The Impact of Mandatory Reporting Laws on Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Intersectionality, Help-Seeking and the Need for Change

Abstract

Research illustrates the importance of help-seeking for intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors. However, mandatory reporting (MR) laws can affect help-seeking by requiring some sources of support to report survivors to formal systems. This convergent mixed methods study of 2462 survivors surveyed through the National Domestic Violence Hotline explores how MR laws impact survivors’ help-seeking, the outcomes of their help-seeking, and whether their race, gender, and/or sexual orientation influenced their experiences. Findings indicated that MR laws reduce help-seeking for over a third of survivors, provider warnings about MR often reduce survivors’ ability to receive the support they seek, and reports when triggered make the situation worse for most survivors. Significant differences emerged by gender identity and race/ethnicity, emphasizing unique contexts for trans and gender non-conforming survivors and survivors of color. We provide policy and practice implications given these unintended harms of MR laws for IPV survivors.

Full text

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Impact of Mandatory Reporting Laws on Survivors of Intimate
Partner Violence: Intersectionality, Help-Seeking and the Need
for Change
Carrie Lippy
1
&Selima N. Jumarali
2
&Nkiru A. Nnawulezi
2
&Emma Peyton Williams
3
&Connie Burk
4
Published online: 3 December 2019
#The Author(s) 2019
Abstract
Research illustrates the importance of help-seeking for intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors. However, mandatory reporting
(MR) laws can affect help-seeking by requiring some sources of support to report survivors to formal systems. This convergent
mixed methods study of 2462survivors surveyed through the National Domestic Violence Hotline explores how MRlaws impact
survivors’help-seeking, the outcomes of their help-seeking, and whether their race, gender, and/or sexual orientation influenced
their experiences. Findings indicated that MR laws reduce help-seeking for over a third of survivors, provider warnings about MR
often reduce survivors’ability to receive the support they seek, and reports when triggered make the situation worse for most
survivors. Significant differences emerged by gender identity and race/ethnicity, emphasizing unique contexts for trans and
gender non-conforming survivors and survivors of color. We provide policy and practice implications given these unintended
harms of MR laws for IPV survivors.
Keywords Intimate partner violence .Survivors .Domestic violence .Mandatory reporting .Help-seeking .Intersectionality .
LGBTQ .Race/ethnicity .Gender identity
Introduction
More than 36% (43.6 million) of women in the United States
have experienced stalking, physical abuse and/or sexual vio-
lence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime
(Smith et al. 2018). According to the CDC, these rates were
higher for women and men of color as compared to their
White counterparts (Breiding et al. 2014), and lesbian, gay,
and bisexuals have as high if not higher rates of IPV compared
to their heterosexual counterparts (Walters et al. 2013). The
limited research on IPV for gender minorities suggests that
transgender people experience IPV at higher rates than
cisgender people (Langenderfer-Magruder et al. 2016). The
high rates of IPV emphasize the need for all survivors to be
able to access the support they need. Evidence suggests, how-
ever, that mandatory reporting (MR) laws can affect the help-
seeking strategies of survivors (Jordan and Pritchard 2018).
The current study takes an intersectional approach to examine
how MR affects the help-seeking behaviors of and outcomes
for survivors. The following review of literature will 1) de-
scribe MR laws and their connection with IPV and 2) outline
intersectionality and its importance for the current study.
Mandatory Reporting
Mandatory Reporting (MR) is a set of U.S. federal and state
laws that require specific individuals to report actual or
suspected abuse to a legal or governmental agency (Jordan
and Pritchard 2018). These laws address multiple types of
abuse and harms, including: 1) crime-related injuries deriving
from use of a weapon, 2) child abuse, neglect or exploitation,
3) elder abuse, neglect or exploitation, and 4) domestic vio-
lence or sexual assault (Jordan and Pritchard 2018). The in-
tentions of MR laws are to protect vulnerable populations who
may otherwise be unable to protect themselves and to respond
to violence that often occurs in the private sphere (Jordan and
*Carrie Lippy
clippy@nwnetwork.org
1
Northwest Network of Bi, Trans, Lesbian and Gay Survivors of
Abuse, P.O. Box 18436, Seattle, WA 98118, USA
2
University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA
3
Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH, USA
4
Yeha:wi Cultural Services, Mother Nation, Seattle, WA, USA
Journal of Family Violence (2020) 35:255–267
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00103-w
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Pritchard 2018). MR laws vary state to state as to which of the
aforementioned harms are reportable and who must report
them. For example, most states specify that healthcare pro-
fessional must report crime-related injuries (Durborow
et al. 2013), whereas many more professionals are mandat-
ed to report child abuse and neglect, often including social
workers, school officials, health and mental health profes-
sionals, child care workers, and clergy (Child Welfare
Information Gateway 2016a). In fact, in 18 states and
Puerto Rico, all persons above the age of 18, regardless
of profession, are required to report suspected child abuse
or neglect (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2016a). In
the section below, we explain the relevancy and impact of
these multiple types of MR laws for IPV survivors.
Mandatory Reporting and IPV Survivors may come into con-
tact with MR in multiple ways. First, the majority of states
have MR laws requiring health care providers to report IPV-
related injuries; only four of those states allow survivors to
refuse the report (Durborow et al. 2013). Second, some states
include domestic violence advocates as mandatory reporters
(Child Welfare Information Gateway 2016a), which can lead
survivor-parents to feel at risk of being reported and under
constant surveillance while at a shelter (Fauci and Goodman
2019). Third, survivors who are abused with the use of
weapons and seek medical help may have their injuries report-
ed based on MR laws for crime-related injuries (Jordan and
Pritchard 2018). Fourth, most U.S. states have expansive MR
laws related to child abuse or neglect that include child expo-
sure to domestic violence (CEDV) as a form of harm to chil-
dren (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2016b). Finally, in
the aforementioned 18 states and Puerto Rico, MR laws turn
members of survivors’informal support network (i.e., friends,
family, acquaintances) into mandated reporters. Thus, survi-
vors seeking help from both formal (e.g., healthcare providers,
court systems, IPV advocates) and informal supports can po-
tentially trigger a mandated report.
Research on the intersection of MR and IPV highlights
negative consequences these laws can have for IPV survivors’
help-seeking from formal sources of support. Survivors, for
example, may not seek the medical care they need or withhold
medically-relevant information to avoid triggering a report
against themselves or their abuser (Durborow et al. 2013;
Jordan and Pritchard 2018). In addition, some survivors delay
or avoid seeking help for IPV from formal services, even IPV-
specific services, because they fear that disclosing their expe-
rience of IPV will lead to court involvement and child removal
(DeVoe and Smith 2003).
A review of the literature confirms survivors’fears; studies
show that child welfare cases related to DV are more likely to
result in child removal and out-of-home placement compared
to cases related to other issues (Ogbonnaya and Pohle 2013).
