Responding to Survivors of Intimate Partner Homicide in Black Communities

Experiences of Homicide Survivors Broadly

Homicide survivors are “entangled in a complex labyrinth of emotions and reactions” (Edwards et al., 2021, p. 1). They face risks of compromised mental health such as sleep disruption, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, anxiety, and chronic and/or complicated grief (Armour, 2002; Edwards et al., 2021; Hertz et al., 2005; Huggins et al., 2020; S. K. Johnson & Zitzmann, 2020; Sharpe, 2013; J. R. Smith & Patton, 2016). Complicated grief is “a condition characterized by persistent and disruptive grief” (S. K. Johnson & Zitzmann, 2020, p. 38). Additionally, they internalize feelings of shame, blame for not being able to help the person, managing stigma and the betrayal from others, and are often incensed by a lack of justice within the criminal justice system to hold the offender accountable (Armour, 2002; Sharpe, 2013). They are often focused on finding the meaning of life and feeling a sense of belonging (Armour, 2002). Having screening protocols for this group, training for medical and mental health providers on how to recognize their needs, providing them with support, and making referrals for family and friends are noted ways to help homicide survivors (Hertz et al., 2005).

Experiences of Black Homicide Survivors

These needs are pronounced for Black communities who are more likely to be exposed to gun violence resulting in higher levels of homicide, and consequently, more psychological distress, depression, suicidal ideation, and psychosis (M. E. Smith et al., 2020). It is critical, then, to understand the sociocultural factors that also influence coping resources and strategies for survivors of Black homicide victims (Sharpe et al., 2018). The sociocultural context begins with cultural trauma experienced within the Black community, to include ancestral survivorship and having to anticipate hardship due to experiences with prior racism and discrimination (Sharpe et al., 2022). These cultural beliefs are important to understand (Edwards et al., 2021) as Black homicide survivors also wrestle with cultural trauma resulting in anticipated hardship (Sharpe, 2015). Black homicide survivors often adjust their expectations based on current, past, and the potential for future race-based adversity. In this way, the survivor is always preparing for “possible victimization, retraumatization, and stigmatization” (Sharpe, 2015, p. 51). Following the homicide, Black survivors are left to deal with the culture of homicide and racial appraisal which includes negotiating shame, blame and the lack of justice along with racialized structural inequity (Sharpe et al., 2022). Black homicide survivors confront these additional feelings of shame and stigma because of the manner of death and a prolonged grieving process (Sharpe, 2015). Stereotypes of Black people being prone to violence creates an additional layer of shame for some Black homicide survivors (Huggins et al., 2020; Sharpe, 2015). In addition, Black homicide survivors suffer compromised mental health and a distrust of formal systems due, in part, to race-based structural inequity (Jenkins, 2002; Sharpe & Boyas, 2011). Examples of this are persistent discrimination and violence experienced by Black people in the criminal justice system, educational systems that lack resources and disproportionately punish Black children for school-related issues, and health systems that lack access to quality care (T. B. Bent-Goodley, 2013; T. Bent-Goodley et al., 2022a; Jenkins, 2002; Sharpe & Boyas, 2011). This leads to different culturally informed coping strategies such as trying to make meaning of what occurred, findings ways to connect to the deceased, collective healing as well as hiding what one is feeling (Sharpe et al., 2022). These issues make it even more pronounced for a culturally competent approach which is also often not available (Edwards et al., 2021). Black homicide survivors have been found to disproportionately cope by trying to emotionally suppress their feelings and self-medicate with alcohol and other substance misuse (McDevitt-Murphy et al., 2021). They have also been found to use religious, spiritual, and collective coping with friends and family (Huggins et al., 2020; Mastrocinque et al., 2020; Sharpe & Boyas, 2011).

Experiences Specific to Intimate Partner Violence Homicide

While there are similarities between homicide survivors and intimate partner violence homicide survivors, there are considerable differences (Alisic et al., 2017). The grieving process is compounded when surviving family and friends had a relationship with both the person whose life was taken, and the perpetrator who took that life (Everytown for Gun Safety, 2019). The children often experience trauma, mental health symptoms and gaps in services (Graves et al., 2019; Reif & Jaffe, 2019; Jackson, et al., 2022). There are also structural challenges that survivors must address including financial concerns and loss of income (Connolly & Gordon, 2015). Yet nearly half (43%) of survivors of intimate partner violence homicide receive no social service support or mental health care (Alisic et al., 2017).

