Proposing a Unified Framework for Coordinated Community Response

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations Member States in 2015, clearly delineates a global target for elimination of violence against women (VAW) as critical to achieving gender equality and women's empowerment (Sustainable Development Goal [SDG]-5) along with all other SDG goals, especially those related to health (SDG-3), and a just and peaceful society (SDG-16). Violence affects the quality of life and well-being of women daily. The pervasive and serious nature of this violence, in all parts of the world, calls for comprehensive and strategic community-based prevention and intervention approaches with the clear understanding that it is the entire community's responsibility to address VAW, as opposed to leaving it to the victim to try to find a solution to the abuse she is experiencing. The CSW65 agreed conclusions clearly state that the full, effective, and accelerated implementation of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action of the SDGs Agenda can only be achieved by 2030 with a multisectoral coordinated response to all forms of VAW. It directs United Nations (UN) Member States to “[e]liminate, prevent and respond to all forms of violence against women and girls in public and private spaces, through multisectoral and coordinated approaches to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of violence […] and address the structural and underlying causes of violence … through enhanced prevention measures, research and strengthened coordination, monitoring and evaluation by […] working with local communities” (Commission on the Status of Women Sixty-Fifth Session, 2021, p. 14).

Similarly, the most recent World Health Organization report (WHO) of VAW prevalence estimates also calls for concerted action, dedicated public funding, and a multisectoral approach citing its endorsement by the 69th World Health Assembly in 2016 and in the many UN resolutions and consensus documents since the Beijing Declaration in 1995 (WHO, 2021a). As of 2019, all but 49 countries had some laws to address domestic violence, and many countries mention some version of community coordination as a response to VAW (The World Bank, 2019). For example, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms includes provisions to ensure a framework for coordinated multiagency cooperation (The World Bank, 2019). These repeated calls for coordination and multiagency cooperation call for an examination of how such an approach has been used and its effectiveness.

Coordinated Community Response

The coordinated community response (CCR) model has been implemented around the world in different forms, using different names, and scholars have argued that cross-system coordination for responding to victims/cases is quite common (see Greeson & Campbell, 2015). However, the CCR of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) operating in the US since the 1980s is one of the oldest examples of a multisectoral response to VAW. It was the first institutional advocacy project, initiated in 1980 in Duluth, Minnesota (Shepard & Pence, 1999), and the concept has been exported around the globe. The DAIP has gained international renown as the first community-based reform project that coordinated with key intervening legal agencies to successfully negotiate agreements through written policies and protocols to avoid individual discretion in the handling of cases and set minimum standards of response to domestic abuse (Pence, 1983). These negotiations of written agreements, policies, and protocols were a landmark development to facilitate a CCR to VAW. Though the first CCR was created for intervention purposes, the model set the stage for other agencies, both governmental and nongovernmental, at varying geographic levels to adapt a CCR model for prevention, intervention, and driving institutional and policy changes on VAW-related issues in the US, even though it has not always been called a CCR. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 explicitly included grants for nonprofit private organizations to establish projects in local communities, involving many sectors of the community to coordinate intervention into and prevention of domestic violence, marking the first time CCR was funded by a federal mandate in the United States. Since 2003, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), through its Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership through Alliances project, has funded local CCR coalitions to provide primary prevention-focused training, technical assistance, and financial support (see CDC, 2018). However, the literature indicates that, even within the US where the term CCR was first used, there are many other terms used to describe the kind of work CCRs purport to do. In the ensuing sections, we discuss the confusion caused by the lack of a standardized definition by exploring the extant definitions and related terminology within the literature.

