The Contextual Influences of Police and Social Service Providers on Formal Help-Seeking After Incidents of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Police notification and social service acquisition are two forms of formal help-seeking linked to improved outcomes among survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV), including better socio-emotional health, improved physical health, and, importantly, increased safety. The majority of research devoted to the study of formal help-seeking among survivors of IPV focuses on incident- and individual-level factors and their relationship with formal resource utilization. Much less is known about community-level factors. Using a nationally representative sample of incidents of IPV from the National Crime Victimization Survey (2006–2016), this work explores how law enforcement and social service resources in a community are related to police notification and survivor acquisition of a victim service after an incident of IPV, net of incident- and individual-level factors. Logistic regression models indicate that the number of law enforcement personnel per 1,000 residents in a county is positively associated with police notification after an incident of IPV, and it exerts an indirect effect on survivor service acquisition through police notification. Additional analyses reveal that the race/ethnicity of the survivor of IPV is a key demographic in the explanation of this relationship, as incidents of IPV involving White and Hispanic survivors of IPV are more likely to come to the attention of police as the number of law enforcement personnel increases. The reverse is true for incidents involving Black survivors of IPV. No differences across survivor sex emerged. Potential reasons to account for varying effects across race/ethnicity are discussed as well as the importance of additional funding for police and social service agencies to serve survivors of IPV and meet the dual goals of offender accountability and survivor safety and well-being.

Keywords

intimate partner violence formal help-seeking police notification race/ethnicity sex ecological model

One in four women and one in seven men will experience violence at the hands of an intimate partner (current or former dating partner/spouse) in their lifetime (Niolon & Centers for Disease Control Prevention, 2017). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) promotes increased survivor support in its efforts to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV);¹ however, this support requires two interrelated factors. First, there must be resources (either informal or formal) for the survivor to draw upon. Second, these resources must be activated or utilized through a process of help-seeking, which includes the identification and receipt of support. Traditionally, there has been a focus on how incident and survivor characteristics are related to formal resource utilization to the neglect of community-level factors that can further provide insight into the process of help-seeking (for an exception see Dugan et al., 1999).

Taking advantage of restricted, area-identified National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data from 2006 to 2016, this study utilizes an ecological approach to understand how incident-, survivor-, and community-level factors are associated with two types of formal resource utilization after an incident of IPV—police notification and survivor assistance from another office or agency. More specifically, we examined whether the number of law enforcement personnel and social service establishments in a community are related to either type of formal help-seeking. In addition, we examined if these resources differentially influence each type of formal help-seeking across the survivor demographics of sex and race/ethnicity, given the varying perceptions of utility and trust in social institutions across sex and race/ethnicity (Mookerjee et al., 2015; Rizo & Macy, 2011).

Help-Seeking for IPV

Help-seeking for IPV is a process whereby a survivor of IPV must (a) define/recognize IPV as a problem, (b) make the decision to seek support or help, and (c) select the source of help or support (Liang et al., 2005). Oftentimes, ecological perspectives are used to emphasize that factors associated with each step in the help-seeking process occurs within a complex interplay of interwoven systems (Heise, 1998; Liang et al., 2005 see also the person-in-environment framework, Bronfenbrenner, 1979). These pertinent factors occur at the incident level (i.e., incident characteristics), the individual level (i.e., survivor characteristics, survivor formative history, and survivor interpersonal relationships with family, peers and the perpetrator), and the sociocultural level (e.g., community-level characteristics and resources). In other words, an ecological perspective applied to help-seeking for IPV argues that factors at the incident, individual and sociocultural level affect cognitions and emotions that, in turn, influence the (a) recognition of IPV as undesirable and (b) the belief that IPV is unlikely to end on its own without the support from others. As a result, intentional actions may be taken as external support or “help” is sought by or given to survivor of IPV.

Formal Help-Seeking Among Survivors of IPV in an Ecological Context

Both informal and formal supports play a critical role for the well-being of survivors of IPV (Goodkind et al., 2004; Coker et al., 2003). In fact, survivors who seek external (informal or formal) support are less susceptible to a barrage of deleterious consequences associated with IPV (e.g., Goodman et al., 2003; Xie & Lynch, 2017). Informal support includes emotional, spiritual, and material assistance from family, friends, and neighbors (Goodkind et al., 2004). Formal support from the police and social service agencies, including mental health professionals, domestic violence advocates, and shelters (Goodman et al., 2003) can provide protection from ongoing violence and material assistance (Sullivan & Bybee, 1999). In addition, social service agencies can provide emotional and social support, inform survivors of their rights, and reinforce survivor agency (Hart & Klein, 2013). Recent estimates suggest that between 7% and 60% of survivors of IPV receive assistance from the police as a result of a police notification (i.e., 911 call) by the survivor or a third party (Bonomi, Holt, et al., 2006; Felson & Paré, 2005; Hart & Klein, 2013). Prevalence estimates for the use of other formal resources is somewhat lower, ranging from 5% to 38% (e.g., Coker, Smith, et al., 2000; Kaukinen et al., 2013; Macy et al., 2005).

In general, there is a reluctance for survivors of IPV to engage in formal help-seeking (e.g., Dunham & Senn, 2000; Goodman et al., 2003). However, research suggests that survivors of IPV who received formal support in the form of victim advocacy and legal assistance were less likely to be abused in the months following formal resource utilization (e.g., Goodman et al., 2003; Sullivan & Bybee, 1999). Xie and Lynch (2017) also found that police notification and other service utilization were associated with a reduced risk of repeat victimization. Still, research notes retaliatory behaviors by the perpetrator in some cases after formal support was sought (Dugan et al., 1999) and fear of retaliation is frequently cited as a reason why survivors of IPV do not utilize formal resources (Peterson et al., 2018).

In general, there is a correlation between the severity of IPV and help-seeking among survivors of IPV (Liang et al., 2005, p. 77). For both police notification and other social service acquisition, survivors of IPV and third parties are more likely to activate formal resources as the severity of abuse increases (e.g., Bonomi, Holt, et al., 2006; Duterte et al., 2008; McFarlane et al., 1997). In fact, research suggests that IPV must reach a certain threshold or “breaking point,” such as fear of permanent harm or imminent death, before formal assistance will be sought (Peterson et al., 2018). As such, frequently occurring incidents of IPV, incidents involving a weapon, and/or incidents including bodily injury are more likely to result in police notification or other social service acquisition (e.g., Bonomi et al., 2006).