Unique Factors for Black Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence Homicide

Little has been done to discuss the needs of Black survivors of intimate partner violence homicide. However, it is important to understand their experiences (Alisic et al., 2017). Black survivors of intimate partner violence are often confronted with racial discrimination and structural racism resulting in concern for their own safety (T. B. Bent-Goodley, 2013; Messing et al., 2022; St. Vil et al., 2017; West, 2021). This results in adapted help seeking, feelings of internalized shame, and even denial of abuse (Waller et al., 2023; Waller & Quinn, 2022). They also struggle navigating the stereotypes of formal providers which negatively impacts accessing help and diminishes trust in formal providers to provide care (Waller & Bent-Goodley, 2022). The lack of cultural responsiveness further compounds these issues and reinforces that formal providers are not a source of support (T. Bent-Goodley et al., 2022b; West, 2021). As a result, family, friends, faith-based communities, and other informal providers are often viewed as the primary sources of support (T. Bent-Goodley, 2013; St. Vil et al., 2017).

Eligibility and Recruitment

Eligible participants were persons over the age of 18 that identified as Black or African American. Eligibility was not limited to survivors of intimate partner violence homicide, in part, because this inquiry was part of a larger study. In addition, survivors of intimate partner violence in the Black community disproportionately turn to family, friends, and faith-based organizations first for support. These individuals all compose the larger community who influence and are also impacted by intimate partner violence homicide. Consequently, survivors of intimate partner violence homicide were not isolated into their own groups and the broader community.

Participants were from six different communities in the MidAtlantic, South Atlantic, and in South-Southwest of the United States to include urban, rural, and suburban communities. A purposive, targeted sampling approach was utilized to recruit persons identifying as Black or African American from each community. An electronic flyer was distributed through faith-based communities, grassroots organizations, fraternities and sororities, civic groups, book clubs, and knitting clubs in each of the six communities based on recommendations from local key informants. Interested persons then contacted the Principal Investigator to share their desire to participate or obtain more information. Those that consented to participate were sent an electronic demographic information form to complete and later provided information for the scheduled virtual focus group. The Howard University Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.

Data Collection

Prior to conducting the focus groups, an Interview Guide was utilized with questions exploring perceptions of intimate partner violence, indicators of high-risk, barriers and challenges to receiving care, and help-seeking and coping strategies related to intimate partner violence homicide. The questions were developed by the Principal Investigator based on prior research with the study population and the literature (T. B. Bent-Goodley, 2013). As part of the development, feedback was obtained from five experts in the areas of intimate partner violence and cultural competence. The questions were then administered to the same study population as part of a larger demonstration initiative where participants had an opportunity to share their feedback on the questions (T. Bent-Goodley et al., 2022a). Slight modifications were made during each iteration of obtaining feedback and this resulted in the final questions.

The research team consisted of the Principal Investigator, Project Manager who functioned as the Assistant Focus Group Moderator, and Research Assistant. Each group lasted 60 to 90 minutes with six to eight participants in each group. Upon completion, each participant received a $25 gift card. The focus groups were conducted between April 2020 to October 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic. Consequently, the study was conducted utilizing a virtual platform, which functioned as a safe and effective alternative to traditional in-person interviews (Gray et al., 2020; Kite & Phongsavan, 2017). Safety protocols specific to the virtual research environment were enlisted (Murray et al., 2015; Roberts, 2015; Woodyatt et al., 2016). Local and national resources were shared at the beginning and end of each focus group. Participants were asked to confirm they were in a safe space and information was shared as to how to disengage quickly if needed. Contact information was obtained for all participants if such an occasion occurred. A separate virtual room was created to ensure a private virtual space to talk if it was determined that a participant was in crisis or needed support. The Assistant Moderator focused on monitoring participants to assess for these types of needs. Finally, the chat feature was used to privately message or check-in with participants during the group.

