For my Resilience Building course, I created a multi-level resilience intervention for LGBTQ+ survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). IPV can lead to the infringement of human rights, physical injuries, poor mental health outcomes, and familial disturbances, making it a critical public health issue to address (Patra et al., 2018). This intervention was designed to be implemented in North Carolina, as it has some of the highest rates of IPV when compared to other states, with nearly 44% of women and 19% of men being victims of IPV at some point (World Population Review, 2021). The targeted population in the North Carolina community is sexual and gender minorities, as Chen et al. (2020) suggest the rates of victimization from IPV are higher among lesbian and bisexual women than heterosexual women and gay and bisexual men than heterosexual men. Some of the unique issues faced by the LGBTQ+ community when dealing with IPV include threats of disclosure to family, friends, coworkers, etc.; use of homophobia, transphobia, and the like to exert control; stigma regarding sexual orientation or gender identity within organizations serving survivors; organizations not being equipped to support LGBTQ+ survivors; and a lack of protections for survivors in non-heteronormative relationships (Calton et al., 2016). Calton and colleagues (2016) also discuss some of the specific barriers and discrimination faced within different parts of the system that assist survivors, such as the civil court, law enforcement, prosecution, and emergency shelter. This informed the design of this intervention at all levels.
Ditcher and Rhodes conducted a cross-sectional study to identify use of, interest in, and need for various social services among women survivors of IPV. This provided the direction for the individual level of my intervention using the following: individual counseling; financial assistance to purchase necessities such as food and clothing; employment assistance through job identification, resume building, and interview preparation; and safe and affordable long-term housing. Hope and perceived control are central to all services, as these have been associated with increased resilience in this population (Munoz et al., 2017). Meyer (2015) warns that an excessive focus individual-level interventions contributes to victim-blaming and diminishes the protection of minority populations, so effort was made to fully address the needs of the LGBTQ+ population at every level of the socio-ecological model. Social support is one of the key protective factors associated with resilience to IPV, making it the staple of the relationship-level intervention (Howell et al., 2018). Peer support in this intervention has two parts. Large peer support groups will be facilitated by trained professionals and provide a safe space for survivors to share their stories and a peer-mentor program will pairs survivors together for the creation of short and long-term goals using SMART goal objectives. The community level will incorporate working with stakeholders in the community and improving its capacity to provide the individual level services mentioned previously. An additional staple of the community intervention will include training professionals that will work survivors of IPV on how to provide trauma-informed and LGBTQ+ specific care, as the overwhelming majority of these professionals recognize they are not equipped to support LGBTQ+ survivors (Ford et al., 2013). This includes online and print materials tailored to their organization and invitations to monthly in-person training sessions. The focus of the societal level is amending North Carolina hate crime policy, as it does not currently cover crimes against sexual and gender minorities (Ethnic Intimidation, 1991). This would enable LGBTQ+ individuals to have better protections seeking legal action or support services after IPV.
References
Calton, J. M., Cattaneo, L. B., & Gebhard, K. T. (2016). Barriers to help seeking for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 585–600.
Chen, J., Walters, M. L., Gilbert, L. K., & Patel, N. (2020). Sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence by sexual orientation, United States. Psychology of violence, 10(1), 110.
Dichter, M. E., & Rhodes, K. V. (2011). Intimate partner violence survivors’ unmet social service needs. Journal of Social Service Research, 37(5), 481–489.
Ford, C. L., Slavin, T., Hilton, K. L., & Holt, S. L. (2013). Intimate partner violence prevention services and resources in Los Angeles: Issues, needs, and challenges for assisting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients. Health promotion practice, 14(6), 841-849.
Howell, K. H., Thurston, I. B., Schwartz, L. E., Jamison, L. E., & Hasselle, A. J. (2018). Protective factors associated with resilience in women exposed to intimate partner violence. Psychology of violence, 8(4), 438.
Meyer, I. H. (2015). Resilience in the study of minority stress and health of sexual and gender minorities. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(3), 209–213.
Munoz, R. T., Brady, S., & Brown, V. (2017). The psychology of resilience: A model of the relationship of locus of control to hope among survivors of intimate partner violence. Traumatology, 23(1), 102.
Patra, P., Prakash, J., Patra, B., & Khanna, P. (2018). Intimate partner violence: Wounds are deeper. Indian journal of psychiatry, 60(4), 494.
World Population Review. (2021). Domestic violence by state 2021. https://worldpopulationreview....ic-violence-by-state.
Comments (0)