Other incident-level factors are related to cognitions promoting formal help-seeking as well. For instance, a survivor of IPV may perceive that outside assistance (i.e., police notification) is needed when a perpetrator is under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Akers & Kaukinen, 2009; Novisky & Peralta, 2015) because the perpetrator is not in one’s right mind and survivor efforts alone will not stop the violence. In addition, if others witness an incident of IPV, particularly if it occurs outside the home, police notification and social service acquisition may be more likely due to encouragement or actions by others who witnessed the abuse (Akers & Kaukinen, 2009).

At the individual level, women, those with higher educational attainment, and employed survivors tend to be more likely to utilize formal resources, including police notification and social service acquisition (Cho et al., 2019; Evans & Feder, 2016; Kaukinen et al., 2013). Alternatively, the relationship between household income and formal help-seeking is mixed. One study found that higher income levels were associated with a reduced likelihood of social service acquisition (e.g., mental health and shelters) but an increased likelihood of police notification (Cattaneo & DeLoveh, 2008). Other research failed to find any relationship between income and formal help-seeking (Coker et al., 2000; Macy et al., 2005).

Research also demonstrates a relationship between survivor interpersonal factors and formal help-seeking. Some research suggests that survivors of IPV who have children are more likely to utilize formal resources (e.g., Fanslow & Robinson, 2010; Hart & Klein, 2013). Alternatively, formal assistance may be less likely to preserve the family structure (Fanslow & Robinson, 2010; Montalvo-Liendo, 2009). Relatedly, the survivor’s relationship with the perpetrator plays a role in formal disclosure and resource utilization as research suggests that survivors who are married are less likely to seek formal assistance (e.g., Fleming & Resick, 2017) often because the survivor wanted to protect the partner or preserve the relationship (e.g., Alaggia et al., 2012).

In contrast to the abundance of work examining the relationship between incident- and individual-level factors related to formal disclosure and resource utilization, less work examines the role of community-level or sociocultural factors. Notable exceptions are the size of the population and its tangent, urbanicity. Shannon et al. (2006) found that formal help-seeking is less likely in less populated, rural areas. However, in a review of extant literature, Edwards (2015) found that the relationship between urbanicity and formal help-seeking is mixed even though extant work frequently underscored barriers to formal help-seeking including limited availability, accessibility, and perceived utility of formal resources (including police response and social services) in less populated communities.

Community Resources and Formal Help-Seeking Among Survivors of IPV

Formal help-seeking from police and social service agencies also should be understood in the broader social context of resource availability, accessibility, and utility (Gordon, 1996; see also Liang et al., 2005). Following the growing social/cultural recognition that IPV is a crime, there has been a proliferation of federal (i.e., Violence Against Women Act [VAWA], 1994, 2000, 2005, 2013) and local efforts to assist survivors of IPV by increasing funding for police and social service agencies to serve victims of IPV. While research notes a decline in incidence rates of IPV associated with these efforts (Catalano et al., 2009; Xie et al., 2012), it remains to be seen whether these same resources are associated with increased formal disclosure and resource utilization by survivors of IPV.

Law enforcement resources

Although significant differences in police responses to IPV exist (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003), including factors related to an arrest for IPV such as victim/offender demographics, victim/offender relationship, and survivor preference (Dichter et al., 2011), it has been argued that the number of law enforcement personnel is a good predictor of the extensiveness of police activities related to domestic violence (and IPV; Townsend et al., 2005; Xie et al., 2012). For instance, law enforcement size is positively related to IPV protocols and services, including written operational procedures for personnel who interact with survivors of IPV, specialized units that respond to domestic violence, and/or victim advocates employed by police departments or who are readily on-call for officers while dispatched. As such, the first hypothesis guiding this research is the following:

Hypothesis 1: As the number of law enforcement personnel in a community increases, the likelihood of police notification after an incident of IPV will increase.

We hypothesize this positive relationship due to increased availability and perceived utility of police responses to IPV.

Furthermore, law enforcement is a common source of information for victim services (Hart & Klein, 2013; Sims et al., 2005). Zaykowski (2014) found that among survivors of IPV, the odds of seeking assistance from another social service agency increased if the survivor also sought help from the police. Given the more extensive services for survivors of IPV in police departments that employ more law enforcement personnel as well as the greater collaboration between law enforcement and social service agencies in larger departments, we propose a second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: As the number of law enforcement personnel in a community increases, a survivor of an incident of IPV will be more to seek assistance from a social service agency.

Social service resources

The VAWA (1994) identified the social service system as integral to reducing one’s vulnerability to IPV. Community-based services are important not only for survivors of IPV but also for the public who seeks to support and assist its fellow community members. Evidence suggests that social assistance programs improve short- and long-term outcomes for health and safety (e.g., Heru, 2007; Iverson et al., 2011). While little interjurisdictional information exists regarding the nature of available services for survivors of IPV specifically (Dawson, 2010; DeLeon-Grandos et al., 2006), Xie and colleagues (2012) found that as the number of social service providers in a community increased, rates of IPV in a community decreased. Drawing upon their more providers–more extensive service argument, our third hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 3: As the number of social service providers in a community increases, a survivor of an incident of IPV will be more likely to seek assistance from a social service agency.

Again, we hypothesize this positive relationship due to increased availability and/or accessibility of resources in one’s community.

Recall, Zaykowski (2014) found that the likelihood of seeking assistance from a social service agency increased if the police were also notified. However, the cross-sectional nature of the data precluded the ability to determine if police notification led to a survivor receiving help from a social service agency or vice versa. After all, social service agencies may encourage police notification as a means to increase victim safety (Wilson et al., 2001). As a result, our fourth hypothesis states:

Hypothesis 4: As the number of social service providers in a community increases, the police are more likely to be notified about an incident of IPV.

Potential Variation in Influence of Community Resources Across Survivor Demographics

Not all individuals perceive the utility of community resources in the same way. Extant work documents variation in perceptions of accessibility and utility of police and social service resources (in the aggregate) across survivor demographics, including race/ethnicity and sex (Kaukinen, 2004; Postmus, 2015). In fact, this is one of the arguments of Liang and colleagues (2005)—individual characteristics can affect emotions and cognitions related to one’s environment, which in turn, influences behavior (i.e., formal help-seeking). For instance, minorities in general have less favorable attitudes toward the police compared to Whites (Peck, 2015) and tend to feel over policed (Skogan, 2005). Some minorities also perceive/experience the police to be less helpful and willing to take their requests into account when making decisions (Durose & Langton, 2013; Skogan, 2005). It is not surprising, then, that rates of police notification for IPV are sometimes lower among minority groups (e.g., Kasturirangan et al., 2004). Similarly, Javaid (2016) noted that perceptions of the masculine police subculture undermined police notification among male survivors of IPV due to perceived/experienced diminution of male survivors as “victims” and perceptions of futility. As a result, our fifth hypothesis is as follows:

Hypothesis 5: The effect of the number of law enforcement in a community on police notification will vary such that non-Whites and males will be less affected relative to Whites and females.