Analysis

The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed with no identifying information. The research team, and an independent reviewer, who did not participate in the research project, read each transcript independently. A grounded theoretical coding approach, which emanates from the much broader research approach of grounded theory, was used to determine codes and themes (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). A four-phased process was used to analyze the data: open coding, axial coding, selective coding, and theoretical coding. During the open coding phase, a line-by-line analysis was conducted to identify preliminary categories and then assign codes to the data (J. L. Johnson et al., 2020; Saldana, 2021). During this phase, the team used the constant comparison method to carefully compare data to find similarities and differences (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). Next, during the axial phase, the researchers constructed linkages between the categories still using the constant comparison method (DeCuir-Gumby et al., 2011). As part of this phase, the researchers focused on relating the data between the words and phrases of the participants while simultaneously synthesizing and organizing the data into categories and subcategories (Simmons, 2017). During the selective coding phase, pronounced categories and key themes were identified. This was done through the identification of the most significant or frequent initial codes (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). As part of this phase, the researchers identified and synthesized the main themes in the quotes that best captured what was being seen in the data. During the fourth and final phase of theoretical coding, codes, and categories were organized and more fully conceptualized (Thornberg & Charmaz, 2014). The codes and categories were discussed in terms of how they related to each other and best represented the ideas and perspectives of the participants. In doing this, the coherence of the data became more lucid. Using a consensus approach, final themes were identified, compared, and differences discussed until intercoder agreement was reached at a 95% agreement level. The research team knew that data saturation was reached when no new information was identified during the analytic process (Saunders et al., 2018). Code saturation (Hennink et al., 2016) was reached, at 14 focus groups whereby 98% of themes were identified. However, meaning saturation, or the understanding of the issues uncovered and identification of what was most pronounced (Hennink et al., 2016), was reached at 20 focus groups with 95% agreement between team members. A data-driven codebook was developed to help track codes and organize the data analysis process (DeCuir-Gumby et al., 2011). The initial draft of the codebook was developed following review of four transcripts, and then, as the remaining transcripts were reviewed, it was modified until data saturation was reached (Guest et al., 2020). The codebook structure was stabilized at 20 focus groups. Member checking was conducted at the end of each focus group with the participants reiterating what was discussed and obtaining confirmation of accuracy of the summary. Finally, peer debriefing was done following the conclusion of each focus group, and during the data analysis and report writing processes.

Shame and Guilt

One issue of significance was how family and friends feel shame and guilt and a degree of responsibility for not being able to stop the violence because of their relationship with both parties. They also feel conflicted with maintaining a relationship with the perpetrator. One participant stated:

I’m ashamed that my loved one killed my other loved one. I’m ashamed that I’m trying to grapple with [it]. Do I continue to support this loved one who killed the other loved one? They’re still a member of my family”.

Mothers of the victim often feel intense guilt for not knowing. They wish they would have intervened or known how to respond. They feel upset with not being able to help their daughter and so their guilt is often palpable. A participant that was a provider stated it this way:

. . .usually, it’s mothers that are taking over. And it’s a lot of guilt. [They say] “. why didn’t I know what was happening? Or this could have been prevented”. Sometimes they don’t know what’s happening, so they feel even more guilty. So, I would say a lot more guilt. Where in other homicides, they’re more upset with the offender, where in a lot of situations for domestic, they’re more upset with themselves. . .they wish they could have done more to save their person.

Shame and guilt extended beyond the immediate family and moves into the extended family and broader community that may have seen signs and not intervened. The extended family includes the community and non-blood relatives who are also impacted by the homicide and feel they missed an opportunity to prevent the fatality from occurring. One participant shared it this way:

. . . it’s not just one person. . .But also, you got to think about that sister, a church member or that friend that they may have confided in during this process. . .one life can touch a lot of people. So, you’ll be probably talking to a lot of people.

It was highlighted that supports for intimate partner violence homicide are often generic to all homicides. While some communities have these interventions, they lack an awareness of the unique needs of survivors of intimate partner violence homicide. The result is that the intricacies of an intimate partner violence homicide are not acknowledged or addressed in the crisis response or the helping process that follows. One participant who was a provider stated the following:

I’ve had several members of the Black community that have lost loved ones to intimate partner homicide come to a group or two and just kind of feel like they don’t belong. Or not like they can relate. . .the intricacies involved with those relational aspects of the situation I feel are very unique to intimate partner homicide in a way that maybe we didn’t foresee originally. . .those people [are] feeling kind of ostracized in a group setting.

