The document discusses intimate partner violence (IPV) and provides statistics on its prevalence. It notes that IPV disproportionately impacts LGBT and immigrant populations. IPV occurs across demographic groups but language barriers, social isolation, and threats to immigration status make immigrant populations especially vulnerable. The document also examines IPV within same-sex couples and differences in legal protections and community resources available. It outlines government programs and funding aimed at addressing IPV through prevention, research, victim services and promoting coordinated community responses.

1. Andrew Lindstad
Angie Sands
Team Research Assignment: Final Analysis
February 24, 2011
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a significant problem in urban areas including Denver
with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimating 1.3 million women being victims
of physical assault by an intimate partner each year (“Costs of Intimate Partner Violence,” 2003).
Statistics compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Smith & Farole, 2009) show that in the
largest metropolitan areas of the United States, 83% of all domestic violence case that are
prosecuted involve IPV. The overwhelming majority of defendants are men and victims women
(84%), while 4% of defendants and women are of the same gender, roughly representative of the
amount of same sex couples as in the general population. Nearly half of these cases involved a
defendant with a violent history toward the victim (46%). A witness was present in nearly half of
the cases and in half of those cases, the witness was a child.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics (Smith & Farole, 2009) also report demographically,
roughly equal percent of white, Hispanic, and black were victims of IPV. However, other studies
in immigrant Latina and Asian communities have also documented higher rates of IPV and
sexual assault than those reported by U.S. residents as a whole (30-50% as compared to 25%)
(Hass, Ammar, & Orloff, 2006). Nearly 60% of all defendants and victims were younger adults,
between ages 18 to 34. Nearly 60% of all incidence of IPV occurred in a residence shared by
both the victim and the defendant. Twenty-one percent of IPV occurred in the home of the
victim, but not shared with the defendant (Smith & Farole, 2009).

2. Domestic violence cuts across all races, cultures, religions, ages, sexual orientations, and
socioeconomic groups. The problem however, is even more pronounced in the LGBT (Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) and immigrant populations. Studies indicate that between 42-
79% of gay men have experienced some form of domestic violence, including IPV. Studies also
indicate that between 25-50% of lesbians experienced some form of domestic violence, including
IPV. These statistics include parent/child abuse as well, but, regardless of the relationship of the
perpetrator, one thing is clear: Gay men and women in the United States experience domestic
violence at an alarming rate (Burke & Owen, 2006).
There are approximately 700,000 same-gender couples living together in the United
States (Marray, Mobley, Buford, & Seaman-DeJohn, 2006-07). Same-gender intimate partners
may be defined as “two persons of gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation who currently
share an important affective interpersonal relationship, typically characterized by romantic,
sexual, emotional, and other connections (Marray, Mobley, Buford, & Seaman-DeJohn, 2006-
07).” Jealousy, dependency, and power imbalances correlate with exploitive and manipulative
behavior in same-gender abusive relationships (Marray, Mobley, Buford, & Seaman-DeJohn,
2006-07). The degree of violence correlates to the amount of dependency (Marray, Mobley,
Buford, & Seaman-DeJohn, 2006-07). The stress of being a sexual minority is also cited as a
cause of increased violence in same-gender couples (Marray, Mobley, Buford, & Seaman-
DeJohn, 2006-07).
There are differences in legal and community services available to victims of same
gender IPV (Brown & Groscup, 2008). Thirty states have domestic violence laws that cover
same gender relationships. Fourteen restrict protection to only household members. Six explicitly
exclude same gender relationships from domestic violence laws. Social services are often ill-

3. equipped to serve male victims (Brown & Groscup, 2008). Additionally, several surveys indicate
a strong bias in mental health professionals against gays and lesbians (Brown & Groscup, 2008).
Burke and Owen identify three stages of the cycle of violence. The first is the escalation
stage, marked by increased arguments or employing the “silent treatment.” The second is the
acute battering stage, where the victim is physically assaulted. The third stage is the calming
stage, where the perpetrator is apologetic. These stages then repeat in a cycle, often increasing in
intensity and duration (Burke & Owen, 2006).
In IPV involving people of the same gender compared to different gender, the defendant
is more likely to be using drugs or alcohol during the encounter, the victim is more likely to
sustain injury, there is less likelihood to have any evidence obtained from the crime scene, and
less likely for there to have been a violent history within the relationship. Additionally, a higher
percentage of same gender IPV cases result in acquittal, are dismissed, or result in a no
prosecution than differing gender IPV cases. Also, a much larger percentage of those convicted
of same gender IPV domestic violence serve a prison sentence, as opposed to jail or probation,
than those convicted of differing gender IPV domestic violence charges (Smith & Farole, 2009).
Scholars have identified four major patterns of same gender IPV.
1. Common couple violence, which is low in frequency, unlikely to escalate over
time, and is usually mutual between the partners;
2. Intimate terrorism, which may escalate over time, may result is serious injury, is
more frequent than common couple violence, and involves one partner exerting control
over another;

