Barriers to Reporting Domestic Violence in Rural Areas

Domestic violence is an insidious form of interpersonal abuse, often invisible to others as it occurs behind closed doors. There are both physical and psychological barriers to detecting domestic violence in rural areas, where lower reporting rates obscure often rampant abuse. Yet smaller jurisdictions may also create an environment where community members experience a greater willingness to help. Research explains.

Source: Image by Ruslan Sikunov from Pixabay

Violence Prevalence and Response in Rural and Remote Areas

Joakim Petersson et al. (2025) examined the experiences of police officers and social workers responding to cases of intimate partner violence (IPV) within remote and rural areas of Sweden.[i] Analyzing interview data from 38 social workers and 6 police officers from six rural and remote regions, examining inter and intra-agency collaboration and risk management response, they found an incongruence between urban-centric IPV prevention policies and the unique cultural and structural characteristics of sparsely populated regions.

Although research is mixed regarding IPV prevalence rates in urban, rural, and remote areas, Petersson et al. recognize that service providers in rural and remote areas operate with fewer resources and less staff who are adequately trained to respond to IPV.[ii] This requires existing staff to respond to a larger area and cover a wider range of social problems without being able to specialize in any specific area. This is unfortunate because Petersson et al. note that rural and remote victims may engage in less help-seeking when exposed to IPV, which means they may suffer abuse that is more severe, enduring, and frequent.

A Lack of Local Service Providers

Petersson et al. acknowledge there are several reasons that victims in sparsely populated areas are less inclined to report, including practical and socio-cultural barriers which are unique to rural and remote areas. One practical reason is limited access to available service providers in areas that are rural and remote, because in such areas, law enforcement, healthcare providers, and shelters are few and far apart, if they exist in the area at all.

They also note that services may be impracticable to access due to distance, because service providers in sparsely populated areas may be gathered in regional hubs that are difficult to access. Poor infrastructure such as limited bus schedules may further complicate victims seeking help, assuming they can even leave an abusive home where they may be raising children themselves without assistance. For police, geography can cause delayed response times in responding to the calls for help they receive.

Cultural and Gender-Based Views of IPV

Regarding socio-cultural challenges, Petersson et al. explain that reporting may be discouraged due to perceived social isolation, cultural norms of considering IPV to be a private matter and having a higher distrust of social agencies than experienced by victims in more urban areas.

They note that isolated and close-knit communities may hold patriarchal views about traditional gender roles, promoting beliefs that women are expected to stay at home and be obedient to their husbands. They recognize that such “rural masculinity” or “rural patriarchy” can normalize IPV and create reluctance for victims to reach out or engage with service providers.

A City Where Everyone Knows Your Name: Victim Reluctance and Community Response

Another barrier to reporting IPV in remote jurisdictions stems from the reality that like in the television sitcom Cheers, in a small town, everyone knows your name. Consequently, many victims are reluctant to report abuse due to concerns with confidentiality. Petersson et al. recognize this challenge as well, noting the lack of confidentiality may cause shame and embarrassment for victims, particularly when local service providers are also community members, who are often acquainted with both the victim and perpetrator.

There was, however, one positive aspect to their research that stood in contrast to previous studies. Petersson et al. found that informal social control in sparsely populated areas may result in a friendlier community compared to urban areas. Although informal social control in remote areas may serve as a barrier for reporting, it may also provide an incentive to protect victims of IPV. They cite the importance of community leaders serving as role models along with social marketing campaigns designed to increase bystander intervention in rural areas. Such efforts can improve detection of abuse, provide aid to victims, and ensure that justice is served.