Stressors and the Family

Family members try to deal with their pain while also managing the intricacies of the needs of the children who may have also witnessed the fatality. The family has no direction or guidance on how to manage this unique situation and it causes confusion. This dynamic can cause an inordinate amount of stress, particularly for the family matriarch who is expected to be strong and have some control over the situation. A participant that was a provider said:

There is stress amongst family members. I’ve seen particularly in Black families where a lot of times it’s a matriarch that’ll come to kind of look for services for [the] children, and sometimes herself. In these situations, [there are] people inserting their opinion from within her family [saying], “This is what you need to do. This is what you don’t need to do”. And so, that added stress of, “Do I stay committed to my family and what my family wants for me and my grandchildren? Or do I kind of seek my own type of help in the way that I want it outside of those other voices kind of inserting themselves into this situation? Either way, I’ve got to hold this thing together no matter what I’m going through”.

It was stated that Black families have a wider view of what constitutes family including extended family that are not blood-related or members of the community that broadens the web of those connected to the family. While extended family is often viewed as a support, they can also present challenges in relaying information, and keeping people informed so they feel a part of what is occurring. This results in multiple people that may be trying to get answers, understand what happened, and identify what will happen next. This presents challenges for the family. One participant stated:

And I’ll say the family values and the family structure is very, very, very prominent and seems very important in Black families. But I would say it can be supportive, but it also can add that stressful piece that sometimes it’s difficult helping people navigate in those situations. You’ve got Godparents and aunties and uncles that aren’t blood related but are family and they need to be included. . .even [people] in church later. It’s a lot of different people and it becomes overwhelming.

Forced Interactions With the Perpetrator and the Perpetrator’s Family

Participants talked about the forced interactions that intimate partner violence homicide survivors have with the perpetrator and the perpetrator’s family especially when there are children involved. They stressed that, due to the communal networks, forced interactions with the perpetrator’s family can occur at any time making it difficult to maneuver. These interactions are not limited to court settings and can also occur in mutual community networks such as faith-based communities. One provider shared:

The victim’s family may be in the same church as the perpetrator’s family and now they have to deal with seeing that family in church every week. So, the family and the community are not always separate from the family itself.

When children are involved, it can be even more complicated. The participants shared that there are often conflicts with determining how to manage the needs of the children as it relates to future interactions with the perpetrator and perpetrator’s family. There are no guidelines or best practices in this area making it difficult to know what is in the best interest of the children. As stated by one participant that was a survivor of intimate partner violence homicide:

You will have the victim’s family saying, “We don’t want him to have any parts with my grandchild, with my grandson”. And so, you have a dilemma. You literally have a crossroads. When it comes to that intimate partner murder that has happened and it divides the family. . .we really don’t have the answer to that.

There are also custody issues that can emerge following an intimate partner violence fatality. The victim’s family may strongly be against any interaction with the perpetrator’s family. These custody issues could be related to the perpetrator’s family attempting to have access to or shared custody of the children. One participant said:

But with domestic homicide you also have to keep in mind, sometimes with children, they share custody with the offender. So, you have to navigate that process [and]. . .the difficulties of grandparents’ rights to that child. You have to work with those grandparents even though their son may have killed your daughter. It’s an impossible situation. The children may or may not want any involvement with the perpetrator. They may or may not want involvement with his family. They may be traumatized being around his family but forced to interact with them. It’s complicated.

The Impact of Trauma and Retraumatization

The participants also identified the impact of trauma and retraumatization that takes place particularly around custody and court. The court system itself is confusing and not easily understood; however, that is further complicated as the courts share personal information about the relationship, which may be unknown, and pictures from the homicide that are traumatizing. A participant that was a survivor of domestic violence homicide said:

And for someone that’s already dealing with the trauma of losing that loved one and then, now obtaining the children, that can be long and exhausting in itself. So, you’re traumatized but now you’re forced to be in a room with him and his family. You have to hear about all the details and of course they’re gonna say something bad about the victim. So, now you have to hear that. And then, hear what happened to your loved one.

The court process itself can take place over a long period of time and is confusing. Having to repeatedly share what happened as part of and including the fatality in court is traumatizing. There are no rules or guidelines for courts on how to be trauma informed in these cases. A participant that was a survivor of intimate partner violence homicide shared:

The other thing is most families don’t know anything about the court process. They don’t understand how all these systems work. It is so confusing. So confusing. Sometimes you want to give up just because of that. . .there’s only one person that talks to the State’s Attorney and then that family member has to go tell all the other family members over and over and over again what’s happening. So, it can be very retraumatizing, exhausting.

