in life without them.

Alongside their descriptions of their bereavement as marked by the deeply painful loss of a

family member to whom they were deeply attached, the study participants simultaneously

described the ways in which the violent nature of their loved one’s death created a unique grief

experience that was fundamentally different from other types of death losses. Unlike other, non-

violent deaths, they described the murder of their family member as outside the realm of normal,

expected, and acceptable life experiences, therefore, leaving them fundamentally shaken and

devastated. Each emphatically highlighted the ways that having a family member die suddenly,

violently, intentionally, and without explanation overwhelmed them, challenging them

physically, emotionally, socially and spiritually, and threatening their ability to cope. In their

own words and in the ways they described the effect of the loss on their lives, they universally

characterized the murder of a family member as an experience not only of loss, but of trauma,

leaving them not only bereaved, but victimized. For many of them, this resulted in significant

physical and mental health challenges and symptoms of post-traumatic stress that they attributed

155

to the complicated nature of their grief. These findings strongly align with the fundamental

tenets of Trauma Theory and practice wisdom (Brewin, Dalgleish, & Joseph; 1996; Herman,

1997; Janoff-Bulman, 1992; McCann & Pearlman, 1990), which suggest that a traumatic

experience is one that is non-normative, overwhelms one’s coping resources, and disrupts one’s

basic assumptions about life. The participants’ narratives support these theoretical and practice

constructs as they universally described the murder of their family member as a seismic and

catastrophic loss that threated their ability to cope and, additionally, challenged their

fundamental assumptions about the world as a generally good and safe place. Even though most

of the participants lived in communities affected by frequent incidents of violence, none of the

participants expected that they, or a member of their family, would be victims. Thus, the murder

of their family member was viewed as an event that did not make sense, leaving many of them

feeling confused, shocked, scared, and angry, with a new sense of vulnerability that they did not

have prior to the murder. Taken together, Attachment Theory and Trauma Theory provide a

combined theoretical framework for understanding the study participants’ experiences as

simultaneously bereaved and traumatized individuals. This fundamental conceptualization of the

unique nature of their bereavement, then, provides a pathway for understanding the ways that

their workplace needs and challenges were different from other bereaved workers.

As a supplement to the constructs of Attachment Theory and Trauma Theory, this dissertation

study also utilized Symbolic Interaction Theory as an additional, critical framework through

which to consider the participants’ homicide bereavement and employment experiences. Among

the central tenets of Symbolic Interaction Theory as conceptualized by Mead (1934) and Blumer

(1969) is the notion that meaning is dynamically constructed through one’s relationships with

others. As one interacts with others and interprets the meanings of these interactions through the

156

use of words, gestures, and other symbols, one comes to see oneself as a social being that is

defined by these relationships, and this is integral to the way in which one’s identity and

understanding of the social world are created. From a Symbolic Interactionist perspective, all

deaths are symbolically meaningful for the bereaved as they represent not only the loss of a

relationship with someone that was loved, but the loss of an aspect of one’s identity that was

attached to the relationship, and a fundamental shift in the way one makes meaning of the world

around them in the wake of the loss. Thus, in the aftermath of any death, the bereaved are tasked

with assigning meaning to the loss, making sense of it, and reconstructing their own identity and

the world around them in their loved one’s absence. When the death is a murder, it carries unique

symbolic significance for the bereaved. Fundamentally different from other types of death losses,

homicide is a sudden, untimely, violent, and intentional act and one that is, therefore, outside the

realm of anticipated life experiences and for which there is no template for understanding. In

addition, unlike deaths that occur naturally, as a result of illness, or even by accident, a homicide

is not only a private experience, but a public one that leaves family members not only tragically

bereaved, but victimized and, potentially, stigmatized. Thus, for those bereaved by homicide, the

grief experience is marked by a loss that is symbolically significant in its own right and,

additionally, by changes in one’s individual and social identity, and new questions about the

way the world around them is understood.

As a group, the participants’ narratives supported the use of Symbolic Interactionism as a

theoretical paradigm through which to understand the experience of homicide bereavement and

employment. Resoundingly, they described the murder of their family member as a unique and

deeply meaningful bereavement experience that, by its sudden, intentional, and violent nature,

was unlike other death losses they had endured. As simultaneously bereaved and victimized

157

people, they shared that this unique loss not only required them to re-envision their lives and

identities in the absence of their loved one, but to reconsider the way they had previously made

sense of their world. Not only did they describe the murder of their family member as an event

that was senseless, confusing, and impossible to comprehend, but one that called other important

meaning systems into question. For many, this included an interrogation of long-held and taken

for granted assumptions that had anchored them, including questions about their spiritual

convictions, their life’s meaning and purpose, and whether the world was a good and safe place.

For some, these deeply personal challenges and questions of meaning were exacerbated by

public perceptions and assumptions about murder victims as potentially to blame for their own

deaths. These questions and assumptions about their family member’s activities and, by

extension, their own character, had for some the effect of making them feel stigmatized, in some

ways disenfranchising (Doka, 2002) their right to grieve.

In addition to providing a useful framework for understanding the participants’ homicide

bereavement experience, Symbolic Interaction Theory also contributes to an understanding of the

ways in which their employment played a role in shaping that experience. While the experience

of their family member’s homicide had effectively caused devastating and seismic changes to the

ways the participants saw themselves and the world, their workplace was, for many, a setting that

had remained relatively stable. As other aspects of their lives, identities, and fundamental

assumptions were called into question, their workplace routines and expectations, relationships

with colleagues, and identities as workers persisted. Thus, in a larger world that had, in many

ways, stopped making sense, their workplace offered not only a space of consistency and

normalcy, but a place where aspects of their pre-homicide identity and systems of meaning

remained relatively unchanged. Thus, for many of the participants, their employment setting

158

became critically important to their bereavement experience not only for the potential concrete

assistance and social support that it offered, but for the symbolic meaning it held.

As a later addition to the theoretical framework undergirding this dissertation study, Critical

Race Theory adds important elements to the ways in which the participants’ experiences of

homicide bereavement and employment can be understood. At the center of this theoretical

paradigm is the fundamental assumption that issues of power and racial oppression and privilege

are part of all social interactions and that it is only through this lens that social experiences,

especially those of people of color, can be meaningfully understood. Furthermore, it is through

honestly acknowledging and interrogating these experiences and challenging the social structures

that support racial inequity that change can occur (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Given that the

study participants were exclusively of people of color, and therefore, members of a historically

marginalized group, attention to the role of race and racism as important factors that inevitably

have shaped their life experiences overall, and particularly their homicide bereavement and

employment experiences, seems essential. Inclusion of this theoretical perspective as part of the

overall ecological frame for the study has allowed me to think more deeply about these effects,

make new connections across the study data, and identify gaps in the knowledge generated by

this research inquiry. First, there were themes of racial injustice that emerged from some of the

participants’ interview narratives. Specifically, a small number of participants shared that they

felt the gravity and tragic nature of their loss was undermined by public apathy around the killing

of young men of color and, additionally, by racist views that portrayed men of color, their

families, and communities as engaging in activities that contributed to their deaths. The public

perception that their family member’s lives lacked value, that their own loss was unimportant,

and that their loved ones were potentially to blame for their murder seemed to leave these

159

participants feeling stigmatized and doubly victimized. In addition to the role of racial bias in

the ways their family members’ murders were perceived by the public, another participant shared

her belief that racism on the part of the police played a role in stalling the investigation into her

family member’s murder. While these themes did not emerge consistently across the

participants’ narratives, they were deeply meaningful and significant aspects of the homicide

bereavement experiences for those that expressed them. Potentially as meaningful as the themes

of racial inequity that emerged from this research inquiry, are the areas where themes of racial

bias were not raised. Specifically, the study participants were not asked about the role of racial

bias or inequity as factors that potentially influenced their pre- or post-homicide employment

experience and none raised this as a theme during the course of their interviews. Given the

powerful, often covert role of privilege and racial oppression in all of our social institutions, it is

possible that these forces did play a role in their employment experiences, but were not

expressed either because they were not asked or because they were reluctant to share this

information. Thus, because of the nature of the data that was gathered as part of this research

inquiry, the implications of Critical Race Theory is limited to these areas. Additional, consistent

consideration of the role of race and racism and inclusion of Critical Race Theory as a guiding

theoretical paradigm will therefore, be important to future research that extends and is initiated

by this dissertation study.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

This study has a number of strengths as well as some inherent limitations, both of which

contextualize the findings and related implications. Foremost, the qualitative research design,

utilizing interviews as the primary mode of data collection, is a significant strength as it allowed

for the gathering of rich, detailed information from the study sample that likely could not have

160

been obtained through the use of other research methods. The study interviews provided a

platform for the 20 participants to describe their homicide bereavement and employment

experiences in detail, using their own words, and making their own connections between these

two aspects of their lives. Through their thick descriptions, they enriched what is known about

the homicide bereavement experience, created a beginning understanding of the role of

employment in influencing this experience, and provided a strong foundation for continued

research. In addition to the use of a qualitative research design and the collection of rich, in-

depth, and deeply descriptive data, the fact that the study sample is comprised entirely of people

of color is another important strength. Given that this demographic is the population most likely

to be victims of homicide both nationally and locally, it was imperative that the study focused on

their experiences. In addition, the decision to include a second researcher at key points in the

research process is a significant study strength. Having a co-interviewer, who also identifies as a

person of color, as a participant in early interviews and initial coding improved the quality of the

data that was obtained and increased the rigor of the data analysis process, ultimately

contributing to the study’s ability to more accurately represent the participants’ experiences.

