Abstract
This study explores the impact of citizenship status and racial and ethnic identity of a victim on the likelihood of intimate partner violence (IPV) being reported to the police in the United States. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (2017–2023), the current study estimated multinomial logistic regression models to analyze both victim-reporting and third-party reporting patterns across different citizenship and racial and ethnic groups. Findings indicated that noncitizens of a racial/ethnic minority background were significantly more likely to report their victimization experiences compared to White, non-Hispanic U.S. citizens. Additionally, third-party reporting of victimization was less common for racial/ethnic minority noncitizens, while noncitizen White, non-Hispanic victims exhibited the lowest rates of victim reporting. Factors such as injury severity, weapon presence, income level, disability status, and help-seeking from victim service agencies were significant predictors of reporting behavior. The study also explored the reasons victims choose to report or not report their experiences, finding that concerns over privacy, fear of reprisal, and protecting the offender are key deterrents, whereas preventing future harm and seeking immediate assistance drive reporting decisions. Theoretical implications suggest that for minority noncitizens, formal help-seeking methods like police reporting may not only be more accessible than informal support networks but also perceived as the best or only viable pathway to safety. This underscores the importance of accessibility and culturally competent practices in law enforcement, as negative experiences with formal systems may close off the only perceived route to safety and justice for these survivors.
Introduction
In 2024, over 40% of women in the United States reported experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), often defined as abuse that occurs in a romantic or sexual relationship, including current and former spouses and dating partners (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024). Even though IPV impacts millions of individuals across the country, only half of IPV victims report the incident to the police (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2024a). Ramifications of IPV can impact a victim’s physical, psychological, social, emotional, and sexual health (Astbury et al., 2000), making the recovery process complex and challenging for many survivors.
Reporting IPV to the police can play a crucial role in supporting the victim through navigating these challenges, as police can assist with leaving a dangerous situation by issuing protective orders or discouraging continued contact from abusers (Shearson, 2021), and reporting IPV to the police can provide access to critical resources that can help a victim avoid returning to a dangerous relationship. Notifying police and accessing victim support resources are both associated with lowered risk of repeat victimization (Xie & Lynch, 2017), and practitioners in both law enforcement and victim services may also use information from reporting patterns to improve their own practices, thereby better supporting IPV survivors in the future.
While reporting to police often opens the door to accessing important resources or receiving help, the response from police may also be harmful if victims are not met with empathy and survivor-defined practices, as officers’ own attitudes toward IPV may influence their response (Lockwood & Prohaska, 2015). Immigrant and noncitizen victims of IPV often face additional barriers to receiving assistance, compared to victims born in the United States (Reina & Lohman, 2015). Noncitizens who are unfamiliar with resources outside their country of origin, have negative perceptions of law enforcement, face a language barrier, or have concerns over their immigration or citizenship status could face exacerbated obstacles to receiving help (Huang, 2022; Reina et al., 2014) and therefore slow down the recovery process.
The current study utilizes national victimization data to examine the impact of citizenship status and racial and ethnic identity of IPV victims on the patterns of both victim and third-party reporting of IPV incidents. This study further explores the reasons provided by victims in their process of choosing to report to the police or deciding against involving the criminal justice system and whether these decisions vary based on citizenship status or racial and ethnic identity.
Background
Reporting IPV to the Police
Early victimization scholars established that both the victim-offender relationship and the severity of the offense are two of the most influential factors that can affect a victim’s decision to report violent offenses to the police (Baumer, 2002; Block, 1974; Felson, 2000; Felson et al., 2002). Incidents that result in a physical injury (Felson & Pare, 2005; Felson et al., 2002), involve a weapon (Block, 1974; Felson & Pare, 2005; Felson et al., 2002), or occur in the victim’s home (Felson & Pare, 2005; Felson et al., 2002) are more likely to be reported to police by the victim, as these are perceived as more severe incidents. More recent studies have also analyzed reporting by victim demographics, finding that while victims who are female (Becker & Bachman, 2020) and older (Espinoza, Espinoza, Resendiz, et al., 2022) are more likely to involve the police, those who are married (Akers & Kaukinen, 2009), have a cognitive disability (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024; Powers & Hayes, 2024), live in rural areas (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011; Ragusa, 2013), and are more educated (Espinoza, Espinoza, Resendiz, et al., 2022), are less likely to report their victimization.
