Police Response to Intimate Partner Violence in a Mandatory Arrest State: Perspectives of Survivors and Service Providers

Background and Purpose: More than 1 in 3 women experience sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Domestic violence (DV) represents the largest category of calls to police departments in the U.S. States vary in their approach to arrest in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV). However, research suggests that mandatory arrest policies do not have a significant effect on IPV reoffending. Few studies have qualitatively examined mandatory arrest from the viewpoint of survivors of IPV. Therefore, research is needed to understand the implementation of this policy, especially related to determination of the predominant aggressor. This research study sought to understand survivor and service providers’ perspectives on police response in a mandatory arrest state.

Methods: In-depth, semi-structured focus groups and interviews were conducted with 102 participants, including 43 IPV survivors and 59 service providers. Purposive and snowball sampling were utilized to recruit participants via email contacts, flyers, and verbal promotion at DV service organizations. Primarily, participants identified as White (65.1% for survivors, 88.1% for service providers) or Indigenous/Native American (20.9% for survivors, 8.5% for service providers). Approximately 10% of survivors identified as Latinx/Hispanic, and 10% were born outside the U.S. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and transcribed verbatim. Grounded theory techniques supported the emergent process of themes arising in the data collection and data analysis. Data analysis was conducted in NVivo and consisted of line-by-line analysis, identifying themes, coding categories, and developing matrices to uncover relationships between themes and categories.

Findings: Survivors described contentious experiences with law enforcement; whereas, service providers’ interactions were more mixed. Five major themes were identified: (1) inadequate police response, (2) amplified hurdles in rural communities, (3) predominant aggressor incongruity, (4) protective orders fail to protect, and (5) organizational working relationships. Social relationships between police officers and perpetrators affected response in rural areas. Namely, survivors reported that police were lenient with their perpetrator if a personal relationship existed. Survivors in the present study described being criminalized, deemed as the predominant aggressor with implications for their criminal records, access to benefits, and willingness to contact police in the future.

Conclusion and Implications: On average, police recruits receive only five hours of victim response training. Improved IPV training is needed that includes trauma-informed practices, predominant aggressor and lethality protocols. Training should go beyond the physical markers of violence to recognize the signs of psychological aggression, coercive control, and verbal abuse. Significant racial disparities continue to exist in the criminal justice system, and police shootings of unarmed African Americans have eroded the public’s trust in the police resulting in a decline in crime reporting. This may translate to increased reluctance of survivors, especially survivors of color, to contact the police in cases of IPV. Calls to defund the police suggest the need to consider alternatives to the carceral state, such as restorative and transformative justice approaches. Overall, mandatory arrest policy requires critical examination, especially given its role in the criminalization of survivors themselves.