Finally, the inclusion of a community partner with close ties to the homicide bereavement

community was perhaps the study’s greatest strength. Building a relationship with the Louis D.

Brown Peace Institute and its staff members, many of whom are both people of color and

homicide survivors themselves, created many advantages that contributed to the overall quality

of the research. They not only provided the study with a sense of credibility within the homicide

survivor community, but facilitated access to the study sample, and informed the study design in

ways that enhanced its overall quality.

161

While this study has a number of important strengths, it also has some limitations that should

be noted. First, this study utilized a non-randomized, purposeful sample of 20 English-speaking

adults, living in Boston, who were working at the time of their family member’s homicide. Given

the intentions of the research and its qualitative design, the sample size is small. Although the

findings are rich and detailed, they are limited by the number of study participants and

constricted to this particular set of individuals, most of whom are parents and female.

Furthermore, given that the study participants each volunteered to participate and many were

affiliated in some way with the study’s community partner, a local support organization, they

may represent a more motivated, help-seeking sample of the general population of those

bereaved by homicide. Additionally, because the study excluded non-English speakers for

practical reasons, the perspectives of these individuals were not captured. Moreover, because the

sample was drawn from a specific geographic location, Boston, some of the data collected may

be idiosyncratic to this city and region. In particular, the majority of the study participants

worked in the health, human services, and education sector, areas of industry and employment

that are strongly represented in the city of Boston. While there were participants who worked in

other employment sectors, the study findings are somewhat clustered around the homicide

bereavement and employment experiences of those working in settings that seem more likely to

respond to the needs of their employees, given that their missions and services are focused on

health and well-being. While there are limitations to a voluntary, purposeful sample, the

vulnerability of this population, the specificity of the subject under study, and the goal of

obtaining detailed descriptions of their experiences via interviews made this sampling strategy

appropriate. Finally, the use of interviews as the primary mode of data collection, while already

identified as a significant study strength, can be a limiting factor. Interviews are by nature

162

dependent upon interaction and dialogue between the participant and interviewer(s). Thus, there

is the possibility that the depth of engagement and responses of the participants will be

influenced by the interviewer(s) with whom they may not share the same social locations,

identities, and experiences. Where this study was primarily conducted by a white researcher who

is neither part of the Boston community, nor a homicide survivor, it is possible that the

participants chose not to share certain details of their experiences, specifically experiences of

racism. Additionally, my identity as a white person who has not experienced racial oppression

surely influenced and shaped both the research and the ways it has been interpreted in this

document. Each of these factors inevitably affected the data generated and influenced the

dependability and trustworthiness of the findings. In spite of these limitations, this study yielded

important findings that support and expand what is known about the homicide bereavement

experience, contributing new knowledge around the role of employment as an important factor

influencing this experience, and guiding practice, policy, and future research on behalf of this

population.

Implications for Social Work Practice

Findings from this study have important implications for professional social workers and

allied professionals working with those bereaved by homicide. Foundationally, the study

findings suggest that social workers in a variety of professional settings, particularly those in

urban communities, need to be educated and trained around the unique experience of homicide

bereavement and the ways in which this experience is fundamentally different from other death

losses. This involves special attention to and education around the devastating and traumatic

nature of homicide and the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual challenges this can create for

family members whose loved one has been murdered. This may be especially critical for social

163

workers and other professionals working in healthcare settings where they may be among the

first to encounter a family member whose loved one has been killed. For these front line

professionals and for those in other settings serving communities affected by violence, it seems

critically important that they understand the special circumstances surrounding this type of loss

and be able to professionally respond with sensitivity, empathy, and compassionate care.

Furthermore, the study findings suggest that it is essential for professional helpers to be aware of

community organizations and governmental resources established to provide support to those

bereaved by homicide and that they have the capacity to readily connect family members with

those resources. This may include linking family members to individual clinical support,

survivor networks, homicide bereavement support groups, court advocates, and state offices of

victims’ assistance. In addition to providing referrals to formal support systems and resources,

findings from this study suggest that social workers should be aware of the important role that

more informal support resources such as family, friends, and faith community members can play

in helping homicide survivors cope. Helping the bereaved to identity members of their informal

support network, validating the value of these supports, and helping survivors to connect with

and make use of them, seems essential to ensuring that bereaved family members have access to

a wide array of potential sources of assistance. Beyond understanding the unique nature of the

homicide bereavement experience and having the ability to provide direct support and assistance

to family members, social workers have a responsibility to closely examine the dynamics of

power, oppression, and privilege that contribute to disproportionate rates of homicide, as well as

other social inequities, among communities of color. As a profession grounded in social justice

values, social workers have an ethical and professional obligation to recognize and highlight the

role of racism in marginalizing people of color and, additionally, to interrogate and change the

164

social systems and institutions that perpetuate it.

In addition to these overarching practice implications, findings from this study suggest that

social workers should be especially aware of the relevance, role, and influence of employment on

the bereavement experience of homicide survivors. Specifically, social workers working with

this population should understand that, regardless of the type of job one holds, employment

consistency is not only critical to family members’ financial stability, but can strongly contribute

to their ability to cope with the murder. As another potentially important component of a

homicidally bereaved person’s informal support network, a prepared employment setting can be

coping-conducive, providing needed social support, normalcy, consistency, and respite during a

devastatingly painful and disruptive time. By acknowledging the potential inherent value of

working following the murder of a family member, social workers can assist survivors in

returning to work and in managing their grieving needs and work responsibilities simultaneously.

The participants’ narratives and recommendations suggest that this work begins with assisting

survivors in negotiating a bereavement leave plan that is considerate of their early grieving needs

and the parameters of their job. This includes assisting family members in understanding their

workplace bereavement time off policies, as well as extended leave possibilities that may be

available through the use of accrued vacation and sick time, time off donated by co-workers,

Family and Medical Leave Act provisions, and short-term disability options. For workers in part-

time, unbenefited, or less flexible jobs, obtaining needed time off is potentially more

challenging, making it necessary for social workers to be able to assist family members in

negotiating time off with their employers while keeping their jobs secure. Depending on the

needs of the employee and their job setting, this may mean exploring the possibility of taking

time off without pay and considering other ways to manage their financial obligations in the

165

meantime.

In addition to assisting family members in brokering a bereavement time-off plan, social

workers can also provide essential support in helping survivors navigate a return to work that

maximizes their ability to feel supported in their short and long term coping while also managing

their work expectations. With the survivor’s permission, social workers can act as liaisons with

employment settings to help educate and prepare human resources departments, employee

assistance programs, supervisors, and colleagues around the unique nature of the homicide

bereavement experience and provide guidance around ways to engage with the survivor to

convey empathy, patience, sensitivity, and understanding while also creating a space of normalcy

and stability. Beyond this educational and consultative role, social workers can also assist with

proactive preparation for the survivor’s return to their jobs by working with the survivor and

employer to design a concrete, individualized plan for their transition that specifically describes

their anticipatory workplace needs, outlines possible accommodations, and describes preferences

for how emotional support and assistance should be provided. In this way, social workers can

assist in the creation of a coping-conducive workplace that both maximizes the survivor’s ability

to work and manage their bereavement needs while assisting the employer in feeling prepared

and capable of supporting and retaining them.

Implications for Clinical Work

The purpose of this study was not to collect diagnostic information related to the participants’

simultaneous experiences of grief and trauma. Nonetheless, clinically relevant information about

the general presentation and challenges of those bereaved by homicide emerged as part of the

overall research inquiry process. While this information is not exhaustive or definitive, it does

contribute to a clinical understanding of the homicide bereavement experience, particularly the

166

ways in which symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and/or complicated/persistent

bereavement may be present for this population. A greater understanding of the clinical

challenges that may affect survivors of homicide can be particularly relevant and helpful to

clinical social workers and other professionals whose role is to provide therapeutic support and

deploy appropriate resources.

Having lost a family member to homicide, all of the participants for this study had

experienced a traumatic event and, thus, met the first level of criteria for Posttraumatic Stress

Disorder (PTSD). During their interviews, some shared that that they been diagnosed with PTSD

following the homicide and their narratives seemed to support this. A number of others, while

they did not share that they had a PTSD diagnosis, described experiencing PTSD-related

symptoms, including intrusive memories, flashbacks, avoidance of reminders and thoughts

associated with the homicide, hypervigilance, and difficulty sleeping that lasted longer than one

month after the homicide and affected them in important areas of functioning. Thus, while

confirming clinical diagnoses was not the intention of this study, it is reasonable to suggest that

upon further screening, a number of study participants, beyond those already diagnosed, might

meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD.

In addition to contributing to what is known about the presence of PTSD symptomatology

among homicide survivors, this study can also add to the current discussion around the clinical

difference between typical bereavement and longer-lasting, more complicated bereavement

trajectories. As described in the literature review for this study, after much debate, the current

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-5, has grouped clinically

significant bereavement-related symptomatology under a newly designated title, Persistent

Complex Bereavement Disorder, and placed it in the Conditions for Further Study chapter

167

(American Psychiatric Association, 2013). While not an official diagnosis at this time, it is worth

exploring the ways in which the participants from this study potentially meet the proposed

criteria for diagnosis.