Survivors who have called the police to remove their abuser
from the home have had their child taken away or were forced
to plead guilty to child neglect in court (DeVoe and Smith
2003). Black survivors are disproportionately impacted based
on overrepresentation of Black children in the child welfare
system (Girardet et al. 2016). Mothers of color are also more
likely to be referred to CPS for IPV-related concerns relative
to White mothers who are more likely to be referred for mental
health and other issues (Dosanjh et al. 2008). A recent study
showed that even IPV advocates note CPS’systemic and neg-
ative biases against mothers of color surviving violence
(Goodman et al. 2019).
Even though all adults are mandated reporters in over a
third of U.S. states, we identified no prior research examining
the impact of MR laws on survivors’help-seeking from infor-
mal supports. Informal networks are very important for survi-
vors: survivors turn first and most often to friends and family
for support for IPV (Sylaska and Edwards 2014; Trotter and
Allen 2009). This is especially true for survivors of marginal-
ized backgrounds because of the disparate treatment they can
receive from formal sources of support, such as the court sys-
tems (Calton et al. 2016; Deutsch et al. 2017), social service
agencies (Kanuha 2005), and law enforcement (Richie 2012;
Hirschel et al. 2007).
Research on survivors’perspectives of MR laws is mixed.
Much of the research in this area dates from the late 1990s and
early 2000s and shows that whereas some survivors are opti-
mistic about supports resulting from MR, others feared that a
report would increase retaliation from their partner (see Coulter
and Chez 1997;Gielenetal.2000). More recent research gen-
erates similar findings of ambivalence about MR laws. One
study illustrates survivors’general support for the law while
remaining split about whether survivors should be able to pre-
vent a report and whether the report could increase the likeli-
hood of abuse (Antle et al. 2010). Another study demonstrates
that survivors are against mandating medical reporting until
system-level changes are made that enhance survivors’safety
(Sullivan and Hagen 2005). One recent study shows that al-
though only a small percentage of survivors opposed manda-
tory reporting outright, nearly two in five were less likely to
seek help from a domestic violence shelter had they known
theywouldbereported(JordanandPritchard2018).
Survivors’racial and language backgrounds may influence
their perceptions of MR, particularly because survivors’cultur-
al backgrounds influence their disclosure of IPV (Ahrens et al.
2010). That is, cultural values such as prioritizing family well-
being over one’s own, taboos against discussing sex and abuse,
and traditional beliefs about marriage make it difficult to iden-
tify and disclose abuse (Ahrens et al. 2010).
Intersectionality
Understanding the full complexity of MR’simpactonIPV
survivors requires the utilization of an intersectional
256 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

framework. Intersectionality is a structural framework and prax-
is that calls attention to the simultaneous and compounded im-
pacts of oppression across multiple dimensions of identity
(Collins and Bilge 2016). It highlights the need for a structural
analysis of hierarchies created by systems of power and privi-
lege in order to accurately describe the experiences of all people
and especially those multiply marginalized (Collins and Bilge
2016). A structural analysis of the impact of MR on IPV survi-
vors requires consideration of the multiple systems involved in
the experiences of IPV survivors (e.g., criminal legal, housing,
healthcare, immigration) and a recognition that survivors navi-
gate those systems differently basedontheintersectionofmul-
tiple dimensions of their identities.
Additionally, intersectionality challenges some of the ho-
mogenizing tendencies of research by moving away from
monolithic categories and identities —like “IPV survivors”—
and examining potential subgroup differences (Dill and
Zambrana 2009). This allows the development of a more nu-
anced and contextualized understanding of survivors’experi-
ences. Little research to date on MR’s impact on survivors
examines within group differences on the basis of
race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Current Study
Taken together, Mandatory Reporting (MR) laws influence
survivors’ability to seek and receive support. Studies point
broadly to the inhibiting effect of MR laws on survivors’help-
seeking from certain formal supports; however, none examine
the effects on help-seeking broadly across multiple sources of
formal and informal supports. Other studies highlight the neg-
ative impact of law enforcement and child welfare systems for
survivors, but they do not explore survivors’experiences with
these systems in the context of MR laws specifically. Further,
we found very few studies that considered demographic group
differences in their analysis of the impact of MR on IPV sur-
vivors. Given the disproportionate impact that MR laws may
have on communities of color and LGBTQ communities, it is
especially critical to understand if and how these laws differ-
entially affect survivors. The current study examined the in-
fluence of MR laws on the help-seeking behaviors of survi-
vors of violence. Using a convergent mixed methods design,
we sought to answer the following: (1) how does mandatory
reporting affect help-seeking behaviors and the outcomes of
these behaviors for IPV survivors? (2) How does this vary
across race, gender, sexual orientation and their intersections?
Method
This study utilized a convergent mixed methods approach. We
simultaneously collected quantitative and qualitative data,
analyzed them separately, and then compared results from
each to identify similarities and discrepancies in the findings
(Creswell 2014).
Participants
The analytic sample comes from a larger preexisting, anony-
mous dataset collected in 2015 by the National LGBTQ
Domestic Violence Capacity Building Learning Center
(CBLC) in partnership with the National Domestic Violence
Hotline (the Hotline). This larger dataset consisted of 3616
domestic violence survivors and help-seekers who agreed to
participate in a brief, online survey while waiting to be con-
nected with an advocate through the Hotline’schatservices
during a six-week period in the spring of 2015 (Lippy et al.
2016). The response rate for the overall sample was 39.7%,
which was roughly double the response rate for prior surveys
through the Hotline chat function. Subjects who agreed to
participate in the survey were slightly older and more likely
to be female than those who did not agree to participate; oth-
erwise, no other systematic differences emerged by willing-
ness to participate. We obtained approval from the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for secondary data analysis.
We excluded from analysis survivors under the age of 18 to
reduce the risk that participants described experiences of seek-
ing help for violence other than IPV (e.g., child abuse). We
also excluded participants who reached out to the Hotline to
seek help on behalf of someone else. The final sample includ-
ed 2462 survivors, of whom 57% were White, 16% Latinx,
14% Black, 7% Asian, and 6% Multiracial. Participant ages
varied from 18 to 74 years old (M= 31), with 80% of the
sample under 40 years old. The majority of the sample iden-
tified as non-transgender women (88%), with 11% identifying
as non-transgender men and 2% as transgender or gender non-
conforming (TGNC). To identify potential differences in ex-
periences for TGNC survivors, we analyzed them as a sepa-
rate category from men and women. We use the terms “wom-
en-”and “men-”to acknowledge that these categories are not
complete without including trans women and trans men.
Finally, the sample mostly identified as heterosexual (85%),
while 8% identified as bisexual, 4% as gay or lesbian, and 4%
as sexually fluid, which included survivors who identified as
queer, pansexual, questioning, and those who selected multi-
ple sexual orientation options. Table 1provides a summary of
participant demographic information. Because we did not col-
lect information on participants’preferred pronouns, we use
the gender-neutral singular pronoun “they/them”to refer to
individual participants in the manuscript.