Retraumatization can also occur outside of the court process. Participants talked about how counselors can traumatize survivors which leads to the decision to not continue to pursue support. Helping professionals have no guidelines, protocols, or best practices on how to best engage this group of survivors. As stated by a participant that was an intimate partner violence homicide survivor:

We all attempted to go to counseling as a family. But each time we went to a counselor, it almost turned into another interrogation. The person wanted to hear all the details of what happened. You repeat it over and over. After a while you’re like forget this. It’s a lot for a family to have to relive.

The participants also stressed that trauma does not end after the initial crisis. Trauma persists, particularly for the children of intimate partner violence victims. However, the support often dissipates over time even when there is still a need for intervention. A participant that was a survivor of intimate partner violence homicide shared:

The family pulled together. We made sure that [the child] had a good environment to grow up in, and we never focused on the fact that this is a child who had experienced this trauma. We thought we were doing a great job and then the symptoms started to show up and I don’t think anybody even connected that. Since that time, [the person] has been in abusive relationships.

Barriers to Care Within and Outside of the Community

The participants also identified that there are barriers within and outside of the community that impact willingness to access support. Within the community, they felt that the community is not always responsive. The community often does not intervene or respond even when violence becomes high-risk. One participant said it this way:

They will only intervene if they’re hearing the pounding of flesh and screaming, and they see blood and someone’s [the person] dying in the hallway having been stabbed. And even then, sometimes, sadly, someone will put up their camera and record it before they call the police.

Participants stressed that an additional barrier is increased pockets of isolation within communities that foster a lack of trust in others within and outside of the community. They shared that in some communities there may be places where neighbors are connected; however, there are also places where there is no connection and residents are isolated. These members of the community are viewed to be at-risk. One participant shared:

I think some of the biggest challenges is getting the information out there that there are resources to help people. I think a lot of people tend to be isolated. They have people around them, but they are still alone. They don’t want to reach out for help. Even though the help is there, like the resources are there. But I think it’s a matter of getting the information out there to people. Making people feel like they can trust the system or organization. Because people tend not to trust people.

Outside of the community, among formal providers, participants identified a barrier that the family members may not know the extent of the violence being experienced because of the fear victims had with accessing formal services. They noted that formal service providers are often punitive and not helpful rendering them to not being viewed an option to acquire support. A survivor of intimate partner violence shared the following:

Another thing too is the fact that everything is punitive. So, it’s very, very hard, because everyone is a Mandated Reporter. . . and everybody is a Mandated Reporter who is sicking ACS [child protective services] on you. [They need] . . . help and resources instead of police and [the possibility of] taking your children away. [It] impacts how or when or if we ever find out what actually happened.

Participants also described a lack of urgency to help survivors of intimate partner violence, systems being overwhelmed and lacking the ability to help. They stressed that, even when survivors seek help, they are confronted with systems that are ineffective. This causes a lack of belief in the system’s ability to be a resource. A participant that was also a provider shared the following:

I had to take her to the hub to try to get her support and services. I spent about seven hours of my day with the client and her children whom we were trying to get into a shelter. And, I had to constantly keep pushing and speaking with different people to try to get them to understand the urgency of the situation. . .even with them trying to fast-track a DV case. . . it’s just difficult. The systems are there, but yet the turnaround rate to support clients who are experiencing DV. . . is long and very troublesome.

The participants also felt strongly that race played a part in the quality of services offered in the Black community. They emphasized the perception that sub-standard services exist in the community and that is ultimately rooted in inadequate knowledge and biased perceptions that stifle the ability to help. They felt that ideas about Black people were based on stereotypes and lack of knowledge of the community. One of the participants stated:

. . .let’s face reality. We’re all people of color. And if Karen is having a problem in the suburbs, and she has needs of services, she’s going to get them. Where Jasmine in the hood is not going to be able to find them because there’s going to be trouble and the workers are going to be overworked. And so, it comes down to the neighborhoods and it’s cultural, it’s racial, and that’s just the reality. [Our community] doesn’t have the resources that White [communities have]. The police come to the house and they say, “Well, that’s just how those people act” especially if they’re from someplace “outside” of America. You know, they’re from West Africa, or they’re from Jamaica, or they’re from the Dominican Republic. “I don’t know those people, but that’s probably how they act all the time. They can go out there and kill each other. We don’t care”.