While the association between reporting of IPV and age, gender, and socioeconomic status of victims has demonstrated fairly consistent results, the relationship between racial and ethnic identity of victims and the reporting of IPV to police has been the subject of far more debate. Some studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority victims of IPV are less likely to report their abuse to the police (Espinoza, Espinoza, Resendiz, et al., 2022), while others found that reporting rates are higher among racial/ethnic minority survivors (Martin et al., 2023). For instance, Espinoza, Espinoza, Resendiz et al. (2022) found IPV victims who were non-Hispanic racial minorities were less likely to report, compared to non-Hispanic White victims, whereas Martin et al. (2023) found that African American victims were more likely to report domestic violence (DV), compared to White victims. In addition, research has shown a significant underutilization of support services by minorities who experience IPV (Hollenshead et al., 2006). Contact with police and the criminal justice system has been seen to have negative physical and mental health consequences on Black adults in the United States (Archibald et al., 2017; McLeod et al., 2020) and deaths as a result of police interactions can have spillover effects for the mental health of Black Americans (Bor et al., 2018). As victims, Black women have experienced police discrimination and misconduct upon reporting IPV and have reported a fear of experiencing harm or victim-blaming from the police (Decker et al., 2019). In addition, Latina women can experience language barriers, cultural considerations, and overreliance on the victim for case progression when reporting IPV to police (Garza et al., 2021).
IPV often goes unreported to the police because survivors have a fear of reprisal (Felson & Pare, 2005) or believe their experience was not significant enough to report (Felson & Pare, 2005). In fact, these factors not only affect the victims’ but also third parties’ reporting of violent incidents to the police. In particular, third parties may be less likely to report crime incidents—including IPV—in which the offender is known to the victim (Felson & Pare, 2005; Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024; Power & Hayes, 2024) and incidents that involve sexual violence (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024; Power & Hayes, 2024). Furthermore, there is evidence that third parties are more likely to report crime incidents when the incident involved a weapon or resulted in an injury (Felson & Pare, 2005; Power & Hayes, 2024) or the offender used substances such as drugs or alcohol (Felson & Pare, 2005; Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024; Power & Hayes, 2024). The distinction between third-party reporting and victim-reporting is important, as the latter reflects a survivor’s direct decision to engage with the police, and the former captures the involvement of bystanders, family members, neighbors, or professionals who may intervene on the victim’s behalf. Analyzing these forms of police reporting separately is essential because the factors influencing them can differ significantly—victims may refrain from reporting due to fear of retaliation, immigration concerns, or distrust in the system, while third-party reporters may be motivated by legal obligations, moral responsibility, or concern for the victim’s safety.
Reporting of Victimization Among Immigrants
While barriers to reporting may exist for all survivors of IPV, noncitizens may experience additional challenges, such as language barriers, lack of access to stable or gainful employment, as well as the challenges inherent in living in a new country and adjusting to a different lifestyle (Erez et al., 2002). These circumstances can serve as risk factors that increase vulnerability to victimization or an abuser’s methods of control (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002). Additionally, barriers related to the criminal legal system may persist, such as distrust of law enforcement agencies (Pogrebin & Poole, 1990), unfamiliarity with legal proceedings, or fear of jeopardizing their citizenship status or being deported if involved with the legal system (Reina & Lohman, 2015).
Consideration of immigration and the citizenship status of crime victims in the United States has just begun to grow in recent years, likely because national victimization data with information on the citizenship status of victims was not available until 2017. This not only restricted what conceptual and theoretical development on immigrant victimization could occur but also limited research on immigration and crime reporting to smaller-scale studies (Xie & Baumer, 2019). These limitations could explain why studies using the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data have produced inconsistent conclusions regarding immigration status and patterns of crime reporting to the police. Recent studies on violent victimization found that immigrants are more likely to report their experiences of victimization to the police than U.S.-born citizens (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024; Martin et al., 2023; Vaughan et al., 2021), though most of this research includes citizenship as a control variable rather than a focus of the study, and no explanation for this trend is explored. This finding is contrary to the earlier research evidence indicating that areas with a higher number of immigrants produce lower levels of police notification (Gutierrez & Kirk, 2017). The discord between these studies could potentially be explained by the methodological differences between earlier and more recent studies, but the lack of a consistent, clear finding as to what the relationship is between citizenship status and a victim or third party’s decision to report indicates a critical gap in the literature.