In other words, availability of police will matter less to those social groups who, in general, do not perceive the police to be as accessible or helpful and will be less willing to call the police themselves or on behalf of a survivor of IPV.

Perceived variations in the accessibility and utility of social services for survivors of IPV across race/ethnicity and sex also exist. Some Black and Hispanic survivors of IPV reported that they did not feel services were culturally relevant and there was likely to be a lack of cultural competence among social service providers (Bent-Goodley, 2007; Gillum, 2009; Rizo & Macy, 2011). Likewise, many male survivors of IPV noted that most available victim services are not relevant because they are tailored to women (Douglas & Hines, 2011). Given the general perceptions of decreased utility of social services for non-White female and male survivors of IPV, we propose a final hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: The effect of the number of social service providers on the likelihood that a survivor of IPV will seek assistance from a social service agency will be less relevant among minority and male survivors of IPV.

Method

Data

The primary data for this analysis come from the NCVS (2006–2016), a nationally representative household survey on criminal victimization collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey is administered using a multistage cluster sample design including approximately 44,000 to 72,000 households in the United States each year. Each person in a household 12 years of age and older is queried about their experiences of victimization (in addition to the head of household who is queried about household demographics and household-level victimizations) for the past 6 months. In the NCVS, each household stays in the sample for 3 years, meaning that individuals ages 12 and older can be interviewed up to seven times at 6-month intervals. In general, the response rate for the NCVS averages over 95%, including the focal years for this analysis (i.e., 2006–2016; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2014).

The NCVS uses a screening questionnaire to assess respondent demographics and to determine if the respondent experienced any incidents of property or violent victimization (respondent file) in the previous 6 months. If the subject experienced any type of victimization, then the respondent was administered an incident questionnaire for each incident. Incident files (specific to each reported victimization) can be linked with respondent files and household information to create a multilevel data set.

In general, NCVS data do not include geographic information. However, this research uses household data that contain geographic identifiers at the county level—the FIPS 5-digit county code, which is available through special request from the U.S. Census Bureau and accessible through U.S. Federal Statistical Research Data Centers. As such, it is possible to link NCVS files with community-level information from other data sources through the FIPS county code. In this research, NCVS files were linked through the FIPS 5-digit county identifier to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) annual Crime in the US (editions 2006–2016), which is part of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. These data are publicly available at https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr. We also use the FIPS county identifier to link NCVS data to County Business Patterns (CBP) data, which provide economic data by industry for subnational units (e.g., county and state). CBP data are collected annually by the U.S. Census Bureau and are publicly available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp.html. NCVS data files were also linked to U.S. Census Bureau Annual Population Estimates (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest.html) updated as of 2017 and other demographic information collected by the U.S. Census Bureau in the American Community Survey (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/) using the FIPS 5-digit county identifier as well. The American Community Survey is an ongoing survey that collects information on social, economic, and demographic characteristics of the U.S. population by community. It is administered to a random sample of more than 3.5 million households each year and is intended for use by federal, state, and local agencies to ascertain community characteristics in line with Title 13, US Code 141(a), which also prescribes the decennial U.S. Census.

Sample

The unit of analysis for this research is an incident of IPV. After identifying all incidents of physical violence including rape, robbery, and aggravated or simple assault, we limited our sample of violent incidents to those where the survivor identified the offender as a current or former intimate partner (i.e., current spouse at time of incident, former spouse at time of incident, or current or former boyfriend/girlfriend). Given the structure of NCVS data collection, it is possible to have multiple incidents of IPV from the same individual, which we are able to account for through our measurement and modeling strategy. Our final analytic sample consists of between 1,800 and 1,900 incidents of IPV. Due to U.S. Census Bureau restrictions for disclosure, the exact sample size is not available for publication.

Measures

Dependent variables

Police notification is a binary measure where 1 represents that the survivor indicated that the police were notified of the referenced incident of IPV and 0 represents that the police were not notified. In this sample, 47% of incidents were reported to the police. Social service assistance is a binary measure where 1 represents the survivor self-reported receiving help or advice from another agency besides the police and 0 represents otherwise. Approximately 16% of incidents of IPV in this sample involved this type of formal help-seeking.

Independent variables

To measure police force size, we used annual estimates of the number of law enforcement personnel in each county in the United States for each year from 2006 to 2016, as reported in Crime in the US collected by the FBI.² To allow for comparisons across counties, we standardized the number of law enforcement employees by dividing the number of law enforcement personnel by the county population size in that year (taken from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates) and then multiplied this number by 1,000 to generate the number of law enforcement personnel per 1000 residents in the county for each year.

Data from the 2006 to 2016 editions of CBP were used to ascertain the number of social service agencies (i.e., the number of health care and social assistance establishments, including mental health providers, individual/family services, and food, housing, emergency, and other relief services) for each county in each year.³ After dividing the number of social service establishments by the county population size in the same year, we multiplied this number by 1,000 to generate the number of social service establishments per 1000 residents.

Control variables

To account for incident-level characteristics that may be related to formal help-seeking, we include a series of binary measures indicating whether a weapon was present (i.e., gun, knife, sharp or blunt object, or other weapon), whether the victim incurred a serious injury (i.e., knife, stab wound, gun shot or bullet wound, broken bones or teeth, internal injuries, knocked unconscious, or bruises or cuts), whether drugs or alcohol were involved in the incident, and whether the incident was considered a series victimization (incidents of similar detail that occur multiple times over a short duration and prevent the unique identification of an incident, per NCVS coding). Other incident characteristics include whether the incident occurred in the victim’s home and whether the offender was the victim’s spouse.⁴

Given the nature of our data and the importance of a survivor’s formative history to the help-seeking process, we account for survivor history of IPV and help-seeking behavior through two binary variables. First victimization indicates that the focal IPV incident is the first incident of IPV reported by the survivor in the NCVS. Previous victimization and no help represents whether the survivor reported a previous IPV incident in NCVS data collection (either in a previous interview or during the same interview and the incident occurred at an earlier date than the current incident) and did not report any prior police notification or social assistance. The reference category is that the survivor previously reported an incident of IPV in the NCVS and reported police notification or service acquisition.

