A Multifaceted Approach to Address Intimate Partner Abuse Amongst Black/African American Lesbians Within Massachusetts Correctional Institution-Framingham:

A Pilot Program Proposal

Celeste K. Hedequist

Criminal Justice Department

CJ742.A-2023.SPSES2

Violence Prevention Advocacy & Social Change

Lasell University

April 26, 2023

A Multifaceted Approach to Address Intimate Partner Abuse Amongst Black/African American Lesbian Women Within Massachusetts Correctional Institution-Framingham

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common in the lives of incarcerated women and has serious repercussions for their reentry into the community. Whether perpetrated by previous partners, current partners who live outside of the correctional institution, or those within it, the consequences of not addressing IPV can impact rates of recidivism and gravely impact the health and well-being of these women and their families. It is estimated that there are high numbers of women in prison who are mothers and/or caregivers (Rogers, Speake & Campbell, 2023). In one U.S. study that looked at pathways between IPV and women’s criminalization, researchers found some women being forced to take responsibility for an offence they had not committed (Roger, Speak & Campbell, 2023). Other researchers have found that women may engage in violence as a means of self-defense or defense of children, and that abusers would file complaints and abuse prevention orders to lever the legal system against them (Roger, Speak & Campbell, 2023).

For Black (Black immigrants or Caribbean Black) and African American women (collectively Black/African Americans) and lesbian women the prevalence of IPV is at least as the same as or heightened when compared to non-Black/African Americans or those who do not identify as lesbian. When viewing these two groups through an intersectional lens the effects of IPV could be additionally elevated due to barrier to access, structural violence, poverty, substance abuse, mental health issues, minority stress, racism, homophobia, etc.

It’s imperative that the risk of IPV and its deleterious effects on incarcerated Black/African American lesbian women be addressed through a comprehensive program which addresses their unique risk and protective factors. Despite being typically hostile environments, correctional institutions and prisons can also serve as fertile grounds to break cycles of violence and abuse (Muscat, 2008). These facilities provide an insulated environment where educational programming might be quite effective.

This pilot program aims to address IPV amongst Black/African American lesbian women by working to address their past trauma, provide education about stress management, reinforce their resilience and positive coping skills, assist them with deciphering between unhealthy and healthy relationships and provide the necessary skills and information to overcome barriers to seeking help. In addition, this pilot program seeks to eradicate overly harsh punishments used in correctional institutions for displays of affection amongst women inmates as this can compound the problem, especially for those Black/African American inmates who openly identify as lesbian.

Problem Statement and Underlying Considerations Informing Program Theory

Since the 1970s the number of women incarcerated and under correctional supervision has dramatically increase (Garthe, et al., 2023). According to the Sentencing Project, “[b]etween 1980 and 2021, the number of incarcerated women increased by more than 52%, rising from a total of 26,326 in 1980 to 168,449 in 2021” (Monazzam & Budd, 2023, pg. 1). Remarkably, it is approximately six times higher today than it was in 1980. While rates of incarceration for Black/African American women have decreased compared to white women, the imprisonment rate for Black women is still approximately 1.6 times higher than the rate of imprisonment for white women (Monazzam & Budd, 2023). More than any other racial group, Black/African American women are more likely to be incarcerated (Mclean-Riggs, 2017). In addition, Black/African American women experience intimate partner abuse at significantly higher rates than white women, and they often remain silent out of fear of police force and a sense of obligation to their race and culture (Gordon, 2023). Astonishingly, at least one study found that more than 40% of Black women report experiencing IPV in their lifetimes (Gordon, 2023).

While Black/African American lesbians are known to be at an elevated risk for IPV, fewer studies have been done to substantiate it in this population (Rice et al., 2020). “In a Chicago community sample, of self-identified Black lesbians (n=164), 39% reported IPV victimizations measured by items that asked the respondent if their most recent partner ever ‘threw something at you, pushed you, or hit you’ or threatened to kill you, with a weapon or in some other way” (Rice et al., 2020, pg. 7, citing Bostwick et al., 2019). Another study which looked at Black college women found that Black lesbians were more likely to experience verbal, sexual, and physical assault than Black women who were attracted to men (Rice, et al., 2020). Other research on lesbians generally suggests that they are about 1.5 times more likely to be assaulted by a partner and 3 times more likely to experience rape than women living with opposite-sex partners (Vasquez et al., 2021).

