Navigating the complexities of help-seeking: Amplifying the voices of marginalized survivors of intimate partner violence

Barriers to help-seeking

Barriers exist for accessing IPV services in the United States, including lack of awareness, access challenges, consequences of disclosure, lack of material resources, personal barriers, and system failures (for a review see Robinson et al., 2021). Survivors may perceive stigma related to reaching out for support (Overstreet and Quinn, 2013). They may not access formal services because they do not know about the services available to them, they do not know how to access them, and/or they do not feel safe or comfortable accessing them (Houston-Kolnik et al., 2017). Other barriers include emotional barriers (e.g., fear of retaliation, shame and embarrassment) and instrumental barriers (e.g., housing or financial concerns, deportation concerns, language and cultural barriers, and law of awareness and knowledge; McCart et al., 2010).

Intersecting marginalized identities and help-seeking

Models of help-seeking and attainment are also expanding to capture the impacts that marginalized identities can play in navigating formal systems of care. For example, White women may be more likely to seek mental health and social services, while Latina/Hispanic and African American women may be more likely to seek supports from hospitals or law enforcement (Satyen et al., 2018). Among cisgender, heterosexual men who have experienced IPV, (Lysova et al., 2022) found internal barriers related to masculine stereotypes, male roles, and not recognizing or defining IPV, as well as external barriers related to fear and not feeling like there were places to seek help. Taylor et al. (2021) also found gender stigma and discreditation as barriers to help-seeking and the responses they received from service providers. Hardesty and colleagues (2011) illuminated the help-seeking process among lesbian and bisexual mothers, highlighting barriers and experiences with discrimination and oppressive systems, especially if they were women of color or were of low socio-economic status.

Kimberlé introduction of intersectionality focused on Black women’s experiences in navigating IPV and the associated oppressions with intersecting identities, such as race, class, and gender. Her seminal work highlights that many structures designed to support survivors of IPV (e.g., many for White, middle-class, cisgender women, who are non-immigrant), may not be accessible or relevant to someone with intersecting marginalized identities, or someone who does not fit this cultural expectation of what a survivor looks like. For example, survivors in rural areas who are low-income may not be able to afford to travel to a shelter or take time off work to access services or go to court hearings. A survivor who does not speak English, or a survivor with a hearing disability, may not be able to access services if the provider does not have interpretation or translation services. A cisgender male, transgender, or gender non-conforming survivor may not know if they can access services if they are advertised “for women.”

Overstreet and Quinn (2013) presented the IPV Stigmatization Model, which identified how cultural stigma (i.e., societal beliefs that can lead to questioning the legitimization of IPV), stigma internalization (i.e., survivors believing and internalizing stereotypes about IPV survivors) and anticipated stigma (i.e., fear of what will happen when they disclose IPV) contribute to help-seeking. Additionally, the impacts of IPV and the stigmas of help-seeking can be further compounded for those with intersecting marginalized identities, as each of these identities are stigmatized. Waller et al. (2023) developed a theory of help-seeking with African American women, highlighting the ways in which race, gender, and class intersect to impact help-seeking among IPV survivors. This theory includes social and cultural context (e.g., systemic racism, community influences), beliefs about available services (e.g., historical and current experiences), and individual agency (e.g., self-efficacy and strengthen to seek help). This theory also elevates the importance of examining intersectional experiences resulting from navigating oppressive systems and policies (Waller et al., 2023).

Sweet (2019) highlights the “paradox of legibility” as women’s experiences with IPV are so intermeshed within structures that can be oppressive and amplify harm. They can be “objectified and discredited in court,” “subject to gendered standards of respectability uncommon for other crimes” and must show they are on the path from powerless to productivity to be deserving of services and supports (Sweet, 2019: 413–414). Thus, the paradox is survivors’ journey of finding credibility and deserving of services while also navigating institutional barriers and oppression.

