Skip to Main Content

RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By and clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.

Accept
RTI International
  • About
    • Office Locations
    • Executive Leadership
    • Corporate Governance
    • Partner with Us
      • U.S. Government
      • Clients and Funding Agencies
      • Industry and Commercial Clients
      • Foundations and Associations
      • Bilateral Agencies and Multilateral Banks
      • Universities and Academic Research Institutions
      • Suppliers and Small Businesses
    • Commitment to Quality
      • RTI's Client Listening Program
    • Ethics and Human Research Protection
    • Living Our Mission
    • Veteran Opportunities at RTI

    About

  • Practice Areas
    • Health
      • Public Health and Well-Being
      • Health Care Transformation
      • Behavioral Health
      • Health Behavior Change
      • Precision Medicine
      • RTI Health Solutions (RTI-HS)
      • RTI Center for Community Health Evaluation and Economics Research
      • Health Equity
      • RTI Health Advance
    • Transformative Research Unit for Equity​
      • Equity Capacity Building Hub
      • Social and Economic Justice Research Collaborative
      • Narrative Research and Community Engagement Lab
    • Education and Workforce Development
      • Early Childhood
      • K-12 Education
      • Postsecondary Education
      • Career and Adult Education and Workforce Development
      • Education Policy, Systems, and Governance
      • Education Research Methodologies
      • Education Technologies
    • International Development
      • Energy for Development
      • Environment
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Global Health
      • International Education
      • Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning, and Adapting (MERLA)
      • Youth and Economic Opportunity
      • Building Resilience Against COVID-19 in Developing Countries
      • Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
      • RTI Center for Governance
    • Climate Change
      • Clean Energy Technology and Renewables
      • Climate Finance
      • Climate Justice and Equity
      • Climate Planning, Preparedness and Resilience
      • Climate Policy
      • Climate Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Mitigation
      • Economic Impacts of Climate Change
    • Water
      • Food-Energy-Water Nexus
      • Water Quality
      • WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene)
      • Water Resources Management
    • Energy Research
      • Carbon Capture and Utilization
      • Biomass Conversion
      • Natural Gas
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Industrial Water
      • Syngas Processing
    • Environmental Sciences
      • Air Quality
      • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Urban Sustainability
      • Toxics
      • Climate Change
      • Building Resiliency in the FEW Nexus
      • Climate Change Sciences and Analysis
      • Environmental Policy
      • Environmental Justice
      • Sustainable Materials & Waste Management Solutions
    • Justice Research and Policy
      • RTI Center for Community Safety and Crime Prevention
      • RTI Center for Policing Research and Investigative Science
      • Child Well-Being and Family Strengthening
      • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • Food Security and Agriculture
      • Market Systems Strengthening
      • Food Safety
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Climate-Smart Agriculture
      • Youth in Agriculture
      • Agricultural Innovation
      • Obesity Prevention
    • Innovation Ecosystems
      • Innovation Advising
      • Innovation for Economic Growth
      • Innovation for Emerging and Developing Economies
      • Innovation for Organizations
      • Research, Technology, and Innovation Policy
      • Technology Acceleration
    • Military Support
      • Military Behavioral Health
      • Military Health and Human Performance
      • Military Sexual Assault, Harassment, and Domestic Violence Prevention
      • Wearable Sensor Technologies
      • Military Health System Transformation

