Intimate partner violence in rural America

As a preface, this blog post will focus on heterosexual relationships that are involved with intimate partner violence (“IPV” aka domestic violence), mainly because the current literature available on IPV in rural areas studied heterosexual couples. This is not to say that LGBTQIA2S+ couples do not experience IPV. In fact statistics show that LGBTQIA2S+ individuals likely experience IPV at higher rates than heterosexual or cisgender individuals. But, as mentioned above, the current data on rural IPV focuses on heterosexual relationships where the female-identifying partner was more likely to be the victim. For more information on what IPV looks like in queer relationships, look here. 

To date, most studies regarding IPV have been conducted in urban areas. Those studies suggest that in any given year, over 12 million people in the United States are affected by IPV. That averages out to 24 people per minute who are abused (raped, stalked, or physically hit) by a partner. Of those 12 million people, 35.6% identify as women, and 29% identify as men. When you don’t just include physical abuse in IPV though, those numbers grow as almost half of all people in the United States have come forth as experiencing mental or emotional abuse by a partner.

When researchers look at rural areas in particular, however, the IPV landscape looks even worse. Studies vary depending on whether the sample was representative of the nation or made up of voluntary subjects. They give different results as to whether IPV is more prevalent in rural areas or urban areas, or even suburban areas. Those that show a difference agree though, that there is at least a 5% difference in prevalence between rural and urban areas, with higher rates in rural areas. However, most studies agree that, among female-identifying victims, severity, type, and frequency of IPV is different between rural and urban areas. Specifically, rural women, in comparison to their urban counterparts, experience sexual abuse more often and report greater frequency and severity of IPV, but, they experience less “controlling behaviors” by their partners. One 2005 study even found that intimate partner homicide (“IPH”) was greater in rural areas, and that while IPH rates had declined over the last 20–year period in urban and metropolitan areas, it had increased in rural ones.

That is not where the differences end though: studies also show differences between the “average” perpetrators and victims of IPV, as understood in urban areas, compared to those in rural ones. As to rural male perpetrators, they are more likely to threaten and inflict harm on the victim’s pets. Compared to their urban counterparts, they are less educated, have lower employment rates and use psychoactive medications more often. They also combine said medications with alcohol more often. Rural PIV perpetrators have more prior and post IPV arrests, are more likely to have been ordered by a court to participate in marital therapy, and less likely to have been ordered by a court to participate in anger management. Finally, the study cited found a higher prevalence of restraining order violations with rural male perpetrators than with urban ones.

As to rural female victims, they are more likely to have experience childhood sexual or physical abuse than their urban counterparts. They have (overall) worse mental and physical health and therefore utilize less adaptive coping strategies, than urban female victims. Finally, they tend to demonstrate greater service needs.

The most harrowing part is that while rural victims tend to have more severe experiences of abuse, with greater frequency of the abuse, they also are less likely to seek help. A 2019 Guardian article reported on various scholarly studies of IPVand noted that rural victims are half as likely as urban victims to report IPV to the authorities. Further, the article stated that abuse lasts 25% longer in rural areas than in urban ones. What causes these discrepancies has yet to be established, but part of the answer, as suggested by the article, is that abusers are want to move themselves and their partners and families to more rural areas, where they can perpetrate abuse more easily, with less risk of detection. Professor Pruitt has also commented on the phenomenon of gender roles within rural society, writing in particular about how the “private” aspect of rurality affects women’s status socio-economically. Since the 1800s scholars and philosophers have theorized that the culture that seems to permeate through society (and now particularly rural areas), one where more “traditional” ways of life are upheld, contribute to this; mainly because “traditional” ways of life follow patriarchal values which inherently subjugate women, who are more likely to be victims of IPV. For more information on the specificities of rural patriarchy, particularly as they relate to spatiality and the “private aspect of rural briefly discussed above, look here.

Even when victims in rural areas do decide to seek help, they are often out of luck. Rural victims live, on average, three times farther from resources (usually over 40 miles) than urban victims do. When they can get to a resource center, they tend to be met with providers that have fewer on-site shelter services, and who are stretched thin geographically. This means that these victims are twice as likely to be turned away. This concept of service deserts in rural areas, specifically legal ones, is not new to the blog.

The DOJ has even acknowledged the issue of IPV as it relates to rural victims and promotes the Rural Program, under the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), as a way to tackle the issue. This program funds the implementation, expansion, and establishment of various legal programs and connections within communities. In 2022, they granted $33.4 million to various tribes, NGOs, territories, and local governments. Alongside this grant, the reauthorization of the bill included some updates, such as expanding tribal jurisdiction over DV perpetrators in an attempt to manage the overwhelming issue of IPV in tribal communities. The reauthorization also included the strengthening of a grant (under sec. 202) which assists states, territories, and Indian Tribes to “carry out programs serving rural communities” in regard to, “domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, and child abuse enforcement assistance.” Still, this doesn’t fix all of the issues that victims of IPV face in rural settings. Part of the problem is in the inherent intimacy of rural areas: “everybody knows everybody.” Not only does law enforcement often know the perpetrator well, sometimes a law enforcement officers is the perpetrator.

All of this complicates the question: how do we best serve rural victims of IPV? While watering legal deserts (so they may become oases) is a good start, I do not think it is an entire solution. For posts about how some places are watering their legal deserts, you can look here. Still, I believe the underlying issue of all IPV, but as noted above particularly rural IPV, seems to be society’s view of power-dynamics in relationships, especially when it comes to male-female relationships.

What was stated here is not just true for rural America, though. For blog posts on DV/IPV in rural places around the world (such as Australia) look here, and here.