The impact of rurality and geographic location

Research is needed to understand the impact to help-seeking from the intersection of geographic location and rurality with these marginalized identities. Peek-Asa et al. (2011) found that the average distance to an IPV-specific shelter or resource was three times greater for cisgender women living in rural areas, compared to those living in urban areas. Edwards (2015) reviewed the literature, finding that multiracial women, and those separated or divorced, who were living in rural areas were at a greater risk for IPV (than similar groups in urban areas). They also found that survivors have worse health outcomes because of the lack of IPV services, in terms of availability, accessibility, and quality of services. Further, women living in rural areas may perceive stigma about accessing services, and not reach out for formal support (Edwards, 2015). Survivors living in rural geographies face additional barriers in accessing services if they experience poverty or are survivors of color (Collins Woods, 2020). Research is needed to understand the rural help-seeking experience among more diverse samples, especially those with intersecting marginalized identities.

Study design

The research team worked with DV agencies and community-based organizations to share information about the study. Partners were asked to post flyers at their organizations or on their organizations’ social media pages. We recruited from all member organizations from the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence (ICADV), as well as from LGBTQ+ organizations, refugee centers, and cultural centers. In the flyers, we let individuals know that we were seeking input from adults (ages 18+) who lived in Illinois and had experienced IPV. If adults were interested, they were asked to complete a brief screening survey to assess their eligibility. Inclusion criteria was comprised of the following: they must be 18 years of age or older; they must reside within the state of Illinois; and they must have experienced IPV (for IPV items on the screening survey see Supplemental Materials).

The research team assessed those who completed the screening survey for eligibility inclusion criteria, and then purposive sampling methods were utilized. Within each geographic region of Illinois (Southern, Central, Northern, Northern-Collar/Cook), and we selected two to three participants who identified: (a) as a racial or ethnic minority, (b) LGBTQ+, (c) with a disability, or (d) as an immigrant. If they met criteria and were purposively sampled, they were sent a follow-up email invitation and online informed consent form.

Focus group participants

The 46 survivors who participated in a focus group represented 12 counties across Illinois, including from Chicago, Cook, and Collar areas (n = 26), Northern (n = 4), Central (n = 13), or Southern Illinois (n = 3). About 37% of participants were from rural communities. The participants ranged in age from 22 to 59 (M = 33.87, SD = 9.53). Participants reported a diverse level of educational attainment (61% had an associate’s degree or higher), employment (34% were employed part-time and 32% were employed full-time), and current housing (64% were currently renting housing). The average gross household income was $44,686, and the median was $32,500. In terms of relationship status, 43% were divorced or separated, 25% were single or not in a relationship, 18% were in a relationship, 9% were married, and 4% were in an open relationship. About 35% were living with biological children or stepchildren. About 33% of participants indicated involvement with the criminal legal system (e.g., arrested, jailed, detained, or incarcerated, on probation or parole, etc.).

In terms of gender, participants identified as cisgender female (61%) or male (21%), transgender (4%), and gender-nonconforming or non-binary (11%). About 37% reported a minoritized sexual identity. When looking across gender identity and sexual orientation, about 46% had a LGBTQ+ identity. Participants also reported race and ethnicity (41% African American or Black, 28% White, 11% Asian or Asian American, 11% Hispanic or Latino/a/x), and disability status (20% endorsed at least one disability). About 26% of the sample was not born in the United States. See Table 1 for full socio-demographic categories and descriptive information. The entire sample had at least two marginalized identities or communities when looking at gender identity, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, disability status, if they were an immigrant, and if they lived in a rural or urban community.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Sociodemographic information of the sample (N = 46).