    Practice Areas

  • Services + Capabilities
    • Surveys and Data Collection
      • Survey Design
      • Instrument Development
      • Survey Methodologies
      • Data Collection
      • Establishment Surveys
      • Health Registries
      • Data Analysis and Reporting
      • Research Operations Center
    • Statistics and Data Science
      • Survey Statistics
      • Environmental Statistics
      • Coordinating Centers for Multisite Studies
      • Analysis and Design of Complex Data
      • Biostatistics
      • RTI Center for Data Science
    • Evaluation, Assessment and Analysis
      • Evaluation Design and Execution
      • Advanced Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
      • Evaluation, Monitoring, and Assessment
      • Economic Analysis
      • Evaluating Communication Interventions and Campaigns
      • Evidence Synthesis for Policy and Practice
      • Risk Assessment and Prediction
    • Program Design and Implementation
      • Systems Strengthening and Scaling
      • Capacity Assessment and Building
      • Policy Reform Support
      • Curriculum and Teacher Professional Development
      • Interventions and Prevention Programs
      • Implementation Science
    • Digital Solutions for Social Impact
      • Human-Centered Design of Digital Solutions
      • Digital Product Development
      • Digital Communication Campaigns
      • Digital Data Analytics
    • Research Technologies
      • Survey Technologies
      • Data Management and Decision Support Systems
      • Geospatial Science, Technology, and Visualization
      • ICT for Limited-Resource Settings
      • Mobile Applications
      • Web Applications
      • Bioinformatics
      • Interactive Computing
    • Drug Discovery and Development
      • Medicinal Chemistry
      • Molecular Design and Cheminformatics
      • Behavioral Pharmacology
      • Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics (DMPK)
      • In Vitro Pharmacology, Bioassay Development, and High-Throughput Screening (HTS)
      • Isotope Labeling
      • Regulatory Consulting and Support for Medical Products
    • Analytical Laboratory Sciences
      • Bioanalytical and Toxicology Research
      • Forensic Sciences
      • Physicochemical Characterizations
      • Metabolomics
      • Proficiency Testing and Reference Materials
      • Quality Assurance and Regulatory Compliance
      • Microbiology
      • Analytical Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
    • Engineering & Technology R&D
      • Biomedical Technologies
      • Decarbonization Sciences
      • Environmental Exposure & Protection
      • Materials & Environment
      • Sustainable Energy Solutions

    Services + Capabilities

  • Centers
    • RTI Center for Advanced Methods Development
    • RTI Center for Communication Science
      • Communication Research
      • Communication Design
      • Communication Delivery
    • RTI Center for Data Science
    • RTI Center for Education Services
      • Teaching and Learning
      • Education Leadership
      • Peer Learning Networks
      • Strategic Consulting
    • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
    • RTI Center for Global Noncommunicable Diseases
      • Program Financing & Economics for NCDs
      • Health Systems Strengthening for NCDs
      • Communication Science and Behavior Change for NCDs
      • Implementation Science for NCDs
    • RTI GenOmics, Bioinformatics, and Translational Research Center
      • Disability Studies
      • Ethics
      • Newborn Screening
    • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Water Resources Sectors
      • Water Resources Services
      • Water Resources Tools
    • RTI Center for Governance
    • RTI Global Gender Center
    • North Carolina Center for Optimizing Military Performance
    • NCCU-RTI Center for Applied Research in Environmental Sciences
    • RTI Center for Climate Solutions

    Centers

  • Impact
    • Newsroom
    • Insights Blog
    • Events
    • Publications
    • RTI Press
      • About the RTI Press
      • Instructions for Authors
      • RTI Press Collections
    • Projects
    • Global Reach
      • Asia
      • Eastern Europe and Central Asia
      • RTI International India
      • Africa
      • Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
      • Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

    Impact

  • Experts
    • Our Experts
    • In-Depth With Our Experts
    • Related News
    • Experts In the Media
    • RTI Fellow Program

    Experts

  • Emerging Issues
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Global Health Security
    • Cannabis Research
    • Opioid Research
      • Interventions for Opioid Use Disorders
      • Preventing Opioid Misuse and Overdose
      • Treating Opioid Use Disorders
    • Policing Research and Investigative Science
    • Drone Research and Application
    • E-cigarette Research
    • Zika Virus Research
    • Integrated Governance

    Emerging Issues

  • COVID-19 Research + Response
  • Global Reach
  • Insights Blog
  • Newsroom
  • RTI Press
  • Publications
  • Partner With Us
  • Careers
  • Facebook IconTwitter IconInstagram IconYouTube IconLinkedin Icon
  • Home
  • Impact
  • RTI Press
  • Partner violence help-seeking in couples affected by incarceration

Partner violence help-seeking in couples affected by incarceration

Overcoming barriers

By Tasseli McKay, Megan Comfort, Justin Landwehr, Erin Kennedy, Oliver Williams.

