As mentioned in the Introduction Unit, adopting a lens of intersectionality is essential for understanding and addressing domestic and sexual violence (DV/SV). There is a common expression that these types of violence “can happen to anyone,” and – although that is correct – the prevalence, dynamics, and impact of DV and SV differ substantially based on a person’s social location (i.e., the constellation of privilege and oppression that correspond with a person’s different identities).
In this section we highlight the important role of social location by examining domestic and sexual violence according to race and ethnicity, gender identity, sexual identity, age, immigration status, socioeconomic status, (dis)ability, geographic location, and military involvement. We recognize that this list is neither exhaustive, nor does it get at the minutia of identities and experiences within any one identity category. Moreover, the very nature of intersectionality means that people are comprised of multiple identities; thus, there is a compounded effect for people who face multiple sources of oppression (e.g., an undocumented, low-income woman). This unit is merely a foundation for continual learning about these complex issues. Please note, for information on the intersection of DV/SV and behavioral health please see Unit 1.
Gain an increased awareness of the prevalence of DV/SV
Articulate which populations are most at risk for DV/SV victimization and why
Understand the ways in which structural and other forms of oppression create differences in the experiences and impact of DV/SV
Prevalence
In the U.S., people of color generally experience increased rates of lifetime DV and SV compared to White counterparts.1
Sexual Violence
Homicide by Intimate Partner
Domestic Violence
4 in 10 non-Hispanic Black, American Indian, or Alaska Native and 1 in 2 multiracial non-Hispanic women report experiencing rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.1
About 1 in 2 American Indian or Alaska Native and 4 in 10 Black and multiracial men report experiencing rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.1
Rates of IPV homicide are substantially higher among Non-Hispanic Black and American Indian/Alaska Native compared to other racial ethnic groups. Specifically, the rate (per 100,000) was 4.4 for Non-Hispanic Black women, 4.3 for American Indian/Alaska Native women, and 1 to 2 for all other racial ethnic groups.2
Among women, 1 in 3 multiracial non-Hispanic, 1 in 4 American Indian and Alaska Native identifying, 1 in 5 Black and White non-Hispanic, and 1 in 7 Hispanic, report experiencing rape.3
Among men, 1 in 3 multiracial non-Hispanic, 1 in 4 Hispanic, and 1 in 59 White non-Hispanic men report experiencing rape.3
Differential Impact Considerations
Differences between DV/SV survivors of color and White survivors stem largely from racism, discrimination, and the enduring legacies of slavery and colonization.
As a result, people of color – particularly African Americans and Native populations – have higher rates of DV/SV, are at heightened risk for other forms of violence (e.g., police violence) and oppression (e.g., inadequate schools, racial wealth gap),6 and generally have access to fewer resources and help-seeking options.7,8
Click here for a graphic from the SASHA Center that depicts how multiple layers of oppression create unique risk and vulnerability for Black SV survivors.
Prevalence
In the U.S. transgender individuals have higher rates of DV/SV compared to women and men9, and women have higher rates of SV and DV (specifically sexual violence, severe physical injury, and homicide) compared to men.1
Differential Impact Considerations
Differences regarding DV/SV among gender identity groups stem largely from sexism, transphobia and toxic (or hyper) masculinity. 13-15
Transgender
Men
Women
Entrenched sexist attitudes about women's roles and rights contribute to their higher rates of DV (fatal and nonfatal) and SV.16,17
Structural forces such as the feminization of poverty leave women with fewer resources to draw upon when seeking safety.18
Toxic or hyper-masculinity are the negative mental health effects on men who live in a society of strict masculine gender norms regarding role and behavior.19
Although hyper-masculinity is associated with men's use of SV/DV perpetration, it also negatively impacts men who experience DV/SV (e.g., leads to feelings of shame and underreporting, victim blaming, disbelief when men disclose).14,20-22
Trans individuals experience discrimination and bias-based violence in all facets of their life, including intimate relationships, putting them at risk for complex trauma.11
Barriers to seeking help for DV/SV include limited understanding of trans IPV, stigma, and systemic inequalities.23
Abusive partners often use transphobia against them (e.g., blaming the abuse on them being trans) or deny that it exists.24
Many trans individuals, especially those of color, receive substantially less support from their family and other people,11 a problem given that social support is a primary buffer against the negative effects of DV/SV.25
Prevalence
In the U.S., bisexual women are the sexual minority group at highest risk of experiencing DV/SV. Rates of DV/SV for bisexual men, lesbian women, and gay men, however, are also quite high.26
Differential Impact Considerations
The primary drivers of differences across sexual identities are heterosexism and homophobia.