Sociodemographic factor	N	%
Sex (according to birth certificate)
Female	34	74%
Male	11	24%
Non binary X	1	2%
Gender identity
Cisgender male	9	21%
Cisgender female	28	61%
Transgender female	2	4%
Gender non-conforming or non-binary	5	11%
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual/Straight	29	63%
Sexual minority	17	37%
LGBTQ+ identity	21	46%
Race and ethnicity
African American/Black	19	41%
American Indian/Native American	2	4%
Asian/Asian American	5	11%
Hispanic/Latino/a/x	5	11%
White/Caucasian	13	28%
Multiracial	1	2%
Another race/Ethnicity	1	2%
Medical or health-related disabilities
No, I do not have a disability	37	80%
Hearing difficulty or deaf	1	2%
Cognitive difficulty (Physical, mental or emotional problem)	7	15%
Independent living difficulty	1	2%
Another disability	2	4%
Country born In
Outside of the United States	12	26%
United States	34	74%

Instruments: Focus group protocol

For the focus group, a semi-structured focus group protocol was developed collaboratively between ICADV and the research team. After study information was provided, participants answered 12 overarching questions. For the purposes of this study, we focused on questions related to seeking help (e.g., “When you were seeking help, did you receive the help you needed?”) and identity (e.g., “How might aspects of your identity (i.e., race or cultural background and values; gender identity; sexual orientation; having a disability; being an immigrant) have affected the services you received?”). The full focus group protocol can be found in Supplemental Materials.

Data analysis

Descriptive information about experiences with IPV and help-seeking were examined from the screening surveys using SPSS software. All focus group sessions were audio-recorded and files were transcribed. After transcription, they were verified and de-identified; after confirmation, audio files were deleted. Data analysis was conducted with de-identified transcript files and qualitative codebooks were created. Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, 2020) was used to identify themes (i.e., group of categories that convey similar meanings) with the qualitative data. Two trained coders reviewed the data for themes, defined and named the themes, and discussed any disagreements on coding. All of this information was carefully tracked in the codebook. For any quotes used in this paper, pseudonyms are provided, with information on gender identity, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, disability, if they are an immigrant, and if they live in a rural or urban community, are listed. Fue to small sample sizes within characteristics, and to protect participant information, we collapsed “transgender, gender non-binary and gender non-conforming” into one category, grouped “gay/bisexual” and “lesbian/bisexual” and listed “racial minority” if they wrote in a racial identity that did not fit into other categories. We also did not assess region differences and rather grouped into “rural” or “urban” communities to ensure these data were de-identified.

Experiences with DV and help-seeking

As shown in Table 2, prevalence was high across the types of DV experienced by survivors. Lifetime rates across forms ranged from 83% to 100%, with everyone endorsing lifetime experiences of verbal IPV. Rates in the past year were also high, ranging from 35% to 54%. Most endorsed form in the past year was cyberstalking. Most survivors sought formal support at a DV agency (67%) and informal support (76%; see Table 3).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Prevalence of experiencing forms of intimate partner violence (IPV; N = 46).

Forms of IPV	Never		Lifetime (ever)		In the past year
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Physical	4	8.7%	42	91.3%	19	41.3%
Sexual	4	8.7%	42	91.3%	16	34.8%
Coercive control	1	2.2%	45	97.8%	21	45.7%
Verbal	0	0%	46	100%	23	50.0%
Stalking	6	13.0%	40	87.0%	22	47.8%
Cyberstalking	4	8.7%	42	91.3%	25	54.3%
Financial	8	17.4%	38	82.6%	20	43.5%

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Prevalence of help-seeking from formal and informal supports (N = 46).

Formal and informal support	N	%
DV agency	31	67.4%
Housing or shelter through DV agency	19	41.3%
DV support group	22	47.8%
Call or text DV hotline/helpline	17	37.0%
Report to police/law enforcement	23	50.0%
Obtain an order of protection	21	45.7%
Medical care (e.g., go to emergency room or urgent care)	19	41.3%
Social services (e.g., go to benefits office)	14	30.4%
Support at community-based organization/nonprofit	20	43.5%
Counseling services or therapy	36	78.3%
Tell a close friend, family member, or intimate partner	35	76.1%
Other	3	6.5%
None of the above	1	2.2%

Note. DV = Domestic Violence.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Formal supports sought by participants (N = 46).