Extant Definitions of CCR

In general, a CCR may be defined as a response in which the community collaborates to improve the provision of services and dissemination of knowledge about those services. At a minimum, it requires that myriad community agencies and actors such as law enforcement, legal and healthcare systems, social service providers, educational and vocational programs, and other stakeholders (e.g., religious and advocacy) cooperate and coordinate to provide services to victims with the goal of creating relationships between the different groups to fill gaps in services and resources, and providing a single, comprehensive response (Shorey et al., 2014). This approach aims to reduce the need for the victim to locate resources independently because the providers are familiar with each other's services and can coordinate with the various organizations to meet the diverse needs of individuals. However, the extant literature documents a wide variety of implementations for CCRs to date. For example, some are led by police-advocate teams (see Whetstone, 2001), while others rely on community-based advocates (see DePrince et al., 2012). Acknowledging the risk involved with domestic violence cases and the increased likelihood of interacting with a violent offender, some responses utilize a forward deployment by law enforcement prior to other agencies intervening; for example, Hovell et al. (2006) discuss how the Family Violence Response Team first has police officers secure the scene, followed by a team member calling victims to provide information and intervention. Many of the responses in the literature, as noted by Johnson and Stylianou (2020), involved phone contact between coordinating agencies and the victims (see Messing et al., 2015), though some emphasized on-scene interventions (see Davis et al., 2006; Stover et al., 2010) or a combination of these (see Corcoran & Allen, 2005).

A unifying theme is a coordination among multiple entities both in the community and throughout the criminal justice system (see Babcock & Steiner, 1999; Regoeczi & Hubbard, 2018; Shepard et al., 2002), which emphasizes the importance of a truly comprehensive approach for maximum stakeholder buy-in. Hart (1995) and Spohn (2008) speak about the myriad approaches to CCR and note that several of these may be employed at one time in a local community or within a state. Moreover, CCRs are also created in response to different social problems, such as sexual assault, mental health, and sex trafficking. Hart (1995) lists some of the most utilized approaches to a CCR to VAW: community partnering; community interventions; task forces or coordinating councils; training and technical assistance projects; and community organizing. Although there is widespread agreement that responses to VAW cannot be a single agency response, the challenges of using terms that require some form of community coordination across a range of activities without clearly relating it to theory for each type of activity makes it problematic for researchers and practitioners alike. This is further conflated by the range of terms that are used for activities that address VAW.

Related Terminology Within the Literature

The term CCR shares common ground with various terms used in different academic disciplines and practice areas for a range of purposes and outcomes related to VAW. Common terms used are interagency collaboration, wrap-around services, network model of services, coordinating council, task force, multisectoral response (UN Women et al., 2015; WHO, 2021a), cross-agency practice, interprofessional, family violence councils, Multiagency Risk Assessment Conferences (MARAC), and network model. The sheer array of terms, both within the US and around the world, applied to a CCR to VAW is baffling. Oftentimes, the same term is used disparately by different entities or groups; at other times, the terms are misunderstood or carry the weight of the past (e.g., the CCR model developed by the DAIP is often wrongly referred to as an offender rehabilitation program and the phrases are often used synonymously even though offender rehabilitation was just one of the activities of the CCR; Shepard & Pence, 1999).

Many of these terms focus primarily on agencies (e.g., interagency, cross-agency, multiagency, and network model of services and others listed above) and do not have a theoretical basis rooted in the VAW literature. The different agencies, entities, or sectors may not have the same goals, driven by a shared philosophy. Their goals often may be at odds with each other (e.g., police vs. victim advocates), or they may be competing against each other for governmental and nongovernmental funds in an increasingly competitive environment, or they may choose to focus on addressing a particular issue within the community response (e.g., enforcing orders of protection and strengthening sentencing practices), or the level at which they engage with each other could vary. Wilcox (2010) demonstrated the varying levels of engagement in interdisciplinary/interagency practice with the lowest level (#1) representing service autonomy (with networking), and the highest (#6) representing complete integration into a single system with subunit and cross-unit accountability. These differing terminologies and varying levels of engagement demonstrate that a unity of purpose in addressing the problem of VAW is lacking.

This fragmentation across different academic disciplines, practitioner fields, and levels of operation hinder efficient coordination of efforts to end VAW, resulting in a weakened response to the entirety of the problem, despite the best efforts of individual stakeholders. Further, even though advocates, practitioners, and researchers alike intuitively believe in a coordinated community approach to tackling the problem of VAW (while ensuring victim safety and offender accountability), the testing of CCR models is difficult due to a lack of common benchmarks about what it entails. When conceptualizing CCRs in the academic literature, the vast variety of terms utilized poses challenges from engaging in systematic and cross-disciplinary evaluations of the effectiveness of these approaches. Many researchers have acknowledged that a variety of terms are used to describe work similar to CCRs (Allen et al., 2008; Shorey et al., 2014; Wilcox, 2010), and often these terms are used arbitrarily (Spohn, 2008; Wilcox, 2010), further making the case for a unified framework and common terminology.