LGB people continue to face stigma, marginalization, and - as a result - internalized homophobia, all of which contribute to unique aspects of DV/SV in the LGB community (e.g. outing) and also present unique barriers to accessing services (e.g. fear of homophobia in providers, the small size of LGBTQ communities).28-30
Although bisexual women's significantly higher rates of DV/SV compared to lesbian and heterosexual women is largely understudied, research suggests several possible contributing factors: hypersexualization and cultural misunderstandings of bisexual women; lack of support and discrimination from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian communities; and higher risk for increased substance abuse.31,32
For more on best practices for working with LGBTQ IPV survivors, see here.
Prevalence
Adolescents and young adults are at highest risk for DV/SV victimization; yet, they face substantial help-seeking barriers. Below are a few important statistics:
Domestic Violence
Sexual Assault
Among women with lifetime experience of DV, 22.4% were 11-17 years old and 47.1% were 18-24 years old when they first experienced it.1
Among men with lifetime experience of DV, 15% were 11-17 years old and 38.6% were 18-24 years old when they first experienced it.1
One meta-analysis found that 20% of teens reported physical violence and 9% of teens reported sexual violence in dating relationships.33
Nearly 10% of all 18-24 year old women report experiencing physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner (down from 33.9% in 1994).34
A review of 1,039 intimate partner homicides from 2003-2016 found that the victim in 150 of those homicides were people aged 11-18 – 80% of whom were female.35
Over 1 in 14 women (7%) in the U.S. reported first experiencing completed rape before the age of 18.3
Among female victims of completed rape, the vast majority are younger than 25 years of age when the incident occurred: 37.4% were 18-24 years old, 30.1% were 11-17 years old, and 11.2% were 10 years old or younger.3
We could not find statistics on rape by age group for men; the BJS estimates that the rate for all men is 0.3 per 1000.36
Differential Impact Considerations
Adolescents and even young adults often do not recognize that they are being abused (e.g., confuse jealousy and control with love), or they think it is a normal part of adult relationships.37
Most adolescents and young adults do not disclose their experiences or access services, for fear of not being believed or getting in trouble (especially if alcohol and drugs are involved).38
Most DV shelters accept adult survivors only, and some community programs require parental consent.39
Most parents do not talk to their kids about DV and/or falsely assume that they would know if their child was experiencing DV.40
Some providers often do not consider DV to be a serious concern for adolescents and young adults.41,42
Prevalence
Although the prevalence of DV and SV is lower among older adults (65+) compared to younger age groups, it still occurs. Pervasive misperceptions that older adults are somehow immune to DV/SV is a primary barrier to intervention and help-seeking for this population.43
Domestic Violence
Sexual Violence
Elder Abuse
Note: For each of these three types of abuse against older adults, the most common assailants are family members.
Estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicate that the rate of IPV among people 50 and older ranges from 0.7 and 1.3 per 1000 people.34
A literature review found that between 0.2%-17% of older adults experience sexual violence, and that the overwhelming majority of victims are women.43 This variation in rates stems from methodological differences across studies.