In addition to having experienced the death of someone close, it is suggested that those

meeting the criteria for Persistent Complex Bereavement Disorder (PCBD) display clinically

significant symptoms that interfere with important areas of functioning and are outside what

would be considered appropriate for one’s cultural norms that have persisted for at least 12

months after the death. These symptoms include persistent yearning and longing for the person

who died, intense sorrow and emotional pain in relation to the death, preoccupation with the

deceased, and preoccupation with the circumstances of the death. In order to meet the criteria for

PCBD, these symptoms must be accompanied by additional indicators of reactive distress and

social/identity disruption in relation to the loss. Reactive distress markers include having

difficulty accepting the death, experiencing disbelief and emotional numbness over the loss, and

avoiding reminders of the loss. Indicators of social/identity disruption include a desire to die in

order to be with the deceased, feeling alone or detached from others, experiencing confusion

about one’s role in life or diminished sense of identity, and being reluctant to pursue interests

since the loss.

The purpose of this study was not to identify markers of Persistent Complex Bereavement

Disorder and participants were not asked specific questions that would facilitate this goal.

Nonetheless, they did provide information in the course of their interviews that allow some

general suppositions to be made. All of the study participants had experienced the murder of

someone with whom they had a close relationship and all but one of them had experienced this

loss more than 12 months prior to their participation in the study. In terms of meeting the other

168

diagnostic criteria suggested for this diagnosis, all described feeling intense sorrow and

emotional pain in relation to the loss, longing and yearning for their family member who was

killed, and, at times, being preoccupied with the deceased and the circumstances of the death. In

addition, most described symptoms of reactive distress and/or social/identity disruption that

significantly interfered with their ability to function in the days and months that followed the

murder. While most of the participants described symptoms consistent with diagnostic criteria

for Persistent Complex Bereavement Disorder early on, these symptoms seemed to lessen and

dissipate over time as they adjusted to an integrated the loss into their lives. Of the nineteen

participants who had experienced their family member’s murder at least one year prior to their

interview, only a small number (perhaps one or two) reported or seemed to be experiencing

symptoms of PCBD that might be considered clinically significant after twelve months post-loss.

Indeed, the study participants, as a group, presented as incredibly resilient, functioning rather

well in all areas of their lives in spite of the devastating loss they had endured. As a group, they

also described a number of sources of social and emotional support, including their families,

faith communities, and employment settings, which may have acted as buffers against long-term

PCBD symptoms. Again, while it is impossible to confirm or discount any diagnosis related to

the study participants as this was outside the scope of the study, this information can contribute

to ongoing discussion and future research on Persistent Complex Bereavement Disorder in

homicide survivors. In addition, detailed information regarding the clinical symptoms the

participants experienced adds to an understanding of their bereavement needs and challenges,

ultimately relating to their employment experiences and the potential role work might play in

exacerbating or diminishing symptoms.

169

Implications for Policy

In addition to its implications for practice, this study yielded a number of findings that have

important policy implications. First, the study findings strongly suggest that bereavement time

off is critically important for homicide survivors in the early period following the death of their

family member and, additionally, that the 3-5 day period of bereavement leave typically afforded

to employees is insufficient for this population. While some participants returned to work

relatively quickly after their family member was killed, most did not, stating that they needed

weeks, not days, to grieve, adjust to the loss, and begin to envision their lives after homicide.

Most of these participants shared that it would have been impossible to work during this early

time as they were so devastated and traumatized by the loss that they would not have been able

to fulfill the expectations of their jobs. Among those participants who returned to work rather

quickly, most did so because they had no choice, given the types of jobs they had, their reliance

on employment income, and the absence of paid bereavement time off options. For three of the

participants, a premature return to work related to their ultimately losing or leaving their jobs

soon thereafter.

Given these findings, measures to reform federal employment policy to mandate paid

bereavement leave for all employees could be an important foundational policy change that

would benefit all working bereaved, including those bereaved by homicide. The fact that there is

currently no federal regulation that requires employers to provide compulsory bereavement leave

of any sort creates a policy vacuum that places grieving employees in a precarious position as

they seek to maintain their jobs while also managing their grieving needs. This seems especially

true for those bereaved by homicide who face additional grieving challenges that can threaten

their health and wellbeing and, ultimately, their job performance. The ability to maintain

170

employment is critical for most working people. The assurance of paid time off to grieve could

potentially increase the likelihood that bereaved employees will return to their jobs rather than

leave their employment positions, maintaining their financial stability and reducing the need to

rely on governmental assistance in the face of unemployment or disability. This may be

especially important for people of color who are not only the population most likely to be

affected by homicide, but unemployment and poverty as well.

In combination with federal policy reform, it seems clear that all employment settings should

re-visit bereavement time off policies and practices and consider allowing more generous,

creative, and flexible provisions for those bereaved by homicide. Although most of the study

participants were able to extend their bereavement leaves, the options available to allow them to

do this were not ideal. Some extended their leaves under provisions of the Family and Medical

Leave Act. While this is an important benefit that may be useful for many workers, FMLA time

off is unpaid and not available to workers in smaller employment settings, those who have been

at their place of employment for a short time, and those working a limited number of hours.

Thus, this may not be an option that is viable, or even available, for many homicidally bereaved

workers. In addition to those participants who utilized FMLA benefits to extend their

bereavement leaves, many others took additional bereavement time off by exhausting accrued

vacation and sick time, depleted precious days off that many needed in the months that followed

their family member’s death. Given the unique nature of homicide bereavement, specifically the

more intense and longer lasting physical and emotional challenges associated with this type of

loss, it seems important for employees to be able to maintain vacation and sick time that they

have earned. Having access to earned time after their return to work seems essential to allow

homicide survivors to manage their ongoing grieving and coping needs, including taking days off

171

intermittently when grief feels overwhelming, keeping appointments with service providers,

attending court or meetings with criminal justice professionals, or simply taking vacation time to

rest or be with their families. Not having access to needed time off may increase the likelihood

that workers bereaved by homicide have difficulty managing their grieving needs while working

simultaneously. Thus, rather than helping them cope, employment could act as a barrier to

grieving, increasing physical and emotional challenges that could interfere with their ability to do

their jobs effectively, or to work at all. Considering that an employer’s greatest investment and

source of capital is a well-trained, healthy, capable staff, it seems that creating flexible

bereavement provisions and accommodations is not only a compassionate choice, but a wise

business decision.

Implications and Recommendations for Future Research

This dissertation study represents a beginning exploration into the role and influence of

employment on the bereavement process, with a specific focus on survivors of homicide. While

this research is an important first step, there remains very little in the research and practice

literature on this topic. Thus, there are a number of options for future research endeavors that

could flow from and expand upon the findings presented here. Given the identified sampling

gaps and limitations of this study, its foundation can be extended and strengthened by exploring

the relationship between homicide bereavement and employment among a larger and more

diverse group of survivors, including a sample that includes more males, non-English speakers,

and individuals in a wider array of employment settings and job roles. In addition, future

research could explore the potential similarities and differences among racial groups by seeking

to recruit a sample that includes both people of color and Caucasian homicide survivors.

Furthermore, by using this Boston-based study as a foundation, understating of this topic could

172

be expanded through replication in other urban settings significantly affected by homicide, such

as New York and Chicago. In addition to future research that specifically focuses on the

relationship between homicide bereavement and employment, this study also seems to set a

foundation for exploring the role of employment among other bereaved populations, include

those who have experienced other types of traumatic losses, as well as those bereaved by natural

deaths and those due to illness.

Conclusion

This dissertation study aimed to gain a better understanding of the employment experiences of

individuals bereaved by the homicide of a close family member by exploring the ways in which

survivors’ employment experiences affected their grief, and the ways their grief affected their

work. While only a beginning examination of the relationship between bereavement and

employment, the findings are, nonetheless, compelling. In addition to supporting existing

research that describes the experience of a family member’s homicide as a devastating,

catastrophic event that affects all areas of one’s life, this study also extends what is known about

this experience. Specifically, it begins to fill a knowledge gap by describing the potential

challenges that working can create for the traumatically bereaved, making it difficult to attend to

one’s grief and simultaneously maintain employment. Perhaps most importantly, this study also

provides beginning evidence of the beneficial role that work can play as a predictable, stable,

supportive and coping-conducive space that can aid survivors in managing their loss in both the

short and long term. Thus, this dissertation research has some important implications for theory,

practice, and policy, influencing the ways that social workers and other helping professionals

support and intervene on behalf of this population and others who are grieving.

173

References

Aldrich, H. & Kallivayalil, D. (2013). The effect of homicide bereavement on survivors and

clinicians. Journal of Loss and Trauma. 18, 362-377.

Alexander, M. (2011). The new Jim Crow. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 9(1), 7-26.

Allan, K. (2006). Contemporary social and sociological theory: Visualizing social worlds.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge/Sage.

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D., & Resnick, H. (1991). Homicide as a risk factor for PTSD

among surviving family members. Behavior Modification, 15, 545-559.

Amick-McMullan, A., Kilpatrick, D., Veronen, L., & Smith, S. (1989). Family survivors of

homicide victims: Theoretical perspectives and an exploratory study. Journal of

Traumatic Stress, 2(1), 21-35.