We also account for additional survivor characteristics including whether the survivor is a female (male is the reference category), a continuous measure of survivor age, survivor marital status (married and separated/divorced; single serves as the reference group), whether the survivor has a child (or children), the race/ethnicity of the survivor (Black, Hispanic, and other; White serves as the reference group), highest education level achieved by the survivor, whether the survivor was employed, and household income level.⁵

Finally, we account for other community-level factors, including the county population size, county demographics including race/ethnicity (%Black, %Hispanic and % other race/ethnicity), and the county violent victimization rate (per 1,000; generated from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report number of violent crime index offenses in each county standardized by the population size). Descriptive Statistics for all covariates are included in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 1,800+).

Covariate	Mean/Proportion	SD
Outcome
Police notification	0.47	—
Social service assistance	0.16	—
Incident-level factors
Weapon	0.13	—
Serious injury	0.06	—
Drugs/alcohol	0.54	—
Home	0.54	—
Series victimization	0.08	—
Spouse	0.24	—
Survivor characteristics
Age^a	32.47	13.41
Sex
Female	0.74	—
Male (reference)	0.26	—
Marital status
Married	0.14	—
Separated/divorced	0.36	—
Single (reference)	0.50	—
Children	0.42	—
Race/ethnicity
Black	0.14	—
Hispanic	0.12	—
Other	0.03	—
White (reference)	0.71	—
Education^a	0.99	—
Employed	0.51	—
IPV victimization history
First victimization (NCVS)	0.33	—
Previous victimization (NCVS) and no help	0.16	—
Previous victimization (NCVS) and formal help (reference)	0.51	—
Household income	3.98	—
Household income missing	0.21	—
Sociocultural characteristics
Law enforcement employees (per 1,000)	1.00	0.68
Social service establishments (per 1,000)	0.08	0.06
Population (Logged)	12.44	1.56
%Population Black	0.11	0.12
%Population Hispanic	0.13	0.14
Violent victimization rate	314.20	205.80

Note. Due to U.S. Census Bureau restrictions for data release, the specific, final sample size of survivors of intimate partner violence and the range for the variables used in these analyses are not available for release and publication. IPV = intimate partner violence; NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey.

A squared term of this variable is also included in all analyses.

Analytic Plan

Logistic regression analyses are used to assess the relationship between incident-, individual-, and community-level factors on the likelihood of each type of formal help-seeking (i.e., police notification and assistance from a social service agency), given the binary nature of the outcomes. Although the data are multilevel in nature (i.e., incidents nested within survivors that are nested within county-years), the general lack of clustering at each level (average number of incidents per survivor and survivor per county-year is less than two) resulted in the treatment of the data as cross-sectional (see also Zaykowski, 2014). Still, to address potential clustering, all models included a set of dummy variables representing the year of the interview (2016 is the reference) to account for general changes in formal help-seeking over time, and standard errors were doubly clustered by the survivor (to account for multiple incidents of IPV for each survivor) and county.

Analyses proceeded as follows. First, we estimated logistic regression models to assess the relationship between the number of police per 1,000 residents and the number of social service agencies per 1,000 residents on the likelihood that an incident of IPV resulted in police notification and a survivor seeking assistance from a social service agency, respectively, net of incident, individual, and community characteristics. Next, we included interaction terms in the models to evaluate whether the effect of law enforcement and social service establishments varied in effect on formal help-seeking across survivor race/ethnicity and sex. Since the conditional mean function of our regression models is nonlinear, the interaction terms did not provide a consistent estimate of moderation (Ai & Norton, 2003). Therefore, we followed the strategy of Buis (2010) and computed marginal effects, which indicated the effect of each additional law enforcement employee per 1,000 residents and each additional social service establishment per 1,000 residents for each outcome across survivor race/ethnicity and sex. All analyses were performed in Stata 15 (StataCorp, 2017) and the models were estimated using appropriate sampling weights to adjust for NCVS survey design and nonresponse (Lohr & Liu, 1994).

Results

Table 2 presents the results of logistic regression models examining the relationship between incident-, individual-, and community-level factors and the likelihood of each type of formal help-seeking. With respect to police notification, the odds of police notification after an incident of IPV are higher if a weapon was used (odds ratio [OR] = 1.75) and if the incident involved drugs or alcohol (OR = 1.60). Alternatively, if the incident is considered a series victimization (i.e., a sequence of incidents that are clustered in time and similar in nature that preclude the identification of unique characteristics of a single incident), the likelihood of police notification is significantly reduced (OR = 0.49). Survivor characteristics including age (OR = 1.12), a diminishing returns effect to age (age-squared OR = 0.99), and having a child (OR = 1.73) are associated with increased likelihood of police notification. Incidents among survivors where this was the first reported IPV incident in NCVS data collection are also more likely to result in police notification (OR = 1.55). Alternatively, incidents involving a survivor who previously reported IPV in NCVS data collection and did not indicate any prior formal help-seeking are less likely to result in police notification (OR = 0.51). Model 1 in Table 2 reveals that incidents resulting in a survivor seeking assistance from a service agency are more likely to result in police notification (OR = 3.29) as well. However, it is not possible to determine whether police notification led to a survivor seeking help from a social service agency, or, while receiving this assistance, police notification is encouraged or occurs due to mandatory police notification.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Models Examining Factors Related to Formal Help-seeking in Incidents of IPV from 2006 to 2016 (N = 1,800+).