The frequency of relationships between inmates in women’s prisons has been well documented, however, IPV within prisons has been largely ignored (Mclean-Riggs, 2017). One study noted that “[d]ue to the intersection of racism, homophobia, classism and institutionalism in prison, intimate partner violence between incarcerated women is either entirely unseen, mocked as laughable cat fighting, or used as titillating entertainment” (Mclean-Riggs, 2017, pg. 1881). On the flip side, overly harsh punishments for IPV within women’s prisons might also be doled out because correctional officers are not experienced in managing IPV in relationships and/or may fear that women will be “‘turned gay’” by “‘true homosexuals’” in prison’” (Mclean-Riggs, 2017, pg. 1894). With respect to displays of physical affection in prison, “[v]iolation of such rules continue to carry extremely harsh sanctions, including solitary confinement, time in ‘the Hole’ (administrative segregation) . . . . ” (Mclean, 2017, pg. 1894). Only 4 percent of former state prisoner in 2008 identified as other than heterosexual, yet studies show that between 30 percent and 90 percent of incarcerated women engaged in sex with other inmates (Mclean-Rigg, 2017). Cultural norms are shifting, and genderfluidity has become more socially acceptable, and thus there is a need to not only address these changing social norms within the criminal justice system, but also with respect to programming for IPV.

An effective program for addressing IPV for incarcerated women must look at how the prison system exacerbates the problem due to outdated beliefs about homosexuality, especially for women who openly identify as lesbian as they report that prison guards scrutinize their interactions more closely and look for reasons to penalize them for sexual contact (Mclean-Riggs, 2017).

In Massachusetts domestic violence related homicides appear to be rising. According to Jane Doe, Inc.’s tracking since January 1, 2022, there have been approximately 27 incidents of death related to domestic violence (Jane Doe, Inc. n.d.). At least two of these incidents involved members of the LGBTQ+ communities, underscoring the need for broader education and awareness in culturally specific ways (Jane Doe, Inc., n.d.).

Studies conducted in rural areas show that IPV continues to impact incarcerated women’s lives after reentry and are linked to their likelihood of recidivism (Cyr et al., 2021). While MCI-F typically holds inmates from areas described as less rural, similar concerns about the impact of IPV after reentry from MCI-F and the risks of recidivism likely still apply. In a study conducted by Cyr et al. (2021), they note that structural violence contributes to and reinforces the effects of IPV (Cyr et al., 2021). “[W]hen they consider their upcoming release from prison, the effects of structural violence often constrain women’s perceptions of potential alternatives to abusive relationships and/or criminalized behaviors” (Cyr et al., 2021, pg. 18). Black/African American lesbians would likely perceive the same constraints regardless of where they were incarcerated and/or released due to effects of structural violence, minority stress, etc. even if such perceived, and/or actual, constraints to alternatives to abusive relationship and criminalized behaviors might be more pronounced in some rural areas.

Given the disproportionate rates of incarceration for Black/African Americans; the estimated elevated rates of IPV among Black/African Americans and/or lesbians (as well as the intersectionality of the two); the recent rise in IPV related homicides in Massachusetts, and the effects of IPV on reentry and recidivism, there is an urgent need for a program which addresses IPV for Black/African American lesbian women while in MCI-F, as a population that is most at-risk for future victimization. As explained in more detail below, this pilot IPV intervention program for Black/African American lesbian women will: address and treat prior and current IPV while incarcerated in MCI-F; reduce IPV during incarceration and address the effects of racism and homophobia related to IPV within MCI-F; seek to reduce the risk of future victimization (and/or perpetration of IPV) and rates of recidivism; (4) improve overall health and well-being of this population while incarcerated and after reentry and (5) improve help seeking behaviors to overcome real and perceived barriers.