While there has not been an extensive study on reporting of crimes by citizenship status of IPV victims in the United States, there is evidence that immigrant victims of crime may be less likely to report their victimization to law enforcement, compared to U.S.-born racial/ethnic minority victims (Irvin-Erickson, 2024). This study considered identity theft, not IPV, though this pattern indicates the importance of studying the potential impact of a victim’s citizenship status and their racial and ethnic identity on their help-seeking behavior (Irvin-Erickson, 2024), highlighting the need for further research that directly examines this relationship rather than treating citizenship as a control variable. Understanding how citizenship status influences the decision to report IPV to police is essential for developing policies and interventions that effectively address barriers for noncitizen victims.
Conceptual Framework
Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s (1988) theory of criminal justice decision making has been used as a framework for understanding a victim’s decision to report to the police and involve themselves with the legal system (Felson et al., 2002; Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024; Kelley et al., 2022). In this framework, crime victims are considered “gatekeepers” of the criminal justice process, as they have a large level of discretion in whether an incident is reported to law enforcement and the criminal justice process is invoked (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988, p. 16), and that when the victim-offender relationship is stronger, reporting will pose a greater cost and give victims more reason to hesitate. In addition, more severe offenses in which the victim is harmed will carry greater weight than comparatively minor offenses. Felson et al. (2002) found among DV victims a desire to protect the offender, fear of reprisal, or belief that the incident was a private matter were disincentives to reporting, while a need for protection, the perception of the incident as being serious, and the belief that police will take their victimization seriously served as key motivators for notifying the police. This indicates how complex the victim decision-making process is and exemplifies how many victims consider potential consequences of reporting, yet in cases where the benefits of reporting may be greater, IPV victims recognize incentives for involving the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, with a well-established lack of confidence in the criminal justice system’s ability to help as a reason for victims not reporting their experiences to the police (Beaulaurier et al., 2007; James & Lee, 2015; Thompson et al., 2007), another important cultural framework to consider is legal cynicism. Legal cynicism considers how both the law and law enforcement officials can be viewed as illegitimate and ill-equipped to ensure public safety (Kirk & Papachristos, 2011). Recent literature has used this theory to understand how the perception of police may impede the reporting process for victims (Grasso et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2023; Liu, 2026).
Many victims have described a fear that police will be biased in favor of their abuser and attribute their negative perception of police to inadequate assistance—including victim-blaming, lack of training, and preferential treatment given to the perpetrator (Gezinski, 2022). Conversely, research has shown that victims had a more favorable perception of police and were more likely to call the police upon revictimization when law enforcement had acted in accordance with the victim’s preference (i.e., whether the offender is arrested or not) in their initial encounter (Hickman & Simpson, 2003). A study on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and the murder of George Floyd—a catalyst for increased scrutiny and criticism of law enforcement—and reporting of DV found that, while third-party reporting of DV significantly declined in the months following the murder of George Floyd, this was not the case for victim reporting during the same period (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024). This suggests that perhaps there are differences between third-party and victim susceptibility to legal cynicism and the range of costs and benefits weighed in the reporting process.
Methods
Data
The data for the current study are derived from the NCVS, a nationally representative self-report survey of U.S. residents 12 years or older (BJS, 2024b). Respondents are asked if they have been the victim of an attempted or completed personal or household crime in the last 6 months; if they indicate they have been, several follow-up questions are asked to collect data on the specifics of the incident (BJS, 2024b). Data from the 2017 through 2023 iterations of the NCVS were used in this study, as questions regarding the citizenship and sexual orientation of victims were added to the survey in 2017.
For this study, incidents of IPV were operationalized as any completed, attempted, or verbal threats of violent incidents (robbery, simple assault, or sexual assault) in which the offender was an intimate partner (current or ex-spouse, current or ex-girlfriend or boyfriend). Based on these criteria, 1,696 cases of IPV incidents were identified across the 7 years of data included in this sample.