Covariate	Formal Help-Seeking
	Model 1: Police Notification		Model 2: Social Service Assistance
	OR	(95% CI)	OR	(95% CI)
Incident factors
Reported to police	—	—	3.35***	(2.32, 4.85)
Help from social service	3.29***	(2.28, 4.71)	—	—
Weapon	1.75**	(1.20, 2.55)	1.03	(0.65, 1.65)
Serious injury	1.25	(0.74, 2.12)	2.56**	(1.45, 4.53)
Drugs/alcohol	1.60***	(1.23, 2.08)	0.95	(0.67, 1.33)
Home	1.25	(0.95, 1.62)	1.43*	(1.01, 2.04)
Series victimization	0.49**	(0.30, 0.78)	1.68*	(1.04, 2.70)
Spouse	1.19	(0.83, 1.70)	1.28	(0.83, 1.96)
Victim-level characteristics
Age	1.12**	(1.04, 1.20)	1.07	(0.99, 1.16)
Age²	0.99**	(0.99, 0.99)	0.99	(0.99, 1.00)
Female	1.17	(0.88, 1.57)	3.78***	(2.15, 6.62)
Married	1.28	(0.83, 2.01)	1.11	(0.60, 2.06)
Separated/divorced	0.99	(0.69, 1.42)	1.46	(0.90, 2.35)
Children	1.73***	(1.32, 2.28)	1.04	(0.72, 1.51)
Black	1.05	(0.72, 1.53)	0.76	(0.43, 1.35)
Hispanic	1.25	(0.82, 1.89)	1.03	(0.58, 1.82)
Other	1.21	(0.62, 2.37)	0.74	(0.20, 2.77)
Education	0.79	(0.50, 1.27)	1.05	(0.58, 1.88)
Education²	1.03	(0.87, 1.23)	1.03	(0.84, 1.26)
Employed	1.23	(0.96, 1.60)	0.80	(0.57, 1.13)
First victimization	1.55**	(1.20, 2.00)	1.21	(0.87, 1.68)
Previous victimization and no help	0.51***	(0.35, 0.73)	0.41**	(0.22, 0.78)
Household income	1.11	(0.92, 1.06)	0.83	(0.77, 2.90)
Household income missing	0.98	(0.81, 1.50)	0.99	(0.89, 1.09)
Community information
Law enforcement	1.25*	(1.01, 1.54)	0.95	(0.69, 1.30)
Social service establishments	1.01	(0.84, 1.20)	0.87	(0.70, 1.09)
Population (logged)	1.23	(0.45, 3.37)	0.42	(0.09, 2.03)
Population² (logged)	0.99	(0.95, 1.03)	1.04	(0.97, 1.10)
%Population Black	2.56	(0.74, 8.95)	0.76	(0.12, 4.84)
%Population Hispanic	0.68	(0.23, 2.02)	1.52	(0.34, 6.81)
%Population Other	0.63	(0.07, 5.84)	0.16	(0.01, 3.25)
Violent victimization rate	1.00	(1.00, 1.00)	1.00	(1.00, 1.00)

Note. The United States Census Bureau prohibits the release of the release of the specific, final sample size for these analyses. All models include a dummy variable for the year the incident information was collected from the victim. All standard errors are clustered at the individual- and county-level and Huber-White robust standard errors are reported. Sampling weights accounting for the sampling design of the NCVS were applied in all analyses. IPV = intimate partner violence; b = coefficient; SE = Huber–White robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

The term is squared.

With respect to community-level factors and our first hypothesis, the number of law enforcement per 1,000 residents is associated with an increased likelihood of police notification after an incident of IPV. In fact, each additional law enforcement employee per 1,000 residents is associated with a 25% increase in the likelihood of police notification. Alternatively, we find no support for our fourth hypothesis as the number of social service establishments per 1,000 residents in one’s county is unrelated to police notification. No other community-level factors were related to police notification either.

Model 2 (Table 2) presents the relationship between incident-, individual-, and community-level characteristics and a survivor of IPV seeking assistance from a social service agency. IPV incidents involving a serious injury increase the likelihood that a survivor of IPV seeks this other type of formal support by a factor of 2.56. In addition, if the incident occurred in one’s home or was a series victimization, then the likelihood of this other type of formal assistance increases by 43% and 68%, respectively. With respect to survivor characteristics, incidents involving females are 3.78 times more likely to result in the survivor seeking this other type of forma assistance. On the contrary, if the survivor experienced IPV previously and did not seek any formal help in the past, then the likelihood of the survivor seeking help from another formal source or agency for the current incident is significantly reduced (OR = 0.41). Finally, a survivor of IPV is 3.35 times more likely to seek assistance from another service agency if the police were notified of the IPV incident. Again, it is not possible to establish the temporal order between the two types of formal help-seeking.

With respect to our second and third hypotheses related to community resources, neither the number of law enforcement employees per 1,000 residents in a county nor the number of social service providers per 1,000 residents in a county are related to the likelihood of a survivor of IPV seeking assistance from a social service agency. However, given the relationship between the number of law enforcement employees per 1,000 residents and police notification after an incident of IPV and the relationship between police notification and this other form of formal help-seeking, additional analyses examined whether or not the number of law enforcement is indirectly related to a survivor of IPV seeking assistance from a social service agency. Using the “paramed” mediation package in Stata (Emsley & Liu, 2013) that can account for a binary mediator and a binary outcome, there is a significant natural indirect effect (p<.05) between the number of law enforcement per capita and a survivor seeking assistance from a social service agency through police notification.⁶ However, we caution against any interpretation with respect to directionality. For instance, the number of law enforcement per capita could increase the likelihood of police notification, and police notification, in turn, increases the likelihood that a survivor will access other services (due to police assistance/encouragement). Alternatively, a survivor may first seek help from another social service resource provider. Then, this agency may encourage the survivor to contact the police or contact the police themselves, and this encouragement or contact may be related to a larger police force size that is better equipped to address incidents of IPV.

With respect to our fifth and sixth hypotheses, analyses indicate that there is no evidence (p > .05) to suggest that the sex of the survivor moderates the effect of either the number of law enforcement per 1,000 residents or the number of social service establishments per 1,000 residents on either form of formal help-seeking.⁷ Furthermore, Table 3 reveals that the effect of the number of social service providers in a county on either type of formal help-seeking does not vary by survivor race/ethnicity. However, race/ethnicity appears to moderate the effect of the number of law enforcement per 1,000 residents on police notification and seeking assistance from a social service provider. To assist in interpretation of this moderating effects, Figure 1 presents the change in odds of police notification resulting from a one person increase in law enforcement employees across race/ethnicity, holding all covariates at their mean or modal category. Whereas each additional law enforcement employee per 1,000 residents is associated with an increased likelihood of police notification for an incident of IPV that includes a White or Hispanic survivor (p < .05), it is negatively related to police notification in incidents involving Black survivors or those of another race/ethnicity. However, only the difference in odds of police notification between incidents involving Black and White survivors of IPV is significant (p < .05). Finally, Table 3 and Figure 2 demonstrate that the number of law enforcement employees per 1,000 residents is associated with an increased likelihood that a survivor of IPV who is not White, Black, or Hispanic will seek assistance from a social service provider after an incident of IPV in comparison to incidents involving White survivors.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Models Examining if Survivor Race/Ethnicity Conditions the Effect of Community-Level Resources on Formal Help-seeking in Incidents of IPV from 2006 to 2016 (N = 1,800+).

