Research illustrates the importance of help-seeking for intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors. However, mandatory reporting (MR) laws can affect help-seeking by requiring some sources of support to report survivors to formal systems. This convergent mixed methods study of 2462 survivors surveyed through the National Domestic Violence Hotline explores how MR laws impact survivors' help-seeking, the outcomes of their help-seeking, and whether their race, gender, and/or sexual orientation influenced their experiences. Findings indicated that MR laws reduce help-seeking for over a third of survivors, provider warnings about MR often reduce survivors' ability to receive the support they seek, and reports when triggered make the situation worse for most survivors. Significant differences emerged by gender identity and race/ethnicity, emphasizing unique contexts for trans and gender non-conforming survivors and survivors of color. We provide policy and practice implications given these unintended harms of MR laws for IPV survivors.
Participatory research methods increase the quality and relevance of a study and are a key element of community practice. However, participatory methods can be difficult to employ at the outset of a research study with vulnerable, hard-to-reach populations. Intimate partner violence survivors are a particularly vulnerable population who are at increased risk of experiencing abuse-related trauma and have distinct safety-related needs. In order to engage survivor populations, researchers can employ survivor-centered, trauma-informed approaches to build trust and develop relationships that facilitate increased engagement in the research process over time. This paper outlines the methods and strategies that academic partners used to establish, increase, and maintain participatory engagement with women who experienced harm by intimate partners. The process began with a community-based, qualitative needs assessment study for survivors whose partners were in a relationship violence intervention program. In addition to responding to specific aims, this study simultaneously helped to create a pool of potential collaborators. Academic partners used member checking to establish trustworthiness of the study findings and introduce the participants to the concepts of participatory engagement. Next, researchers established an advisory group to develop practice recommendations, which ultimately led to academic and community partners co-designing a community-based dissemination project. We discuss successes and tensions inherent in the engagement process, important lessons learned, and provide recommendations for future community practice.
The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The sample size in Figure 1 was misreported as n=2,322. The correct sample size should be n=168. Each person icon represents 10% of respondents to the question.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.