Because some victims may experience crimes that are similar and in quick succession, they may be unable to recall each as a unique incident and describe them accordingly (BJS, 2025). Therefore, this analysis used the NCVS weights for series incidents, as IPV can be experienced as a series of incidents, difficult to distinguish as individual events. Similar to earlier studies (Burnes et al., 2020; Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024), to make this dataset nationally representative, while avoiding the issue of inflated p-values in analysis results, adjusted incident weights were created by multiplying the NCVS series incident weight by the quotient of the original sample size divided by the weighted sample size (Adjusted incident weight = Series incident weight × [n/weighted n]).
For variables with missing data, missingness ranged between 0.1% and 0.98%. Furthermore, a missing values analysis indicated that Little’s (1988) Test of Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) was not significant (χ2[1] = .382, p = .526), suggesting that the data were MCAR. Listwise deletion was used to remove the small number of incidents (n = 75, approximately 4% of all incidents) with missing values. The final sample size was 1,621.
Dependent Variable
Reported to police—The dependent variable was created based on responses to the following two questions: “Were the police informed or did they find out about this incident in any way?” and, for those who answered yes, “How did the police find out about it?” Using the answers to these two questions, a three-category nominal variable was constructed, reflecting whether an incident was reported by the victim, a third party, or no one.
Independent Variable
Citizenship status by race and ethnicity—The independent variable of citizenship status was coded as a nominal variable to include both citizenship status and racial or ethnic identity of the victim. Categories included the following: (1) U.S. citizen, White and Non-Hispanic (NH); (2) U.S. citizen, racial/ethnic minority; (3) noncitizen, White and NH; (4) noncitizen, racial/ethnic minority. Individuals categorized as a racial/ethnic minority included those who identified as anything other than White (Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and mixed race) and non-Hispanic (i.e., White Hispanic individuals were considered a racial/ethnic minority). Mixed race survivors, classified as a racial/ethnic minority in this sample, include any individuals who indicated multiple racial identities, even if White was one of the indicated identities. Minority noncitizens were used as the reference category, as this group captures multiple levels of marginalization, so comparison to majority groups may be most insightful.
Only 38 naturalized citizens were present in this sample. These cases were considered as a part of the broader U.S. citizen category due not only to their small number, but also an expectation regarding the similarity of reporting of IPV incidents involving naturalized citizens to those of U.S.-born citizens, due to the additional resources, connections, and legal protections this subgroup of immigrants has access to by way of naturalization.
Control Variables
Victim demographics included age, sex, sexual orientation, disability status, educational attainment, income, marital status, and employment status in the 6 months prior.
Incident characteristics included whether a weapon was present; whether an injury was sustained and the level of severity; whether the incident was in a public or private setting; which year the incident took place, geographic region of the victim; type of crime; whether the crime was attempted, completed, or a verbal threat; urbanicity; and whether the victim had received help from victim service agencies.
Offender characteristics included the victim’s relationship to the offender(s), whether there were multiple offenders, and offender sex. For incidents with multiple offenders, if at least one offender was male, offender sex was coded as male.
IPV Incident Characteristics
Descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 show that most individuals in this sample who experienced IPV victimization were U.S. citizens, with only a small percentage of this sample identified as a noncitizen—and less than 1% of IPV incidents in this study’s sample involved White, NH noncitizen victims. The IPV incidents included in this analysis were largely perpetrated against White, NH U.S. citizen victims (65.1%). Victims who identified as Hispanic (14.7%) or Black, NH (13.6%) were the racial and ethnic categories with the highest prevalence after White, NH. Most incidents were perpetrated against female victims (85.1%), and offender sex was majority male (85.6%), highlighting the gendered dynamic of IPV offenses. Offenders were largely current or ex-boyfriends or girlfriends (60.2%), with current spouses being the second-most common victim-offender relationship (27.0%).
Descriptive Statistics for IPV Incidents (N = 1,621).
Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; CI = Confidence Interval.
Analysis
For the dependent variable of police reporting, a nominal variable with three categories, multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted. The odds of victim reporting and third-party reporting of incidents were compared against the odds of incidents not being reported. The regression model was run using the SPSS Complex Samples add-on to accommodate the adjusted weights and the complexity of NCVS data. Tolerance levels and variance inflation factor (VIF) values were checked, and all diagnostics indicated no concerns of multicollinearity. Lastly, descriptive tables are provided to explore whether differences exist between race, ethnicity, and citizenship groups in regard to the reasons provided by IPV victims for choosing to report or not report to police.