4. 3. Violent resistance, which is similar to self-defense;
4. Mutual violent control, which is both partners striving for control through intimate
terrorism (Potoczniak, Mourot, Crosbie-Burnett, & Potoczniak, 2003).
Within this context are several myths that are prevalent regarding same gender IPV. First,
social norms dictate gender roles, which preclude same gender IPV. Men should not be
vulnerable and should be able to defend himself against another man. Additionally, women
should not be violent, therefore, women can be abused by men but not by another woman.
Because of these myths, a person seeking to assist a victim of same gender IPV may perceive the
IPV as mutual in female on female IPV or have trouble identifying a victim in male on male IPV.
For example, 78% of victims in female on female violence reported fighting back in self-defense.
The high percentage of self-defense perpetuates the idea that the perpetrator and victim share
equal blame (Potoczniak, Mourot, Crosbie-Burnett, & Potoczniak, 2003).
Second is the issue of homonegativity. A recent survey revealed attitudes of domestic
violence resource provider point to inherent biases against homosexuals. The survey revealed
attitudes that homosexuals have a lower moral character than heterosexuals. The survey also
indicated that same sex rape was viewed as less serious than opposite sex rape and should
receive a lesser penalty (Potoczniak, Mourot, Crosbie-Burnett, & Potoczniak, 2003).
Especially vulnerable to IPV as well, are immigrant populations. IPV in immigrant
populations often occurs amidst confusion of legal rights, communication difficulties, and the
stress of integrating into a new environment. These differences specific to immigrant populations
can have impacts in the following ways:

5. • Limited language proficiency. Perpetrators may use their ability to fluently speak English
to act as the family's sole communicator, further silencing the victim. Language barriers may
also prevent victims from seeking help.
• Disparities in economic and social resources. Uneven resources available to foreign-
born people make immigrants especially vulnerable to their partner's power and control. Such
examples may include marriages to U.S. military employees and international dating services.
• Social isolation. Many refugees may be isolated within their communities with beliefs
about male dominance and shame and fear. They may also be isolated within the U.S. culture
without knowledge of their rights or financial independence.
• Immigration status. Abusers can further reduce a victim's options by using threats of
deportation or scare them into thinking they could be deported if they seek help. Many refugee
victim's lack accurate information about their legal status, giving perpetrator's another control
tactic (Runner, Yoshihama, & Novick, 2009).
Although more research is needed specific to cultural subgroups, the lifetime prevalence
of domestic violence rates against immigrant women are said to be higher than that of the U.S.
general population level of 22.1% (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). In addition to problems of
underreporting, IPV in immigrant populations can be difficult to address because of what a report
by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (2009) refers to as the “trust vs. prevention” paradox
where “acknowledging IPV as a problem is viewed as detrimental to the collective survival” of
many immigrant communities (Runner, Yoshihama, & Novick, 2009). This can make the goal of
changing community members’ attitudes and social norms to preventing IPV exponentially
challenging.

6. Immigrant populations as compared to other victims of IPV differ in several ways as well.
Ensuring the ability to overcome language barriers and cultural incompetence experienced by
volunteers and employees are only a couple challenges addressed in providing services to
immigrant victims of IPV. Compounded trust issues and cultural expectations surrounding IPV
in many immigrant communities oftentimes also requires a different approach.
“Traditional/cultural norms, concerns about the role of a woman... obligation to keep the family
together, and concerns about not having value in the community as a single woman were
pervasive factors that kept battered women from leaving their abusers” (Hass, Ammar, & Orloff,
2006). In order to maintain trust and stay intact with the community, some service providers
intentionally choose not to identify themselves as working toward IPV prevention and instead
focused on providing other self-sufficiency services such as employment assistance, language
classes, and driving courses. These services are hoped to create an atmosphere where victims
feel safe enough to disclose information about abuse (Runner, Yoshihama, & Novick, 2009).
One common misconception about IPV in immigrant populations involves the
assumption that the majority of perpetrators are immigrants as well. However, a study done by
AYUDA (Hass, Ammar, & Orloff, 2006) contradicted this assumption by showing that of 64%
of immigrant victims were married to and abused by U.S. citizens with 52.2% of perpetrators
being American born. This data highlighted a pattern of nearly triple the abuse rate than the
general population when a U.S. citizen is married to a foreign spouse. This revelation helped
pave the way for government response through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
The VAWA was first implemented in 1994 and included protection and assistance
specifically for immigrant survivors of IPV. It was again reauthorized in 2005 to broaden its
scope to include more categories of immigrants and expand its services. Through such