Formal supports sought	n	Examples
DV agencies and community-based organizations	34	Counseling, advocacy, and support groups at DV agencies and shelters, community-based organizations
Police & law enforcement	23	Call police or 911, law enforcement, police with social worker at the station
Legal & court services	11	Sought orders of protection and restraining orders, and sought support from attorneys, legal aids and advocates, and courthouse staff
Medical & healthcare providers	7	Sought support from physicians/doctors, midwives, and other healthcare providers
Pamphlets & posters	6	Sought support from posters and cards in bathrooms, flyers, and pamphlets with contact information for resources
DV hotlines and websites	4	Sought support from 1 to 800 numbers, hotlines, and websites
Religious organizations	1	Sought support from a religious organization
Family & friends	7	Although not a formal support system, survivors also sought support from friends and family

Note. The n represents the number of times this theme was coded.

Complexities of help-seeking

To organize our findings, Figure 1 highlights process of seeking help and help attainment. Each part of this model is discussed below, labeled with numbers and letters in the figure that correspond to the organization of this section. The backdrop for this figure is the systems of oppression, policies, and stigma related to one’s marginalized identities or geographic location that are navigated throughout this entire process. Survivors sometimes named or attributed these systemic or structural components as barriers in the help-seeking journey. However, even if not named, this sample of diverse survivors with multiple marginalized identities and geographic locations are unable to disentangle from the systems and structures in which formal IPV services and supports exist (and thus, are the backdrop of our results).

(1) Seeking help: First, survivors were asked about the formal supports they sought help from. As shown in Table 4, most survivors (n = 34) sought help from DV agencies and community-based organizations, followed by police and law enforcement (n = 23). Also, about one in four survivors sought an order of protection or other legal services. Accessing these formal supports was described as a journey, and it was clear that the help-seeking process was not linear. Each journey depended on immediate needs, the survivors’ identity and geographic location, what was available, or who survivors chose to reach out to first. Journeys also depended on knowledge of services and supports, as well as the knowledge of providers across systems.

(a) Straightforward and connected: Some survivors described the help-seeking process as relatively straightforward, and providers across systems helped connect the survivor to additional resources and supports. For example, several survivors talked about how they would reach out to a legal system, which would lead them to DV agencies and other social services. Others called hotlines or reached out to DV agencies who connected them to additional services (e.g., orders of protection, mental health supports). So, when services were well-connected within a community, this facilitated the help-seeking process.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

A visual representation of the results illustrating the help-seeking and help attainment process.

  “Each kind of different person led me to a different branch. Once the counselor had told me she thought that the relationship was escalating, and was afraid for us, that led me to seek out shelters, but that was a rabbit hole in itself, because […] at each stage, it was a little different. And not always clear. Pretty long journey.” – Cloe, a cisgender woman, identified as lesbian/bisexual, White race, from an urban community

  Personal journeys also included complex abusive situations, and reaching out for help did not always result in immediate help. One survivor described reaching out to her midwife, as she was the only person the survivor could visit without her husband there. The midwife was able to provide a phone number, but there was not much the survivor could do with that when every phone call she made was tracked. In this story, Penelope felt that “maybe I would have been able to leave sooner” if medical providers were more equipped for supporting survivors - Penelope, a cisgender woman, heterosexual, White race, from a rural community.

(2) Help attainment: In relation to asking about seeking help, we asked survivors if they felt they received the help they needed. While a good number felt they did, there was also a handful of survivors who felt mixed support (e.g., not every need was addressed). Also, many discussions focused on survivors who did not feel they received the help they needed, often reflecting on barriers (described in the next section). Across help that was attained, survivors described services as helpful, harmful or unhelpful, or mixed.

(a) Helpful: Overall, when survivors sought support from DV agencies and mental health providers, they felt these services were helpful, vitally important, reassuring, and validating. Four survivors specifically discussed the help they received from DV shelters. Four other survivors mentioned the importance of having advocates to guide them every step of the way and having advocates in law enforcement and legal settings. Survivors highlighted the helpfulness of services from providers within their own communities.