March 2020 Open Access Peer Reviewed

DOI: 10.3768/rtipress.2020.pb.0021.2004

Check for Updates Download PDF
McKay, T., Comfort, M., Landwehr, J., Kennedy, E., & Williams, O. (2020). Partner violence help-seeking in couples affected by incarceration: Overcoming barriers. RTI Press. RTI Press Policy Brief No. PB-0021-2004 https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2020.pb.0021.2004
Copy citation
Share
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Email
Key Points
  • Victims who disclose their experiences to friends or family tend to receive supportive responses, and those supportive responses are associated with better mental and physical health.
  • Formal supports also tend to increase victims’ chances of positive outcomes after abuse.
  • Victims of intimate partner violence most often opt for private strategies, such as placation or resistance, but face increasing chances of revictimization as they increase their use of such strategies with abusers.
  • There is an urgent need to identify and address the obstacles and burdens that victims, particularly victims in marginalized communities, face when seeking help for intimate partner violence.

Abstract

Efforts to support help-seeking by victims of partner violence in couples affected by incarceration represent a key part of larger efforts in the fields of domestic violence and victim services to improve the accessibility of services in marginalized communities and better meet complex victim needs. Qualitative data from 167 Multi-site Family Study participants suggest that involvement with the criminal justice system (whether directly or through a family member) introduces unique individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural barriers to defining one’s experiences as a problem, deciding to seek help, and selecting sources of help. Opportunities exist not only to tailor service delivery approaches in ways that overcome the individual and interpersonal obstacles that affect victims but also to pursue longer-range shifts in public policy and community infrastructure that will address broader and more-entrenched barriers to help-seeking.

Creative Commons © 2023 RTI International. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Contents

  • Introduction
  • Examining Partner Violence Help-Seeking: The Post-Incarceration Partner Violence Study* * The Post-Incarceration Partner Violence Study is conducted by RTI International with funding from the National Institute of Justice in the US Department of Justice, Grant Number 2016-VF-GX-0010.
    • Individual-Level Barriers to Help-Seeking
      • Interpersonal Barriers to Help-Seeking
        • Sociocultural Barriers to Help-Seeking
        • Promoting Access to Support for Couples Affected by Incarceration
        • Conclusion
        • Acknowledgments
        • References

        Partner Violence Help-Seeking in Couples Affected by Incarceration: Overcoming Barriers

        By TasseliMcKayMeganComfortJustinLandwehrErinKennedyOliverWilliams

        Introduction

        The racial and socioeconomic targeting of incarceration has made it a common rite of passage for young men and their intimate or co-parenting partners in many urban communities.1-5 Men are 13 times more likely to be incarcerated than women,6 but women are heavily affected as well—particularly through relationships with imprisoned and formerly imprisoned men, which one in five American women has experienced.7

        We conducted research on these relationships as part of the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering (2006–2016; referred to hereafter as the “Multi-site Family Study”). Fully half of study couples reported physical violence during the 6 months after the male partner’s return from prison.8

        Why Does Help-Seeking Matter for Partner Violence Victims?

        Outside support makes a difference for victims of intimate partner violence. Victims who disclose their experiences to friends or family tend to receive supportive responses, and those supportive responses are associated with better mental and physical health.9

        Formal supports also tend to increase victims’ chances of positive outcomes after abuse. Short-term intimate partner violence interventions improve victims’ quality of life and decrease chances of revictimization—particularly interventions that are trauma-informed, tailored to victims’ needs, and delivered one-on-one (e.g., specialized cognitive-behavioral therapy, shelter-based and post-shelter case advocacy, and legal advocacy for seekers of civil protective orders).10-14