Archer, J. (2008). Theories of grief: Past, present, and future perspectives. In M. Stroebe, R.

Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of Bereavement Research and

Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention (pp. 45-65). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Armour, M. (2002a). Experiences of covictims of homicide: Implications for research and

practice. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 3(2), 109-124.

Armour, M. (2002b). Journey of family members of homicide victims: A qualitative study of

their posthomicide experience. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(3), 372-382.

Armour, M. (2003). Meaning making in the aftermath of homicide. Death Studies, 27, 519-540.

Armour, M. (2006). Violent death: Understanding the context of traumatic and stigmatized grief.

Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 14(4), 53-90.

174

Asaro, M.R. (2001a). Working with adult homicide survivors, part I: effect and sequelae of

murder. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 37(3), 95-101.

Asaro, M.R. (2001b). Working with adult homicide survivors, part II: Helping family members

cope with murder. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 37(3), 95-101.

Baliko, B. & Tuck, I. (2008). Perceptions of survivors of loss by homicide: Opportunities for

nursing practice. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing, 46(5), 26-34.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Boelen, P. & Prigerson, H. (2007). The influence of symptoms of prolonged grief disorder,

depression, and anxiety on quality of life among bereaved adults. European Archives of

Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 257, 444-452.

Bonanno, G., Boerner, K., Wortman, C. (2008). Trajectories of grieving. In M. Stroebe, R.

Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of Bereavement Research and

Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention (pp. 287-307). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Bonanno, G. & Kaltman, S. (1999). Toward and integrative perspective on bereavement.

Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 760-776.

Boston Foundation (2012). City of ideas: Reinventing Boston’s innovation economy, The Boston

indicators report 2012. Retrieved November 9, 2014 from

http://www.bostonindicators.org/~/media/Files/IndicatorsReports/Reports/Indicator

%20Reports/Indicators2012.pdf

Boston Foundation (2011). The measure of poverty: A Boston indicators project special report.

175

Retrieved November 9, 2014 from

http://www.bostonindicators.org/~/media/Files/IndicatorsReports/Reports/Indicator

%20Reports/Measures%20of%20Poverty%202011.pdf

Boston Police Department (2010). Part I Crime Data by Districts. Retrieved December 28, 2010

from http://www.bpdnews.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Dec-20-2010.pdf

Boston Police Department (2013). Part I Crime Data by Districts. Retrieved November 25, 2013

from

https://static.squarespace.com/static/5086f19ce4b0ad16ff15598d/t/52794388e4b0a6045d

5bf9b8/1383678856900/November-05-2013.pdf

Boston Police Department (2014). Part I Crime Data by Districts. Retrieved November 5, 2014

from

http://static.squarespace.com/static/5086f19ce4b0ad16ff15598d/t/5450fae4e4b04ee588b3

b138/1414593252309/Oct-27-2014%20(1).pdf

Boston Public Health Commission. (2013). Health of Boston 2012-2013: A neighborhood focus.

Retrieved November 25, 2013 from http://www.bphc.org/about/research/Forms

%20%20Documents/HOB12-13Docs/HOB12-13_FullReport.pdf

Boston Public Health Commission. (2010). Health of Boston 2010. Retrieved December 28,

2010 from

http://www.bphc.org/about/research/hob2010/Forms%20%20Documents/Health%20of

%20Boston%202010%20Full%20Report_Rev16Nov10.pdf

Bowlby, J. (1961). Processes of mourning. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 42, 317-340.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.

176

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. New York: Basic

Books.

Brewin, C., Dalgleish, T., Joseph, S. (1996). A dual representation theory of posttraumatic stress

disorder. Psychological Review, 103(4), 670-686.

Bucholz, J. (2000). Homicide Survivors: The Misunderstood Grievers. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 60 (8-A), 3151. (UMI # 04194209), Retrieved February 26, 2008, from Digital

Dissertations Database.

Burke, L., Neimeyer, R., & McDevitt-Murphy, M. (2010). African American homicide

bereavement: Aspects of social support that predict complicated grief, PTSD, and

depression. Omega, 61(1), 1-24.

Burke, L., Neimeyer, R., McDevitt-Murphy, M., Ippolito, M., & Roberts, J. (2011). Faith in the

wake of homicide: Religious coping and bereavement distress in an African American

sample. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 21, 289-307.

Calhoun, L. & Tedeschi, R. (2006). The foundations of posttraumatic growth: An expanded

framework. In L.G. Calhoun & R.G Tedeschi (Eds.), Handbook of posttraumatic growth:

Research and practice (pp. 3-23), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Campesino, M. (2007). Homicide bereavement: Reflections on the therapeutic relationship in

trauma research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(4), 541-553.

Charles-Edwards, D. (2009). Empowering people at work in the face of death and bereavement.

Death Studies, 33, 420-436.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

177

Cramer, M. (2013, December 31). Boston homicides fall for fourth year. The Boston Globe.

Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/31/homicides-down-boston-

but-shootings-remain-steady/5ujAlQKT53Fjzm25qJfksO/story.html

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Currier, J., Holland, J., & Neimeyer, R. (2006). Sense-making, grief, and the experience of

violent loss: Toward a mediational model. Death Studies, 30, 403-428.

Davidson, J. & Doka, K. (Eds.). (1999). Living with grief at work, at school, at worship.

Washington, D.C.: Hospice Foundation of America.

Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (2nd ed.). New York,

NY: New York University Press.

DeNavas-Walt, C. & Proctor, B. (2014) U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-

249, Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, 2014. Retrieved October 11, 2014 from

http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.pdf

Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DeYoung, R. & Buzzi, B. (2003). Ultimate coping strategies: The differences among parents of

murdered or abducted, long-term missing children. Omega, 47(4), 343-360.

Doka, K. (1999). A primer on loss and grief. In J. Davidson & K. Doka (Eds.),

Living with grief at home, at school, at worship (pp.5-12). Washington, D.C.: Hospice

Foundation of America.

Doka, K. (2002). Disenfranchised Grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice.

178

Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.

Doka, K. (2011). Introduction. In K. Doka & A. Tucci (Eds.), Beyond Kuler-Ross (pp. iii-xvii).

Washington, DC: Hospice Foundation of America.

Eyetsemitan, F. (1998). Stifled grief in the workplace. Death Studies, 22, 469-479.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015, Fall a). Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United

States 2014, Murder. Retrieved February 17, 2016, from

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/

offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/murder/murder/murder.pdf

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015, Fall b). Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United

States 2014, Expanded Homicide Data. Retrieved February 17, 2016, from

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/

tables/expanded-homicide-data/

expanded_homicide_data_table_2_murder_victims_by_age_sex_and_race_2014.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015, Fall c). Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United

States 2014, Expanded Homicide Data Table 12, Murder Circumstances 2010-2014.

Retrieved February 17, 2016, from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-

u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/

expanded_homicide_data_table_12_murder_circumstances_2010-2014.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015, Fall d). Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United

States 2014, Expanded Homicide Data Table 10, Murder Circumstances, by

Relationship. Retrieved February 17, 2016, from

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/

179

tables/expanded-homicide-data/

expanded_homicide_data_table_10_murder_circumstances_by_relationship_2014.xls

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015, Fall e). Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United

States 2014, Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Murder, Types of Weapons Used.

Retrieved February 17, 2016, from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-

u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/

expanded_homicide_data_table_7_murder_types_of_weapons_used_percent_distribution

_by_region_2014.xls

Field, N. (2008).Whether to relinquish or maintain a bond with the deceased. In M. Stroebe, R.

Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of Bereavement Research and

Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention (pp. 113-132). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Figley, C (2006). Series editor’s foreword. In E. Rynearson (Ed.), Violent Death (pp. xxi-xxii).

New York: Routledge.

Forte, J., Barrett, A., & Campbell, M. (1996). Patterns of social connectedness and shared grief

work: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Social Work with Groups, 19(1), 29-51.

Freud, S. (2005). Mourning and melancholia. In S. Whiteside (Ed.), Sigmund Freud on Murder,

Mourning and Melancholia (pp.203-218). New York: Penguin. (Original work published

in 1917)

Goodrum, S. (2005). The interactions between thoughts and emotions following the news of a

loved one’s murder. Omega, 51(2), 143-160.

180

Goodrum, S. & Stafford, M. (2001). Homicide bereavement and the criminal justice system –

Executive summary, U.S. Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference

Service (No. 189567).

Green, B. (2000). Traumatic loss: Conceptual and empirical links between trauma and

bereavement. Journal of Personal and Interpersonal Loss, 5(1), 1-17.

Handlsey, S. (2001). “But what about us?” The residual effects of sudden death on self-identity

and family relationships. Mortality, 6(1), 9-29.

Harvey, M. (1996). An ecological view of psychological trauma and trauma recovery. Journal of

Traumatic Stress. 9(1), 3-23.

Herman, J. (1997). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence – From Domestic Abuse to

Political Terror. New York: Basic Books.

Hertz, M. & Prothrow-Stith, D., & Chery, C. (2005). Homicide survivors: Research and practice

implications. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29 (5), 288-295.

Horne, C. (2003). Families of homicide victims: Service utilization patterns of extra-and

intrafamilial homicide survivors. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 75-82.

Irwin, N., Cain Miller, C, & Sanger-Katz, M. (2014, August 19). America’s racial divide,

charted. The New York Times. Retrieved from

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/upshot/americas-racial-divide-charted.html?_r=1.

