Private Violence, Public Concern: Drivers of Intimate Partner Violence in Refugee Camps

Purpose: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most common form of violence that women experience across contexts. However, in conflict and post-conflict contexts, IPV has often been treated by the international humanitarian community as a secondary concern.  In 2014, an established international humanitarian organization partnered with researchers to conduct qualitative research on women’s experiences with IPV in displacement and settlement in Iraq, South Sudan and Kenya.  The aim of the research was to build on the empirical evidence that could be used to inform programming, practice and policy. The study was driven by multiple research questions, including: what are the drivers and nature of IPV in refugee and conflict-affected humanitarian setting; and, how has the refugee and humanitarian context affected the manifestation of IPV?

Methods: Data collection, using individual interviews and focus group discussions, was carried out in three refugee camps: Ajuong Thok (South Sudan), Hagadera, Dadaab (Kenya), and Domiz (Iraq). In each location, a community advisory group was established with representatives from the refugee and service provider communities to inform the study data collection methods and recruitment procedures. In total, a purposive sample of 284 people participated in the study, of which in-depth interviews were conducted with adult, female survivors of IPV (n=39).  A comprehensive coding scheme was developed, inter-rater reliability was thoroughly assessed, and all transcripts were coded and analyzed by a team of four researchers using the on-line analysis software, Dedoose.

Results: The most commonly mentioned “drivers” of IPV in the camp were rapidly changing gender norms triggered by displacement, women’s separation from their par­ents and families, forced marriage and re-marriage, poverty and male substance use.  In all 3 camps, women took on more responsibility for providing for their families, while traditional modes for men to provide diminish. These changes were perceived as threatening to men who used violence to maintain their power and role as the head of household. There are other key aspects of life in a refugee camp that affect the manifestation of IPV. They include women being separated from their parents and family, the breakdown of traditional systems of response and lack of opportunities for men and women to work.  This study also identified a lack of social cohesion in camp populations, especially in the camps in which people from different parts of the country of origin were living together.  In two of the camps there is little social cohesion and some women reported not being able to rely on neighbors and people in their community for support or help. 

Implications: Social work practice with camp-based refugees communities would benefit from a better understanding of the “drivers” of IPV in displacement, as well as of IPV survivors pre- and post-displacement, and how these factors influence their decision-making. Recommendations include creating more safety options for women in abusive relationships, developing programs that promote women’s empowerment, considering family-level intervention models, and programming that promotes accountability for men who perpetrate violence and develop positive attitudes and norms around gender equality.