In 2008, approximately 1 in 10 elders reported experiencing a form of abuse (i.e., physical or sexual) or potential neglect.44
Differential Impact Considerations
Ageism plays an important role in the differential experiences and impact of DV/SV among older adults.46
The notion that older adults are not sexually active or romantically involved can render DV/SV invisible and result in misdiagnosis and hinder proper care.46
DV/SV services, especially shelters, are often not designed to meet the needs of older survivors, leaving them with fewer options for safety and healing.39,45,46
The aging population is growing rapidly, meaning that many more older adults – some of whom are DV/SV survivors – will need services from healthcare providers.46
Prevalence
Not surprisingly, it is extremely difficult to obtain DV/SV prevalence estimates for immigrants, especially those who are undocumented.47,48 Here, we present statistics from studies with nonprobability samples.
It is estimated that at least 40-50% of immigrant women have experienced some form of IPV.47
A study using data from the MA Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that the rate of sexual assault was double that for immigrant female students compared to their nonimmigrant peers.49
Between 2002-2013, 65.9% of all homicides involving an immigrant female victim and 65.1% of homicides involving a non-immigrant female victim were committed by a male intimate partner.50
Differential Impact Considerations
Several factors make immigrant survivors especially vulnerable to DV/SV victimization:
They are more likely to be socially isolated, financially impoverished, and economically dependent upon abusive partners due to language barriers and other challenges.7,47
Fear of deportation, experiences of discrimination, feelings of shame, and lack of health insurance and knowledge of systems prevent disclosure.47,51,52
Several immigration-related abuse tactics include controlling the survivor’s ability to attain a legal immigration status, hiding or destroying documents needed for the citizenship application process, and claiming that the survivor will be deported if they call the police for help.53
Immigrant women are at heightened risk for sex trafficking and sexual exploitation, either once they arrive in the U.S. or because they were brought here by human traffickers.52,54
Prevalence
DV/SV is more prevalent among people who are financially impoverished compared to more well-resourced people.55 This relationship is due in part to its cyclical nature and the traumatic impact of poverty on people’s coping strategies and help-seeking options.
Between 2008-2012, the rate of sexual violence (rape and sexual assault) among people living in households at or below the Federal Poverty Level was nearly two times higher than those in middle-income households and more than two times higher than those in high-income households.56
Between 2008-2012, the rate of DV among people living in households at or below the Federal Poverty Level was almost four times the rate for middle- and high-income persons.56
People (especially women and undocumented people) in low-wage jobs such as those in the restaurant industry, agriculture, home care and domestic work are at particularly high risk for experiencing sexual violence and harassment due to their very vulnerable status (e.g., societal invisibility and lack of protections or recourse).57
Differential Impact Considerations
Survivors who are caught at the intersection of IPV and poverty are often trapped and have to make costly tradeoffs to survive (i.e., “survival- focused coping”).18 This means having to make tradeoffs related to their safety in order to protect important aspects of their lives that are too costly to risk losing (e.g., children, housing).
There is a powerful cyclical relationship between DV/SV and SES, especially for women. That is, poverty increases risk for DV/SV, and DV/SV increases risk for unemployment and reduced income (by causing survivors to have to take time off, interfering with their ability to concentrate, reducing effectiveness, and even triggering them.59,60
SES can dramatically impact survivors’ help-seeking behaviors. For example, although higher income survivors are as likely to use hotline services as lower-income survivors, they are far less likely to consider using a shelter.58 This difference is often due to the fact that lower-income survivors have fewer housing-related resources at their disposal, leaving them no choice but to use a shelter.
Prevalence
Prevalence estimates regarding the overlap between DV and homelessness depends on sample, data source, how DV is defined, survivor willingness to disclose, and whether the study focuses on DV as a primary risk factor for homelessness (vs. general exposure).
With these limitations in mind, it is estimated that between 15% to 50% of people who are homeless have experienced DV victimization.61-64
One study found that women who experienced past-year IPV were nearly four times more likely to experience housing instability than those without IPV.63
In a study of 737 homeless women and 91 homeless men, lifetime rape victimization was 53.9% among women and 14.3% among men.65
Differential Impact Considerations
DV/SV can lead directly to housing instability and homelessness (i.e., fleeing due to fear for safety) and indirectly lead to it (i.e., DV/SV erodes the personal and financial resources necessary to maintain stable housing).66,67
For low-income survivors, having to choose between safety or housing is often a no-win situation with costly tradeoffs for them and their children.67,68
Being homeless can increase one’s risk for sexual violence and having to engage in sex work and survival sex.65
Prevalence
People with disabilities are at increased risk for all forms of DV and SV; yet, they face considerable barriers to help-seeking than their non-disabled peers.69-71 We use the definition of disability put forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.”