Jacobs, S., Kosten, T., Kasl, S., Ostfeld, A., Berkman, L., & Charpentier, P. (1987-88).

Attachment theory and multiple dimensions of grief. Omega, 18(1), 41-52.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (1992). Shattered assumptions: Towards a new psychology of trauma. New

York: Free Press.

181

Jenkins, E. (2002). Black women and community violence: Trauma, grief, and coping. Women

& Therapy, 25 (3/4), 29-44.

Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardner’s tale. American

Journal of Public Health. 90(8), 1212-1215.

Kaltman, S. & Bonanno, G. (2003). Trauma and bereavement: Examining the effect of sudden

and violent deaths. Anxiety Disorders, 17, 131-147.

Kendall-Tackett (2009). Psychological trauma and physical health: A psychoneuroimmunology

approach to etiology of negative health effects and possible interventions. Psychological

Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 35-48.

Kirk, J. & Miller, M. (1986). Reliability & validity in qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. New York: Macmillan.

Lattanzi-Licht, M. (1999). Supporting the grieving employee. In J. Davidson & K. Doka (Eds.),

Living with grief at home, at school, at worship (pp.17-26). Washington, D.C.: Hospice

Foundation of America.

Lattanzi-Licht, M. (2002). Grief and the workplace: Positive approaches. In K. Doka (Ed.),

Disenfranchised Grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice (pp. 167-

180). Champaign, Illinois: Research Press.

Laurie, A. & Neimeyer, R. (2008). African Americans in bereavement: Grief as a function of

ethnicity. Omega, 57, 173-193.

Lichtenthal, W., Cruess, D., & Prigerson (2004). A case for establishing complicated grief as a

distinct mental disorder in DSM-V. Clinical Psychology Review, 24, 637-662.

182

Lindemann, E. (1944). Symptomatology and management of acute grief. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 101, 141-148.

Maciejewski, P., Zhang, B., Block., & Prigerson, H. (2007). An empirical examination of the

stage theory of grief. Journal of the American Medical Association, 297(7). 716-724.

Maeda, W. (2014, December 31). Homicides rise in Boston, other crime down in 2014. The

Boston Globe. Retrieved from

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/12/30/homicides-spiked-boston-reversing-

trend/UzyeyWzCmczTHxXd0Bd03J/story.html

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Massachusetts Office for Victim Assistance. In the aftermath of crime: A guide to victim rights

and services in Massachusetts. Retrieved November 25, 2013 from

http://www.mass.gov/mova/docs/aftermath-of-crime.pdf

Maxim, L.S. & Mackavey, M. (2005). Best practices regarding grief and the workplace. Journal

of the American Academy of Business, 6(1), 110-116.

Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

McCann, I. L. & Pearlman, L. (1990). Psychological Trauma and the Adult Survivor: Theory,

Therapy, and Transformation, New York: Brunner/Mazel.

McGinnes, M. (2015, December 30). Homicides in Boston dropped significantly in 2015, report

finds. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from

http://www.boston.com/news/2015/12/30/homicides-boston-dropped-significantly-report-

finds/jFfPbH0SarAm9jX4rw527N/story.html

183

Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. (C.W.

Morris, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mezey, G., Evans, C., & Hobdell, K. (2002). Families of homicide victims: Psychiatric responses

and help-seeking. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Therapy, Research, and Practice, 75,

65-75.

Michalski, M., Vanderwerker, L., & Prigerson, H. (2006-2007). Assessing grief and

bereavement: Observations from the field. Omega, 54(2), 91-106.

Mikulincer, M. & Shaver, P. (2008). An attachment perspective on bereavement. In M. Stroebe,

R. Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of Bereavement Research and

Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention (pp. 87-112). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Miles, M. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Miller, L. (2009a). Family survivors of homicide: I. Symptoms, Syndromes, and Reaction

Patterns. American Journal of Family Therapy, 37(1), 67-79.

Miller, L. (2009b). Family survivors of homicide: II. Practical therapeutic strategies. American

Journal of Family Therapy, 37(2), 85-98.

Miranda, A., Molina, B., MacVane, S. (2003). Coping with the murder of a loved one:

Counseling survivors of murder victims in groups. Journal for Specialists in Group

Work, 28(1), 48-63.

Murphy, S., Johnson, C., Wu, L., Fan, J., & Lohan, J. (2003). Bereaved parents’ outcomes 4 to

60 months after their children’s deaths by accident, suicide, or homicide: A comparative

study demonstrating differences. Death Studies, 27: 39-61.

184

Nash, M., Munford, R., & O’Donoghue, K., (2005). Social Work Theories in Action,

Philadelphia: Jessica Kinsgley Publishers.

National Center for Victims of Crime. (2008). Homicide Survivors. Retrieved August 2, 2010,

from http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?

dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32358.

National Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice, Training and Technical

Assistance Center (2012). Homicide. Retrieved November 29, 2013 from

https://www.ovcttac.gov/downloads/views/TrainingMaterials/NVAA/Documents_NVAA

2011/ResourcePapers/Color_Homicide%20Resource%20Paper_2012%20_final_508c

%209%2017%202012.pdf

National Office for Victims of Crime, U.S. Department of Justice, (2009). Victim Assistance and

Compensation Programs, Retrieved June 29, 2009, from

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/help/links.htm

Neimeyer, R., Botella, L., Herrero, O., Pacheco, M., Figueras, S., & Werner-Wildner, L. (2002).

The meaning of your absence: Traumatic loss and narrative reconstruction. In J. Kauffman

(Ed.), Loss of the Assumptive World: A Theory of Traumatic Loss (pp. 31-47). New York:

Brunner-Routledge.

Neimeyer, R. (2000). Searching for the meaning of meaning: Grief therapy and the process of

reconstruction. Death Studies, 24, 541-558.

Neimeyer, R. (2005-2006). Complicated grief and the quest for meaning: A constructivist

contribution. Omega, 52(1), 37-52.

Padgett, D. (2008). Qualitative methods in social work research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca:

Sage.

185

Parappully, J. (2002). Thriving after trauma: The experiences of parents of murdered children.

Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 42(1), 33-70.

Parkes, C. (1972). Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life. London: Tavistock.

Parkes, C. (1993). Psychiatric problems following bereavement by murder or manslaughter.

British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 49-54.

Parkes, C. (1996). Bereavement: Studies of Grief in Adult Life. London: Routledge.

Parkes, C. (2005-2006). Symposium on complicated grief. Omega, 52(1), 1-7.

Parkes, C. (2009). Love and Loss: The Roots of Grief and its Complications. New York:

Routledge.

Prigerson, H., Vanderwerker, L., Maciejewski, P. (2008). A case for inclusion of prolonged grief

disorder in DSM-V. In M. Stroebe, R. Hansson, H. Schut & W. Stroebe (Eds.),

Handbook of Bereavement Research and Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention

(pp.165-186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rando, T. (1993). Treatment of Complicated Mourning. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Rando, T. (1997). Foreword. In C. Figley, B. Bride, & N. Mazza (Eds.), Death and Trauma (pp.

xv- xix). Washington, D.C.: Taylor Francis.

Raphael, B. (1983). The Anatomy of Bereavement. New York: Basic Books.

Redmond, L. (1989). Surviving when someone you love was murdered. Clearwater, FL:

Psychological Consultation and Education Services.

Rosenblatt, P. (2008). Grief across cultures: A review and research agenda. In M. Stroebe, R.

Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe, (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research and

practice: Advances in theory and intervention (pp. 207-222). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

186

Ryan, A. (2010, August 12). Families ripped by homicide pour out their pain at city hall. The

Boston Globe, pp. A1, A14.

Rynearson, E.K., & McCreery, J. (1993). Bereavement after homicide: A synergism of trauma

and loss. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150(2), 258-261.

Rynearson, E. (Ed.). (2006). Violent Death. New York: Routledge.

Rynearson, E. (2006). Introduction. In E. Rynearson (Ed.), Violent Death (pp. xxiii-xxxi). New

York: Routledge.

Sharpe, T. & Boyas, J. (2011). We fall down: The African American experience of coping with

the homicide of a loved one. Journal of Black Studies, 42(6), 855-873.

Shear, K. (2011). Bereavement and the DSM5. Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, 64(2), 101-

118.

Shear, K., Frank, E., Houck, P., & Reynolds, C. (2005). Treatment of complicated grief: A

randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(21),

2601-2608.

Shear, K., & Shair, H. (2005). Attachment, loss, and complicated grief. Developmental

Psychobiology, 47, 253-267.

Silverman, G., Jacobs, S., Kasl, S., Shear, M., Maciejewski, P., Noaghiul, F., & Prigerson, H.

(2000). Quality of life impairments associated with diagnostic criteria for traumatic grief.

Yale School of Medicine, 30(4), 857-862.

Simon, N., Shear., Thompson, E., Zalta, A., Perlman, C., Reynolds, C., Frank, E., Melhem, N., &

Silowash, R. (2007). The prevalence and correlates of psychiatric comorbidity in

individuals with complicated grief. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 48, 395-399.

