Faith First, Family First: (Lacking) Religious Response to Intimate Partner Violence

Background and Purpose: Past research indicates that clergy’s main goal of intervention in intimate partner violence (IPV) is nearly always reconciliation. However, this standpoint indicates a lack of awareness of the severity and impacts of IPV. Limitations in past research include small sample sizes and a focus on clergy perspectives only rather than the experiences of survivors and service providers. Given the overwhelming religious presence in Utah, along with the state’s high rate of IPV, research is needed to understand the interactions between clergy and survivors engaged in help-seeking behaviors. This research study was part of a larger statewide needs assessment that identified the specific obstacles survivors face as they attempt to obtain safety and stability. One research question guided this research study, “What are the challenges experienced by survivors of IPV as they attempt to navigate ‘helping systems’ in Utah?”

Methods: In-depth, semi-structured focus groups and interviews were conducted with 102 participants, including 43 survivors and 59 service providers, from March 2016 to February 2017. All focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent and transcribed verbatim. Data collection and data analysis occurred simultaneously, which is common to qualitative studies, and data analysis consisted of line-by-line analysis, identifying themes, coding categories and developing matrices to uncover relationships between themes and categories. Thematic codes were analyzed separately for survivors and service providers with the expectation that themes would differ; however, themes were consistent across subgroups. Both authors coded all transcripts separately in NVivo10 and compared themes and categories to ensure inter-rater reliability.

Findings: The intersection of IPV and faith was evident, particularly in the form of survivors seeking assistance in their local communities, regularly approaching religious leaders for support. Several themes emerged from the participants’ accounts of their interactions with clergy. Most evident was religious leaders’ lack of education and training to adequately respond to their congregants’ IPV-related needs. Clergy tended to endorse faith-based resolutions for survivors, or a “faith first” approach, and they prioritized regular prayer and church attendance as resolutions to IPV. In contrast, survivors’ physical and emotional safety was rarely, if ever, discussed. Thus, clergy exhibited a lack of understanding regarding trauma-informed practices and safety planning. Stigma and religious leaders’ circumvention of systems built to protect survivors represented additional challenges. Although mentioned to a lesser extent, participants’ accounts of positive interactions represent opportunities to ally with clergy to ensure positive healing and safer communities.

Conclusion and Implications: Survivors reported frustration that their psychological, emotional and physical safety and well-being were largely unacknowledged by their religious leaders. Religious leaders need training on recognizing abuse and responding in a trauma-informed manner. This education should address the short- and long-term impacts of violence, and religious leaders should be prepared to connect survivors to legal and social services as needed. Domestic violence service organizations have the opportunity to collaborate with experienced religious leaders in the education of other less proficient clergy. Social workers and clergy allies can work together to push for policies that require IPV-training in religious institutions.