“You Do Not Think of Me as a Human Being”: Race and Gender Inequities Intersect to Discourage Police Reporting of Violence against Women
Intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence (SV) are drivers of women’s morbidity and mortality in urban environments yet remain among the most underreported crimes in the USA. We conducted 26 in-depth interviews with women who experienced past-year IPV or SV, to explore structural and community influences on police contact in Baltimore, MD. Results indicate that gender-based and race-based inequities intersected at the structural and community levels to discourage women from police contact following IPV/SV. Structural influences on police reporting included police discriminatory police misconduct, perceived lack of concern for citizens, power disparities, fear of harm from police, and IPV/SV-related minimization and victim-blaming. Community social norms of police avoidance discouraged police contact, enforced by stringent sanctions. The intersectional lens contextualizes a unique paradox for Black women: the fear of unjust harm to their partners through an overzealous and racially motivated police response and the simultaneous sense of futility in a justice system that may not sufficiently prioritize IPV/SV. This study draws attention to structural race and gender inequities in the urban public safety environment that shape IPV/SV outcomes. Race-based inequity undermines women’s safety and access to justice and pits women’s safety against community priorities of averting police contact and disproportionate incarceration. A social determinants framework is valuable for understanding access to justice for IPV/SV. Enhancing access to justice for IPV/SV requires overcoming deeply entrenched racial discrimination in the justice sector, and historical minimization of violence against women.
KeywordsIntimate partner violence Sexual violence Police Disparities
This study was supported by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative, which is funded by a grant from the Bloomberg Philanthropies (Spark Award, Decker), with additional support from the Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (T76MC00003), and National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (1L60MD012089-01, Holliday; 5U54MD000214-17). We wish to thank our participants for trusting us with their experiences, and we thank our reviewers for exceptionally thoughtful input.
MRD and CNH designed the study and wrote the first draft; RS and ZH contributed to writing. ZH, RS, CNH led data collection and analysis with oversight from MRD.
JM, JD, and LG provided contextual oversight, ongoing interpretation of results, and substantive revisions to the article.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
- 1.Smith SG, Zhang X, Basile KC, et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.; 2018.Google Scholar
- 4.Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Leading Causes of Death in Females, 2015. 2018. Accessed 08/01/2018.Google Scholar
- 5.Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.Google Scholar
- 6.Jack SPD, Petrosky E, Lyons BH, et al. Surveillance for Violent Deaths - National Violent Death Reporting System, 27 States, 2015. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Surveill Summ. 2018;67(11):1–32.Google Scholar
- 7.USAID., US Department of State. United States Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-Based Violence Globally. USAID and Department of State, Government of the United States of America; 2012.Google Scholar
- 9.Truman JL, Morgan RE. Criminal Victimization, 2015. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; 2016.Google Scholar
- 10.Langton L, Berzofsky M, Krebs C, Smiley-McDonald H. National Crime Victimization Survey: Victimizations Not Reported To Police, 2006-2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice; 2012.Google Scholar
- 14.McGregor MJ, Wiebe E, Marion SA, Livingstone C. Why don’t more women report sexual assault to the police? Can Med Assoc J. 2000;162(5):659–60.Google Scholar
- 15.Zweig JM, Newmark L, Raja D, Denver M. Sexual Assault Medical Forensic Exams and VAWA 2005. Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2014.Google Scholar
- 17.Fagan J. The Criminalization of DomesticViolence: Promises and Limits. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 1996.Google Scholar
- 20.Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ Chic Leg Forum. 1989;140:139–67.Google Scholar
- 26.Roberts DE. The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Rev. 2004;56(5):1271–305.Google Scholar
- 34.Sakala L. Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2010 Census: State-by-State Incarceration Rates by Race/Ethnicity. Justice Policy Institute; 2014.Google Scholar
- 35.The Right Investment? Corrections Spending in Baltimore City. Prison Policy Intiative at the Justice Policy Institute; 2015.Google Scholar
- 36.US Department of Justice. Investigation of the Baltimore City Police Department. Washington, DC.: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division; 2016.Google Scholar
- 37.Fenton J. City Rape Statistics, Investigations Draw Concern. Baltimore Sun. June 27, 2010.Google Scholar
- 38.Taylor SJ, Bogdan R, DeVault ML. Introduction to qualitative research methods : a guidebook and resource. 4th ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2016.Google Scholar
- 39.Creswell JW, Creswell JD. Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 2018.Google Scholar
- 40.Glaser B, Strauss A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter; 1967.Google Scholar
- 41.Charmaz K. Grounded Theory Methods in Social Justice Research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, eds. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2011:359-380Google Scholar
- 45.Department of Justice. Identifying and Preventing Gender Bias in Law Enforcement Response to Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. Department of Justice; 2016.Google Scholar
- 46.COPS Office. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing Implementation Guide: Moving from Recommendations to Action. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; 2015.Google Scholar
- 47.Goodmark L. Decriminalizing Domestic Violence. Oakland, CA: University of California Press; 2018.Google Scholar
- 48.Braithwaite J. Restorative justice & responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002.Google Scholar
- 49.Goodmark L. Innovative criminal justice responses to intimate partner violence. In: Renzetti CM, Edleson JL, Bergen RK, editors. Sourcebook on Violence Against Women. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE; 2018.Google Scholar
- 50.Coker DK. Transformative justice: anti-subordination processes in cases of domestic violence. In: Strang H, Braithwaite J, editors. Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002.Google Scholar