Effectiveness of CCRs (Based on Different Definitions, Methods, and Outcomes)

The most comprehensive study evaluating CCRs in the United States was conducted by Cox et al. (2010), who administered surveys to the chairpersons of 581 CCRs in 2004; however, the overall number of CCRs has increased in the years since these data were collected. Even though there is some general agreement on the involvement of the community (through healthcare providers, educators, religious groups, the justice system, domestic violence program advocates, human service entities such as state child services divisions, business and civic leaders, and other pertinent sectors; Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, 1994), it is difficult to assess the success of CCRs, or the nature and extent of the community coordination of these services, projects, or programs as has been documented in the literature (NCIPC, 2013; Spivak et al., 2014; Strong et al., 2006). Similarly, almost all research attempts to evaluate CCRs have noted the difficulties in measurement and have cautioned against prematurely abandoning the idea of CCRs in addressing VAW, despite a lack of significant findings (see, e.g., Bouffard & Muftić, 2007; Stover et al., 2010). This issue is further conflated because the term CCR (or work reflecting a CCR approach) has been used in myriad contexts.

Preliminary evaluation of the success of CCR (or similar work as we define it in this article) documents its benefits, even though the outcome variables may not be the same in each study; for example, Cox et al. (2010) found that in the four years included in their study, CCRs strengthened both their organizational structures and processes, with a greater percentage of CCRs obtaining nonfederal funding as well, suggesting a diversification of revenue streams, while Robinson and Tregidga (2007) found that 40% of victims reported no further violence after being referred to the MARAC CCR in Cardiff, Wales. Another study conducted by Allen et al. (2008) of a sample of 41 domestic violence coordinating councils found these CCRs promoted knowledge, relationships, and institutionalized change. Empirical investigations of the impact of CCRs on domestic violence have focused on offenders (Bledsoe et al., 2006; Bouffard & Muftić, 2007), victims (Clarke & Wydall, 2013; Davis et al., 2006; Reusing, 2018; Visher et al., 2008), processes (Heyman et al., 2021; Langer, 2017), taskforces (Boots et al., 2018), and the criminal justice system more broadly (Corcoran & Allen, 2005; Exum et al., 2014; Salazar et al., 2007), as documented by Johnson and Stylianou (2020) in their systematic review of the literature related to CCRs.

For example, Post et al. (2010) found that CCRs did not shift knowledge, beliefs, or attitudes toward intimate partner violence. Also, finding no significant impact, Klevens et al. (2008) further controlled for a variety of socio-demographic factors, such as income, marital status, and level of education. Researchers who have surmounted many challenges to conducting such social or program outcome experiments will often state numerous limitations to their study (see Garner & Maxwell, 2000; Maxwell et al., 2002). Some researchers will acknowledge decades later how their research may have shaped policy and call for longitudinal and longer-term research (20+ years) to assess complete impact evaluation before it is used as a guide to policy (Sherman & Harris, 2013).

Another way to assess community-level differences in violence outcomes is using national datasets, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey data. Although Xie et al. (2012) do not directly evaluate a CCR, they examined the joint impact of police and social service organizations on women's safety in the home and found that women's likelihood of victimization is significantly lower in metropolitan statistical areas that employ more sworn officers per capita and have a larger social service workforce. Further, Xie and Lynch (2017) found that the deterrent effect of arrest is not substantively important, but police notification and victim-centered services produce important reductions in repeat victimization. These two studies highlight the efficacy of key individual components of a CCR (the police and social services).

In general, CCR programs have not been widely evaluated using common outcome variables, or after allowing a sufficient period between deployment of a CCR and measurement of outcome variables. Data on CCR have not been forthcoming, despite multiple stakeholders working together on a CCR team. Nix and Richards (2021) argue that CCR teams should not just be used for shared services, but also be utilized to share data among each other to enable data-driven responses to violence. Garner and Maxwell (2008) argue that even though initial evidence from a very small number of evaluations may suggest no difference in the rates of intimate partner violence between coordinated and comparison jurisdictions, it is too early to decide whether these findings are conclusive. In contrast, Hart (1995) makes a case for descriptive assessment pieces based on practitioner inquiries to better understand the efficacy of CCR, and Gondolf (2012) recommends that system-analysis and system-audits be used to monitor the actions and coordination of the CCR components.

