“Empowerment Based Approaches In Law Enforcement Responses to IPV and Sexual Assault: A Qualitative Study”

Background and Purpose: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault (SA) remain prominent issues in our society today. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men experience some form of IPV in their lifetime (CDC, 2016). Survivors often face significant challenges and barriers when engaging with law enforcement, including re-traumatization, secondary victimization, fear of retaliation, and other institutional responses that may reinforce harm. These experiences frequently stem from systemic biases and a lack of culturally responsive, trauma-informed approaches within the criminal justice system. Empowerment based approaches can play a critical role in promoting survivor-centered practices by emphasizing its core tenets, voice and choice, empathy, and survivor self-determination. However, little is known about detectives' use of empowerment based approaches when working with IPV and SA survivors. This study explores empowerment when working with survivors starting from initial reporting with law enforcement.

Methods: This study utilized a qualitative approach of semi-structured interviews with Arizona detectives and victim advocates. Interviews explored participants’ experiences working with IPV and SA survivors and perceptions of empowerment-based practices within law enforcement interactions. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis to identify patterns related to training, investigative practices, survivor engagement, and system-level constraints.

Results: Five key themes emerged. First, participants described limited formal training in trauma-informed and empowerment-based approaches, with most relying on general victimology or crisis intervention training. Second, detectives demonstrated partial integration of empowerment practices, including active listening, open-ended questioning, flexibility, and efforts to give survivors voice and choice. Third, findings highlighted a tension between investigative demands and survivor-centered care, particularly when legal thresholds, case attrition, or timelines constrained responsiveness to survivor needs. Fourth, victim advocates played a critical role in bridging gaps, emphasizing rapport-building, providing options, and supporting survivor autonomy throughout the process. Finally, participants identified systemic and structural barriers, including resource limitations, rigid legal processes, and broader criminal justice dynamics that were often perceived as not fully aligned with survivor needs. Important overlaps in themes emerged from both detectives and victim advocates, most importantly the need for advocates in general as well as a lack of informed training, highlighting the need for more survivor-centered and empowerment based approaches to follow-up and investigation.

Conclusions and Implications: Findings suggest that while elements of empowerment-based practice are present within law enforcement responses, they are inconsistently applied and often constrained by broader systemic and institutional factors. Expanding trauma-informed and empowerment-focused training, strengthening collaboration with victim advocates, and addressing structural limitations within the criminal justice system may enhance survivor-centered responses. These findings emphasize the need to move beyond individual-level practice changes and toward system-level reforms that better align investigative processes with the needs and autonomy of both IPV and SA survivors.