Additionally, survivors discussed specific barriers related to their identities, including lack of translators, languages used, and cultural differences in disclosing IPV. There were feelings of stigma and shame that were intertwined with their identity, family values and beliefs, and fear of provider perceptions. Across discussions where there were barriers within formal law enforcement and legal systems, lack of trust and care was discussed, in addition to fear of discrimination.

Across these discussions of barriers (see Table 5), most survivors noted multiple barriers occurring at once, further adding to the complexity of the help-seeking process. For example, as Cam describes, these multiple barriers cumulatively impacted their help-seeking process:

  “I faced some stigma, some setbacks, some issues being neglected, and stereotypes accessing services. I had fears of not being understood, fears of not seeking the necessary help, and I felt that I might not get a positive outcome in my situation. I felt depressed, I lacked an approach on how to relate this information to [the advocates] and felt they might not really understand at some point. This caused me to isolate myself, and I felt lonely.” – Cam, identifies as gender non-binary and heterosexual, Black race, from a rural community, immigrant

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Barriers experienced during the help-seeking process (N = 46).

Barriers	n	Examples
Accessibility issues and issues related to policy criteria and eligibility	20	Accessibility of services (e.g., accessing domestic violence shelters), transportation, time to respond and length of waitlists as barriers; criteria and eligibility restrictions on housing and financial policies, and access barriers if children were involved.
Stigma, shame, fear of retaliation	10	Feelings of stigma, shame, and fear of retaliation. Two survivors mentioned that barriers existed because they were in a small town and everyone would know about their situation, and one person mentioned their mutual friends would find out.
Barriers within formal systems	10	If survivors reached out to formal systems, they discussed further barriers that impacted access. Survivors felt that the police had a lack of training, didn’t have a level of care, or didn’t do anything. Barriers existed at the courthouse with getting orders of protection, navigating the legal system, or having legal representatives who didn’t care for the client. Survivors also discussed a lack of trust in most formal systems.
Mental health concerns, emotions, and perceptions	8	Survivors discussed that their own mental health and mental states were barriers to access services (e.g., depression, PTSD, feeling isolated). One survivor was worried that providers would perceive them as someone trying to destroy a family.
Their partner was a barrier	7	Survivors felt that their partners were barriers, including their partners’ mental health concerns, their manipulative and controlling behaviors or having a partner who was related to someone on the police.
Financial barriers	7	Survivors discussed finances as barriers to accessing services. For example, one survivor said due to extreme financial abuse, they were unable to leave or seek services.
Language, cultural, identity, and social barriers	6	Survivors mentioned that aspects of their identity created barriers. Other barriers included a lack of translators at services, languages used, and cultural differences in disclosing DV.
Not being believed or being questioned	5	Survivors were worried about not being believed or understood and being rejected or questioned.
Other	2	One survivor said that because they had one bad experience seeking help, they stopped looking for help. Another said that because of COVID-19, they felt that formal supports stopped asking them about their safety because of other pandemic concerns.

Note. The n represents the number of times this theme was coded.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 6.

Aspects of One’s identity or identities that impacted help-seeking and services (N = 46).

Identity or identities	n	Examples
Gender	21	Most survivors described gender as a barrier. For example, cisgender women described the system as “anti-woman,” belittling, and dehumanizing. Cisgender men also faced barriers related to gender, seeing gender bias, services being based on supports for women, and providers not believing that men can be survivors. Three survivors saw gender as a facilitator, saying being a woman made it easier for them to seek services, and legal support was helpful when a woman had a female judge. Another survivor described the system as changing and being more supportive of women and diverse gender identities.
Race and ethnicity	6	Five survivors saw their race and ethnic background negatively affecting the services they received, talking about being denied housing based on race, being rejected and questioned, racial stereotyping and profiling, and a lack of cultural awareness and norms within services related to their ethnicity. One survivor saw ethnicity as a facilitator, particularly when their service provider had the same cultural background as them.
LGBTQ+	4	Survivors felt that sexual orientation impacted services received from law enforcement, as police didn’t take the violence seriously. Another survivor said that their sexual orientation led to discrimination.
Disability	4	Three survivors discussed how their disabilities meant that they were unable to understand the steps outlined for them, that services were not tailored for them, and one talked about how services were retracted because of their disability. One survivor also talked about how they had a difficult time finding housing close enough to a school for their child with disabilities.
Religion	2	Two survivors discussed the role of religion. One felt that their Catholic upbringing created barriers as it was not common for them to disclose DV to professionals. However, another survived said that having similarities in religion helped with the level of help they received.
Intersectionality	6	Survivors talked about how the unique combination of their identities contributed to the services they received. For example, one survivor stated that his identity as a Native American male, with mixed race, impacted the attention he received. Another felt that not being white woman meant they didn’t have a voice. Two participants discussed how their intersectional identity of being white women meant “no one would turn them away.”
Other	9	Other aspects of identity were discussed, including socio-economic status, history of substance abuse, and needing dual language/bilingual providers. They all felt they were unable to get support because of these aspects of their identity. One survivor discussed that their generation (Gen Z) shaped how others saw them when accessing services. Two survivors felt that having an identity as a parent also contributed to difficulties with receiving help.