Results
Likelihood of IPV Reporting
Figure 1 illustrates the reporting of IPV by the independent variable. The number of IPV incidents that were reported to the police overall was fairly evenly split, with 50.7% reported—either by the victim themselves or a third party—and 49.3% left unreported, though just 21% sought help from other resources, such as victim service agencies, indicating that victims may be more likely to see police reporting as their first option for seeking help. Analyzing victim and third-party reporting of IPV incidents by the race, ethnicity, and citizenship groups revealed that third-party reporting was lower among racial/ethnic minority noncitizens (2.0%), while White, NH noncitizens yielded a lower rate of victim reporting (18.8%) compared to other citizenship groups, and subsequently a higher rate of incidents that were not reported to police (68.8%), the largest of any citizenship category. Among U.S. citizens, racial/ethnic minority victims were a bit more likely to report themselves (41.4%).
Reporting percentages by citizenship group.
Table 2 reports the results of the multinomial logistic regression of race, ethnicity, and citizenship on police reporting. Results demonstrate that victim reporting of IPV incidents was significantly less likely among White, NH U.S. citizens in comparison to racial/ethnic minority noncitizens. In addition, though statistically not significant, the odds of third-party reporting, compared to minority noncitizens, are higher among all other citizenship groups. Higher educational attainment was a strongly significant negative predictor of victim reporting of IPV incidents, while having a disability was negatively associated with both victim and third-party reporting. Victims who had an income between $50,000 and $74,999 and those who were divorced or separated were associated with higher odds of third-party reporting.
Multinomial Logistic Regression of Citizenship Variable on Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence (N = 1,621).
Note. CI = confidence interval.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Additionally, the year 2022 was associated with higher odds of third-party reporting, compared to 2020. This could indicate that 2020—the year most affected by the Covid-19 pandemic and mandatory lockdowns—allowed for fewer interactions with those who could report on the victim’s behalf, compared to 2022, when most restrictions had been lifted. Cases of robbery were significantly more likely to be reported by both victims and third parties, while sexual assault incidents were significantly less likely to be reported to police by both. Receiving help from victim service agencies was also strongly positively associated with both victim reporting and third-party reporting.
Reasons for Reporting
Analyses were also conducted to examine if there were any substantial differences between IPV victims’ decisions to report based on the citizenship status and racial and ethnic identity of the survivor. However, as reasons are not provided for third-party reporting, these analyses only explored victim reporting. Table 3 illustrates the reasons victims provided for choosing to report their victimization to police. The most common reasons cited for reporting to police were to stop/prevent the incident from occurring (57.6%) and to prevent future crimes against the victim or others in their household (35.9%), followed by preventing future crimes by that offender against anyone (10.1%) and punishing the offender (9.8%).
Reasons for Reporting by Citizenship Group and Racial/Ethnic Minority Status.
Reasons for not Reporting
Table 4 illustrates the reasons victims provided for choosing not to report their victimization to police, by citizenship category. The results found in Table 4 indicated that the most common reasons for not reporting were the belief that the incident was a private matter (34.2%), a desire to protect the offender (26.2%), and a fear of reprisal (14.3%). White, NH Noncitizens were the most likely of all races, ethnicities, and citizenship groups to decide against reporting because they felt police would not deem their victimization important enough to warrant their involvement (27.3%), as well as because they felt police would be biased against them (9.1%). Both White, NH (36.4%) and minority (60.0%) noncitizens were more likely to cite a desire against their abuser getting in trouble as their reason for not reporting to police, compared to U.S. citizens. While these descriptive analyses had relatively low sample sizes—particularly in the noncitizen categories—these findings suggest potential patterns that warrant further investigation in studies with larger and more representative samples.
Reasons for Not Reporting by Citizenship Status and Racial/Ethnic Minority Status.