A Multifaceted Approach to IPV at the Microsocial Level

With Benefits at the Macrosocial Level

Logic Model of the Problem

Context for the intervention, population, setting, and community

This pilot IPV intervention program for Black/African American lesbian women will provide comprehensive services at a significant dose (levels of exposure to services to be determined by working with those in MCI-F) to these services, e.g. services addressing risk factors and protective factors for IPV in general and/or for target population, strengthening individual knowledge or skills, empowering target population through opportunities to educate others including MCI-F staff on experiences with racism and homophobia (and the intersection of both) and how it relates to IPV. This pilot program is primarily a microsocial program focusing on a specific subset of individuals within a Massachusetts correctional institution (the catchment area) who are estimated to be at an elevated risk for IPV, potential recidivism and likely endure a host of severe and related health and mental health problems compounded by minority stress and barriers to seeking help. While the program’s intervention and prevention strategies are aimed at the individual level, there are potential benefits at the macrosocial level, including MCI-F’s overall population, and the community at large during and after their incarceration. Also, the pilot program has the potential to educate prison staff, correctional officers, inner perimeter security (I.P.S), medical providers within MCI-F, the Superintendent of MCI-F, etc., change organizational practices and even influence policy and legislation. All ages and levels of ability within the target population should be considered for the program, and the program should also be offered to those in the general population at MCI-F who are awaiting trial.

Needs Assessment, Rationale & Program Theory

In the section above, much of the underlying rational for the program is discussed. While the empirical data on this target population is scare, there is some evidence suggesting that IPV amongst lesbians and in particular Black/African Americans lesbians is higher than among heterosexual women (Walters, Chen & Breiding, 2013; Rice et al., 2020, pg. 7, citing Bostwick et al., 2019; Vasquez et al., 2021). Given the barriers to seeking help which this population faces, stemming in part from their distrust of police, it is safe to assume that the risk is even higher than estimated due to under-reporting. Despite these estimated elevated risks, there are few IPV programs in the literature aimed at meeting the specific needs of this population, and “none were found in peer reviewed articles” (Subirana-Malaret, Gahagan & Parker, 2019, pg. 7). In a scoping review of the literature, Subirana-Malaret, Gahagan & Parker (2019) found, however, that 6 articles mentioned an intersectional approach (Subirana-Malaret, Gahagan & Parker, 2019). Although there is a gap in the research and no formal studies have been conducted of IPV intervention programs specifically aimed at Black/African American lesbian population, intersectionality appears to be a promising framework for minoritized populations impacted by IPV (Subirana-Malaret, Gahagan & Parker, 2019).

In an article by Simpson & Helfrich (2014), the experiences of 16, Black, low-income survivors of abuse were detailed (Simpson & Helfrich, 2014). The study was limited by the small geographic region; however, results indicate that racism and homophobia and the theory of intersectionality shaped how participants responded in terms of barriers they faced to accessing help and receiving services needed for IPV (Simpson & Helfrich, 2014). “Many women further described how, within their low income, Black communities, homophobia is both acceptable and visible” (Simpson & Helfrich, 2014, pg. 452). The overall lack of outreach to both lesbians and women living in underserved populations was identified as probably the most significant institutional barrier, which caused the women to remain isolated from other women who had similar experience who could have help them heal (Simpson & Helfrich, 2014).

In 2012, Hill et al. (2012) presented an intersectionality-based model demonstrating how the most likely risk factors for African American lesbians, e.g., poverty, history of trauma and mental health symptoms, in addition to distress caused by multiple intercepting forms of oppression created a disproportionately high risk for this underreached and underserved population (Hill et. al, 2012). “[A]buse and other destructive behaviors are among the many different possible outcomes when individuals experience multiple and intersecting forms of trauma and oppression” (Hill et al., 2012, pg. 403). Hill et al. (2012) notes that while some individuals who have overcome these risk factors may become violent or abusive, many will “develop coping strategies and other expressions of resilience to overcome and mitigate the impacts of multiple traumas and adversities (Hill et al., 2012, pg. 403). “Learning to cope successfully with trauma histories is surely one of the largest factors in reducing partner violence, both in terms of perpetration and (re-)victimization” (Hamby, 2006, pg. 191). As a result, this targeted IPV program should focus heavily on developing effectual mitigating coping strategies and resiliencies to survive and overcome trauma (Hamby, 2006, Hill et al., 2012).