Violence Generally
Sexual Violence
Domestic Violence
Depending on the type of DV, women with disabilities are anywhere from 1.8 times (psychological abuse) to 4.5 times (rape) more likely to experience DV than women without disabilities. Men with disabilities are between 1.2 times (reproductive coercion) and 4.9 times (stalking) more likely to experience DV than men without disabilities.70
Between 2011 and 2015, people with disabilities reported experiencing SV at a rate of 3.5 times higher than people without disabilities.72
Between 2011 and 2015, the rate of violent victimization for people with disabilities was 2.5 times higher than people without disabilities (except those aged 65+).72 People with cognitive disabilities experience the highest rates of violence, and people with multiple disabilities experience higher rates of violence than those with one disability.72
Differential Impact Considerations
Ableism plays an important role in the experiences and impact of DV/SV among people with physical and cognitive disabilities.
People with disabilities are often dependent on others for financial support and help with activities of daily living, making them especially vulnerable to DV/SV.69
DV/SV can cause physical and cognitive disabilities, which creates barriers to help-seeking and increases risk for continued DV/SV (including disability specific tactics) as well as other forms of victimization. 73,74
DV/SV services, especially shelters, are not designed to meet the needs of survivors with disabilities, leaving them with fewer options for safety and healing.74
Prevalence
Historically, DV/SV in rural communities has not been given the same attention as DV/SV in urban communities. Below are a few important statistics:
Sexual Violence
Domestic Violence
National estimates suggest that the prevalence of DV is similar across rural, urban, suburban areas; however, substantial differences exist according to forms of DV.75
One study found that the severity of violence was significantly higher among rural women than urban women.76
In another study, women in rural areas who were separated or divorced were at much higher risk for rape and sexual assault by a former partner (3.1/10000) as compared to their counterparts in urban (1.4/1000) and suburban areas (1.7/1000).77
Between 2005-2010, the rate of sexual violence for women ages 12+ in rural areas was 3.0 per 1,000 compared to 2.2 per 1,000 in urban areas and 1.8 per 1,000 in suburban areas.78
Differential Impact Considerations
Several unique factors of rural locales contribute to the higher prevalence and more severe impact of DV/SV in rural locales: geographic & social isolation, scarcity of services, lack of anonymity due to small communities, increased level of collective efficacy (group influence over people’s behavior), and attitudes against involving systems.75,76
People in rural areas have the highest rate of violence by other family members, suggesting less social support and multiple sources of trauma.79
Prevalence
Military-involved individuals, especially women, are at heightened risk for DV/SV. Below are a few important statistics:
Sexual Violence
Domestic Violence
31.5% of active duty women and 29.5% of wives of active duty men reported experiencing physical violence, rape, or stalking by an intimate partner.80
53.7% of active duty women and 48.6% of wives of active duty men reported experiencing psychological aggression by an intimate partner.80
9.5% of 4,729 male veterans across 8 U.S., states reported lifetime IPV (physical and sexual).81
Military Sexual Trauma (MST) can be defined as sexual assault and sexual harassment that occurs during military service.82
A meta-analysis found that 38.4% of female and 3.9% of male military personnel & veterans reported experiencing MST. Focusing on sexual assault only, percentages were as follows: 23.6% of women and 1.9% of men reported sexual assault.83
One study found that female veterans with documented prior DV victimization were 2.5 times more likely than those without DV to report experiencing MST.84
Finally, 36.3% of active duty women and 32.8% of wives of active duty men reported experiencing lifetime contact SV.80
Differential Impact Considerations
Women often enter the military already having experienced some form of DV and/or SV, which is compounded by combat trauma and active duty DV/SV victimization.85
Survivors in active duty face many barriers to reporting DV/SV. Most notably, they report to their chain of command – not the police, as civilians do.86
Other barriers include rigid hierarchy and expectations to “be tough” and “suck it up” (i.e., “warrior identity”).86
A positive: Veterans have access to occupational resources that civilians do not including integrated healthcare services through the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
This concludes the content of Unit 2. Please proceed to Unit 3.
1. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.
2. Petrosky E, Blair JM, Betz CJ, Fowler KA, Jack SPD, Lyons BH. Racial and ethnic differences in homicides of adult women and the role of intimate partner violence - United States, 2003-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2017;66(28):741-746. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6628a1.
3. Smith SG, Basile KC, Gilbert LK, et al. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2017.
4. Burnette C. Historical oppression and intimate partner violence experienced by Indigenous Women in the United States: Understanding connections. Social Service Review. 2015;89(3):531-563. doi:10.1086/683336.
5. Mehrotra GR, Kimball E, Wahab S. The braid that binds us: The impact of neoliberalism, criminalization, and professionalization on domestic violence work. Affilia. 2016;31(2):153-163. doi:10.1177/0886109916643871.
6. Richie B. Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and America's prison nation. In: New York: New York University Press; 2012.
7. Ragavan MI, Thomas KA, Fulambarker A, Zaricor J, Goodman LA, Bair-Merritt MH. Exploring the Needs and Lived Experiences of Racial and Ethnic Minority Domestic Violence Survivors Through Community-Based Participatory Research: A Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. December 2018:152483801881320–18. doi:10.1177/1524838018813204.
8. Kennedy AC, Adams A, Bybee D, Campbell R, Kubiak SP, Sullivan C. A model of sexually and physically victimized women’s process of attaining effective formal help over time: the role of social location, context, and intervention. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50:217-228. doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9494-x.
9. Langenderfer-Magruder L, Whitfield DL, Walls NE, Kattari SK, Ramos D. Experiences of Intimate partner violence and subsequent police reporting among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adults in Colorado: Comparing rates of cisgender and transgender victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2016;31(5):855-871. doi:10.1177/0886260514556767.
10. James SE, Herman JL, Rankin S, Keisling M, Mottet L, Anafi M. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality; 2016.
11. Grant JM, Mottet L, Tanis J, Harrison J, Herman JL, Keisling M. Injustice at Every Turn: a Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; 2011:1-228.
12. Stotzer RL. Violence against transgender people: A review of United States data. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2009;14(3):170-179. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.006.
13. Goodmark LS. Transgender People, Intimate Partner Abuse, and the Legal System. Harvard Civil Liberties Law Review. 2013;48:51-104.
14. Vasquez Guerrero DA. Hypermasculinity, intimate partner violence, sexual aggression, social support, and child maltreatment risk in urban, heterosexual fathers taking parenting classes. Child Welfare. 2009;88(4):135-155.
15. Guadalupe-Diaz XL, Jasinski J. “I wasn’t a priority, i wasn’t a victim”: Challenges in help seeking for transgender survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women. 2016;23(6):772-792. doi:10.1177/1077801216650288.
16. Caldwell JE, Swan SC, & Woodbrown VD. Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychology of Violence. 2012:2:42–57.
17. Herrero J, Rodríguez, FJ, & Torres A. Acceptability of partner violence in 51 societies: The role of sexism and attitudes toward violence in social relationships. Violence Against Women. 2016. 23:351–367.
18. Goodman LA, Smyth KF, Borges AM, Singer R. When crises collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to shape women's mental health and coping? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2009;10:306-329. doi:10.1177/1524838009339754.
19. American Psychological Association. APA guidelines for psychological practice with boys and men. apa.org. http://www.apa.org/about/policy/psychological-practice-boys-men-guidelines.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2019.
20. Douglas EM, Hines DA. The Helpseeking experiences of men who sustain intimate partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice. J Fam Viol. 2011;26(6):473-485. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9382-4.