        Still, victims of intimate partner violence most often opt for private strategies, such as placation or resistance.15 Unfortunately, victims face increasing chances of revictimization as they increase their use of such strategies with abusers.16 Yet intimate partner violence victims who do access services often feel that the burdens and costs of doing so have been too high.17 An urgent need exists to identify and address the obstacles and burdens that victims, particularly victims in marginalized communities, face when seeking help for intimate partner violence.18

        Note: Some individuals who have experienced partner violence identify as “victims,” some identify as “survivors,” and others do not identify with either term. This brief uses the term “victims” throughout to recognize the fact that many who experience partner violence do not survive it.19

        Those who are involved with the criminal justice system (whether directly or through a family member’s involvement) may be particularly reluctant to disclose their experiences or seek help for partner violence because of learned distrust of institutions or concerns about exposing their partners or themselves to further punishment.20-22

        Examining Partner Violence Help-Seeking: The Post-Incarceration Partner Violence Study* * The Post-Incarceration Partner Violence Study is conducted by RTI International with funding from the National Institute of Justice in the US Department of Justice, Grant Number 2016-VF-GX-0010.

        The decision not to access support can have serious consequences, particularly for victims with few resources for whom safety is often unattainable without outside help.23, 24 However, help-seeking among couples affected by incarceration (and the unique barriers that may prevent it) is poorly understood. Responding to this gap, we analyzed qualitative data from Multi-site Family Study participants, 167 of whom were interviewed near the time of the male partner’s reentry. Using a modified grounded theory analytic approach,25 we tagged deidentified, verbatim transcripts with inductive and deductive codes in ATLAS.ti; reviewed data obtained from Boolean-type queries and identified themes; and prepared analytic memos on each theme.

        Liang et al.’s (2005) help-seeking model suggests three distinct processes involved in help-seeking among partner violence victims: recognizing and defining the problem, deciding to seek help, and choosing a source of support.26 All three are influenced by the individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural context (Figure 1).26 Qualitative data from Multi-site Family Study participants indicates that, for couples affected by incarceration, distinct barriers can interfere with each of these processes.

        Influences on partner violence help-seeking in couples affected by incarceration

        Individual-Level Barriers to Help-Seeking

        Victims in couples affected by incarceration described unmet behavioral health needs, particularly depression and post-traumatic stress, related to the incarcerated partner’s arrest, adjudication and imprisonment—which many found traumatic, grief-inducing, and depressing. Reasons for treatment needs going unmet included acute competing needs and time demands27 and a lack of accessible, individual mental health services in victims’ neighborhoods.28 Struggles with employment and finances (a key risk factor for partner violence victimization29, 30) were prominent; couples faced daunting financial demands related to criminal justice involvement and related employment barriers.31-34 These contributed to a sense of limited options and difficulty prioritizing tasks (such as reflecting on an intimate relationship or evaluating potential sources of support) that were not critical to immediate survival.

        Interpersonal Barriers to Help-Seeking

        Interpersonal dynamics accompanying a family member’s incarceration and release can uniquely impede victims of partner violence from seeking help. Multi-site Family Study couples experienced phases of hopeful anticipation pre-release and “honeymoon” during reunification immediately post-release, followed by growing tension and the eruption of violence as the strains of reentry intensified. This made it difficult for victims to assess the health of their relationships at any given point in time, as behavioral patterns were constantly shifting with cycles of incarceration and reentry. Furthermore, reentering individuals were acutely dependent on their partners for basic needs like food and housing. This high-stakes dependency, along with couples’ co-parenting commitments, made it difficult for either partner to freely consider their relationship choices and diminished the relative importance of considering whether the relationship was unhealthy. Study participants also described deep social isolation, with only a small number of close and trusting relationships. Many adopted an interpersonal attitude of staunch independence and self-reliance that made them unlikely to consider seeking outside help and narrowed the field of potential sources of support.