Simpson, M. (1997). Traumatic bereavements and death-related PTSD. In C. Figley, B. Bride, &

187

N. Mazza (Eds.), Death and Trauma (pp. 3-13). Washington, D.C.: Taylor Francis.

Stroebe, M., Folkman, S., Hansson, R., & Schut, H. (2006). The prediction of bereavement

outcome: Development of an integrative risk factor framework. Social Science &

Medicine, 63, 2440-2451.

Stroebe, M., Hansson, R., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (2008). Handbook of Bereavement Research

and Practice: Advances in Theory and Intervention. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Stroebe, M., Schut, H., & Stroebe, W. (2005). Attachment in coping with bereavement. Review

of General Psychology, 9(1), 48-66.

Stroebe, M. & Schut, H. (1999). The dual process model of coping with bereavement: Rationale

and description. Death Studies, 23, 197-224.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2012, December), Trauma

Definition. Retrieved May 26, 2013, from

http://www.samhsa.gov/traumajustice/traumadefinition/index.aspx

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic and Statistics Administration.

(2015). America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2015, Table AVG2: Average

Number of People Per Family Household 2015. Retrieved February 17, 2016 from

https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2015AVG.html

U.S. Department of Labor. (2012). Fact Sheet #28: The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Retrieved November 29, 2013, from

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs28.htm

188

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014). Labor force characteristics by

race and ethnicity, 2013. Retrieved October 11, 2014 from

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2013.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor. (2013a). Fair Labor Standards Act. Retrieved November 29, 2013

from h ttp://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-flsa.htm#overview .

U. S. Department of Labor. (2013b). Leave Benefits, Funeral Leave. Retrieved November 29,

2013 from http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/funeral-leave.htm

U.S. Department of Justice, Offices of the United States Attorneys. (2014). Crime Victims’

Rights Act. Retrieved October 11, 2014 from

http://www.justice.gov/usao/briefing_room/vw/rights.html

Valentine, C. (2006). Academic constructions of bereavement. Mortality, 11(1), 57-78.

Van Giezen, R. (2013). U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Beyond the Numbers: Pay & Benefits,

vol. 2, no. 18. Paid leave in private industry over the past 20 years. Retrieved January 3,

2015, from http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/paid-leave-in-private-industry-over-

the-past-20-years.htm.

Walsh, F. & McGoldrick,M. (1991). Living beyond loss: Death in the family. W.W. Norton &

Company: New York.

Walter, T. (2009). Grief and the separation of home and work. Death Studies, 33, 402-410.

Weiss, R. (2008). The nature and causes of grief. In M. Stroebe, R. Hansson, H. Schut, & W.

Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of Bereavement Research and Practice: Advances in Theory

and Intervention (pp. 29-44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

189

Weisberg, R., Bruce, S., Machan, J., Kessler, R., Culpepper, L. & Keller, M. (2002).

Nonpsychiatric illness among primary care patients with trauma histories and

posttraumatic stress disorder. Psychiatric Services, 53(7), 848-854.

Wijngaards-de Meij, L., Stroebe, M., Schut, H., Stroebe, W., van den Bout, J., van der Heijden,

P., & Dijkstra, I. (2007). Patterns of attachment and parents’ adjustment to the death of

their child. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 537-548.

Worden, J.W. (2009). Grief Counseling and Grief Therapy: A Handbook for the Mental Health

Practitioner (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Zhang, M., El-Jawahri, A., & Prigerson, H. (2006). Update on bereavement research: Evidence-

based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of complicated bereavement. Journal of

Palliative Medicine. 9(5), 1188-1203.

Zucker, R. (1999). Grief at work: New challenges and new opportunities. In J. Davidson & K.

Doka (Eds.), Living with grief at home, at school, at worship (pp.45-59). Washington,

D.C.: Hospice Foundation of America.

190

Appendix A: Memorandum of Understanding with Community Partner

191

192

193

Appendix B: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter

Appendix C: Recruitment Flyer

194

Appendix D: Screening Form

195

Thank you for your interest in participating in my Simmons College doctoral research study, Exploring the Relationship between Homicide Bereavement and Employment. There are some criteria for participating in the study, so I’d like to first describe the study to you and then see if you’re interested in participating, I’ll have you answer a few questions to see if you qualify. Is that ok? If you have any questions, please stop me and I’ll try to answer them. If, after we have talked, you decide you do not wish to participate in this study, you may opt out without penalty or consequence from the researchers, Simmons College, or the Peace Institute.

First let me tell you about the study.

Its title is Exploring the Relationship between Homicide Bereavement and Employment and it is part of my doctoral dissertation work at Simmons College School of Social Work. The purpose of the study is to learn more about the challenges that people who’ve lost a close family member to homicide face in balancing grief and work. Findings from the study will be used to gain a better understanding of how social workers and other professionals can better support people in this situation. As part of this study, family members who have lost a loved one to homicide and were working at the time of their death are being invited to share their experiences during an audio-taped, two-hour interview with a social work researcher(s). The interviews will be held in Dorchester at the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute between the months of January and May 2012. All participants will be provided with $30 cash as a thank you gift.

Would you be interested in this study and participating in an interview? ___Yes ___No(If yes) Do you have any questions for me about the study at this point?Notes on participant’s questions:__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________There are a few qualifications for study participants – these help to ensure the study has a set of participants with similar enough traits that the research meets strong scientific standards. So next, I’ll ask you a few questions to check this. Your answers are confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside the research team. You can stop me at any time to ask a question or end our discussion. If you do not qualify, then you will not be asked to be part of the study. This does not mean that your experiences and knowledge are not valuable for developing supports for homicide survivors, only that you do not fit the criteria for inclusion in this particular study.

Screening Questions:

1) Are you 18 years or older?

____Yes____No

2) Are you a resident of the city of Boston?

196

___Yes ___No

3) What is your relationship to your loved one(s) who was/were murdered?

His/Her: Check all that apply__Parent/Primary Caregiver__Grandparent__Spouse/Partner (including boyfriend/girlfriend and ex-partners)__Child/Foster Child __Grandchild__Sibling__Cousin__Aunt/Uncle__Niece/Nephew

4) How long ago was he/she murdered? Can you tell me the year?

___How long ago___Year

5) Were you working at the time of the homicide?

___Yes___No

6) Did you return to work afterward?

___Yes; Are you still working? __Yes __No___No

7) Do you identify yourself with any particular racial or ethnic group?

__________________________

8) What is your gender? ________________________

9) Are you able to participate in a two-hour interview that is audio-taped?

___Yes

10) Are you willing to share your experiences, thoughts, and recommendations related to your experience of working and grieving?

___Yes___No

197

____Screened out: Thank you for your interest in participating in this study. Based on the information you’ve provided, you do not qualify for the study at this time. I appreciate your interest in the study and for taking the time to speak with me. If something changes and you do become eligible, may I contact you? If so, could you please give me an email address or telephone number where I can reach you?____________________________. Thank you.

OR____Screened in: Thank you for your interest in participating in this study. Based on the information you’ve provided, you do meet the criteria for participation in the study. Could you please provide me with your contact information so that I can follow up with you? Again, your personal information will not be shared with anyone outside the research team. As a study participant, you will be assigned an identification number that will be used instead of your name so that your information can remain confidential.

When would be most convenient days/times for you to meet? _____________

Name: Participant ID#: Assigned after participant is screened in

Address:

Phone Number:

Email: Your interview is scheduled for: ______________________________________

Are there any types of special assistance or support that you will need in order to participate in the interview (i.e.: wheelchair support, transportation assistance, special accommodations regarding confidentiality)? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As a participant, you will receive a letter in the mail and via email from me in the next couple of weeks. Is this ok with you? The letter will review again for you the nature of the research study, how the information gained from the study will be used, the date and time of your interview, and a description of what you can expect from the interview discussion. Included with the letter will be copies of a brief questionnaire asking you some specific questions about yourself, a short job satisfaction questionnaire, and a consent form from Simmons College for you to review, indicating your willingness to participate in the study. You will be asked to complete these forms during the first few minutes of your interview. If you have questions or concerns about the forms or the study in general, feel free to contact me any time at this number. Thank you again for your assistance in this project.

Appendix E: Participant Letter

198

Dear [Prospective Participant]:

Thank you for your interest in participating in my research study, Exploring the Relationship between Homicide Bereavement and Employment, that is being conducted as part of my doctoral dissertation at Simmons College. As we discussed, the purpose of the study is to learn more about the challenges that people who’ve lost a close family member to homicide face in balancing grief and work. Findings from the study will be used to gain a better understanding of how social workers and other professionals can better support people in this situation.

You are being invited to share your experiences during a two-hour interview with a social worker, to take place on [date] at [time] at the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute located at 1452 Dorchester Avenue, 3rd floor, Dorchester, MA, 02122. During the first part of the interview, you will be asked to complete a brief participant questionnaire and job satisfaction questionnaire asking you some specific questions about yourself and your work, and a consent form describing the study and indicating your willingness to participate in it. Copies of these forms are included with this letter so that you can review them prior to our meeting together. Please arrive at [time] for your interview so I can check you in, you can complete the questionnaires and consent form, and I can provide you with your $30 cash thank you gift.

If you have questions or concerns about the forms or the study in general, need to change your interview time, or have decided not to participate in the study, feel free to contact me any time by phone at 617-521-3919 or by email at homicide-study@simmons.edu. Thank you again for your assistance in this project. Your thoughts and perspectives are extremely important and your participation is greatly appreciated. I am looking forward to talking with you further during your interview.