7. provisions as providing legal services to victims of IPV regardless of their immigration status,
allowing immigrants married to U.S. Citizens to self-petition for immigrant status rather than
relying on their spouses, and providing U-Visas which offer a legal immigration status to victims
willing to aid in abuse investigations, VAWA aims to address some of the issues used to further
abuse of immigrants (Hass, Ammar, & Orloff, 2006).
Through the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services, the government
funds VAWA programs with President Obama requesting $649.36 million dollars for FY2011.
The largest amounts ($210.00 million) were allocated to Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors
(STOP) program, which focuses on the criminal justice's response to violence against women,
and Grant's for Battered Women's Shelters totaling $130.05 million (U.S.Cong., Congressional
Research Service, 2010). Along with the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA)
which focuses on shelters and outreach, and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) which is a fund
derived directly from fines and penalties paid by offenders and is then distributed to support state
and local programs, these three funding routes work together to create a comprehensive approach
to tackling the issue of IPV (FY 2009 Appropriation Briefing Book, 2008).
National strategies to address IPV generally focus on prevention, research, and evaluation
of coordinated community responses (CCR). A CCR is an organized effort which implements a
coordinating, multidisciplinary approach to prevent and respond to IPV. It works to coordinate
law enforcement, public health, courts, religious organizations and a variety of service providers
to persecute offenders while reducing the rate of recurrence and provide services to victims of
IPV. (United States, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention).

8. (United States, Department of
Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention).
On the local level, Federal money is often allocated through grants to organizations such
as Gateway Battered Women’s Services and…
National Level: Centers for
Disease Control and
Prevention
• Funds State Domestic
Violence Coalitions (SDVC) in
14 states
• Leads the national DELTA
Program byprovidingtools,
training, and technical
assistance to enable SDVCs
to support andevaluate IPV
primarypreventionefforts in
their states
• Conducts a cross-site
evaluationof effectiveness
of trainingandtechnical
assistance activities
State Level: State
Domestic Violence
Coalitions
•Fund CCRs in their states
Provide tools, training, and
technical assistance to funded
CCRs to promote primary
preventionandto build
capacityto plan, implement,
and evaluate primary
preventionstrategies and
activities
Work with state leadership to
buildcapacity(e.g.,
leadership, expertise, data
collectionsystems, and
evaluationprocesses) for
primary
preventionof IPV
Local Level: Coordinated
Community Responses
• Conduct data-driven
planning to identifyIPV
prevention needs intheir
communities
• Develop, implement, and
evaluate evidence-supported
primarypreventionstrategies
• Buildlocal support for
primaryprevention

9. While the prevalence and underlying causes of same-gender IPV parallel those in opposite-
gender IPV, the response is clearly different. The availability of resources for victims of same-
gender IPV and its understanding by those who work with IPV victims is limited. This study will
examine one program dedicated to same-gender IPV, the Colorado Anti-Violence Program, and
its response to a unique social problem.
Bibliography
Brown, M. J., & Groscup, J. (2008). Perceptions of Same-sex Domestic Violence Among Crisis
Center Staff. Journal of Family Violence, 87-93.
Burke, T. W., & Owen, S. S. (2006). Same-sex Domestic Violence: Is Anyone Listening? The
Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 6-7.
FY 2009 Appropriations Briefing Book (Rep.). (2008, February 5). Retrieved March 01, 2011,
from National Coalition Against Domestic Violence website:
www.ncadv.org/files/BriefingBookFY2009.pdf.
Hass, G. A., Ammar, N., & Orloff, L. (2006, April 24). Battered Immigrants and U.S. Citizen
Spouses. Legal Momentum. Retrieved February 20, 2010, from
http://action.legalmomentum.org/site/DocServer/dvusc.pdf?docID=314
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(2003). Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta,
GA. Retrieved February 20, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-
res/ipv_cost/ipv.htm
Runner, M., Yoshihama, M., & Novick, S. (2009, March). Intimate Partner Violence in
Immigrant and Refugee Communities: Challenges, Promising Practices, and
Recommendations. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Retrieved February 23, 2011,
from http://new.vawnet.org/category/index_pages.php?category_id=908
Smith, E. L., & Farole, J. D. (2009, October). Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in
Large Urban Areas Counties. Retrieved February 22, 2011, from Bureau of Justic
Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pipvcluc.pdf
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000, July). Extent, Nature, and (National Institutes of Justice,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Retrieved February 20, 2010, from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf

10. United States, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. (n.d.). The DELTA Program: Preventing Intimate Partner Violence in the
United States. Retrieved February 23, 2011, from
www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/DELTA_AAG-a.pdf
U.S.Cong., Congressional Research Service. (2010, February 26). Violence Against Women Act:
History and Federal Funding (G. P. Laney, Author) [Cong. Rept. RL30871]. Retrieved
February 23, 2011, from assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL30871_20100226.pdf.