Materials and Procedure
Measure The CBLC, in partnership with the Hotline, devel-
oped the online survey to explore how MR laws and practices
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267 257
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

influenced DV survivors’help-seeking. We asked about sur-
vivors’direct experiences with MR using three main ques-
tions: 1) “Have you ever not asked someone for help because
you were afraid the person would be legally required to
reportwhatyousharedtoanofficialorauthorityfigure?”,
2) “Has anyone that you asked for help warned you that
they would be legally required to report what you shared
with them to an official or authority figure?”and 3) “Has
anyone that you ever asked for help ever reported what
you shared to an official or authority figure?”
The survey included closed- and open-ended follow-up ques-
tions about each type of MR experience. The CBLC and Hotline
focused the survey on these three MR experiences based on the
experiential evidence from their respective work with DV sur-
vivors and advocates. For example, the survey asked about re-
ceiving warnings because the CBLC learned from young people
that when seeking help from people like teachers or social
workers, young people were often warned that the person was
mandated to report them if they continued sharing details about
violence they experienced or witnessed. To avoid potential con-
fusion or bias, the survey did not use the term “mandatory
reporting.”To further ensure clarity, most quantitative questions
included an option for “Idon’t understand the question.”
Quantitative Data Collection Close-ended questions on the
survey included the three main questions above as well as the
following questions: 4) “Did their warning change what you
decided to share with them?”and 5) “Did their report make the
situation better or worse?”Answer choices for most of the
close-ended questions included “Yes ,”“No,”and “Idon’t un-
derstand the question.”The last question used a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from “Much Worse”to “Much Better.”
Qualitative Data Collection Open-ended questions on the sur-
vey included 6) “Who were you afraid to talk to?”,7)“What did
you fear would happen if they reported the information?”,8)
“Who gave you this warning?”,9)“Whodidtheysaytheywould
have to report the information to?”,10)“Please tell us how this
changed what you decided to share with them.”,and11)“Please
tell us how the report made the situation better or worse.”
Table 1 Analytic Sample Descriptives (n= 2462)
#%
Gender (n= 2448)
Women- 2145 87.6%
Men- 265 10.8%
Trans & Gender Non-Conforming 38 1.6%
Sexual Orientation (n= 2417)
Heterosexual 2037 84.3%
Bisexual 188 7.8%
Gay/Lesbian 92 3.8%
Sexually fluid 100 4.1%
Race/Ethnicity (n= 2317)
White/Caucasian 1317 57.1%
Latino/a/ Hispanic 366 15.9%
Black/ African American 324 14.0%
Asian/ Asian American 164 7.1%
Multi-racial/ Mixed race 136 5.9%
Table 2 Chi-Square and
Multivariate Logistic Regression
Analysis of Predictors for Not
Asking for Help
χ
2
Analysis Logistic Regression
Predictors χ
2
df # Yes (%) Odds Ratio (n = 2106) 95% CI
Race/Ethnicity (n= 2148) 6.03 4
API 45 (32.6%) 0.92 [0.62, 1.35]
Black 93 (30.2%) 0.79 [0.60, 1.05]
Latinx 125 (37.7%) 1.12 [0.87, 1.44]
Multiracial 49 (40.2%) 1.18 [0.80, 1.75]
White 443 (35.5%) ––
Sexual Orientation (n= 2250) 1.81 3
Bisexual 69 (39.9%) 1.13 [0.81, 1.57]
Gay/Lesbian 30 (34.9%) 0.88 [0.54, 1.44]
Sexually Fluid 34 (37.4%) 1.05 [0.65, 1.70]
Heterosexual/Straight 665 (35.0%) ––
Gender Identity (n = 2269) 27.79*** 2
Woman- 734 (36.8%) 0.48 [0.22, 1.05]
Man- 53 (21.7%) 0.22*** [0.10, 0.50]
TGNC 18 (56.3%) ––
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p< .001. Note: Reference groups for odds ratios are White, TGNC, and Heterosexual
participants
258 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Analytical Approach
Quantitative Data Analysis
First, we ran descriptives to identify the overall frequency of
survivors’experiences with mandatory reporting. We exam-
ined demographic group differences by conducting chi-square
significance tests with race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual ori-
entation as independent variables and the dichotomous man-
datory reporting variables as dependent variables. We then
used multivariate logistic regression to further examine group
differences, regressing all three demographic predictor vari-
ables simultaneously in one block for each of the dependent
variables. We assessed model fit for all logistic regression
models using Hosmer and Lemeshow Test statistic, standard-
ized residuals, Cook’s distance, DFBeta, leverage values,
multicollinearity tolerance, and VIF values (Field 2009). All
logistic regression models met all criteria for goodness-of-fit.
Finally, the analytic sample featured less than 5% of data
missing for each independent and dependent variable. Since
this level of missing data poses less risk for introducing sys-
tematic bias into the sample (Tabachnick and Fidell 2006), we
used pairwise deletion for all logistic regressions.
Qualitative Data Analysis
We analyzed qualitative data using inductive content analysis
because the data consisted of hundreds of brief answers to
open-ended questions. This allowed for the quantification of
coded responses and facilitated a process of moving from the
specific to the general (Elo and Kyngäs 2008). We followed
guidelines provided by Miles et al. (2014) on the use of first-,
second-, and third-order coding. First-order codes captured
foundational components of the data, and we then grouped
these codes into categories via second-order coding. Finally,
third-order coding involved developing themes that encom-
pass second-order codes and directly link back to first-order
codes (Miles et al. 2014).
The fourth author open-coded 100% of the data, 20% of
which was double coded by the second author; this
encompassed the first-order coding process (Miles et al.
2014). The second and fourth authors then met with the first
to collectively reconcile the coding between the two coders, to
conduct second order coding by categorizing the codes, and to
establish a preliminary codebook. The fourth author then re-
coded all of the data with the codebook, 20% of which was
again double coded by the second author. All coders met again
to reconcile codes and refine the codebook, after which the
fourth author re-coded data from one question for which the
codebook changed. The entire research team then met to dis-
cuss key themes that arose throughout the data, which are
discussed in depth in the results section.
Trustworthiness Throughout the coding process, the au-
thors remained vigilant to not abstract codes beyond what
the data could support, and we continuously interrogated
whether the codebook adequately captured the complexity
in the data. We also examined the interrater reliability at
every step of the coding process, identifying areas of di-
vergence between coders and making modifications to the
Table 3 Chi-Square and
Multivariate Logistic Regression
Analysis of Predictors for Being
War n e d
χ
2
Analysis Logistic Regression
Predictors χ
2
df # Yes (%) Odds Ratio (n = 2076) 95% CI
Race/Ethnicity (n = 2118) 13.00* 4 13 (10.0%)
API 37 (12.5%) 0.65 [0.36, 1.19]
Black 45 (13.8%) 0.79 [0.54, 1.16]
Latinx 30 (24.2%) 0.88 [0.62, 1.25]
Multiracial 195 (15.7%) 1.65 [1.05, 2.59]
White ––
Sexual Orientation (n= 2208) 5.69 3 36 (20.6%)
Bisexual 11 (13.6%) 1.32 [0.88, 1.97]
Gay/Lesbian 18 (19.8%) 0.70 [0.34, 1.43]
Sexually Fluid 275 (14.8%) 1.23 [0.68, 2.23]
Heterosexual/Straight ––
Gender Identity (n = 2227) 16.23*** 2 306 (15.7%)
Woman- 23 (9.5%) 0.43* [0.19, 0.98]
Man- 12 (34.3%) 0.25** [0.10, 0.64]
TGNC ––
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p< .001. Note: Reference groups for odds ratios are White, TGNC, and Heterosexual
participants
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267 259
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

codes and codebook to increase clarity and coding con-
vergence. These processes involved extensive conversa-
tions between the authors. When uncertainties arose about
whether nuances in the data would be lost through ab-
straction, the team referred back to the research questions
to guide their decisions.