Covariate	Formal Help-Seeking
	Model 1: Police Notification		Model 2: Social Service Assistance
	OR	(95% CI)	OR	(95% CI)
Black × law enforcement	0.58*	(0.36, 0.94)	1.29	(0.60, 2.78)
Hispanic × law enforcement	0.86	(0.47, 1.56)	0.63	(0.26, 1.53)
Other × law enforcement	0.62	(0.18, 2.15)	15.95*	(3.02, 84.52)
Black × social service establishments	1.44	(0.91, 2.27)	0.83	(0.42, 1.62)
Hispanic × social service establishments	0.88	(0.52, 1.49)	2.38	(0.59, 2.38)
Other × social service establishments	0.45	(0.14, 1.49)	1.89	(0.29, 12.44)

Note. The U.S. Census Bureau prohibits the release of specific, final sample size for these analyses. All models include a dummy variable for the year the incident information was collected from the victim. All standard errors are clustered at the individual and county level and Huber–White robust standard errors are reported. Sampling weights accounting for the sampling design of the NCVS were applied in all analyses. IPV = intimate partner violence; b = coefficient; SE = Huber–White robust standard error; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed test).

Figure 1.

Effect of law enforcement employees per 1,000 residents on reporting IPV Incident to the police across race/ethnicity.

Figure 2.

Effect of law enforcement employees per 1,000 residents on help-seeking from social service agency across race/ethnicity.

Discussion

Victim advocates, the police, and other professionals who work with survivors of IPV, in collaboration with the criminal justice system, the social service industry, and the health care sector, are uniquely positioned to identify and deliver critical support for survivors of IPV, as they can address immediate safety, trauma and long-term consequences of IPV. As such, the VAWA of 1994 (2000, 2005, and 2013) acknowledged IPV (through the more encompassing term of domestic violence) as a crime and provided financial resources for communities to develop or enhance community responses to address this form of violence. This includes funding for law enforcement and social service agencies. However, there has been a general lack of research devoted to the potential role of community-level resources on the likelihood of their utilization in a comparative context. To address this gap, this work applied an ecological perspective to one aspect of the help-seeking process and examined whether community resources that may serve survivors of IPV, including law enforcement and social service providers, are related to formal help-seeking in the form of police notification after an incident of IPV and/or the survivor seeking assistance from a social service agency. The findings suggest that the number of law enforcement employees per 1,000 residents in a county is associated with police notification and seeking assistance from a social service provider, but the relevance of the number of law enforcement employees varies by survivor race/ethnicity. Alternatively, the number of social service providers in a county was unrelated to either form of formal help-seeking. We now discuss the implications of these findings.

In general, police notification after an incident of IPV increases with the number of law enforcement personnel in a community. This may be due to the survivor disclosing the victimization to law enforcement or someone else reporting the incident to law enforcement to assist the survivor. Either way, the specific mechanisms underscoring this relationship are unknown. Prior research suggests that police force size is associated with specialized domestic violence units, specialized domestic violence trainings for officers and 911 dispatchers, the presence of victim advocates, and information about domestic violence on police websites (as well as victim service providers; Townsend et al., 2005). As such, police notification after an incident of IPV may be more likely due to the perception (or previous lived reality) that law enforcement in one’s area are more accessible and responsive to IPV. If this is indeed the case, funding efforts that provide police department’s additional resources to hire officers, staff domestic violence units, retain victim advocates on staff or on-call, and provide specialized trainings on domestic violence are moving in the right direction to address the safety and security of survivors of IPV. In contrast, knowledge of a limited number of law enforcement personnel may reduce perceived availability to respond to IPV calls for service and/or perceived ability of law enforcement to handle the variety of tasks that befall them, including incidents of IPV and efforts aimed at continued survivor safety (i.e., protection from retaliation). In turn, this may decrease the perception of police utility for IPV calls for service among survivors, family, and friends.

Interestingly, the effect of the number of police on police notification is invariant across survivor sex but varies in effect across survivor race/ethnicity. Whereas incidents involving Whites survivors are more likely to result in police notification as the number of law enforcement in one’s community increases, incidents involving Black survivors are less likely to result in police notification with the increasing size of law enforcement. It is possible that many Blacks associate increases in law enforcement with proactive, aggressive policing tactics in their community (e.g., stop and frisk and hot spots policing, Brunson & Miller, 2005; Richie, 2012). As a result, increases in law enforcement may inhibit police notification among Black survivors of IPV who already experience a disproportionate share of police contact and wish to limit further police presence in their lives and communities. Additional research should explore the mechanisms underscoring this finding as it can further speak to ongoing police-community relationships and their joint coordination in keeping individuals in a community safe. Future research should also look at the relationship between law enforcement size and formal help-seeking at the intersection of race/ethnicity and sex as this may provide further insight into the effects of law enforcement size on formal help-seeking across specific social identities.

The findings from this study demonstrate a strong relationship between police notification and a survivor seeking assistance from a social service provider after incidents of IPV. This is not unexpected, given the work of Zaykowski (2014). Coordinated efforts between law enforcement and social service agencies that may serve survivors of IPV are increasing across the United States (Battered Women’s Justice Project, 2019), and the relationship between the two reinforces the twin goals of offender accountability and survivor safety and well-being. Acknowledging this relationship, the number of law enforcement personnel per capita in one’s community exerted an indirect effect on the likelihood that a survivor of IPV sought assistance from a social service provider after an incident of IPV. As such, it appears that the number of law enforcement in one’s community not only increases the likelihood of police notification (and the likelihood of offender accountability by the criminal justice system) but also may link survivors of IPV to additional resources that can address the physical, emotional, and financial health of the survivor. Of course, the causal order may be reversed; other agencies who interact with survivors of IPV may be more willing to encourage police notification in communities where IPV will be taken seriously and the survivor will be treated appropriately. Either way, the appearance of coordination between the two sources of formal support is promising and confirms the continued need to provide funding for law enforcement.

Relatedly, the number of law enforcement in a community was positively related to a survivor seeking assistance from a social service agency after incidents of IPV among survivors who were not Black, Hispanic, or White. Perhaps, these racial/ethnic minorities who are likely to feel the most cultural distance from social service agencies or are largely unaware of various offices and agencies that can serve survivors of IPV due to their minority status need the impetus of police intervention to promote more comprehensive survivor care. On the contrary, White survivors of IPV may find that the services provided by police in communities with more law enforcement are adequate in their own right (e.g., including increased safety after the incident and/or presence victim advocate) and preclude the need for additional formal assistance. Future research should attempt to account for the intervening mechanisms to inform the differential effects of police force size on social service acquisition across survivor race/ethnicity.