Spohn (2008, p. 492) agrees that current knowledge about the effectiveness of CCRs is incomplete and emphasizes the need for high-quality evaluation research and formation of policies by “refining the CCR approach rather than waiting until there is definitive evidence regarding its effectiveness.” We argue that this is possible only if there is a clearer understanding of the types of programs that are operating as CCRs or doing the work of a CCR with another name. The time is right to step away from the myriad and baffling array of terms, different levels of engagement, and types of CCRs to a more unified and clear approach. Klevens and Cox (2008) summarize that a well-designed and implemented CCR could be an effective strategy to reduce rates of IPV if it is based on the best available research and practice knowledge and set in a community that has developed the capacity to implement all components appropriately. We agree in principle with this argument, but challenge the framing of CCR and the prevalent theoretical (or lack of) understanding of CCR as it relates to VAW.

We believe that it is important to agree on a common term for an effective response to VAW. Further, all areas of response to VAW (e.g., policy, practice, task forces, and councils), where the concept of cooperation among different stakeholders from communities is practiced, need to be brought under a single umbrella term. This will ensure that everyone involved is operating on the same general definition and standards for CCR, even though the outcome to be evaluated will vary based on the nature of the CCR. The clarity of general definition and commonality of purpose will assist in unifying the numerous silos that are working to end VAW.

The purpose of proposing this unified framework for CCR in this CSW-focused special issue is to initiate a debate in the literature among a larger group of international academics who are committed to putting an end to VAW. We hope that this debate will raise many questions and will provide clarity from multiple perspectives. The settled discussions about a unified framework for CCR can then make their way into the work of entities of influence such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and CDC (and similar organizations), which can provide a general definition of CCR, just the way they have provided information about the ecological framework and public health approach to violence on their respective websites. We are also hoping that in time, this language gets included in program funding applications (e.g., Office on Violence against Women [OVW] in the US) and thereby gets adopted across agencies that receive funding to provide responses to VAW. This will allow the funding agencies to monitor the formation and operation of CCRs, just as they monitor other aspects of grant funding. This brings us to the question: What should this term be?

Proposing a Unified Framework

We propose using the term CCR regardless of the type of response (prevention, intervention, victim service, offender treatment, policy, or procedure formulation), if it involves coordinating activities undertaken by more than one agency or entity at any level of geographic community. We propose that using this term should provide the framework to ensure that the CCR is “effectively organized so that all the parts work well together” for “the people living in one particular area or people who are considered as a unit because of their common interests, social group, or nationality” and provides “an answer or reaction” to the problem under consideration—in this case, VAW. Considering the literal meaning of each of these terms, the phrase “coordinated community response” means an effectively organized group of people living in a particular area, who are reacting to something (in this case, VAW). It implies that the response by the group of people needs to be effectively organized and that the unit could be geographically local or organized at higher levels such as city, county, state, or even a nation. This all-encompassing literal definition of the phrase is best suited, compared to the myriad other terms used to describe such work in response to VAW (that have been discussed earlier in the article). By ensuring that the same phrase, CCR, is used for all kinds of responses such as policy, advocacy, education, training, prevention, intervention, or services in response to VAW, the focus can shift to the work that needs to happen to make the response effectively organized and efficient. This allows for multiple types of CCRs to operate under an umbrella term, enabling a multipronged response addressing policy, practice, and advocacy at all levels of the ecological model that are best suited to communities across the globe. Such CCRs can consider the nature of each community (at the intersection of culture, race, gender, and legal framework) to ensure that the most appropriate and efficient methods to reach both immediate and long-term goals are used to eliminate violence. The phrase CCR, used as broadly as proposed here, will allow the focus to shift from siloed work to a comprehensive approach guided by theory and focused on efficiency. In the next section, we consider a few relevant theoretical approaches; we then describe how the broader application of the phrase CCR can be used for a range of responses to VAW.