Structural Analysis Given the study’semphasison
intersectionality, and because we understand cultural and
community differences in outcomes as driven by underlying
systemic inequities, this paper emphasizes system-level
themes and codes. These include themes and codes related
to systems such as criminal legal, child welfare, housing and
immigrations systems.
Mixed Methods Analysis
We utilized matrices (Miles et al. 2014) to explore what, if any,
consistent differences emerged across the qualitative results
by gender and race/ethnicity. We began with these two dimen-
sions of identity as the logistic regressions did not reveal sig-
nificant sexual orientation differences, and no existing litera-
ture suggests reasons to expect differences by sexual orienta-
tion. As a result, we prioritized using the gender and racial/
ethnic quantitative data to further explore the qualitative data
for the current study. We examined the frequency of responses
within established themes according to identity and then cre-
ated a categorization matrix to visually represent the coded
data which allowed us to identify major intersectional themes.
Reflexivity Statement
Reflexivity is a common practice in qualitative research; it
involves researchers examining how their backgrounds may
influence their analyses of the data (Creswell 2014). The au-
thors are queer researchers of diverse ages and racial and eth-
nic backgrounds who have witnessed and experienced the
harms of interventions by the State in response to domestic
violence. They aim to use research as a tool for transformative
community and systems change by interrogating how systems
of power and oppression disparately affect multiply marginal-
ized survivors through formal services and policies. They be-
lieve that systems of surveillance operated by the carceral state
are disproportionately used to control communities who have
histories of disempowerment, abuse, and oppression.
Therefore, they analyze data with the desire to understand,
document, and measure the influence of these systems on
the abilities for marginalized communities to access support-
ive services. Since the authors are deeply attuned to the po-
tentially harmful impacts of MR laws, they engaged in con-
tinuous reflection and conversation to examine how their
backgrounds might influence their perceptions of the data,
andtheyemployedmyriadtechniquesdescribedabovetoes-
tablish trustworthiness.
Results
Mandatory Reporting Affects Who Survivors Turn
to for Support
Survivors Were Afraid to Ask for Help
Quantitatively, 35 % of participants said they did not ask at least
one person for help because they feared their information would
be reported to an official or an authority figure. As shown in
Tab le 2, chi-square analysis revealed statistically significant ef-
fects of gender identity, χ
2
(2, N= 2269) = 27.79, p< .001, and
logistic regressions showed that TGNC participants were 4.59
times more likely not to turn to someone for help compared to
men- (odds ratio = 0.22, p< .001). Logistic regressions revealed
no statistically significant differences by race, sexual orientation,
or between TGNC and women- participants.
Qualitative analysis revealed that survivors most common-
ly did not ask for help from a family member or friend. Almost
29% of respondents said they did not ask a family member or
friend for fear that person would be legally required to report
them. Survivors also reported not turning to medical and men-
tal health care providers (27.5%), police (8.6%), or
community-based organizations (2.2%). Of the 718 survivors
who responded to the qualitative questions, 19.4% stated they
did not turn to anyone at all for fear of being reported.
Survivors Feared Help Would Lead to Criminal Legal
Involvement Qualitative analysis illustrated that the most
common system-level fear was that asking for help from
someone would result in the arrest of their partner or the gen-
eral involvement of the criminal legal system. Participants
from nearly all racial/ethnic and gender groups expressed this
fear. For most, it was the fear of their partner “being arrested”
or “going to jail.”Many participants explained severe conse-
quences that would result from their partner’s arrest. These
included fear of their abuser’s retaliation (“he would go to jail
and get out and kill me”), loss of family income (“my husband
would be arrested, and he is our only income, we have no
savings”), and loss of relationship (“he might go to jail and/
or divorce me”). One participant stated that the arrest of their
partner would cause the loss of “everything I have.”
Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Fear of Criminal
Legal Involvement Qualitative differences emerged across
racial/ethnic and gender groups regarding participants’fear
of arrest and criminal legal involvement. For both men- and
women- across racial/ethnic categories, the vast majority
feared their partner’s arrest. However, the reverse was true
260 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

for White TGNC survivors, most of whom feared their own
arrest. Additionally, several White women- expressed con-
cerns that the criminal-legal system would take action without
their consent. For example, one participant said they feared
“charge[s] would be pressed without my consent,”and anoth-
er who feared “my abuser would be arrested, and I wouldn’t
be prepared.”This was not a concern expressed by other
racial/ethnic or gender groups.
Survivors Feared Help Would Lead to Child Protective
Services Involvement Qualitatively, participants’next most
common system-related fear was CPS involvement and hav-
ing their children taken away. This was a fear almost exclu-
sively expressed by women-. Many women- expressed a fear
that “I would lose my children.”Some women- included a
specific fear that child protective services would get involved,
as demonstrated by a participant who explained, “My children
would be removed by CPS from my care.”Other times, the
fear of losing children was conveyed through broad mention
of having children “taken”or “removed.”For example, one
participant feared “that my children would be removed and I
would be blamed for everything, or called crazy.”Other par-
ticipants explained how they feared that reaching out for help
would lead their abusers to follow through on threats to ex-
ploit child welfare agencies and custody courts to punish
them. One participant feared that their “husband would find
out and punish us as promised over the years, and he will take
[my child]…and I’ll never see her again.”We found no qual-
itative differences across racial/ethnic groups for this theme.
Survivors Feared Help Would Lead to Homelessness
Qualitatively, a less commonly expressed system-related fear
was of becoming homeless or experiencing housing instabil-
ity. This fear, while reported by only 3.2% of the sample,
represents a particularly severe consequence that survivors
saw connected to reaching out for help. One participant wor-
ried that reaching out to someone for help would mean “Ilose
the last of what I have. The roof over my head.”Another
feared that they “would be homeless and the abuse would
get worse. There’s no way out.”We found no major demo-
graphic differences across racial/ethnic or gender groups re-
garding the fear of becoming homeless.
Survivors Feared Help Would Lead to Deportation The final
system-related fear that arose from qualitative analysis was
that reaching out for help from someone would result in their
or their partner’s deportation. Similar to the fear of homeless-
ness, only a small number of participants reported this fear;
however, the severity of this consequence is noteworthy. As
one survivor explained, they feared that “my child’s father
would be deported and my child [would] be father-less.”