The findings of this study implicate the importance of continued and enhanced funding for law enforcement and social service agencies; however, these findings and the policy recommendations stemming from them should be considered in the context of the study’s limitations. Most notably, this research failed to find any evidence that the number of social service providers is related to either type of formal help-seeking. It is possible that this null effect is due to imprecise measurement of social service providers. For instance, it was not possible to ascertain the specific number of social service providers who provide tailored assistance to survivors of IPV in each county across the United States. The study was also limited with respect to measurement of law enforcement and social service resources at smaller geographic levels. More finite community measures may reveal further nuance to the relationships studied herein. In addition, the data utilized in this study are cross-sectional in nature. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the timing of police notification in relation to social service acquisition. It also was not possible to examine how informal help-seeking may be related to either form of formal help-seeking assessed. Furthermore, there may be additional characteristics of the survivor that are related to police notification and social service acquisition, including gender identity and sexual orientation, among others. Each of these factors should be included in future efforts to explore the role of community resources on help-seeking behaviors, as they too may inform perceptions of accessibility and utility of resources, which lead to/undermine formal help-seeking. Similarly, more finite measures of community prosperity, which varies significantly within counties and is related to trust in social institutions (La Vigne et al., 2017; Newton et al., 2018) and community policies that mandate police notification by formal resource providers (e.g., medical personnel) when a weapon was used and/or arrest for incidents of IPV should also be considered as they too can inform formal help-seeking behaviors. Finally, it is unclear how these findings may translate to other countries, where police tactics, police-community relationships, health care and social assistance systems, and views on IPV may vary.

Using a nationally representative sample of IPV incidents from the United States, this work highlighted the relationship between the number of law enforcement and social service establishments in one’s community and two types of formal help-seeking—police notification and seeking assistance from a social service agency by a survivor of IPV. Although the number of social service providers was unrelated to either form of help-seeking, it is possible that more comprehensive measures regarding the type and number of services available for survivors of IPV in one’s community is relevant to formal help-seeking after an incident of IPV. As such, legislation and community efforts that seek to increase law enforcement awareness of IPV and increase services for survivors of IPV through other resources in the community are warranted. Survivors of IPV do not deserve their plight, and it is imperative of communities to serve these individuals to meet the dual goals of offender accountability and the promotion of survivor well-being.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

An earlier version of this manuscript was submitted as a working paper to the U.S. Census Bureau Working Paper Series. Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. This research was performed at a Federal Statistical Research Data Center under FSRDC Project Number 1392.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this research at the Texas RDC comes from National Science Foundation (grant no. ITR-0427889) and the INTRA program at the University of Texas at San Antonio.

ORCID iD

Megan Bears Augustyn

Notes

Author Biographies

Megan Bears Augustyn is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research is focused on the causes and consequences of crime, victimization, and other health-risk behaviors across the life course.

Katherine Calle Willyard is a PhD student in Sociology at Texas A&M University. Her areas of interest include social science research methods, the sociology of place and environment, and social inequality.

References

Norton

E. C.

(2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80(1), 123–129.

Alaggia

Regehr

Jenney

(2012). Risky business: An ecological analysis of intimate partner violence disclosure. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(3), 301–312.

Akers

Kaukinen

(2009). The police reporting behavior of intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Family Violence, 24(3), 159–171.

Battered Women’s Justice Project. (2019). Advocacy. https://www.bwjp.org/our-work/topics/advocacy.html

Bent-Goodley

T. B.

(2007). Health disparities and violence against women: Why and how cultural and societal influences matter. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(2), 90–104.

Bonomi

A. E.

Holt

V. L.

Martin

D. P.

Thompson

R. S.

(2006). Severity of intimate partner violence and occurrence and frequency of police calls. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(10), 1354–1364.

Bonomi

A. E.

Thompson

R. S.

Anderson

Reid

R. J.

Carrell

Dimer

J. A.

Rivara

F. P.

(2006). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical, mental, and social functioning. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(6), 458–466.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

Brunson

R. K.

Miller

(2005). Young black men and urban policing in the United States. British Journal of Criminology, 46(4), 613–640.

10.

Buis

M. L.

(2010). Stata tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in nonlinear models. The Stata Journal, 10(2), 305–308.

11.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2014). National Crime Victimization Survey technical documentation. US Census Bureau. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ncvstd13.pdf

12.

Buzawa

E. S.

Buzawa

C. G.

(2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. SAGE.

13.

Catalano

Smith

Snyder

Rand

(2009). Female victims of violence. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.

14.

Coker

A. L.

Derrick

Lumpkin

J. L.

Aldrich

T. E.

Oldendick

(2000). Help-seeking for intimate partner violence and forced sex in South Carolina. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4), 316–320.

15.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

Bethea

King

M. R.

McKeown

R. E.

(2000). Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 9(5), 451–457.

16.

Coker

A. L.

Watkins

K. W.

Smith

P. H.

Brandt

H. M.

(2003). Social support reduces the impact of partner violence on health: Application of structural equation models. Preventive Medicine, 37(3), 259–267.

17.

Cho

Kwon

Shamrova

Seon

(2019). Factors for formal help-seeking among female survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 1–10.

18.

Cattaneo

L. B.

DeLoveh

H. L.

(2008). The role of socioeconomic status in helpseeking from hotlines, shelters, and police among a national sample of women experiencing intimate partner violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(4), 413–422.

19.

Duterte

E. E.

Bonomi

A. E.

Kernic

M. A.

Schiff

M. A.

Thompson

R. S.

Rivara

F. P.

(2008). Correlates of medical and legal help seeking among women reporting intimate partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 17(1), 85–95.

20.

DeLeon-Granados

Wells

Binsbacher

(2006). Arresting developments: Trends in female arrests for domestic violence and proposed explanations. Violence Against Women, 12(4), 355–371.

21.

Dichter

M. E.

Marcus

S. C.

Morabito

M. S.

Rhodes

K. V.

(2011). Explaining the IPV arrest decision: Incident, agency, and community factors. Criminal Justice Review, 36(1), 22–39.

22.

Douglas

E. M.

Hines

D. A.

(2011). The helpseeking experiences of men who sustain intimate partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice. Journal of Family Violence, 26(6), 473–485.

23.

Dugan

Nagin

D. S.

Rosenfeld

(1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partner homicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women’s status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies, 3(3), 187–214.

24.

Durose

Langton

(2013). Requests for police assistance, 2011. United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

25.

Dawson

(2010). Documenting the growth of resources for victims/survivors of violence. Victims of Crime, 4.

26.

Dunham

Senn

C. Y.

(2000). Minimizing negative experiences: Women’s disclosure of partner abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(3), 251–261.

27.

Emsley

Liu

(2013). PARAMED: Stata module to perform causal mediation analysis using parametric regression models. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:boc:bocode:s457581

28.

