How to Help Rural Victims of Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is a worldwide invisible epidemic, whether we “see” it or not. Detection is often easier in urban areas where population density involves more personal interaction than in rural or remote areas where abuse often flies under the radar. But with situational awareness and specialized knowledge of what to look for and where to look, it can more easily be identified and addressed.

Source: Image by Jose Antonio Alba from Pixabay

Remote Control: Identifying Intimate Partner Violence in Rural, Isolated Areas

Joakim Petersson and Anna-Karin Larsson (2025) investigated the experiences of social workers in identifying and assessing risks for intimate partner violence (IPV) in rural and remote areas.[i] Conducting 13 focus group interviews with 38 social workers from 17 rural and remote municipalities in Sweden, they identified three themes: challenges identifying IPV, different levels of expertise with risk assessment, and practical utility of available risk assessment tools. They further found that unfamiliarity with risk assessment was partially due to unfamiliarity with IPV, because cases were rarely identified.

Petersson and Larsson recognize that social workers in rural and remote areas face a wider range of social problems than workers in urban areas. Rural areas have fewer community resources and fewer staff. This makes it more difficult to gain sufficient knowledge, experience, and expertise within different areas of social welfare. Also, sparsely populated areas present unique spatial and social contexts that are susceptible to practical and socio-cultural constraints that negatively affect both victims' ability to seek support and professionals' ability to provide it.

Survivors Need Social Support

Petersson and Larsson acknowledge that victims request social services for reasons other than abuse, such as assistance with finances or housing. Accordingly, they recognize that to detect partner violence, social service professionals should be asking the right questions. They note what many in the field recognize instinctively: without sufficient training in screening, providers do not know what to ask, or what services are available. Intimate partner violence training should thus include methods of raising awareness of what other providers offer, such as healthcare or law enforcement services.

Petersson and Larsson also note that social workers who perform risk assessments should understand the link between intimate partner violence and violence risk—expertise unfortunately often limited to only a select few. Staff turnover in social services also affects this small group of trained workers.

Small Communities Preclude Anonymity

Complicating reporting rates is that many community members, including victims, perpetrators, and even family members, consider domestic violence to be a private matter. Petersson and Larsson note that this unique socio-cultural context of informal control and wanting to keep this private makes victims reluctant to disclose their abuse. They note that even entering the premises of a local social service center can create stigma, raising suspicion and questions from other community members. This dilemma, coupled with the resulting lack of anonymity, can dissuade victims from coming forward to seek help from service providers in sparsely populated areas. They note that this is exacerbated when coupled with distrust of social agencies and higher acceptance of IPV in remote regions. Victims who are geographically isolated face the additional burden of traveling to a service provider to begin with; a lack of infrastructure such as public transportation can further complicate this.

Small Town Solutions to a Widespread Problem

Although this violence is ubiquitous, it is easier to address in larger jurisdictions with more resources. Yet justice requires community members to work together to find solutions to the challenges to reporting in rural and remote jurisdictions. One idea shared by Petersson and Larsson is that victims seek social service support from a neighboring municipality to minimize confidentiality concerns. We can imagine other ideas that include remote reporting options, online access to counseling services, and other methods to connect with service providers in jurisdictions with similar small-town dynamics.

Regardless of geographic region, zip code, or population density, community members should invest time to know one another. Neighborhood watch programs don’t work unless neighbors are watching. Proactive collaboration creates the enhanced ability to spot red flags early, say something when we see something, and promote community safety for everyone.