People who reported concerns about deportation were mostly
people of color, and they demonstrated a mix of concern that
they or their partner would be deported. It should be noted that
of the small sample of API men-, the only fear they reported in
turning to someone for support was about deportation.
Mandatory Reporting Affects the Help Survivors
Received
Survivors Seeking Help Receive Warnings
Quantitative results demonstrated that 15.2% of survivors said
that while seeking help, they were warned that the person they
were talking to would have to report what they shared to an
official or an authority figure. The odds of being warned dif-
fered significantly by race/ethnicity and gender. As shown in
Tab le 3, chi-square analysis revealed statistically significant
effects of race/ethnicity χ
2
(4, N=2118)=13.79,p<.05,and
gender identity, χ
2
(2, N= 2227) = 16.23, p< .001. Logistic
regressions showed that while seeking help, multiracial survi-
vors were 64.9% more likely than White survivors to be
warned that what they share may have to be reported (odds
ratio = 1.65, p< .05). No other significant differences by race/
ethnicity emerged. In terms of gender, TGNC survivors were
57.2% more likely to be warned than women- (odds ratio =
0.43, p<.001) and 74.6% more likely than men- (odds ratio =
0.25, p< .001). No significant differences by sexual orienta-
tion emerged.
Types of Help Sources Who Warned Survivors Qualitative
analyses showed that for nearly half of respondents
(46.9%), the person who issued the warning was a mental
or medical health provider. The next most common person
to issue a warning was a family member or friend of the
survivor. Just over a quarter of respondents (25.8%) said
thatafamilyorfriendwarnedthemthattheywouldle-
gally have to report what the survivor shared to an official
or an authority figure. In contrast, only 8.2% of respon-
dents said they received warnings from a community-
based organization or social or case worker, and only
5.6% received a warning from a school official.
MR Warnings Impact the Information Survivors Share
Quantitatively, of the 341 participants who were warned,
60.7% said the warning changed what they shared to the per-
son who issuedit. As shown in Table 4, chi-square and logistic
regression analysis revealed no statistically significant differ-
ences by sexual orientation, gender identity, or race/ethnicity
in the participants who changed what they shared versus those
who did not. Qualitative responses revealed that for nearly a
third of participants (32.8%) who changed what they shared,
the warning led them to withhold information and/or misrep-
resent their experiences. As one participant explains, “I did not
disclose the most important problems, domestic violence and
abuse.”Another stated that they “left out any physical parts of
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267 261
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

abuse towards children.”Ultimately, the warning curtailed the
ability of survivors to fully disclose and receive help based on
the entirety of their experience.
MR Warnings Impact Willingness to Seek Help In addition to
withholding information, qualitative data revealed that for an-
other 22.7% of participants, the warning made them stop seek-
ing help. Some participants did not seek help from the indi-
vidual who issued the warning. Other participants explained
that the warning made them stop seeking help altogether, as
described by the participant who said, “Italktonoone,there’s
no one I can trust, no one I can turn to, and no where I can go.”
In these cases, the warnings isolated survivors and prevented
them from seeking the support they need. In contrast, only a
small minority of survivors (2.5%) said that the warning
prompted them to share everything and intentionally trigger
a report. For one participant, the warning helped them “decide
to finally report it.”
Survivors Seeking Help Trigger Mandatory Reports
Quantitative data showed that when seeking help, 8.2% of
respondents have had what they shared reported to an
official or an authority figure. As shown in Table 5,chi-
square and logistic regression analysis revealed no statis-
tically significant differences by sexual orientation, gen-
der identity, or race/ethnicity.
Mandatory Reporting most Often Made the Situation Worse
Quantitative results demonstrated that when asked to report on a
Likert scale whether the report made their situation better or
worse, 51.2% of survivors said the report made the situation
“much worse”compared to 1.8% that said it made the situation
“much better”(Fig. 1). In total, 83.3% of survivors said the report
either made the situation worse or had no impact. Outlined be-
low, the qualitative responses describing the impact of the report
revealed themes that match closely to what survivors feared
Fig. 1 Likert-scale responses for the impact of a mandatory report for 2322 respondents. Each person icon represents 10% of study participants
Table 4 Chi-Square and
Multivariate Logistic Regression
Analysis of Predictors for a
Warning Changing What is
Shared
χ
2
Analysis Logistic Regression
Predictors χ
2
df # Yes (%) Odds Ratio (n = 307) 95% CI
Race/Ethnicity (n=308) 2.20 4
API 6 (46.2%) 0.56 [0.18, 1.75]
Black 20 (57.1%) 0.92 [0.43, 1.96]
Latinx 24 (55.8%) 0.79 [0.40, 1.56]
Multiracial 20 (66.7%) 1.48 [0.62, 3.53]
White 115 (61.5%) ––
Sexual Orientation (n=325) 2.42 3
Bisexual 24 (68.6%) 1.35 [0.61, 2.99]
Gay/Lesbian 5 (45.5%) 0.32 [0.07, 1.47]
Sexually Fluid 9 (52.9%) 0.56 [0.17, 1.84]
Heterosexual/Straight 160 (61.1%) ––
Gender Identity (n=326) 2.27 2
Woman- 182 (61.9%) 0.54 [0.11, 2.70]
Man- 9 (45.0%) 0.28 [0.04, 1.74]
TGNC 7 (58.3%) ––
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p< .001. Note: Reference groups for odds ratios are White, TGNC, and Heterosexual
participants
262 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

would happen if they reached out for help: involvement with the
criminal legal system and removal of their children.
MR Resulted in Negative Outcomes with Criminal Legal
System Qualitative analysis revealed that for the vast majority
of participants, their experience with the criminal legal system
through the mandatory reporting process was negative. Many
survivors described how police involvement angered their
partner and worsened the abuse they experienced. “Getting
cops involved made him even more mad, and every time cops
got involved, they never arrested him for it…so now he keeps
coming after me knowing he gets away with it.”Another
survivor described how “things got bad when he found out
police were involved.”
Other survivors provided examples of the limited utility of
criminal-legal involvement. Several described the lack of en-
forcement of protective orders, including one participant who
described how when they report protection order violations, “an
officer comes to my house but nothing is done.”Others
discussed the limited utility of incarceration. As one participant
described, “The only difference was he went to jail one night
and came home the next day.”For still more, the court systems
proved of little value. One participant described how their part-
ner “was arrested, and the case was dismissed for lack of evi-
dence, but no police officer or DA contacted me.”Another
explained how seeking help from an advocate led to the forced
disclosure to a District Attorney who exacerbated the situation.
I thought what I was saying to the victims’advocate was
confidential unless I gave permission. After our session,
she said she had to give some of the info over to the DA.
The DA was going for a much more severe consequence
when I wanted a different type of help for my abuser not
a long-term incarceration or more DV/anger manage-
ment classes that he could BS his way through or prison
which wasn't the help he needed. I didn't trust anyone
again in this type of position.
Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Involvement of the
Criminal Legal System Although the vast majority of women-
across all racial/ethnic groups qualitatively described their in-
volvement with the criminal-legal system as negative, White
women- were the only group to describe any positive interac-
tions. For example, the police drove one White woman- to the
hospital. For another, their interaction with police helped them
realize that their “situation was more serious than I thought.”