Finally, according to researchers, barriers that Black African American lesbians face when trying to access help are “largely a function of the intersecting impacts of multiple oppressed minority statuses” (Hill et al., 2012, pg. 408). Black/African American lesbians may be fearful of being “outed” by partners for reporting the abuse and/or by those to whom they report the abuse (Hill et al, 2021, 409). A Black/African American lesbian may believe that she will not be taken seriously by a sexist, racist social and legal service system that may deem her to be innately aggressive, deviant, and hypersexual (Hill et al., 2021). Therefore, she may refuse to report IPV, seek any help or treatment, and/or decide that fighting back on her own is a better route which can lead to more trauma and the risk of criminal charges as the criminal justice system in MA continues to punish imperfect victims of IPV who fight back against actual aggressors (Hill et al., 2012; Goodmark, 2023). “For those who believe the legal system will not protect them, particularly Black people, violence may seem to be (and may in fact be) the only way to protect themselves” (Goodmark, 2023, pg. 15). An effective treatment and prevention program for IPV amongst Black/African American lesbians should, therefore, incorporate culturally sensitive and trauma informed therapy for both victimization and perpetration. Incarceration at MCI-F for the perpetration of IPV by Black/African American lesbians is likely more due to the criminal justice system’s continued refusal to condone the use of self-defense for those who are battered and abused; and/or alternatively due to prior untreated significant trauma and the challenges this underserved population faces to accessing appropriate and culturally sensitive treatment.

Program Goals

Reduce victimization and perpetration of IPV within the target population while at MCI-F and after reentry into the community.

Increase health and well-being in the target population at MCI-F and after reentry into the community.

Reduce rates of recidivism within the target population.

Reduce overly harsh penalties and eliminate solitary confinement as an administrative punishment for displaying affection amongst inmates at MCI-F.

Reduce stigmatization associated with being incarcerated especially for Black/African American and/or lesbians.

Objectives

Screening.

By January 2026, ensure that all Black/African American lesbians are seen at the start of the program at MCI-F by a culturally competent health-care provider who is trained to identify prior and current IPV exposure (as victim or perpetrator).

By January 2026, provide similar follow-up screening (at intervals to be decided in conjunction with MCI-F staff) to all previously screened and newly incarcerated Black/African American lesbians at MCI-F.

Treatment & Prevention.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F will receive information by program leaders for recognizing IPV within their own demographic and increase knowledge about risk factors (prior traumas of all types including childhood trauma, isolation, oppression, poverty, mental health/substance abuse, etc.) and protective factors (e.g., social networks, positive coping skills, resiliencies) for IPV.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F who previously screen positive for prior or current IPV (whether as a victim or perpetrator) will receive appropriate and culturally competent, trauma informed, treatment monthly to process the abuse and develop effectual mitigating coping strategies to diminish destructive behaviors including, but not limited to, IPV.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F will receive appropriate and culturally competent, trauma informed, treatment monthly for coping with minority stress.

By January 2027, all Black/African Americans lesbians will be provided by program leaders and liaisons at MCI-F with monthly opportunities to share stories with other inmates and MCI-F staff about the ways in which racism and homophobia (and the intersection of the two) have impacted IPV for either them or others they know.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F will be provided information monthly by program leaders and liaisons at MCI-F regarding characteristics of unhealthy versus healthy relationships.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F will be encouraged monthly by program leaders and liaisons at MCI-F to take continuing education courses and/or enroll in one of MCI-F career programs, for example cosmetology.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F will have special access to an ombudsperson or an inmate advocate whose role is to assist the target population with reporting victimization and overcoming barriers to seeking help.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F will receive at least two opportunities monthly to work with program leaders and liaisons at MCI-F to discuss relationship building strategies with family members (including their children) and friends to build networks of support outside of MCI-F.

By January 2027, all Black/African American lesbians incarcerated at MCI-F will receive the opportunity for family and/or couples therapy sessions (the dose of services to be decided by an expert in the field) starting 1 year prior to release from MCI-F.

By January 2027, program leaders will develop and launch media and social media campaigns to advocate for the elimination of harsh punishments, including solitary confinement for displays of affection within MCI-F.

By January 2027, program leaders will form at least 2 coalitions within other systems for raising awareness about the effects of IPV on Black/African American lesbians.

By January 2027, program leaders will form at least 2 coalitions within other systems and partnerships within the community for destigmatizing incarceration especially for Black/African American and/or lesbians.