21. Machado A, Santos A, Graham-Kevan N, Matos M. Exploring Help Seeking Experiences of Male Victims of Female Perpetrators of IPV. May 2017:1-11. doi:10.1007/s10896-016-9853-8.
22. Weiss KG. Male sexual victimization: Examining men’s experiences of rape and sexual assault. Men and Masculinities. 2010:12: 275–298.
23. Calton JM, Cattaneo LB, Gebhard KT. Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2016;17(5):585-600. doi:10.1177/1524838015585318.
24. Barrett BJ, Sheridan DV. Partner violence in transgender communities: What helping professionals need to know. Journal of GLBT Family Studies. 2016;13(2):137-162. doi:10.1080/1550428X.2016.1187104.
25. Sylaska KM, & Edwards KM. Disclosure of intimate partner violence to informal social support network member: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2014.15:3–21.
26. Walters ML, Chen J, Breiding MJ. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012.
27. Brewer N, Thomas KA, Higdon J. Intimate partner violence, health, sexuality, and academic performance among a national sample of undergraduates. Journal of American College Health. May 2018:683-692. doi:10.1080/07448481.2018.1454929.
28. Ard KL, Makadon HJ. Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(8):930-933. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1697-6.
29. Woulfe JM. & Goodman LA. Weaponized oppression: Identity abuse and mental health in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community. Psychology of Violence. 2020:10: 100-109.
30. Woulfe JM, Goodman LA. Identity Abuse as a tactic of violence in LGBTQ communities: Initial validation of the identity abuse measure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2018;26. doi:10.1177/0886260518760018.
31. Johnson NL, Grove M. Why us? Toward an understanding of bisexual women's vulnerability for and negative consequences of sexual violence. December 2017:1-17. doi:10.1080/15299716.2017.1364201.
32. Miller EC, Goodman LA, Thomas KA, et al. Trauma-Informed Approaches for LGBQT* Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. Cambridge, MA: GLBTQ Domestic Violence Project; 2016:1-53.
33. Wincentak K, Connolly J, Card N. Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence. 2017;7(2):224-241. doi:10.1037/a0040194.
34. Catalano S. Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2015.
35. Adhia A, Kernic MA, Hemenway D, Vavilala MS, Rivara FP. Intimate Partner Homicide of Adolescents. JAMA Pediatrics. April 2019:1-7. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0621.
36. Morgan R, Kena G. Criminal Victimization, 2016: Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2018:1-30.
37. Martin CE, Houston AM, Mmari KN, & Decker MR. Urban teens and young adults describe drama, disrespect, dating violence and help-seeking preferences. Maternal and Child Health Journal: 2012:16:957–966.
38. Sabina C, Ho LY. Campus and college victim responses to sexual assault and dating violence: Disclosure, service utilization, and service provision. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2014;15(3):201-226. doi:10.1177/1524838014521322.
39. Sullivan CM, Gillum T. Shelters and other community-based services for battered women and their children. In: Renzetti CM, Edleson JL, Bergen RK, eds. Sourcebook on Violence Against Women. 2001:247-260.
40. Futures Without Violence. The facts on tweens and teens, and dating violence. http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/userfiles/file/Teens/The%20Facts%20on%20Tweens%20and%20Teens%20and%20Dating%20Violence.pdf. Published August 28, 2013. Accessed March 7, 2019.
41. Moore A, Sargenton KM, Ferranti D, Gonzalez-Guarda RM. Adolescent Dating Violence: Supports and Barriers in Accessing Services. Journal of Community Health Nursing. 2015;32(1):39-52. doi:10.1080/07370016.2015.991668.
42. Joshi M, Thomas KA, Sorenson SB. Domestic Violence and international students: An exploratory study of the practices and role of US University International Offices. Journal of College Student Development. 2013;54(5):527-533. doi:10.1353/csd.2013.0080.
43. Bows H. Sexual Violence against older people: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2018;19(5):567-583. doi:10.1177/1524838016683455.