Finally, the participants attributed the barriers to care as leading to intimate partner violence homicide and trauma. They felt strongly that those barriers become reasons for the high numbers of high-risk cases and disproportionate fatalities in the Black community. A survivor of intimate partner violence homicide shared:

And they come to the house three or four times until the last time they come to the house and there’s a dead wife, or a dead husband, and the kids are hurt, and the house was burnt down, or something else has happened. So, we put it off like it’s an insignificant problem where we don’t realize that the ramifications of this insignificant problem is trauma on the victim, the victimizer, the children. And unless it’s addressed, it’s forever.

Shame and Guilt

The participants identified the shame and guilt felt by family and friends who tried to reconcile with the role they played or could have played in preventing the intimate partner violence homicide (Aborisade et al., 2018; Armour, 2011; Pitcho-Prelorentzos et al., 2021). They also reinforced the challenges of having relationships with both the victim and the perpetrator and how to navigate their feelings around maintaining a relationship with the perpetrator as a result (Aborisade et al., 2018). They also wondered about signs they may have missed that could have changed the outcome of the fatality. These issues have been identified in the prior literature. The participants in this study also identified that Black communities have a broader definition of family to include extended family members both blood related and non-blood related, as well as community networks. Consequently, friends and family include a larger network of affiliation impacted by an intimate partner violence homicide.

In addition, mothers of victims experience a profound sense of shame and guilt while they try to keep the family together after the loss of the victim. The idea that the mother of the victim should have had a closer relationship with the victim and thus expected to be more knowledgeable of the relationships dynamics creates another degree of guilt and shame. In addition, understanding the intersection of race and gender within the Black community highlights how these mothers are viewed as strong Black women and consequently expected to be able to carry others and navigate the situation, while denying their own vulnerability.

Managing Family Stressors, Forced Interactions, and Needs of Children

The participants affirmed the stress of families to manage their pain while also determining what they think is best for the children (Mertin, 2019). They acknowledged the challenge of deciding whether to interact with the perpetrator and the family of the perpetrator. As discussed in the literature, this is further complicated when there are children involved. The challenges of determining what is best, in terms of custody, and visitation with the perpetrator and the perpetrator’s family is stressful and can cause strife within the family itself (Aborisade et al., 2018; Armour, 2011). Some children may or may not want contact with the person that killed their parent. In addition, the participants in this study discussed the impact of the broader sense of extended family and connection to the community as adding further complications because there were more people involved which can be overwhelming. It also creates another level of accountability and communication at a time when family members are experiencing multiple stressors. In addition, the participants emphasized that the victim and the perpetrator’s families could belong to the same faith-based communities and other community institutions that make it impossible to not interact. This forced interaction creates an additional complexity for Black families and communities related to how to manage such challenges within the cultural relationships in the community.

The Negative Impact of Formal Systems of Care

The participants also identified ways where formal systems of care were not helpful and even create conditions where survivors feel forced to adapt help seeking (Harper, 2021; Waller & Bent-Goodley, 2022). In addition, the court process is arduous, confusing, and long. This information has been found in previous literature. However, the participants in this study also described feeling a lack of trust in formal care systems that impacted their willingness to seek support from these systems even following the death of their family member or friend (Messing et al., 2022; St. Vil et al., 2017). In addition, they described these systems as punitive in nature and that the fear of using them forced the victim to keep the severity of the violence secret leading to the family being less informed about what was happening and creating less options for their loved one to get help (T. B. Bent-Goodley, 2013; Harper, 2021). Furthermore, the systems were described as fragmented, and having no sense of urgency even in high-risk situations. The participants also felt strongly that the systems treated them stereotypically and that they were impacted by both discriminatory treatment and systemic racism all of which resulted in greater risk for not seeking help prior to the fatality by the victim and after the fatality by family and friends (Sharpe, 2015; Sharpe et al., 2022; St. Vil et al., 2017; West, 2021). Intersectionality is informative in understanding ways that the participants described race and class merging to inform issues of discriminatory treatment. For example, some of the participants felt strongly that there was more availability and better services offered for White survivors, but less so in Black and poor communities. Understanding these intersections was informative for deciphering the ways that race and class converge to negatively impact access to and quality of care.

Trauma on the Continuum

The participants shared similarities in the literature with regards to experiencing trauma associated with the death of their loved one (Edwards et al., 2021; Huggins et al., 2020; Sharpe, 2015). They too identified that the court process includes multiple retraumatization as they listen to the violence that preceded the death, the murder itself and the circumstances around it. The court process overall was viewed as traumatic. In addition, this group of participants identified that counseling could also be traumatizing because of the approach of the clinician. They stressed that the clinician’s lack of a trauma informed approach had direct implications on their willingness to access services then and in the future. The literature identified that families stop receiving services 8 weeks following the incident. It is possible that this finding provides some context as to why. Finally, the participants identified the long-term impacts of experiencing intimate partner violence homicide as a child survivor.