Discussion
This study found that noncitizens who identify as a racial or ethnic minority are more likely to report incidents of IPV victimization to the police, compared to White, NH U.S. citizens. Furthermore, though no statistically significant findings were present for the relationship among the interaction between citizenship status and racial and ethnic identity and third-party reporting, there is evidence to suggest that third-party reporting is less likely to occur with IPV incidents in which minority noncitizens are victimized. Results demonstrate higher odds of third-party reporting among all other races, ethnicities, and citizenship categories, compared to minority noncitizens, despite being the most likely to report among victims themselves. While these results should be interpreted with caution, this pattern would make sense if perhaps noncitizens have a limited sense of informal or social support because of cultural, structural, or language barriers (Erez et al., 2002). Particularly as immigration has become a highly politicized issue in recent years, contributing to negative attitudes and discriminatory treatment toward minorities and immigrants in the United States (Jolie et al., 2021), some noncitizens’ lack of social support is likely exacerbated. If that is the case, there would be fewer people they would confide in regarding their experiences with victimization, and fewer people with close enough proximity to witness it; therefore, third-party reporting would be far more limited among these individuals. The legal cynicism framework may also lend itself to the argument that third parties who witness or gain knowledge of IPV incidents involving minority noncitizens might be less likely to invoke the law, considering perceived negative consequences of such an interaction and lack of trust in the criminal justice system. Moreover, the observation that a far greater number of U.S. citizens who reported IPV victimization were represented in this sample, compared to noncitizens, raises a potential concern with underreporting and unidentified systematic barriers to disclosure.
The finding that minority noncitizens were more likely to report, however, conflicts with Irvin-Erickson’s (2024) finding that minority noncitizens were less likely to report identity theft to the police. Because of the different nature of the crimes, as IPV is a violent crime, there is less of a threshold for victims to feel unsafe or a similar level of danger that IPV victims can experience, so the perceived need to involve law enforcement may be lowered to escape an immediate risk environment to self and others in the household. Furthermore, Irvin-Erickson’s (2024) article also discusses how immigrant victims of instrumental identity theft did not think about the police as a resource for handling their victimization experiences and argues for the importance of raising awareness about the value of informing the police for formal recognition of victimization. While neither Irvin-Erickson (2024) nor this paper included consideration for the documentation status of noncitizens, as the NCVS does not capture this information, it is possible that the risk of jeopardizing one’s documentation status weighs more heavily against a nonviolent offense compared to a violent one. Future exploration of immigrants’ and noncitizens’ victimization should consider accounting for specific documentation statuses to better assess if differences do exist.
Victim-reported reasons for choosing to report to the police were consistent with the literature on IPV reporting (Felson & Pare, 2005; Felson et al., 2002). Specifically, in this sample, believing an incident was personal, protecting the offender, and fearing reprisal were the most common reasons for victims choosing not to report, and stopping the incident from happening and preventing future crimes were the most common reasons for victims to report to the police. However, among the reasons provided for not reporting to the police, higher percentages of White, NH noncitizens were found to have not reported because of perceptions of police being biased/causing them trouble, as well as police not finding the incident important enough. These findings may suggest that a lack of citizenship status is more indicative of a strained relationship with law enforcement than a victim’s race or ethnicity. There is evidence that suggests there is a lower level of trust in law enforcement among immigrants (Miles & Cox, 2014; Treyger et al., 2014), as well as racial/ethnic minorities (Skogan, 2005; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005), but there is little evidence as to which of these characteristics may play a larger role in establishing trust with police.
The finding that suggests noncitizen minority victims of IPV may be more likely to report their victimization to the police than White, NH U.S. citizens, coupled with the finding that noncitizens are motivated to report when there is a need for protection or they feel as though police are the best option to seek help, lends support for the cost-benefit calculation argument of Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s (1998) decision-making theory. If noncitizens have limited support networks, they may view formal methods of support, such as the police, as their best option to escape an abusive situation. In addition, IPV victims could be incentivized to report their victimization to the police by the pathway to citizenship available to crime victims (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, n.d.). The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) offers protection specifically for noncitizens who experience DV and allows them to file for status without their abuser’s knowledge or consent (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, n.d.). If noncitizens are aware that the formal reporting process grants an opportunity to gain stable documentation status, this could function as a driver behind noncitizens informing police of IPV victimization.