Note. The n represents the number of times this theme was coded.

Another participant described needing education to navigate the complexities of the help-seeking journey:

  “Because the systems are so specialized and separated and you need them at different times, then you have to educate yourself, like you're getting a Master's or PhD in public works, or family law while you're trying to protect yourself and your kids and not lose your home or even your sanity.” - Cloe, a cisgender woman, identified as lesbian/bisexual, White race, from an urban community

In our focus groups, we had two groups of cisgender men who participated. They talked about barriers related to gender, seeing a gender bias across services, services being based on supports for women, and providers not believing that men can be survivors of IPV. As Benny described:

“I think my situation is unique to being a man. Many services out here are only focused on women. Seeking services as a man is difficult. The first place I went to...I did call the police because the situation was aggravated. And it wasn't easy for me.” – Benny, cisgender man, identifies as gay/bisexual, White race, from a rural community

Barriers were also discussed related to one’s race and ethnicity (n = 6), LGBTQ+ status (n = 4), disability (n = 4), and religion (n = 2). For example, Petra described how she was not taken seriously because she was in a lesbian relationship: “I couldn’t get a restraining order because the judge said I wasn’t scared of her enough to keep my doors locked. So, because I forgot to lock my door, it gave her an okay. I feel that was because we’re both two women.” - Petra, cisgender woman, identifies as lesbian/bisexual, Asian, from a rural community.

Others described not receiving the accommodations they needed related to their disability, while also facing bias and discrimination. Fear of bias and discrimination were also seen when describing worrying about “if the available services are culturally sensitive or that there was an awareness of my cultural norms and values” – Nico, cisgender man, identifies as heterosexual, Asian, from an urban community, immigrant.

Six participants explicitly talked about the unique intersection of their identities and how they contributed to the services they received. Mato described, “I think that I probably waited longer than I should have to try to reach out and seek help. Not only because I’m a male, but also, I’m mixed race. Being Native American, there’s a lot of domestic violence within the Native American community. There’s also a lot of apathy.” Mato, cisgender man, identifies as heterosexual, Multiracial, from an urban community. Similarly, Michal described: “I feel my financial stability, my cultural identity, and probably disability status actually played a part… in services being retracted at some point.” – Michal, cisgender man, identifies as heterosexual, Black race, from an urban community, with a disability. Carla shared that the police did not help her because “they probably didn’t take me seriously. They probably thought I was young woman, and I was going to keep taking him back or something.” Carla, gender non-binary, identifies as heterosexual, Latina, from an urban community, immigrant.

Finally, other factors were discussed that intersected with other aspects of survivors’ identities, including one’s socio-economic status, history of substance abuse, and needing dual language/bilingual providers. One discussed generational differences, and two felt that being a parent also contributed to the difficulties in receiving help.