44. Acierno R, Hernandez MA, Amstadter AB, et al. Prevalence and correlates of emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and potential neglect in the United States: The National Elder Mistreatment Study. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(2):292-297. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.163089.
45. Meloy M, Cunningham N. Sexual Victimization and Domestic Violence Against Elderly Women. In: Renzetti CM, Edleson JL, Bergen RK, eds. Sourcebook on Violence Against Women. Vol 3. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks : SAGE; 2018:187-201.
46. Crockett C, Cooper B, Brandl B. Intersectional stigma and late-life intimate-partner and sexual violence: How social workers can bolster safety and healing for older survivors. British Journal of Social Work. 2018;48(4):1000-1013. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcy049.
47. Murshid NS, Bowen EA. A Trauma-Informed Analysis of the Violence Against Women Act’s Provisions for Undocumented Immigrant Women. Violence Against Women. 2018;24(13):1540-1556. doi:10.1177/1077801217741991.
48. Runner M, Yoshihama M, Novick S. Intimate Partner Violence in Immigrant and Refugee Communities: Challenges, Promising Practices and Recommendations. Princeton, New Jersey: Family Violence Prevention Fund and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
49. Decker MR, Raj A, Silverman JG. Sexual Violence against adolescent girls: Influences of immigration and acculturation. Violence Against Women. 2016;13(5):498-513. doi:10.1177/1077801207300654.
50. Sabri B, Campbell JC, Messing JT. Intimate partner homicides in the United States, 2003-2013: A comparison of immigrants and nonimmigrant victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. August 2018:1-23. doi:10.1177/0886260518792249.
51. Ragavan M.I, Thomas KA, Fulambarker A, Zaricor J, Goodman LA, & Bair-Merritt MH. Exploring the needs and lived experiences of racial and ethnic minority domestic violence survivors through Community-Based Participatory Research: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2018: Advance Online Publication http://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018813204
52. Raj A, Yore JB. Gender-based violence against immigrant and refugee women: Heightened vulnerabilities and barriers to help-seeking. In: Renzetti CM, Edleson JL, Bergen RK, eds. Sourcebook on Violence Against Women. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2019:135-139.
53. Sullivan K, Orloff L. Dynamics of domestic violence experienced by immigrant victims. In: Breaking Barriers a Complete Guide to Legal Rights and Resources for Battered Immigrants. Washington, DC; 2013:1-23.
54. U.S. Department of State. 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report. Washington, DC: Author
55. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt, JW, & Kim H K. A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse. 2012:3:231–280.
56. Harrell E, Langton L, Berzofsky M, Couzens L. Household Poverty and Nonfatal Violent Victimization, 2008–2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2014.
57. Kristen E, Banuelos B, Urban D. Workplace Violence and harassment of low-wage workers. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law. 2015;36(1):169-204. doi:10.2307/43551801?refreqid=search-gateway:a8942336635d0e9f0c76d0aea9cf01de.
58. Cattaneo LB, DeLoveh HLM. The role of socioeconomic status in helpseeking from hotlines, shelters, and police among a national sample of women experiencing intimate partner violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2008;78(4):413-422. doi:10.1037/a0014558.
59. O’Connor, J., & Nepomnyaschy, L. (2019). Intimate Partner Violence and Material Hardship Among Urban Mothers. Violence Against Women, 91, 107780121985453–20.
60. Loya RM. Rape as an economic crime: The Impact of sexual violence on survivors’ employment and economic well-being. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2014;30(16):2793-2813. doi:10.1177/0886260514554291.
61. The United States Conference of Mayors. Hunger and homelessness survey: A status report on hunger and homelessness in America’s cities. 2014. Washington, DC: Author.
62. Gubits D, Shinn M, Bell S, Wood M, Dastrup S. Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2015.
63. Pavao J, Alvarez J, Baumrind N, Induni M, Kimerling R. Intimate partner violence and housing instability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2007;32(2):143-146. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.10.008.
64. Stringer SM. Housing survivors: How New York City can increase housing stability for survivors of domestic violence. 2019. New York, NY: Office of the New York City Comptroller. Available at https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/housing-survivors.