Sincerely,

Denise E. Hildreth, MSW, LICSW, PhD Candidate

Appendix F: Brief Participant Questionnaire

199

Participant ID#:

Please complete the following questions as best you can. If there are questions you prefer not to answer, please feel free to skip them. There is no penalty for skipping questions.

1) What is your current age in years?: I am _____ years old

2) What is your gender?:__ Female__ Male__Other

3) Do you identify with a particular racial or ethnic group?:_____________________________________________________

4) What is your primary language spoken:? _________________________

5) What is your highest level of education?:__None__Grade 1-8__Some high school__High School Diploma/GED__Some college__Trade School__2-year college degree (Associate’s)__4-year college degree (Bachelor’s)__Master’s/Graduate degree__Doctoral degree__Other: ____________________________

6) What is your Relationship Status?:__ Single__ Partnered__ Married__ Separated__ Divorced__ Widowed

7) What is your family housing status?:

200

__Rent__Own__Homeless, in shelter__Homeless, no shelter__Living with Family or Friends__Other

8) What is your medical insurance status?:__Public Insurance (MassHealth, Medicare, Commonwealth Health, etc.)__Commercial insurance (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Harvard Pilgrim, etc)__No Insurance

9) What is your religion affiliation?:__Christian: Specific Denomination: ______________ (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, etc)__Roman Catholic__Jewish__Muslim__Hindu__Buddhist__None__Other Religion: _____________________

10) Are you currently employed?__Yes__No

11) If you are currently employed:

a) What do you do for work? ______________________

b) How many hours per week do you typically work? __________

12) How many people live in your household? _________

13) How many people in your household are under age 18?:_______

14) What is your current average weekly income (take home pay)?: _____________________

15) How many people are supported by this income?: ___________________

16) What other sources of income/supports (besides employment) do you currently have?

201

__Social Security/Retirement__SSI/Disability__TANF__ SNAP/Food Stamps__Child Support__Assistance with heat/utility bills__Unemployment Payments__Alimony__Contributions from family/friends/faith community__Other: ______________________________

17) What is your relationship to your loved one(s) who was/were murdered? I am his/her (check all that apply): __Parent/Guardian__Grandparent__Spouse/Partner (including boyfriend/girlfriend and ex-partners)__Child/Foster Child __Grandchild__Sibling__Cousin__Aunt/Uncle__Niece/Nephew

18) In what year was his/her death?:______________

19) How old were they at the time of their death?: _________

20) Did/do you know the person who killed your loved one?:__Yes__No

21) Was the person who killed your loved one:__ their spouse/partner/boyfriend/girlfriend__a family member__a friend__an acquaintance__a co-worker__a stranger__I do not know who killed my loved one__ other: ________________________

22) Was someone charged in the murder of your loved one? __Yes__No

23) Has a trial taken place?

202

__Yes__No

24) If a trial has taken place, what was the outcome? __Conviction__ Acquittal__Mistrial__Appeal

25) What was your job/occupation at the time of your loved one’s death? ___________________________________________

26) Which of the following best describes your employer at that time? Check all that apply:__large company (more than 50 employees)__small company (less than 50 employees)__landscaping or construction__restaurant or food service__social service agency or organization__day care/child care facility__government entity__hospital/medical facility__school or college__self-employed__Other, please describe ________________________________________

27) How many hours per week did you typically work at that time?__under 24__24-30__30-35__35-40__40-45__More than 45

28) What was your average weekly income (take home pay) at that time?: ________________

29) How many people in your household were under age 18 at that time?: __________

30) How many people were supported by your income at that time?:____________

31) How many days of bereavement leave did you receive from your job following your loved one’s death? ______ # of Paid Days______# of Unpaid Days

32) If you needed more bereavement days than your job provided, how many additional days did you take off to grieve?:

203

_____ # of Days

33) If you took additional days off for bereavement, how did you cover the time off from work? (check all that apply):__ Vacation Time__ Short Term Disability__FMLA__Compensatory Time__Other

34) Approximately what was the total cost of the your loved one’s funeral expenses?:__$0-$2,000__$2,001-$4,000__$4,001-$6,000__$6,001-$8,000__$8,001-$10,000__$10,001-$12,000__Other: $_______________

35) Did your loved one have life insurance?:__Yes__No

36) What sources did you access to pay for your loved one’s funeral costs?:__Life Insurance Policy__Self Pay__Family/Friends__Charitable Contributions__401K/Retirement Fund__Victim’s Compensation__Other: ____________________________

37) Did you return to work following your loved one’s death?__Yes__No

38) If you did return to work, did you return to the same job?__Yes__No: If you answered No, please briefly describe why you did not return to the same job: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________What job did you take instead?:___________________________________________________

39) Do you suffer from any ongoing (chronic) physical health problems? __Yes

204

__No

40) If yes, please describe your physical health problems and when they occurred: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

41) Have you ever been assisted with or treated for emotional difficulties (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression, etc)? __Yes__No

41) If you have been assisted with or treated for emotional difficulties, please describe your symptoms and/or diagnoses here: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

42) If you have received assistance or support for emotional difficulties, did they occur before your loved one’s death, after your loved one’s death, or both?___ Before___ After___ Both

43) Have you sought support and/or services in response your loved one’s death? __yes__no

44) If yes, what types of support/services have you received? (Please check all that apply)__ individual mental health support__ family counseling or support__ group counseling or support__ religious/faith community support__ self-help organization support__ court/victim advocacy support__ Other: Please describe: _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix G: Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

205

As part of your participation in this study of the relationship between homicide bereavement and employment, please answer the following questions using the rating scale provided. For each item, you are asked to reflect upon your job satisfaction at three different points in time: before the murder of your family member, when you returned to work after the murder, and now.

0 1 2 3 4 5N/A Not Somewhat Satisfied Very ExtremelyNot working Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Satisfiedduring this time period

Before theMurder

When I Returned to work afterthe Murder

Now

1) Overall, how would you rate your general satisfaction with your job?

2) How would you rate your general satisfaction with:

a) Your type of work and work activitiesb) Your work setting or environment

c) Your relationships with your co-workers

d) Your relationship with your supervisor

e) Your compensation/pay

3) How would you rate your satisfaction with your job’s policies on:

a) Time-off b) Job flexibility (adjustments in work schedule)

c) Accommodations at work (adjustments in workresponsibilities or duties)

4) How would you rate your satisfaction with your job’s ability to allow you to:

a) Attend to your family’s needs

206

b) Attend to your own health needs

c) Attend to your own emotional and/or spiritual needs

Appendix H: Informed Consent Form

RESEARCH STUDY TITLE: Exploring the Relationship between Homicide Bereavement (Grief) and Employment

207

DATE PREPARED: October 25, 2011

PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR: Denise E. Hildreth, MSW, LICSW, Doctoral candidate, Simmons College Graduate School of Social Work, 300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, 617-521-3919.

STUDY DESCRIPTION AND RESEARCH PURPOSE: You are invited to participate in a research study about family members whose loved one died as a result of a homicide and who were working at that time. The purpose of the study is to learn more about the experience of family members working during homicide grief, including the challenges that survivors face in balancing grief and work. It is hoped that this research will inform social work practice, policy, and future research. The researcher is Denise E. Hildreth, MSW, LICSW, a doctoral candidate at the Simmons College School of Social Work, who is conducting this study as part of her doctoral dissertation.

PROCEDURES: Your participation in this study involves a two-hour interview with a social work researcher, Denise Hildreth, and possibly a co-interviewer, Robin Johnson-Warrington, held at the Louis D. Brown Peace Institute in Dorchester, MA. In addition, you will be asked to complete a brief questionnaire and a job satisfaction questionnaire asking you some specific questions about yourself and your work. During the interview, you will be invited to share your experiences, thoughts, and recommendations related to your experience of working and grieving following your loved one’s homicide. The interview will be audio taped, and the audio tape will be transcribed verbatim for use in the data analysis. Data analysis of this information and information from the questionnaires will identify common themes and issues across study participants as well as unique experiences that participants have.

PARTICIPATION IS VOLUNTARY: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may refuse to answer any questions or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or consequence from the researchers, Simmons College, or the Peace Institute.

RISKS, DISCOMFORTS, AND PROTECTION AGAINST RISK: There are two possible risks of participating in this study. The first is the risk of a breach of confidentiality. Every precaution will be taken to protect your privacy and the confidentiality of the records and data pertaining to you in particular and the research program in general, disclosure of which may contribute to identifying you specifically to persons not related to this research program. For your protection, you will be assigned an identification number which will be used instead of your name on all study documents, with the exception of a master list of participants and this consent form which will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s work office. In addition, all audio tapes, questionnaires, and interview transcripts will be kept in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s work office. These materials will be destroyed three years after the completion of the study. This is a standard research protocol. A professional transcriber may have access to your audiotape and transcript. He or she will be under a confidentiality agreement with the researcher. Portions of the study audiotapes, questionnaires, and transcripts may be shared with the primary researcher’s dissertation committee. Members of this committee include Dr. Michelle Putnam, Dr. Mary Gilfus, Dr. Kristie Thomas, Dr. Kenneth Doka, and will Dr. Edward Rynearson. Findings from the study will be aggregated and presented by the researcher verbally and in writing as part of

208

her doctoral dissertation. In some instances, case examples may be highlighted, however all identifying information will be changed so that the data cannot be readily traced back to the participant. Portions of the interview transcripts may be used in future professional presentations and publications, but your name and identifying information will not be used. You may choose to tell others about your participation in the study. This will not affect the confidentiality of your data, but may increase the potential that your name is affiliated with study findings.

