Reimagining Survivor Healing: Lessons from Culturally- and LGBTQIA2S+-Specific Advocacy

Background and Purpose: Sexual violence (SV) survivors who are LGBTQIA2S+, Black, Indigenous, people of color, and/or otherwise marginalized often encounter inaccessible and retraumatizing service systems that are ill-equipped to address structural and identity-based harm. Although trauma-informed care has been widely adopted, it frequently centers individual-level recovery while overlooking the relational, cultural, and structural conditions that shape healing. Culturally- and LGBTQIA2S+-specific survivor advocates have developed alternative approaches that respond to these gaps, yet their practices remain underexamined in ways that limit their recognition within social work research, service systems, and funding structures. This study examines how such advocates conceptualize and facilitate survivor healing and considers implications for advancing more equitable, community-responsive models of care.

Methods: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 culturally- and LGBTQIA2S+-specific survivor advocates across 12 U.S. states. Participants had between 3 and 16 years of advocacy experience and worked with LGBTQIA2S+ survivors, culturally specific communities, or both. Interviews explored advocates’ approaches to supporting survivors and their understandings of healing within contexts shaped by structural violence. Using reflexive thematic analysis informed by trauma- and violence-informed and intersectional frameworks, we analyzed verbatim transcripts to identify how advocates conceptualize and enact healing-oriented practices.

Results: Advocates described four interrelated practices that illuminate how survivor healing is conceptualized and enacted. First, advocates centered survivors’ humanity and self-determination (“You’re a human being in front of me”), grounding care in relational recognition, dignity, and survivor-defined goals. Second, advocates framed their work as collective and community-based (“Trying to make sure that we all survive”), mobilizing mutual aid, informal support networks, and community partnerships when formal systems were insufficient. Third, advocates expanded dominant definitions of safety (“Safety can also be feeling safe in your own body”), emphasizing embodied, identity-affirming, and creative practices that support reconnection and agency. Finally, advocates underscored belonging and collective healing (“We are community; we are here”), describing survivor-centered spaces that foster validation, reduce isolation, and connection without the burden of educating others. Across themes, healing was conceptualized as relational, community-rooted, and culturally grounded, extending beyond individual service use to include collective care.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings indicate that dominant service models are misaligned with how healing is experienced and produced for marginalized survivors. Culturally- and LGBTQIA2S+-specific advocacy demonstrates that healing is relational, community-based, and grounded in identity-affirming practices that address structural harm. These findings suggest reorienting social work practice toward survivor-defined goals, cultural humility, and sustained partnerships with community-based organizations. At the organizational and policy levels, results highlight the need to expand funding and evaluation structures to support culturally specific programs, mutual aid, and non-clinical healing practices often excluded from formal systems. By elevating these models, this research contributes to more inclusive, responsive, and equitable systems of care and supports community well-being and the broader common good.