Evans

M. A.

Feder

G. S.

(2016). Help-seeking amongst women survivors of domestic violence: A qualitative study of pathways towards formal and informal support. Health Expectations, 19(1), 62–73.

29.

Edwards

K. M.

(2015). Intimate partner violence and the rural–urban–suburban divide: Myth or reality? A critical review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 16(3), 359–373.

30.

Felson

R. B.

Paré

P. P.

(2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(3), 597–610.

31.

Fanslow

J. L.

Robinson

E. M.

(2010). Help-seeking behaviors and reasons for help seeking reported by a representative sample of women victims of intimate partner violence in New Zealand. Journal of interpersonal violence, 25(5), 929–951.

32.

Fleming

C. E.

Resick

P. A.

(2017). Help-seeking behavior in survivors of intimate partner violence: Toward an integrated behavioral model of individual factors. Violence and Victims, 32(2), 195–209.

33.

Gillum

T. L.

(2009). Improving services to African American survivors of IPV: From the voices of recipients of culturally specific services. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 57–80.

34.

Goodkind

J. R.

Sullivan

Bybee

(2004). A contextual analysis of battered women’s safety planning. Violence Against Women, 10(5), 514–533.

35.

Goodman

Dutton

M. A.

Weinfurt

Cook

(2003). The intimate partner violence strategies index development and application. Violence Against Women, 9, 163–186.

36.

Gordon

J. S.

(1996). Community services for abused women: A review of perceived usefulness and efficacy. Journal of Family Violence, 11(4), 315–329.

37.

Hart

Klein

(2013). Practical implications of current intimate partner violence research for victim advocates and service providers (NJC 244348). National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Criminal Justice Reference Service.

38.

Heise

L. L.

(1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3), 262–290.

39.

Heru

A. M.

(2007). Intimate partner violence: Treating abuser and abused. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 13(5), 376–383.

40.

Iverson

K. M.

Gradus

J. L.

Resick

P. A.

Suvak

M. K.

Smith

K. F.

Monson

C. M.

(2011). Cognitive–behavioral therapy for PTSD and depression symptoms reduces risk for future intimate partner violence among interpersonal trauma survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79(2), 193–202.

41.

Javaid

(2016). Giving a voice to the voiceless: Police responses to male rape. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 11(2), 146–156.

42.

Kasturirangan

Krishnan

Riger

(2004). The impact of culture and minority status on women’s experience of domestic violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(4), 318–332.

43.

Kaukinen

(2004). The help-seeking strategies of female violent-crime victims: The direct and conditional effects of race and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(9), 967–990.

44.

Kaukinen

C. E.

Meyer

Akers

(2013). Status compatibility and help-seeking behaviors among female intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(3), 577–601.

45.

La Vigne

N. G.

Fontaine

Dwivedi

. (2017). How do people in high-crime, low-income communities view the police? Urban Institute.

46.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Heimer

(2008). The gender gap in violent victimization, 1973–2004. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24(2), 125–147.

47.

Liang

Goodman

Tummala-Narra

Weintraub

(2005). A theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1-2), 71–84.

48.

Lohr

S. L.

Liu

(1994). A comparison of weighted and unweighted analyses in the National Crime Victimization Survey. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10(4), 343–360.

49.

Macy

R. J.

Nurius

P. S.

Kernic

M. A.

Holt

V. L.

(2005). Battered women’s profiles associated with service help-seeking efforts: Illuminating opportunities for intervention. Social Work Research, 29(3), 137–150.

50.

McFarlane

Soeken

Reel

Parker

Silva

(1997). Resource use by abused women following an intervention program: Associated severity of abuse and reports of abuse ending. Public Health Nursing, 14(4), 244–250.

51.

Montalvo-Liendo

(2009). Cross-cultural factors in disclosure of intimate partner violence: An integrated review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(1), 20–34.

52.

Mookerjee

Cerulli

Fernandez

I. D.

Chin

N. P.

(2015). Do Hispanic and non-Hispanic women survivors of intimate partner violence differ in regards to their help-seeking? A qualitative study. Journal of Family Violence, 30(7), 839–851.

53.

Newton

Stolle

Zmerli

(2018). Social and political trust. In Uslaner

E. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust (pp. 37–56). Oxford University Press.

54.

Niolon

P. H.

, & Centers for Disease Control Prevention. (2017). Preventing intimate partner violence across the lifespan: A technical package of programs, policies, and practices. Government Printing Office.

55.

Novisky

M. A.

Peralta

R. L.

(2015). When women tell: Intimate partner violence and the factors related to police notification. Violence Against Women, 21(1), 65–86.

56.

Peck

J. H.

(2015). Minority perceptions of the police: A state-of-the-art review. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38(1), 173–203.

57.

Postmus

J. L.

(2015). Women from different ethnic groups and their experiences with victimization and seeking help. Violence Against Women, 21(3), 376–393.

58.

Peterson

Kearns

M. C.

McIntosh

W. L.

Estefan

L. F.

Nicolaidis

McCollister

K. E.

… Florence

(2018). Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among US adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(4), 433–444.

59.

Richie

(2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America’s prison nation. New York University Press.

60.

Rizo

C. F.

Macy

R. J.

(2011). Help seeking and barriers of Hispanic partner violence survivors: A systematic review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), 250–264.

61.

Shannon

Logan

T. K.

Cole

Medley

(2006). Help-seeking and coping strategies for intimate partner violence in rural and urban women. Violence and Victims, 21(2), 167–181.

62.

Sims

Yost

Abbott

(2005). Use and nonuse of victim services programs: Implications from a statewide survey of crime victims. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 361–384.

63.

Skogan

W. G.

(2005). Evaluating community policing in Chicago. In Policing and program evaluation (pp. 27–41). Prentice Hall.

64.

StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15.

65.

Sullivan

C. M.

Bybee

D. L.

(1999). Reducing violence usingcommunity-based advocacy for women with abusive partners.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,67,43–53.

66.

Townsend

Hunt

Kuck

Baxter

(2005). Law enforcement response to domestic violence calls for service: Final report. US Department of justice.

67.

Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701 (1994).

68.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701 (2005).

69.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701 (2013).

70.

Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701 (2000).

71.

Xie

Lauritsen

J. L.

Heimer

(2012). Intimate partner violence in US Metropolitan areas: The contextual influences of police and social services. Criminology, 50(4), 961–992.

72.

Xie

Lynch

J. P.

(2017). The effects of arrest, reporting to the police, and victim services on intimate partner violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(3), 338–378.

73.

Zaykowski

(2014). Mobilizing victim services: The role of reporting to the police. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(3), 365–369.