The second risk of participating in this study is the possibility that you may experience emotional or psychological distress as a result of recalling and discussing the experience of losing your family member to homicide, your work, and grief experiences. The primary researcher, Denise Hildreth, is a licensed clinical social worker with 17 years of experience who is trained to assist you in accessing necessary support services should you need them. She cannot, however, provide these services to you herself. The Louis D. Brown Peace Institute, where the interview will take place, is a community resource for homicide survivors and the staff is available to assist you. In addition, you will be provided with a list of other resources that are available for support. You will be provided with the researcher’s contact information so that you may contact her if you require assistance in accessing support services following your interview.

BENEFITS: The benefit of your participation in this research is the opportunity to help develop stronger knowledge about the experience of homicide grief and employment that can inform development of supports for survivors.

COSTS: There is no cost to you associated with this research, other than the time spent during the interview and your transportation costs.

COMPENSATION: As part of the study, you will receive $30 cash as a thank you.

CONTACT INFORMATION: If you have any questions about the study or your participation, you may contact the following people:

Denise E. Hildreth, MSW, LICSW or Michelle Putnam, PhD, Doctoral Committee ChairSimmons College Graduate School of Social Work300 The Fenway,Boston, MA 02115617-521-3919

If you have questions about the research, your rights as a research subject or if you experience any research related injury, you may also contact the Human Protections Administrator in the Simmons College Office of Sponsored Programs at 617-521-2414.

I, ______________________________________, have read the contents of this Consent Form and have had the opportunity to discuss any concerns or questions with the researcher. I fully understand the nature of my involvement in the study and the potential risks involved. I have decided to volunteer as a participant in this study.

________________________________ _______________________________

209

Participant Date________________________________ _______________________________Denise E. Hildreth, MSW, LICSW Date

APPROVEDNovember 16, 2011Approval good for 1 YearSimmons College IRB

Appendix I: Resources

Louis D. Brown Peace Institute1452 Dorchester Avenue, 2nd floorDorchester, MA, 02122(617) 825-1917

210

Clementina Chery, President and CEO

Center for Homicide Bereavement130 Bishop Allen DriveCambridge, MA 02319617-591-6123

Holly Aldrich, Coordinator

Massachusetts Office for Victim Services 999 Barretts Mill RoadWest Concord, MA 01742617-727-5200 Erin Gaffney, Director

Boston Police DepartmentHomicide UnitOne Schroeder PlazaBoston, MA 02120(617) 343-6512Gina Patterson, Victim/Witness Advocate

Massachusetts Office of the Attorney GeneralVictim Compensation and Assistance Division(617) 963-2913Fatima Breton, Victim Advocate/Outreach Coordinator

Appendix J: Original Interview Guide

1) Please tell me a bit about your family member and the nature of his/her death

211

2) How did this experience affect your health, both physical and emotional? How are you doing now?

3) What was your employment situation at the time of the homicide?

Probe for: What type of work were you doing?How many hours were you working?Did you enjoy your work? Why/why not?

4) Did you return to work after your loved one’s murder? If not, what factors influenced this decision?

Probe for: What factors contributed to your decision not to go back to work? What did you see as the benefits and challenges of not returning?

5) If you did return to work, what factors influenced this decision?

Probe for: When and why did you decide to return to work? What did you see as the benefits and challenges of returning to work?

6) Following the homicide, did you return to the same job or did you have a job change?

Probe for: Was the same job available? If not, why?If you changed jobs, what factors influenced this change? If you changed jobs, what type of work were you doing after the change?

7) What was your experience in returning to work following the homicide of your family member?

Probe for: How did you feel about going back to work after the homicide? How many hours were you working? How did the homicide experience and/or grief affect your work? Was there a financial effect?

8) What were the greatest challenges you faced in working (or returning to work) after the homicide? What about your work environment made it easier or difficult to return to work? How?

Probe for: Working in general while grieving at the same time?The work itself?The work setting?The work environment?Your co-workers? How did they react to your homicide experience and/or relate to you? Did this affect your work or feelings about working?Your supervisor? How did he/she react to your experience and/or relate to you? Did this affect your work or feelings about working?

212

Policy restrictions? (not enough time-off, lack of flexibility, lack of work role accommodations)

9) What else was going on in your life after the homicide that made it difficult or easier to return to work?

Probe for: Caring for your own basic needs?Caring for others who were also grieving?Tending to details of the homicide (funeral/burial, identifying body, participating in criminal investigation, dealing with media, facing perpetrator)

10) Was there anything positive about returning to work that made it easier to deal with your loved one’s death?

Probe for: Emotional support from colleagues, co-workers, supervisor, workplace/employer as a whole? Establishing a sense of normalcy?

11) Was there anything your employer, supervisor, or co-workers could have done to make it easier for you to deal with your loved one’s death?

Probe for: Intermittent time off/Flex time?Financial assistance?Emotional support?

12) What is your current employment situation? Has your employment and/or financial situation changed over time since the homicide?

Probe for: Are you currently working? Why/Why Not?What type of work are you currently doing? How many hours do you work? Has your financial situation changed since the homicide?Does grief currently affect your work? How?

13) If you were in charge, what would you do to make it easier for people dealing with a family member’s murder to go back to work and be able to continue to work?

Probe for: Extended bereavement leave?Other suggestions?

14) Is there anything that I haven’t asked that you would like me to know about the experience of working while grieving the homicide of a family member?

213

Appendix K: Revised Interview Guide

1) Please tell me a bit about your family member and the nature of his/her death

214

2) How did this experience affect your health, both physical and emotional? How are you doing now?

3) What was your employment situation at the time of the homicide?

Probe for: What type of work were you doing?How many hours were you working?Did you enjoy your work? Why/why not?

4) Did you stay at work/return to work after your loved one’s murder? If not, what factors influenced this decision?

Probe for: What factors contributed to your decision not to go back to work? What did you see as the benefits and challenges of not returning?

5) If you did stay at work/return to work, what factors influenced this decision?

Probe for: When and why did you decide to return to work? What did you see as the benefits and challenges of returning to work?

6) Following the homicide, did you return to the same job/type of work or did you have a job change/change in type of work?

Probe for: Was the same job available? If not, why?If you changed jobs, what factors influenced this change? If you changed jobs, what type of work were you doing after the change?

7) What was your experience in returning to work following the homicide of your family member?

Probe for: How did you feel about going to work/going back to work after the homicide? How many hours were you working? How did the homicide experience and/or grief affect your work? Was there a financial effect?

8) What were the greatest challenges you faced in working (or returning to work) after the homicide? What about your work environment made it easier or difficult to return to work? How?

Probe for: Working in general while grieving at the same time?The work itself?The work setting?The work environment?Your co-workers? How did they react to your homicide experience and/or relate to you? Did this affect your work or feelings about working?

215

Your supervisor? How did he/she react to your experience and/or relate to you? Did this affect your work or feelings about working?Policy restrictions? (not enough time-off, lack of flexibility, lack of work role accommodations)

9) What else was going on in your life after the homicide that made it difficult or easier to return to work?

Probe for: Caring for your own basic needs?Caring for others who were also grieving?Tending to details of the homicide (funeral/burial, identifying body, participating in criminal investigation, dealing with media, facing perpetrator)Negotiating your financial needs?

10) Were there any particular formal or informal support systems outside of your workplace (family, friends, community, agency, faith group) that assisted you in managing working while grieving? Probe for: If so, what types of supports did these people or groups provide?

concrete needs (food, childcare, etc), emotional, spiritual, financial?

11) Was there anything positive about returning to work that made it easier to deal with your loved one’s death?

Probe for: Emotional support from colleagues, co-workers, supervisor, workplace/employer as a whole? Other survivors in the workplace?

Establishing a sense of normalcy?Structure of your job (hours/location)?

12) Was there anything in particular that your employer/workplace did to support you in your grief?

Probe for: Provide short or long term support for homicide survivors in the workplace?Utilize a policy or action plan for assisting employees who are homicide survivors?Training or workshop on homicide bereavement?

13) Was there anything your employer, supervisor, or co-workers could have done to make it easier for you to deal with your loved one’s death?

Probe for: Intermittent time off/Flex time?Financial assistance?

216

Emotional support?

14) What is your current employment situation? Has your employment and/or financial situation changed over time since the homicide?

Probe for: Are you currently working? Why/Why Not?What type of work are you currently doing? How many hours do you work? Has your financial situation changed since the homicide?What other financial resources do you use to get by?

15) Does grief currently affect your work? How?

Probe for: Are you currently balancing your work and grief?What challenges are you currently experiencing in balancing your work and grief?What strategies/supports are you using to balance your work and grief?

16) If you were in charge, what would you do to make it easier for people dealing with a family member’s murder to go back to work and be able to continue to work?

Probe for: Extended bereavement leave?Other suggestions?

17) Is there anything that I haven’t asked that you would like me to know about the experience of working while grieving the homicide of a family member?

217

Appendix L: Professional Transcriber’s Assurance of Research Confidentiality

218