65. Jasinski JL, Wesely JK, Wright JD, Mustaine EE. Hard Lives, Mean Streets: Violence in the Lives of Homeless Women. Boston: Northeastern University Press; 2010.
66. Baker CK, Billhardt KA, Warren J, Rollins C, Glass NE. Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2010;15(6):430-439. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.07.005.
67. Daoud N, Matheson FI, Pedersen C, et al. Pathways and trajectories linking housing instability and poor health among low-income women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV): Toward a conceptual framework. Women & Health. 2016;56(2):208-225. doi:10.1080/03630242.2015.1086465.
68. Thomas KA, Goodman L, Putnins S. “I have lost everything”: Trade-offs of seeking safety from intimate partner violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2015;85:170-180. doi:10.1037/ort0000044.
69. Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG. Disability and risk of recent sexual violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health. 2016;106(5):928-933. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.303004.
70. Breiding MJ, Armour BS. The association between disability and intimate partner violence in the United States. Annals of Epidemiology. 2015;25(6):455-457. doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.03.017.
71. Mitra M, Mouradian VE. Intimate Partner Violence in the Relationships of Men With Disabilities in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2014;29(17):3150-3166. doi:10.1177/0886260514534526.
72. Harrell E. Crimes Against Persons with Disabilities, 2009-2015 - Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2017.
73. Thomas KA, Joshi M, Wittenberg E, McCloskey LA. Intersections of harm and health: A qualitative study of intimate partner violence in women's lives. Violence Against Women. 2008;14(11):1252-1273. doi:10.1177/1077801208324529.
74. Austin B, Lewis J, Washington RD. Women with disabilities and interpersonal violence: A literature review. Journal of the National Society of Allied Health. 2014;(1):42-54.
75. Edwards KM. Intimate partner violence and the rural–urban–suburban divide. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2014;16(3):359-373. doi:10.1177/1524838014557289.
76. Peek-Asa C, Wallis A, Harland K, Beyer K, Dickey P, Saftlas A. Rural Disparity in Domestic Violence Prevalence and Access to Resources. Journal of Women's Health. 2011;20(11):1743-1749. doi:10.1089/jwh.2011.2891.
77. Rennison CM, DeKeseredy WS. Urban, Suburban, and Rural Variations in Separation/Divorce Rape/Sexual Assault: Results From the National Crime Victimization Survey. Feminist …. 2012.
78. Planty M, Langton L, Krebs C, Berzofsky ME, Smiley-McDonald H. Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2016.
79. Truman JL, Morgan RE. Nonfatal Domestic Violence, 2003-2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2014.
80. Black MC, Merrick MT. Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence, Stalking, and Sexual Violence Among Active Duty Women and Wives of Active Duty Men - Comparisons with Women in the U.S. General Population, 2010. March 2013.
81. Cerulli C, Bossarte RM, Dichter ME. Exploring intimate partner violence status among male veterans and associated health outcomes. Am J Mens Health. 2013;8(1):66-73. doi:10.1177/1557988313492558.
82. Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response. Department of Defense Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military Fiscal Year 2017. Washington, DC: Author; 2018:1-26.
83. Wilson LC. The prevalence of military sexual trauma. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2017;161:152483801668345–14. doi:10.1177/1524838016683459.
84. Dichter ME, Marcus SC. Intimate partner violence victimization among women veterans: Health, health care service use, and opportunities for intervention. Military Behavioral Health. 2013;1(2):107-113. doi:10.1080/21635781.2013.830062.
85. Gerber MR, Iverson KM, Dichter ME, Klap R, Latta RE. Women Veterans and intimate partner violence: Current state of knowledge and future directions. Journal of Women's Health. 2014;23(4):302-309. doi:10.1089/jwh.2013.4513.
86. Dichter ME, Wagner C, True G. Women veterans’ experiences of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual assault in the context of military service: Implications for supporting women’s Health and Well-Being. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2018;33(6):843-864. doi:10.1177/0886260516669166.