Theoretical Considerations

The role of communities has been emphasized by some early proponents of environmental theories; for example, Vygotskiĭ et al. (1987) stressed that the community plays a central role in “making meaning,” and Bandura (1977) considered how both environmental and cognitive factors interact to influence human behavior. Similarly, the Chicago School has been at the forefront of sociological thought in considering the impact of the environment (specifically, urban) on individual behaviors. However, the Ecological Systems Theory proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1992) is the most tested and describes concentric circles of dynamic interactions between the micro-, meso-, exo-, macro-, and chronosystems of the environment. He argued that policies and programs can play a major role in shaping these systems to promote human health and well-being. This theory was adopted by the WHO (2021b) into an ecological framework for violence prevention, based on evidence that no single factor can explain why some people or groups are at higher risk of interpersonal violence, while others are more protected from it (WHO, 2021b). This framework views interpersonal violence as the outcome of interaction among many factors at four levels—the individual, the relationship, the community, and the societal (Dahlberg & Krug, 2006)--and advocates for a public health approach to reducing violence. Similarly, the CDC (2021), a primary funder of violence prevention programs and research in the United States ($1.48 billion allocated for violence-related projects in fiscal year 2021) adapts the same framework with the title “social–ecological model” and advocates for a public health approach (CDC, n.d.) to violence prevention. The four-step public health approach involves a number of people, organizations, and systems at each step that relies on the success of individual entities to achieve a reduction of violence in the community. Further, the OVW that administers 19 grant programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act in the US (allocation of $500 million) specifically defines community-based organizations as those that show demonstrated capacity to work effectively on VAW through collaboration (U.S. Department of Justice, 2021). To us, this implies that the role of community has become central to the work on violence prevention and intervention globally. The CDC's public health approach is relying on “coordination” and OVW relies on “community” and “collaboration” between various people, entities, and agencies to achieve success—therefore, our argument for the use of the words “coordinated” and “community” in CCR. See Figure 1 to understand why we argue for these words based on the WHO and the CDC social–ecological model.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Proposing a unified framework for coordinated community response (CCR).

Heise (1998) made the first attempt to adapt the ecological framework directly to VAW by integrating extant literature, not just from the United States, but also from an international and cross-cultural evidence base. Her goal was to encourage an integrated approach to theory building as it relates to VAW. She outlined in a figure, like Bronfenbrenner (1977, 1992), a list of factors related to VAW that predict abuse at each level of the social ecology (Heise, 1998). This work was further developed into an interactive, online multilevel ecological model by the European Commission (n.d.) listing various factors with effect size (or power), at each level of the social ecology. In the Strive report, Heise (2011) further refines her original conceptual framework, adding circles to delineate men, women, relationships, and conflicts, wherein she identified additional factors impacting VAW, at each level of the social ecology. Our proposal for a unified framework and the call to use the phrase CCR for all types of responses to VAW, at any level of an ecological framework or geography, is based on the theoretical work thus far, and guides the examples provided in the next section linking theory to practice.

Putting Theory into Practice

In Figure 2, we build on the original model proposed by Heise (1998, 2011) to make a case for how a CCR can be effective for all the known factors of VAW listed in her model, at each level of the ecological framework, and provide some examples of potential responses that can address VAW, at each level of the ecological model. Based on the nature of response to VAW, the composition of the CCR will need to vary as well. We believe that survivors of violence (of all genders, sexualities, and gender expressions) should be included in every CCR response, at every level of the ecological framework. Besides this commonality, we propose that CCR composition should be customized to the type of response and level of ecological framework, and provide some examples below to elucidate our point.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Potential responses to address factors related to VAW.

In Figure 2, the responses to individual and relationship factors are rooted in localized prevention and intervention, and therefore, the CCR partners at these levels need to be local to the community. At these two levels of the ecological framework, where service provision is the key response, victim service providers and legal system professionals (e.g., police, prosecutors, courts, legal aid, and legal advocates) are essential members of the CCR. Additionally, professionals from child services, healthcare, mental health, DVRT/SART volunteers, batterer intervention and substance abuse programs, and community or faith-based leaders are appropriate for inclusion in the CCR. These CCR teams typically operate at the city or county level, and it would be beneficial to have a nonprofit and/or governmental human services division oversee them. These are the most common types of CCRs across the US, and much work needs to be done to ensure that they are well-funded, efficient, and effective.

