Socio-Ecological Risk and Protective Factors for Intimate Partner Violence Among Asian, Latina and African Immigrant and Refugee Women: Perceived Needs for Safety Planning Interventions

Background and Purpose: Immigrant and refugee women are at high risk for victimization by intimate partner violence (IPV) and severe IPV including intimate partner homicides (IPH). With the growing number of immigrants and refugees in the US and the concerns about IPV and IPH among immigrant/refugee groups, there is need for culturally responsive risk assessments and safety planning interventions for at-risk groups of immigrant and refugee survivors of IPV. A study of homicides in New York City (1990 to 1999) found foreign-born status the strongest risk factor for IPH (Frye et al. 2005). Research is therefore needed to identify culturally-responsive risk assessment and safety planning needs of immigrant and refugee survivors.  This multi-site study identified a) general and culturally-specific risk and protective factors of intimate partner violence (IPV) and homicide (IPH) among immigrant and refugee survivors of IPV and b) areas of safety planning interventions for survivors who are at risk for severe or lethal violence by an intimate partner.

Methods:

Data for this qualitative multisite study were collected from immigrant and refugee women and practitioners residing in Massachusetts, Arizona, Virginia, Washington DC, New York, Minnesota and California using purposive sampling techniques. Eighty-six in-depth interviews were conducted with adult immigrant and refugee survivors of IPV, who identified as Asian (n=30), Latina (n=30) and African (n=26). Survivors were eligible if they had experienced IPV within the past two years. Additionally, 9 focus groups and 5 key informant interviews were conducted with practitioners, with two or more years of experience serving immigrant and refugee women from the above-mentioned groups. Data were collected using semi-structured focus group and interview guides. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis procedure.

Results:

Participants identified significant societal-levels risks (e.g., patriarchal cultural norms), relationship-level risks (e.g., in-law abuse), and individual-level risks (e.g., victim’s immigration status, abuser’s alcohol/drug problem, inability to control temper, sexual orientation, and isolation of the victim) for IPV/IPH. Some culturally-specific risks were identified such as dowry and family honor among Indians, and cultural divorce among Hmong. Participants also shared protective effects of factors such as family/friends’ support, faith, education, economic independence, being able to speak English, and children. Acculturation was identified as both a risk and protective factor. Participants shared that safety planning interventions should address survivors’ needs such as safe housing/shelter, finances, driving lessons, language access, knowledge of available resources, connecting them with services in the community.

Conclusions and Implications:

This research highlights culturally-specific areas of risk assessments and safety planning for diverse groups of immigrant and refugee survivors of IPV. The findings are informative for policy makers as well as practitioners serving at-risk immigrant and refugee survivors of IPV in legal, social service and physical and mental health settings. Although the results are generalizable to only immigrant and refugee groups included in this study, the findings would be useful for women sharing common struggles against gender inequality. The immigrant and refugee groups included in this study have been identified as most at risk for IPV/IPH in the current literature.