By January 2027, program leaders will form at least 2 coalitions who will help lobby local government for the elimination of harsh punishments, including solitary confinement for displays of affection within MCI-F.

Program Design, Process, Outcomes

Program theory is often referred to as the program’s conceptualization or the program’s blueprint, or design (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). To ensure a program theory is well conceived it should be derived from stakeholder’s input (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). Using a map of the stakeholders and a “snowball approach” (an exhaustive approach to understanding those who will be involved and impacted at every stage of the program) will ensure that all stakeholders are identified and consulted (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

The stakeholders for this IPV program are, at least in part, the following (beyond the target population): program developers, leaders, counselors, volunteers; MCI-F community (inmates and staff); the families of the target population; the communities of reentry; Superintendent of MCI-F, MA government officials (such as the Governor and the Attorney General who oversee the MA prison systems); and criminal justice system; the healthcare system at MCI-F and in the community; immigration officials; MA department of children and families; Black and/or African leaders in the community; LGBTQ+ movement leaders; the MA legislative body members; law enforcement sector, faith leaders and religious sectors.

Also, to ensure that it’s well conceived it should be based on (1) well tested assumptions that have been examined by various stakeholders before implementation; (2) and based on a review of existing information, including literature reviews, prior studies, and (3) a thorough assessment of the needs addressed, any enablers and barriers, and possible confounding factors which could cause the implementation and/or program theory to fail, as well as a deep understanding of the catchment area or the geographical are to be served by the program (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

A logic model is a depiction of a program theory “which lays out the expected sequence of steps going from the program services to client outcomes” (Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004, pg. 94). The logic model is a framework which ensures that no issues are overlooked. Since the logic model lays out a program’s process from beginning to end it makes it easy to identify questions that the evaluation might appropriately address (Cohen, Chavez & Chehimi, 2010). Some of the basic elements include identifying and outlining inputs, activities, and outcomes (initial, intermediate, long-term) (Cohen, Chavez & Chemini, 2010; see also Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

Below is a logic model of this IPV intervention program for the target population addressed within this proposal:

Evaluation

Evaluation can assess the need for a program and assess its design and function. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative approach that aims to combine knowledge for change in communities to improve social and health conditions and eliminate disparities through stakeholder partnerships (Cohen, Chavez, & Chehimi, 2010). CBPR (like empowerment evaluations) is a participatory process which allows for multiple perspectives to be shared. CBPR creates opportunities for individuals and groups who are most impacted by health threats to influence polices and practice (Cohen, Chavez, & Chehimi, 2010). Including appropriate and culturally knowledgeable community residents in the evaluation process, for example requires flexibility and humility amongst evaluators. The risk of forgoing this inclusion is disempowerment of the target population meant to benefit from a program.

In addition, if appropriate and culturally knowledgeable community stakeholders are not being heard, or their input is not considered, or even valued, then implementation will likely be more difficult (Cohen, Chavez, & Chehimi, 2010). As a result, the evaluation process and the program will likely yield less meaningful dialogue and lack trusting relationships which could otherwise be helpful in a program’s implementation but also for the target population upon reentry into the community. Ultimately, the risk is that programs will likely have less successful outcomes and efforts and funding to solve health problems and other adverse conditions will dwindle. Without the participation of the community, opportunities to avoid cultural harms during implementation may be missed, and collateral opportunities for economic development potentially bypassed (Cohen, Chavez, & Chehimi, 2010).

At the outset, an analysis by the program developer and/or director, program leaders, a program consultant, and various representative stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, as set forth above, should be performed:

Needs assessment: “Questions about the conditions the program is intended to ameliorate and need for the program (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004, pg. 54).

Assessment of Program Theory and Process: Questions about the program’s rationale and design and its operations, implementation and services rendered (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

Impact and Efficiency Assessment: Questions outcomes and impacts, and its cost effectiveness (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

In addition, appropriate and relevant evaluation questions should determine what is supposed to be happening, how the program is expected to work, examine coalitions and partnerships, and scrutinize connections between activities and the intended benefits (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). This will help to identify aspects of the program “most essential to effective performance” early on and allow for modification when necessary (Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004, pg. 93).