Further, only White women- explained that the involvement
of the criminal-legal system led to the incarceration of their
abusive partner. For most, incarceration of their partner was
not the outcome they wanted. One participant described how
their partner was “in jail and he shouldn’t be, and it’sgoingto
ruin our relationship for good.”For others, their partner’sin-
carceration posed problems for the future. One survivor ex-
plained, “He is in jail, but what happens when he gets out?”
Another described how the arrest of their partner “started an
entire series of problems that I haven’tbeenabletoescape
from.”For some, they did not perceive the incarceration of
their partner as even increasing their immediate safety. “My ex
is in jail, but I don’tfeelsafeatmyplace.”
No women- of color reported that criminal legal system
involvement led to their partner’s incarceration. Instead,
Table 5 Chi-Square and
Multivariate Logistic Regression
Analysis of Predictors for Being
Reported
Predictors χ
2
Analysis Logistic Regression
χ
2
df # Yes (%) Odds Ratio (n = 1818) 95% CI
Race/Ethnicity (n= 1857) 7.37 4
API 7 (5.9%) 0.50 [0.21, 1.16]
Black 20 (7.4%) 0.63 [0.37, 1.05]
Latinx 24 (8.2%) 0.70 [0.44, 1.12]
Multiracial 15 (14.2%) 1.37 [0.75, 2.52]
White 111 (10.4%) ––
Sexual Orientation (n= 1940) 9.57* 3
Bisexual 13 (8.8%) 0.76 [0.41, 1.43]
Gay/Lesbian 0 (0.0%) 0.00 [0.00, 0.00]
Sexually Fluid 11 (13.8%) 1.27 [0.60, 2.72]
Heterosexual/Straight 161 (9.8%) ––
Gender Identity (n= 1958) 11.58** 2
Woman- 179 (10.4%) 0.79 [0.16, 3.88]
Man- 7 (3.3%) 0.26 [0.04, 1.49]
TGNC 3 (14.3%) ––
*p< .05, **p<.01,***p< .001. Note: Reference groups are White, TGNC, and Heterosexual participants
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267 263
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

women- of color reported that the involvement of the criminal
legal system resulted in no change to their situation, retaliatory
abuse, and/or their own arrest. In summary, although both
White women- and women- of color primarily experienced
negative responses by the criminal legal system, they experi-
enced different kinds of negative responses, and if anyone had
positive experiences, it was White women-.
MR Resulted in Children Being Removed from their Homes
Qualitatively, survivors described the involvement of
CPS, much like the criminal-legal system, as primarily a
negative experience. Most survivors described severe con-
sequences of CPS involvement, primarily the removal of
their children from their care and home. One survivor
explained how “CPS was brought in, and my kids were
taken away and that was almost life ending.”Another
survivor illustrates the challenge of CPS involvement in
cases of domestic violence, explaining that “[t]hey re-
movedmychildrenfrommyhomeandchargedmewith
allowing domestic violence to happen to me.”This survi-
vor may be referencing the aforementioned MR laws that
identify child witnessing of domestic violence as a form
of child abuse and neglect.
Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Involvement with
Child Protective Services Although a smaller sample, most
women- of color qualitatively described how their children
were removed from their home because of CPS involvement.
Some White women- also described this outcome; however,
more White women- described negative consequences like the
ineffectiveness of CPS, retaliatory abuse from their partner
because of CPS involvement, or their children staying with
other family until a CPS report was complete. One White
woman- even described CPS helping to keep them and their
children safe by monitoring their abuser.
Overall, CPS involvement and the removal of children was
not a theme that emerged for men- or TGNC survivors. In fact,
only one man- described CPS or removal of a child as an
impact of a mandatory report.
Child Protective Services got involved back in May and
now they've found my wife to be substantiated in the
case…. I'm now with my parents and have my son with
me but I am not sure now where to turn to get assistance
for our own living arrangements and further assistance
to protect my son.
Interestingly, this White man- described the most positive out-
come of CPS out of the entire sample. They kept custody of
their children, the abuse against their ex was substantiated,
and they have been living with other family, awaiting addi-
tional supports. Although this represents a potentially best-
case scenario, even this survivor rated the impact of the report
to have made the situation much worse, and they described
needing additional supports to get their needs met.
Discussion
This mixed methods study aimed to understand how
Mandatory Reporting (MR) laws influenced the help-
seeking behaviors of a diverse group of IPV survivors who
sought support from the Hotline. Previous studies found that
survivors’experiences with and perceptions of mandatory
reporting were mixed (Jordan and Pritchard 2018; Antle
et al. 2010). Some studies also pointed to potential disparities
in outcomes for survivors based on factors such as their race/
ethnicity (Dosanjh et al. 2008). Findings from the current
study support, challenge, and expand the existing literature,
illustrating numerous unintended harms of MR laws on the
ability of all survivors to seek and receive the supports they
need. MR laws negatively impacted survivors’access to re-
sources, friends, family, and even safety. Survivors who were
TGNC, people of color, and women- demonstrated important
differences in their experiences with MR laws compared to
survivors who were White and men-.
Help-Seeking
Similar to previous studies, the current study found that MR
laws create barriers for survivors seeking supports (Jordan and
Pritchard 2018; Goodman et al. 2019). Over a third of survi-
vors in the sample —regardless of gender, race/ethnicity, and
sexual orientation —did not turn to a potential support for fear
related to MR. Participants described how they primarily
feared people in their informal networks. No prior studies
examined how MR laws affect survivors’help-seeking from
their informal networks; however, the current study suggests
that these laws negatively affect the perceived availability of
informal networks for support. This perception is likely
strengthened by the finding that of the survivors who were
warned, over a quarter were warned by family or friends.
These findings may reflect the fact that in over a third of
U.S. states, all adults are mandated reporters (Child Welfare
Information Gateway 2016a). Alternatively, some evidence
suggests that it could also demonstrate a broader lack of un-
derstanding about MR laws and protocols, even among those
whohavereceivedtraining(Perez-Darbyetal.2015). Given
that informal social networks are often the first and most via-
ble form of sustainable support for survivors (Sylaska and
Edwards 2014), future research should explore the impact of
MR laws that turn all adults in the state into mandatory re-
porters. Additional research should explore how to increase
broader public knowledge about MR laws to ensure that sur-
vivors and support providers know who is and is not mandated
to report and what they a required to report.
264 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Intersectional analyses revealed that when compared to
men-, TGNC survivors were less likely to turn to someone
for support and more likely to fear their own arrest. Research
illustrates the consistent mistreatment and over-arrest of trans-
gender community members by law enforcement (Stotzer
2014), which could explain TGNC survivors’fears and reluc-
tance to reach out for help. Relatedly, mostly women- did not
seek help for fear of involvement of CPS. This aligns with
cultural norms and expectations of mothers as primary care-
takers as well as studies revealing that mothers often receive
greater scrutiny from CPS than even their abusive partners
(Douglas and Walsh 2010). Finally, mostly people of color,
and particularly API men-, expressed fears about deportation.