Facilitators

Survivors also reflected on what they needed the most when they sought help. Many survivors (n = 28) talked about needing support, including emotional support from therapists, counselors, and advocates; service supports, including assistance filling out paperwork at the courthouse or support at a hospital following a sexual assault; and physical supports like safe places to stay and financial resources. These emotional and physical supports were seen as facilitators in the help-seeking journey. Across the need for supports, survivors echoed the critical role of having support from DV advocates:

“Having an advocate at court changes everything. Not only in so many obvious ways, but also when you are experiencing trauma and or PTSD, having that person physically sitting beside you.” – Paige, cisgender woman, identifies as lesbian/bisexual, a racial minority, from an urban community, with a disability, immigrant

Additionally, survivors discussed needing to receive validation, needing to be taken seriously, having others believe them, and having people ask if they are okay.

“What I needed the most at that time was someone, validating my experience, because when you tell someone that this is happening most people don't even believe you. There's no proof whatsoever. So, I would love to be acknowledged and be told that someone can help me and that I can do this.” -Marcel, cisgender male, identifies as gay/bisexual, White race from an urban community, immigrant

Liza also stressed the importance of finding “a place of safety, belief, and validation.” – Liza, cisgender woman, identifies as heterosexual, Black race, from an urban community, immigrant.

(1) Intersecting Marginalized Identities as Facilitators. A few survivors talked about how their identity served as a facilitator to services. As shown in Table 6, facilitators were related to one’s gender (e.g., cisgender women saw it was easier for them to seek services) and culture (e.g., if service providers had the same cultural backgrounds as the survivor, this allowed for better understanding). For example, Karly describes services as helpful as they were “dual language for Spanish speaking families, and I’m not sure, maybe even other languages. If I needed that bilingual option whether a therapist or just volunteers… my experience was handled with care and respect. And that helped me feel safe.” – Karly, cisgender woman, identifies as heterosexual, Latina, from an urban community, with a disability

Help-seeking and help attainment: The integral roles of marginalized identities and communities

Existing models illustrate the help-seeking (Liang et al., 2005) and help-attainment (Kennedy et al., 2012) processes among IPV survivors. Models also pull in aspects of stigma (e.g., cultural, internalized, and anticipated; Overstreet and Quinn, 2013), the social and cultural context (Kennedy et al., 2012; Waller et al., 2023), and provider trustworthiness and trust (Kennedy et al., 2024). These frameworks highlight the importance of including intersectional experiences in IPV help-seeking research, as navigating oppressive structures can lead survivors to feeling discrimination, uncared for, harmed further, or re-victimized.

Many of the core themes found in this paper aligned with these existing help-seeking models (Figure 1). Each journey described was unique, depending on the survivors’ immediate needs, the availability of services, their knowledge of supports, and situational and personal factors. From these unique stories, though, the role of marginalized identities and communities, and the structures and systems they were situated, played a significant role. Most of the discussions centered around barriers, including how one or more aspects of their identities impacted help-seeking and services. Most commonly gender was described as a barrier; cisgender women faced discrimination across systems, describing most formal spaces as “anti-woman.” Cisgender men also faced barriers related to gender bias and providers not believing men can be survivors. Individuals with diverse gender identities and were a sexual minority also discussed discrimination and how police did not take violence seriously. Marginalized race and ethnicity identities led to stereotyping, profiling, and housing discrimination. Survivors with a disability perceived services to not be applicable or outlined for them or had services retracted. A handful of survivors articulated intersectionality in their experiences, linking gendered racism, and ableism and racism.

In addition, about a third of this sample were participants from rural communities. For survivors living in rural communities, aspects of their marginalized identities intersected with rurality, seeing barriers related to accessibility (e.g., transportation, financial constraints, lack of culturally appropriate services), stigma, fear of retaliation, fear that everyone in their town would find out about their situation, and barriers within formal systems and policies. Cisgender men and gender non-binary survivors also highlighted that there were fewer domestic violence shelters in rural areas, and even fewer for those who are not cisgender women. More research is needed to keep learning about the rural experiences of navigating help-seeking for IPV, especially with one or more marginalized identities, or experiencing poverty (Hulley et al., 2023).