Policy and Practice Implications
This study found a very strong positive relationship between seeking help from victim agencies and reporting to the police, as is consistent with the literature (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024). Because victim service agencies can interact and collaborate with law enforcement in the context of referrals, support with protection orders, or facilitating a victim’s decision to involve the criminal justice system, these methods of help-seeking likely share the perception of formal support (Gezinski, 2022). Noncitizens may be more likely to engage in these formal help-seeking behaviors as opposed to more informal methods such as confiding in friends or family members. This highlights the importance of practitioners in the criminal justice field approaching cases involving IPV victims, particularly those who fall into these minority categories, with cultural sensitivity and understanding. If police and other practitioners such as victim advocates are the first line of defense for noncitizens, it is essential that they are able to provide a supportive and empowering experience, are equipped with translators when needed, and have an understanding of cultural values that may impact a victim’s experience—especially if these victims do not have a secondary method of reporting if their experience is a negative one.
Limitations
This study utilized a nationally representative dataset to concurrently examine the impact of both citizenship status and racial and ethnic identity of IPV victims; however, the number of IPV incidents captured for noncitizens was fairly small, and a larger sample size would likely have yielded more holistic results, particularly regarding the victim-provided reasons for choosing to report or not. Furthermore, a limitation of this study is the aggregation of multiple racial/ethnic groups into a single non-White category due to small subgroup sample sizes, particularly among noncitizen participants. Although this approach was necessary to preserve statistical power, it may obscure important differences in help-seeking behaviors across minoritized groups with distinct experiences of the criminal legal system. Future research should examine these intersections with larger, more diverse samples to better disentangle any variation that may exist across racial/ethnic and citizenship subgroups.
In addition, this dataset did not allow for analyzing specific variations of victims’ immigration status, such as having a work or student visa, a green card, or being undocumented. Individuals who do not have U.S. citizenship but have a valid documentation status may be just as likely as undocumented immigrants to report to the police or not, but there may very well be differences in attitude or perception of law enforcement depending on their documentation status. Future studies should aim to analyze these groups based on immigration status, as well as citizenship status, to determine whether differences exist between groups. This may be especially important in the current U.S. political climate, where policies may be creating greater levels of fear among immigrants and noncitizens and therefore lowering their perception of law enforcement as a safe avenue for help-seeking.
There were also too few cases in the analysis of reasons behind choosing to report or not for reliable conclusions to be drawn, and these findings should be interpreted conservatively. Furthermore, while this dataset captures information about naturalized citizens, there were too few cases in this sample to conduct reliable analyses; therefore, they were combined with the U.S. citizen category, as they have citizenship status. While this approach allows for interpretation based on potential protection of citizenship status, there may also be merit in examining differences between foreign-born and U.S.-born groups.
Conclusion
This study offers a critical contribution to the literature on both victim and third-party reporting of IPV incidents, implementing an intersectional focus on the impact of survivors’ citizenship status and racial or ethnic identity. This study also provides a nationally representative exploration of how minority and noncitizen victims navigate formal systems of support, including law enforcement. The findings challenge existing assumptions regarding legal cynicism and suggest that minority noncitizens may view police reporting as a necessary, though potentially fraught, avenue for intervention and support. By identifying potential gaps in third-party reporting for noncitizen victims, particularly those from minority backgrounds, this research underscores the need for culturally sensitive and inclusive practices within the criminal justice and victim services systems. Practitioners and policymakers should aim to address systemic barriers that deter reporting to better serve vulnerable populations who view formal methods of help, like police reporting, as their only option.
The application of these findings is imperative, as IPV remains a dangerous and pervasive issue, and immigration continues to become a highly politicized issue with far-reaching consequences. It is imperative that criminal justice systems evolve to meet the unique needs of marginalized populations and encourage the utilization of all available methods of support. By better understanding the relationship between race, ethnicity, citizenship status, and their impact on both police reporting and attitudes toward law enforcement, we can enhance the efficacy of IPV interventions and reduce barriers to victims’ help-seeking efforts.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr. Jin R. Lee and Dr. Sue-Ming Yang for their insights and support in this project, as well as Dr. Yasemin Irvin-Erickson for her invaluable feedback on this manuscript and the continued support of my research.
Ethical Considerations
The George Mason University Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not involve human research (STUDY00000293).
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.