This could reflect the current anti-immigration rhetoric in the
U.S. that remains rooted in racism (Oppenheimer et al. 2016).
Based on their experiential knowledge, the community
partners who designed the study included an aspect of
MR not previously explored in the literature: warnings
made by providers about MR. The partners knew that
many providers, in an attempt to prevent triggering a re-
port, warn the person seeking help that they might have to
report. By and large, the current study finds that these
warnings hindered the ability of survivors to receive the
support they sought. Upon receiving the warnings, most
survivors qualify and change what they share, which in
some ways is the intended goal of the warning. However,
doing so meant survivors leave out important details
about their experiences and some stop seeking help alto-
gether. While these strategies may protect survivors from
triggering reports, they also serve as obstacles to receiving
help and can increase survivors’isolation. Future research
should work with IPV advocates and survivors to identify
other ways that MR laws may affect survivors even when
a report is not triggered.
Intersectional analyses showed that Multiracial and
TGNC survivors were more likely to be warned compared
to White survivors and survivors of other gender groups,
respectively. This may relate to the unique forms of preju-
dice and pathologizing that both groups receive broadly in
U.S. culture, including assumptions by others that they are
psychologically abnormal or bizarre (Nadal et al. 2011;
Nadaletal.2010). This expectation and the continued lit-
eral pathologizing of transgender people (American
Psychiatric Association 2013) may also explain why the
study found TGNC survivors were significantly more like-
ly to be reported compared to people of other genders.
Impact of Reports
The majority of survivors who were reported stated that the
report worsened their situation, often by involving them in
systems they deemed unhelpful at best or harmful at worst.
Survivors’interactions with these systems, chiefly criminal-
legal and child protection systems, often increased the abuse
they experienced and compromised their financial, housing,
and family stability. Only about 17% of survivors said the
report made their situation any better. A few reasons may
explain why these findings contrast with other research show-
ing survivors having greater ambivalence about MR laws. The
first is that this study explores MR laws across a diversity of
settings and states, not just in healthcare settings (Coulter and
Chez 1997; Gielen et al. 2000) or in the state of Kentucky
(Jordan and Pritchard 2018; Antle et al. 2010). Findings from
the current study suggest implementation of MR laws vary
greatly, so capturing a wider breadth of experiences may mean
the current study illustrates more extensive challenges with
the laws. Additionally, the current study examines survivors’
direct experiences with MR laws, rather than abstract opinions
about them (Coulter and Chez 1997).
Intersectional analyses revealed that although the majority
of all women- rated the impact of reports negatively, racial/
ethnic differences emerged in the type of negative impacts
women- experienced. For example, police involvement for
women- of color did not result in arrest of their partner where-
as it did for several White women-. Similarly, CPS involve-
ment for women- of color more often resulted in the loss of
their children than for White women-. Many argue that cul-
tural notions of vulnerability and victimhood center the expe-
rience of White women and are influenced by racist stereo-
types of many communities of color, including that Black
women are too aggressive and thus cannot be victims
(Sokoloff and Pratt 2005). This could partially explain the
differential police responses. Further, national research shows
disproportionally higher rates of foster care placements for
Native, African American, and, for some states, Latinx chil-
dren compared to White children (Hill 2007), which could
support the different racial impacts of CPS. Again, the major-
ity of both groups of women- rated the responses they re-
ceived from law enforcement and CPS negatively, so future
research is needed to explore the kinds of system responses to
a mandatory report that survivors see as beneficial.
Policy & Practice Implications
This study has specific implications for both policy and IPV
practice. First, having more people be defined as a mandated
reporter can isolate survivors and reduce access to their infor-
mal networks. Advocates and policymakers should thus ex-
amine MR laws with an eye to maximizing opportunities for
survivors to seek help without triggering unwanted reports.
Second, warnings from providers about MR laws reduce
help-seeking efforts for most survivors. IPV programs should
reexamine agency policies that encourage this disclosure and
identify alternative ways to reduce the risk of triggering re-
ports, including by understanding the exact requirements and
exceptions for reporting in their state. Third, policymakers and
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267 265
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

266 J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267
the antiviolence field must deeply reflect on the cost-benefit of
MR laws. Protecting vulnerable populations remains as im-
portant today as when states first enacted MR laws decades
ago. The current study demonstrates, however, that mandating
the involvement of systems and institutions with long histories
of harm is making the situation worse for many survivors and
families. This highlights a need for identifying alternative
strategies and solutions to protect and support vulnerable pop-
ulations. There may be lessons from transformativeand restor-
ative justice approaches that focus on utilizing community-
based processes that exist outside of the criminal legal system
to address harms, ensure accountability, and prevent future
harms (Creative Interventions 2012; Goodmark 2018). The
antiviolence field could benefit from examining ways to de-
sign and implement these alternative approaches in cases that
are currently being addressed by MR laws.
Limitations
Several limitations to the study should be considered. First,
partnering with the Hotline required that we prioritize service
provision while collecting data, which limited the number of
questions we could ask, including around demographic infor-
mation. Second, we studied help-seeking practices in a sample
who was already seeking help from an IPV hotline, which
may impact the generalizability of the findings. Third, we
did not independently assess if the person who contacted the
Hotline was a person causing or experiencing harm; however,
understanding barriers for both members to access support is
important. Given the complicated roles and names for manda-
tory reporters across the nation, we did not ask about manda-
tory reporting specifically by name. The proxy descriptors we
used drew on the expertise of the project’s partners, including
a national IPV technical assistance provider and the largest
DV service provider in the country. Some survivors might
have misunderstood the proxy descriptors. By including “I
don’t understand the question”options, we hopefully mitigat-
ed the propensity for some participants to complete the ques-
tions if they did not understand them. Additionally, although
the overall sample size for the study was large, some of the
subgroup sizes when looking differentially across demograph-
ic groups were small. This may weaken some of the general-
izability of our study. Finally, the low response rate for the
survey may further restrict the generalizability; however, an-
alytic comparisons found only small demographic differences
between those who did and did not complete the survey.
This study was the first of its kind to use a national
sample inclusive of LGBTQ and racially and ethnically
diverse survivors to explore the impacts of MR laws on
the help-seeking of IPV survivors. The study findings
indicate an ongoing need to attend to the real harms of
MR laws to increase all survivors’ability to successfully
seek and receive the support they need.
Acknowledgments This research was made possible by Grant Numbers
90EV0432 and 90EV0433 from Administration of Children, Youth and
Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. The opinions, findings, conclusions and recommen-
dations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Administration on Children, Youth
and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Thanks to the National Domestic Violence Hotline for supporting this
study. Thanks also to Maryclare Griffin for cleaning and screening the
initial database and Chris Harper for data analysis consultation.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro-
priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
References
Ahrens, C. E., Rios-Mandel, L. C., Isas, L., & del Carmen Lopez, M.