Across the barriers highlighted, themes relate to Sweet’s (2019) paradox of legibility, as these survivors are navigating formal structures that are often oppressive and harmful. Like Sweet’s research, this sample discussed trying to find credibility in their IPV experiences from formal structures by just wanting to be believed and supported. These formal structures contributed to feelings of dehumanization and belittlement. There was a lack of cultural awareness within services, and survivors felt that may of the services were not tailored for them, leading to confusion and/or termination of services. Despite these barriers, and a lack of trust in these formal systems, many needed these systems to get out of abusive relationships or find safety.

For example, survivors in this sample commonly sought help from police, law enforcement, obtained an order of protection, or sought help from other legal services. This finding was surprising, as other researchers have found marginalized survivors may be fearful to call the police (e.g., Schmidt et al., 2023). A review found that while some IPV survivors (i.e., women with substance use issues, immigrant women, women in rural communities, heterosexual men, racial and ethnic minoritized women, and sexual minority women) had positive experiences with seeking help from law enforcement, many reported revictimization, discrimination, police negligence, and cultural differences (Belisle et al., 2024). In this study, while quite a few survivors sought help from law enforcement, a sizeable group felt that they did not receive the help they needed. Survivors discussed feeling coercive situations within systems, police not enforcing orders of protection, or not feeling cared for. Survivors also noted that situational factors, like risk of lethality and physical safety, or the presence of children, was the reason they felt they needed to call police for help. Survivors living in rural communities also described police as their first point of contact, as they may have lived further away from other resources like a domestic violence shelter.

Survivors sought help from a variety of formal response systems, though the most common was DV agencies and community-based organizations. It should be noted that these survivors were recruited from agencies and community-based organizations; however, this research provides further insight into the supports they received, what they found helpful, and barriers they encountered. Survivors also sought help from legal and medical providers, hotlines and websites, and informational materials. Thus, this variety of sources for help-seeking calls for more inclusive, culturally responsive services cannot just exist for DV agencies. All systems of care need to strengthen service provision (Green et al., 2024).

Survivors are not a homogenous group; services need to build and continue to strengthen their capacity to deliver services that are inclusive and responsive, in aims of building trustworthiness (Kennedy et al., 2024). Law enforcement and legal systems are common contexts for survivors to seek help, especially in potentially lethal and unsafe situations. As survivors are seeking help across a variety of formal systems, service provision is changing to accommodate. For example, coordinated community response is one growing area of work, pairing police and victim advocates, although more rigorous research is needed (Johnson and Stylianou, 2020). Karina’s Law in Illinois improves protections for survivors, by removing firearms from perpetrators when there is an order of protection in place (The Network). Thus, research and policy efforts are gaining momentum to find more responsive supports for survivors across systems of care.

Facilitators

Survivors need to feel supported, safe, validated, and believed. No matter a survivors’ identity or community, these remain consistent facilitators to help-seeking and attainment (Ravi et al., 2021). DV advocates were a key support mentioned throughout the help-seeking process. They played a crucial role by empowering survivors through access to essential resources and opportunities such as legal and medical support, housing, and employment (Sullivan and Goodman, 2019). Moreover, survivors emphasized the importance of DV advocates’ ability to provide support through an intersectional lens that acknowledged their diverse identities and experiences (e.g., gender, race, sexuality socioeconomic status, parental responsibilities, and access to resources; Goodman et al., 2015; Kulkarni, 2018). These findings add to previous literature that highlight the importance of DV advocates in supporting survivors’ overall well-being and quality of life (Beeble et al., 2009; Goodman et al., 2016), assistance with securing stable housing (Sullivan and Goodman, 2019) , impact on survivors’ increased likelihood of participating in legal proceedings (Camacho and Alarid, 2008; Taylor-Dunn, 2015), and decreasing future experiences of violence or abuse (Wood et al., 2021). Intersecting marginalized identities were also seen as facilitators to receiving help when one or more of their identities matched or were like their service provider. As stressed in Kennedy et al. (2024), these matched identities and experiences can help build trustworthiness between providers and survivors.