        Sociocultural Barriers to Help-Seeking

        The sociocultural atmosphere of chronic deprivation and injustice that Multi-site Family Study couples recounted both provoked and normalized a sense of constant anger and unresolved conflict. In this context, it was often difficult to define episodic violence and controlling behavior in a relationship as distinct “problems.” Some victims reported being angry “all the time,” but their narratives suggested that it was difficult to differentiate their own anger at abusive treatment by their partners from the generalized anger they experienced at the circumstances of the male partner’s incarceration, the burdens it had placed on the household, and broader conditions in their communities. Among those who did identify their victimization as a problem, many suggested that violence (including partner violence and other forms of street and family violence) was commonplace in their communities; other research suggests that victims are less likely to decide to seek help in such contexts.35

        Finally, Multi-site Family Study participants recounted repeated punitive (or sometimes simply unhelpful) encounters with government institutions that shaped their attitudes toward formal help-seeking. Although many such encounters involved criminal justice institutions, they produced a generalized distrust, making it difficult for victims to consider seeking outside assistance or discern which sources of support might be most helpful. Victims expressed concern that their partners’ parole would be revoked if they disclosed their experiences to anyone—a consequence that was often difficult to countenance given their co-parenting commitments and desperate material circumstances.

        The shortage of partner violence services in the low-income communities in which many victims lived,36 the persistent lack of culturally specific intimate partner violence services for victims of color and those connected (directly or indirectly) to the criminal justice system,37 and the flawed treatment accorded to intimate partner violence victims of color in legal protection processes38 suggest that the difficulty study participants had in imagining meaningful, nonpunitive institutional help for their experiences reflected more than just a limitation in perspective.

        Promoting Access to Support for Couples Affected by Incarceration

        Couples affected by incarceration describe a set of formidable barriers to help-seeking for partner violence. Their stories call attention to the unique obstacles that many victims face in defining their victimization experiences as a problem, deciding to seek help, and identifying sources of help. They also suggest how first- or secondhand experiences with imprisonment and reentry from prison might exacerbate the already-significant obstacles to help-seeking that other marginalized victims commonly face: a general shortage of intimate partner violence services in low-income neighborhoods; a lack of culturally specific services; fearfulness and distrust of institutions; social isolation; cycles of “honeymoon” and revictimization; and the strains of parenting, poverty, and unaddressed behavioral health concerns that can overwhelm victims’ abilities to prioritize their own abuse-related needs and discernment processes.22, 39

        The variety of barriers highlights an ongoing need for partner violence services and policies that respond to intersecting influences at each level of the Social-Ecological Framework.6 Table 1 displays strategies to dismantle the multilevel barriers to help-seeking that Multi-site Family Study participants identified.

        Some individual- and interpersonal-level barriers could be addressed (at least in part) by expanding the availability of formal supports tailored to the needs articulated by justice-involved individuals and their partners. Ongoing work by advocates and service providers to “reduce the gap between intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors’ expressed needs and the services that IPV programs most typically offer” may also be highly relevant to victims in couples affected by incarceration.40 This work focuses on individualized service delivery in staff-client relationships that emphasize authenticity and shared power.40

        Creating the kinds of environments in which intimate partner violence victims in couples affected by incarceration will seek and find meaningful help will require more than adjustments in service delivery approach, however. Indeed, researchers and domestic violence advocates have characterized “community change and systems change”13, 40 or “robust systems advocacy”40 as an indispensable component of programs’ efforts to end violence. Meaningfully addressing the sociocultural barriers to help-seeking identified by Multi-site Family Study participants will require just such efforts. For example, longer-range strategies could replace punitive institutional practices in communities that have been heavily affected by mass incarceration with richer and more-effective preventive and protective functions that communicate the value of the individuals and communities served.