(2010). Talking about interpersonal violence: Cultural influences on
Latinas' identification and disclosure of sexual assault and intimate
partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Practice, and Policy, 2(4), 284. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018605.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Antle, B., Barbee, A., Yankeelov, P., & Bledsoe, L. (2010). A qualitative
evaluation of the effects of mandatory reporting of domestic vio-
lence on victims and their children. Journal of Family Social Work,
13(1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522150903468065.
Breiding,M.J.,Chen,J.,&Black,M.C.(2014).Intimate partner
violence in the United States –2010.Atlanta,GA:National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016a). Mandatory reporters of
child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016b). Child witnesses to domes-
tic violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Children’sBureau.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality in. Malden, MA:
Polity Press.
Coulter, M. L., & Chez, R. A. (1997). Domestic violence victims support
mandatory reporting: For others. Journal of Family Violence, 12(3),
349–356.
Creative Interventions (2012). Creative Interventions toolkit: A practical
guide to stop interpersonal violence. Retrieved from www.creative-
interventions.org.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc..
Deutsch, L. S., Resch, K., Barber, T., Zuckerman, Y., Stone, J. T., &
Cerulli, C. (2017). Bruise documentation, race and barriers to seek-
ing legal relief for intimate partner violence survivors: A retrospec-
tive qualitative study. Journal of Family Violence, 32(8), 767–773.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-017-9917-4.
DeVoe, E. R., & Smith, E. L. (2003). Don't take my kids: Barriers to
service delivery for battered mothers and their young children.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Journal of Emotional Abuse, 3(3–4), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.
1300/J135v03n03_06.
Dill, B. T., & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inequality:
An emerging lens. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging
intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and
practice. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Dosanjh, S., Lewis, G., Mathews, D., & Bhandari, M. (2008). Child
protection involvement and victims of intimate partner violence: Is
thereabias?Violence Against Women, 14(7), 833–843. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077801208320247.
Douglas, H., & Walsh, T. (2010). Mothers, domestic violence, and child
protection. Violence Against Women, 16(5), 489–508. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077801210365887.
Durborow, N., Lizdas, K. C., O’Flaherty, A., & Marjavi, A. (2013).
Compendium of state statutes and policies on DV and health care.
Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process.
Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.
Fauci, J. E., & Goodman, L. A. (2019). “You d o n ’t need nobody else
knocking you down”: Survivor-mothers’experiences of surveil-
lance in domestic violence shelters. Journal of Family Violence,1–
14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00090-y.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Gielen, A. C., O’Campo, P. J., Campbell, J. C., Schollenberger, J.,
Woods, A. B., Jones, A. S., et al. (2000). Women’s opinions about
domestic violence screening and mandatory reporting. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4), 279–285.
Girardet, R., Lahoti, S., Bolton, K., & Kellogg, N. (2016). Characteristics
of cases submitted to a statewide system of child abuse experts.
Children and Youth Services Review, 67,198–202. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.06.007.
Goodman, L. A., Fauci, J. E., Hailes, H. P., & Gonzalez, L. (2019). Power
with and power over: Domestic violence advocates manage their
roles as mandated reporters. Journal of Family Violence.,1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00040-8.
Goodmark, L. (2018). Decriminalizing domestic violence: A balanced
policy approach to intimate partner violence.Oakland,CA:
University of California Press.
Hill, R. B. (2007). An analysis of racial/ethnic disproportionality and dis-
parity at the national, state, and county levels.Paper presented at the
Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare System.
Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Pattavina, A., Faggiani, D., & Reuland, M.
(2007). Explaining the prevalence, context, and consequences of
dual arrest in intimate partner cases Retrieved from U.S.
Department of Justice: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/
218355.pdf.
Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2018). Mandatory reporting of domestic
violence: What do abuse survivors think and what variables influ-
ence those opinions? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0886260518787206.
Kanuha, V. K. (2005). Compounding the triple jeopardy: Battering in
lesbian of color relationships. In N. J. Sokoloff & C. Pratt (Eds.),
Domestic violence at the margins: Readings on race, class, gender,
and culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Whitfield, D. L., Walls, N. E., Kattari, S. K.,
& Ramos, D. (2016). Experiences of intimate partner violence and
subsequent police reporting among LGBTQ adults in Colorado:
Comparing rates of cisgender and transgender victimization.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(5), 855–871. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0886260514556767.
Lippy, C., Burk, C., & Hobart, M. (2016). There's no one I can trust: The
impact of mandatory reporting on the help-seeking and well-being
of domestic violence survivors. Seattle, WA: National LGBTQ DV
Capacity Building Learning Center.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data
analysis: A methods sourcebook. In (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications, Inc..
Nadal,K.L.,Rivera,D.P.,&Corpus,M.J.H.(2010).Sexualori-
entation and transgender microaggressions: Implications for
mental health and counseling. In D. W. Sue (Ed.),
Microaggressions & marginality: Manifestations, dynamics
and impact. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Nadal, K. L., Wong, Y., Griffin, K., Sriken, J., Vargas, V., Wideman, M.,
& Kolawole, A. (2011). Microaggressions and the multiracial expe-
rience. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,
1(7), 36–44.
Ogbonnaya, I. N., & Pohle, C. (2013). Case outcomes of child welfare-
involved families affected by domestic violence: A review of the
literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1400–1407.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.05.014.
Oppenheimer, D. B., Prakash, S., & Burns, R. (2016). Playing the trump
card: The enduring legacy of racism in immigration law. Berkeley La
Raza Law Journal 26 1-45. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38TG3V.
Perez-Darby, S., Lippy, C., Mendoza, B., Burk, C. (2015). Queer collab-
orations: Full spectrum support for LGBTQ youth. Report submitted
to Office of Violence Against Women.
Richie, B. (2012). Arrested justice: Black women, violence, and
America's prison nation. New York: New York University Press.
Smith, S. G., Zhang, X.,Basile, K. C., Merrick,M. T., Wang, J., Kresnow,
M., & Chen, J. (2018). The national intimate partner and sexual
violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief –Updated release. In.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sokoloff, N. J., & Pratt, C. E. (2005). Domestic violence at the
margins: Readings on race, class, gender, and culture.
Rutgers University Press.
Stotzer, R. L. (2014). Law enforcement and criminal justice personnel
interactions with transgender people in the United States: A litera-
ture review. Aggression and Violence Behavior, 19(3), 263–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.012.
Sullivan, C. M., & Hagen, L. A. (2005). Survivors’opinions about man-
datory reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by medical
professionals. Affilia, 20(3), 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886109905277611.
Sylaska, K. M., & Edwards, K. M. (2014). Disclosure of intimate partner
violence to informal social support network members: A review of
the literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(1), 3–21. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524838013496335.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics
(5th ed.). Nedham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Trotter, J. L., & Allen, N. E. (2009). The good, the bad, and the ugly:
Domestic violence survivors' experiences with their informal social
networks. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3–4),
221–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-009-9232-1.
Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The national intimate
partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on vic-
timization by sexual orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for
Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.
Publisher’sNoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
J Fam Viol (2020) 35:255–267 267
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com