As the ecological level rises to the exo-system or community responses, it calls for (i) building infrastructure and capacity; (ii) improving/enforcing systems, policies, and procedures in existing programs; and (iii) creating laws and policies that mandate education related to VAW and address social ills such as community violence, unemployment, and lack of housing. The victim/survivor CCR members at this level should have real-world experiences navigating the legal and social service systems. CCR teams at this level of the ecological framework need the involvement of leaders from each stakeholder or service group such that they can work towards building capacity and make decisions about system-level changes in their respective organizations with input from the entire CCR team. Therefore, CCR members for legal and social service interventions at this ecological level should include victim service professional leaders, such as Directors and Chief Executive Officers of organizations that manage multiple types of victim services (such as hotlines, advocacy, shelters, and community programs); legal system leaders (such as police chiefs, prosecutors, and family-court judges); directors of governmental departments overseeing health and human services (including children and families); leaders from regional health care agencies, educational institutions, and workforce development organizations. Policy interventions at this ecological level, in addition to victim/survivor members need participation from victim service provider coalitions; Attorneys General, Police Association leaders, Prosecutors Association leaders; leaders in education, health & human services, workforce development (e.g., at a state level in the US); these CCRs will also benefit from the inclusion of Business Association leaders. Members of the CCR at this level should include members who have the ability to propose, implement, and/or enforce policy changes. We have used the example of a state in the US for illustration purposes; however, the exo-system is not defined by any specific geographic level here and is applicable to either a large city or county or a state. In some instances where there needs to be a discussion of common approaches to the law (e.g., Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating VAW and domestic violence), the geographic level could even be a country.

The macrosystem or societal level response to VAW typically focuses on changing gender norms and attitudes using school-based initiatives, community interventions, and media interventions. Given the large-scale implementation of these initiatives and interventions (perhaps country-wide), it is imperative that they be rigorously tested in different cultural settings before, during, and after implementation at different time points. CCRs for all these initiatives and interventions should include VAW advocates; race, class, and gender scholars; political leaders; researchers; leaders from national and/or international organizations; and funding agencies. School Initiatives and Media Interventions will benefit from CCR members who are popular (such as movie and sports celebrities). School Initiatives should include school principals, teachers, parents, and youth. Additionally, leaders from the movie industry, media (especially social media), and technology companies will be valuable for creative input as well as to assist with large-scale implementation. CCRs for Community Interventions need the involvement of political leaders (perhaps ministers at the country level), as well as local and global financial leaders.

Discussion

As the previous section and Figure 2 elucidate, a CCR is possible (and necessary) at every level of the social–ecological model in response to VAW. As described in the section on research related to VAW, almost all scholars are measuring outcomes to examine the community-level reduction in VAW as a product of CCR intervention. Since the CCR intervention itself lacks treatment homogeneity, it should not follow the randomized control trial protocols of medical science in research. Further, it is not possible to accurately measure the effectiveness of community-level efforts until they have been clearly understood and delineated. Given current research, we are unable to say with certainty whether a certain composition of a CCR, for a particular outcome variable, works or not. At such a juncture, it is not prudent to continue repeating the research on the effectiveness of a CCR for a reduction in VAW; rather, we need to make sure we are indeed measuring what we aim to measure. We propose that research should first examine the efficiency of CCR implementation and fine-tune CCR activities based on quality evidence at every level of the ecological model before any measurement of its effectiveness for addressing VAW is undertaken.

Conclusion

This article builds on existing frameworks for CCRs to propose a unified approach, centered on communities within the ecological framework. To this end, we strongly advocate that every multiagency response to VAW follow this theoretical framework as it will enhance practitioners’ ability to situate their work within the ecological framework while allowing them to refine and improve their work. It will also enhance researchers’ ability to clearly define research questions, and operationalize independent and outcome variables based on the type and ecological level of the response to VAW. This framework builds on efforts that document the need for intersectionality approaches, such as partnerships between law enforcement, social workers, and community organizations, while considering racial, cultural, cross-national, and gendered nuances of VAW. With this unified approach, we believe we have set forth an argument for debate among academicians and practitioners, and we have also provided a roadmap for policymakers on how to implement a CCR in a manner that increases the odds of successfully responding to and intervening in VAW.