        Addressing barriers to successful help-seeking for intimate partner violence victims in justice-involved couples (by social-ecological level)
        Level of Barriers Potential Strategies
        Individual Provide universal education to partners and families of incarcerated and reentering individuals that includes information on healthy and unhealthy relationships and available local and national resources.
        Create opportunities for victims to disclose their experiences in trusted and responsive settings without law enforcement consequences.
        Offer (and market) “full frame”a domestic violence services that thoroughly address victims’ employment, finances, parenting, and behavioral health needs.
        Interpersonal Provide a safety net for reentering individuals that ends their reliance on partners and family members for post-release survival.
        Mobilize peer support approaches to address social isolation among prisoners, ex-prisoners, and their family members.
        Alleviate overwhelming parenting burdens by offering high-quality, subsidized child care for low-income parents (particularly victims).
        Sociocultural Implement large-scale, trauma-informed programs to promote healing from all forms of violence in communities affected by incarceration.
        Fund culturally tailored domestic violence prevention and response programs in communities affected by incarceration.b
        Broaden availability of individual counselling and other behavioral health treatment in communities affected by incarceration.
        Develop long-range strategies to replace punitive institutional practices in marginalized communities with more-robust preventive and protective functions.
        Kulkarni S. Intersectional trauma-informed intimate partner violence (IPV) services: narrowing the gap between IPV service delivery and survivor needs. J Fam Violence 2019;34(1):55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-0001-5
        Curricula and audiovisual materials from the Safe Return Initiative are available for those providing intimate partner violence services in African American communities affected by incarceration. The program was developed by the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community with the Vera Institute for Justice and funded by the federal Office on Violence Against Women, with extensive input from African American women and men who had personal experience with post-prison intimate partner violence.

        Conclusion

        Efforts to support help-seeking by partner violence victims in couples affected by incarceration represent a key part of larger efforts in the fields of domestic violence and victim services to improve the accessibility of services in marginalized communities and better meet complex victim needs. Our findings suggest that involvement with the criminal justice system (whether directly or through a family member) introduces unique individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural barriers to defining one’s experiences as a problem, deciding to seek help, and selecting sources of help. Opportunities exist not only to tailor service delivery approaches in ways that overcome the individual and interpersonal obstacles that affect victims, but also to pursue longer-range shifts in public policy and community infrastructure that will address broader and more-entrenched barriers to help-seeking.

        Acknowledgments

        The authors are indebted to participants in the Multi-site Family Study on Incarceration, Parenting and Partnering for sharing the experiences and insights that made our work possible. We also wish to thank the National Institutes of Justice, and particularly Senior Science Advisor Angela Moore, for supporting this research. Finally, we appreciate the anonymous peer reviewers whose feedback strengthened this work and the RTI staff who brought it to publication, including Pamela Williams, Claire Korzen, and Sonja Douglas.