Individual Level and Small Group Interventions

It is important to develop individual level interventions that are trauma-informed and culturally competent responsive to address issues of shame and guilt that are prevalent among homicide survivors. In addition, these interventions must also be tailored to focus on needs specific to intimate partner violence homicide survivors and the cultural context that informs their experience. For example, providing targeted individual counseling and crisis intervention to the mothers or matriarch of the family of these victims is crucial. There should be an effort to engage them understanding the unique challenges that they may face and how to manage those expectations within themselves and among others. Having interventions that demonstrate understanding of the intersection of race and gender is important to ensure that the needs of this group of survivors are being met. Interventions should incorporate opportunities for collective healing and integrate spiritual and religious coping. In addition, historical trauma and the impact of persistent discrimination should also be interwoven into the intervention.

It is also important to ensure that survivors of intimate partner violence homicide to have groups that are specific for them. Group leaders should be mindful of how the experiences of this group of survivors are different and, therefore, groups should be inclusive of their experience if a separate group is not possible. Researchers should be engaged to assess small group interventions and modules that meet the needs of intimate partner violence homicide survivors.

Family and Community-Based Interventions

The findings also point to the importance of addressing the needs of families and communities more holistically. This study found that family members are not only of blood relation but also members of the larger community. Consequently, developing interventions and supports that meet the needs of these groups are important. Supporting family members with interacting with the perpetrator and the perpetrator’s family is important. Recognizing that in Black communities, the victim and the perpetrator’s family may have relationships and interact within the same community networks is important to developing approaches to address the needs of both families while also ensuring that the needs of the community entities they engage is receiving support. Because the participants addressed how powerless they felt to assist victims of intimate partner violence and did not know how to address barriers to care, it is important to offer bystander education for family, friends, and community groups to support their knowledge of what they can do, informal and formal resources available, and how they can advocate within those systems for their loved one. Broadening the approach to offering interventions to family members, kinship networks, friends, and community groups is important to consider within the Black community.

It is also important to offer more guidance around best practices for custody, visitation, and how to better support the needs of children that are survivors of intimate partner violence homicide. Having more research in this area would clarify needs from childhood through adolescence and young adulthood. Identifying best practices for this group is an important point of intervention.

Addressing Barriers to Care

Barriers to care impact victim’s willingness and ability to access support which, in turn, increases risks for victims, and makes it difficult for survivors of intimate partner violence homicide to trust or engage with services following the death of their loved one. Consequently, addressing barriers to care is of the utmost importance to help survivors of intimate partner violence homicide. Focusing on identifying culturally responsive practices and policies, growing representation of cultural groups in each level of care, reducing structural barriers that might impact one’s ability to access services, and committing to being accountable to communities for addressing implicit and systemic bias in service provision provides necessary starts to addressing this barrier. Ultimately, developing anti-racist practices can build bridges of trust, create a space for victims to seek help, allow survivors of these fatalities to utilize support and reduce the need for adapted help seeking which can increase risk.

Within the community, it is important to address the barrier of isolation. The participants identified that isolation and a lack of wanting to get involved impact the willingness of the community to give and receive support; yet the community is viewed as a part of those victimized by intimate partner violence homicide. Offering more bystander education may help to support help seeking. In addition, creating community-based events that forge relationships in communities is key to breaking isolation and supporting the connectedness desired.

Providing Trauma-Informed Care Across the Continuum

It is important to provide trauma-informed care across systems and over time for survivors of intimate partner violence homicide. Best practices and protocols should be developed for children impacted by intimate partner violence homicide. In addition, it is important to ensure that trauma-informed services are available as part of the court process. While it would be useful for court administrators to determine practices that would reduce re-traumatization, advocates can also offer services within the court setting to minimize re-traumatization and support family members. Mental health providers should identify trauma-informed practices for survivors of intimate partner violence homicide including interviewing strategies that avoid re-traumatization and interventions that promote healing. Finally, it is important to better understand the impact of trauma over time particularly for children. Their needs may not evidence immediately after the homicide but may begin to unravel over time. Developing approaches and providing guardians with this information may be helpful with providing supports at key developmental periods and over time for children impacted by this issue.