        RTI Press Associate Editor: Pamela Williams

        References

        1Comfort M. “It was basically college to us”: poverty, prison, and emerging adulthood. J Poverty 2012;16(3):308–22. 10.1080/10875549.2012.69592322962541
        2LopezAguado P. The collateral consequences of prisonization: racial sorting, carceral identity, and community criminalization. Sociol Compass 2016;10(1):12–23. 10.1111/soc4.12342
        3Sampson RJ, Loeffler C. Punishment’s place: the local concentration of mass incarceration. Daedalus 2010;139(3):20–31. 10.1162/DAED_a_0002021032947
        4Western B, Pettit B. Incarceration and social inequality. Daedalus 2010;139(3):8–19. 10.1162/DAED_a_0001921032946
        5Western B, Wildeman C. Punishment, inequality, and the future of mass incarceration symposium: law, reparations & racial disparities—criminal justice and racial disparity. Univ Kans Law Rev 2008;57:851–78.
        6Carson EA, Anderson E. Prisoners in 2015. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2016. Available from: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf
        7Enns PK, Yi Y, Comfort M, Goldman AW, Lee H, Muller C, et al. What percentage of Americans have ever had a family member incarcerated? evidence from the Family History of Incarceration Survey (FamHIS). Socius 2019;5:2378023119829332. 10.1177%2F2378023119829332
        8McKay T, Landwehr J, Lindquist C, Feinberg R, Comfort M, Cohen J et al. Intimate partner violence in couples navigating incarceration and reentry. J Offender Rehabil 2018;57(5):273–93. 10.1080/10509674.2018.1487897
        9Sylaska KM, Edwards KM. Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network members: A review of the literature. Trauma Violence Abuse 2014;15(1):3–21.10.1177/1524838013496335
        10Arroyo K, Lundahl B, Butters R, Vanderloo M, Wood DS. Short-term interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse 2017;18(2):155–71.
        11Bell ME, Goodman LA. Supporting battered women involved with the court system: an evaluation of a law school-based advocacy intervention. Violence Against Women 2001;7(12):1377–404.10.1177/10778010122183919
        12Sullivan CM, Bybee DI. Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67(1):43–53. Available from: 10.1037/0022-006X.67.1.43
        13Sullivan CM. Understanding how domestic violence support services promote survivor well-being: a conceptual model. J Fam Violence 2018;33(2):123–31.10.1007/s10896-017-9931-629367804
        14Xie M, Lynch JP. The effects of arrest, reporting to the police, and victim services on intimate partner violence. J Res Crime Delinq 2017;54(3):338–78.10.1177/0022427816678035
        15Goodman L, Dutton MA, Weinfurt K, Cook S. The intimate partner violence strategies index. Violence Against Women 2003;9(2):163–86.
        16Goodman L, Dutton MA, Vankos N, Weinfurt K. Women’s resources and use of strategies as risk and protective factors for reabuse over time. Violence Against Women 2005;11(3):311–36.
        17Thomas KA, Goodman L, Putnins S. “I have lost everything”: trade-offs of seeking safety from intimate partner violence. Am J Orthopsychiatry 2015;85(2):170–80.10.1037/ort0000044
        18Femi-Ajao O, Kendal S, Lovell K. A qualitative systematic review of published work on disclosure and help-seeking for domestic violence and abuse among women from ethnic minority populations in the UK. Ethn Health 2020;25(5):732–46.
        19Stöckl H, Devries K, Rotstein A, Abrahams N, Campbell J, Watts C et al. The global prevalence of intimate partner homicide: A systematic review. Lancet 2013;382(9895):859–65.
        20Coker D, Macquoid A. Why opposing hyper-incarceration should be central to the work of the anti-domestic violence movement. U Miami Race Soc Just L Rev 2015;5(2):585–618.
        21Mehrotra GR, Kimball E, Wahab S. The braid that binds us: the impact of neoliberalism, criminalization, and professionalization on domestic violence work. Affilia 2016;31(2):153–63. 10.1177/0886109916643871
        22Hampton R, Oliver W, Magarian L. Domestic violence in the African American community: an analysis of social and structural factors. Violence Against Women 2003;9(5):533–57. 10.1177/1077801202250450
        23Velonis AJ, Daoud N, Matheson F, Woodhall-Melnik J, Hamilton-Wright S, O’Campo P. Strategizing safety: theoretical frameworks to understand women’s decision making in the face of partner violence and social inequities. J Interpers Violence 2017;32(21):3321–45. 10.1177/088626051559895326303937
        24Zapor H, Wolford-Clevenger C, Johnson DM. The association between social support and stages of change in survivors of intimate partner violence. J Interpers Violence 2018;33(7):1051–70. 10.1177/088626051561428226634630
        25Birks M, Mills J. Grounded theory: a practical guide. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, 2015.
        26Liang B, Goodman L, Tummala-Narra P, Weintraub S. A theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate partner violence. Am J Community Psychol 2005;36(1-2):71–84. 10.1007/s10464-005-6233-616134045
        27Comfort M, McKay T, Landwehr J, Kennedy E, Lindquist C, Bir A. The costs of incarceration for families of prisoners. Int Rev Red Cross. 2017. Available from: https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/costs-incarceration-families-prisoners
        28Roll JM, Kennedy J, Tran M, Howell D. Disparities in unmet need for mental health services in the United States, 1997-2010. Psychiatr Serv 2013;64(1):80–2. 10.1176/appi.ps.20120007123280460
        29Vest JR, Catlin TK, Chen JJ, Brownson RC. Multistate analysis of factors associated with intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med 2002;22(3):156–64. 10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00431-711897459
        30Yakubovich AR, Stöckl H, Murray J, Melendez-Torres GJ, Steinert JI, Glavin CE et al. Risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence against women: systematic review and meta-analyses of prospective-longitudinal studies. Am J Public Health 2018;108(7):e1–11. 10.2105/AJPH.2018.30442829771615
        31Schwartz-Soicher O, Geller A, Garfinkel I. The effect of paternal incarceration on material hardship. Soc Serv Rev 2011;85(3):447–73. 10.1086/66192524839314
        32Uggen C, Vuolo M, Lageson S, Ruhland E, Whitham HK. The edge of stigma: An experimental audit of the effects of low-level criminal records on employment. Criminology 2014;52(4):627–654. 10.1111/1745-9125.12051
        33Visher CA, Debus-Sherrill SA, Yahner J. Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly 2011;28(5):698–718.
        34Western B, Kling JR, Weiman DF. The labor market consequences of incarceration. NCCD News 2001;47(3):410–27.
        35Hayes BE, Franklin CA. Community effects on women’s help-seeking behaviour for intimate partner violence in India: gender disparity, feminist theory, and empowerment. Int J Comp Appl Crim Justice 2017;41(1–2):79–94. 10.1080/01924036.2016.1233443
        36Iyengar R, Sabik L. The dangerous shortage of domestic violence services. Health Aff (Millwood) 2009;28(6 Supplement 1):w1052–65. 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.w105219773252
        37Oliver W, Williams OJ, Hairston CF. Prisoner reentry and intimate partner violence in the African American community: the case for culturally competent interventions. J Inst Justice Int Stud 2006;4:147–56.
        38Williams O, Jenkins E. Minority judges’ recommendations for improving court services for women of color in domestic violence cases: A focus group report. J Child Custody 2015;12(2):175–91. 10.1080/15379418.2015.1060877
        39Burman E, Chantler K. Domestic violence and minoritisation: legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leaving violent relationships. Int J Law Psychiatry 2005;28(1):59–74. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.12.00415710449
        40Kulkarni S. Intersectional trauma-informed intimate partner violence (IPV) services: narrowing the gap between IPV service delivery and survivor needs. J Fam Violence 2019;34(1):55–64. 10.1007/s10896-018-0001-5

        Click cover to download publication

        Keep Exploring

        • icon-externallink-blue Created with Sketch.

          HTML version [Scholastica]

        Sustainable Development Goals

        • Goal 5: Gender Equality
        • Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions

        Contact

        To contact an author or seek permission to use copyrighted content, contact our editorial team

        • +1 919 541 6490
        • rtipress@rti.org

        Meet the Experts

        View All Experts

        Megan Comfort

        Tasseli McKay

        Tasseli McKay

        Related Publications

        View All Press
        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        Culturally informed community engagement

        RESEARCH REPORT

        Substance misuse prevention program attendance

        RESEARCH BRIEF

        COVID-19’s impact on clinical research

        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        Social determinants of health

        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        Challenges facing CAHPS surveys and opportunities for modernization

        RESEARCH REPORT

        Artificially intelligent social risk adjustment

        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        The need for a diverse environmental justice workforce

        Recent Publications

        View All Press
        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        The Preschool Entitlement

        OCCASIONAL PAPER

        Culturally informed community engagement

        RESEARCH REPORT

        Substance misuse prevention program attendance

        RTI Logo
        Partner With Us
        • US Government
        • Commercial
        • Foundations & Associations
        • Multilateral Donors
        • Universities
        • Suppliers
        Site
        • Privacy Policy
        • Security Policy
        • Site Map
        • Terms of Use
        • Accessibility
        • Contact Us
        Contact Us
        Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Instagram Icon YouTube Icon Linkedin Icon
        delivering the promise of science
        for global good
        RTI Health Solutions RTI Innovation Advisors RTI Health Advance

        © 2023 RTI International. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.