During and after implementation, the program director in connection with representative stakeholders will assess impact of the activities and assess whether objectives are being met with questions tailored to the program’s design, implementation, processes, and outcomes (like the assessment performed at the outset). Questions will seek to obtain feedback about any adverse impact on participants, as well as issues/problems during implementing of any part of the design and/or activities. The program director in connection with representative stakeholders use the data collected to improve the program and make modifications where necessary.

For future efficiency assessments only, the program director will hire an independent evaluation consultant with to conduct a cost/benefit analysis of the program every year thereafter, so that funds are allocated prudently, and any grant money is not squandered.

Data will be collected from the target population when services are rendered by anyone in rendering such services, including the program director, counselors, the ombudsperson, liaisons at MCI-F, volunteers etc. in the form of short questionnaires at the end of the service. Also, additional longer questionnaires will be given to participants to fill out every 3 months. Other representative stakeholders will be asked to observe the program from time to time at MCI-F and fill out questionnaires tailored to assess the program’s efficacy.

One downside of targeted prevention programs, like this one, is that they can be potentially stigmatizing if other members of a community become aware that individuals have been labeled high-risk (Hamby, 2006). Here, especially given the target population’s likely fear of homophobia and racism and perceived/actual potential for discrimination for being incarcerated, this is a genuine concern that should be addressed directly and early by representative stakeholders to gain different perspectives on how best to alleviate any stigma associated with being enrolled in the program. To the extent the program can advertised as an empowering one, and one that allows unheard voices to finally be heard this may be helpful in counteracting stigma for the group as being labeled as high-risk. However, this will best be addressed at the outset and through implementation and afterwards to ensure it is being carefully monitored and steps are being taken to correct any adverse impacts of the program on any of the participants.

Even with intense monitoring of the intervention efforts, backlash can result. (Hamby, 2006). Program leaders and service providers, evaluators, etc., should examine whether the program is iatrogenic and if so, for whom (Hamby, 2006). Anyone experiencing more victimization or perpetrating more violence after services must be examined immediately to determine the underlying cause and closely followed-up (Hamby, 2006), and there should be a plan to treat and/or remove such participants if underlying cause is determined to be due to the program.

Some spillover intervention effects of this program might include benefit to children and/or families of those in the target population. In addition, indirect beneficiaries might be the overall community ay MCI-F, the community of reentry. Conversely, there could be negative spillover effects as well with this program given that it takes place in a correctional institution which is not generally viewed as a health promotive environment. This program could, however, spark a change at the environmental level pushing MCI-F to become a more health promotive environment where rehabilitation efforts and trauma informed therapy have a greater potential to affect change in the lives of those incarcerated, their families, and their respective communities at large.

Confounding factors to consider that might contribute initially to objectives and short-term goals not being met in terms of reduction of IPV in the target population is increased access to services for reporting and in turn, increased reports of incidences of IPV within MCI-F. In addition, the program is taking place in a correctional institution which is typically an innately unhealthy environment, and exposure to violence is often accepted and not ameliorated immediately amongst inmates. Evaluations questions should be aimed at the environment and decisions should be made whether to house all inmates in the program in a trauma unit in the facility to offset some of the stress and adversity from the environment itself.

Coalitions & Social Change Movement

Coalitions

Coalitions are crucial to any intervention program as IPV is a widespread public health problem that involves many facets of society. IPV intersects areas such as health, the criminal justice system, immigration, education, housing, and child welfare, and in turn has policy implications in all these areas as well. As Stokols (1992) the term “ecology pertains to the interrelations between organisms and their environments” (Stokols, 1992, pg. 7). The ecological paradigm has evolved from several disciplines and incorporates a variety of concepts from the systems theory, which examines the interdependence of and the dynamic interrelationships between people and their environments (Stokols, 1992). Treatment and prevention of IPV in any population, requires a strategy that examines policies within the realms of a victim’s environment.

Further, to intervene with more leverage (Georgia Health Policy Center, 2016) a program must engage stakeholders from other sectors. Less diverse coalitions “may be weaker in their ability to comprehend factors that contribute to the problem that lies beyond the purview of their member organizations” (Cohen, Chavez, & Chehimi, 2010, pg. 122). Sometimes mental models or assumptions about what is happening and what may be at the root of a problem as well as ways to approach it can be faulty (Georgia Health Policy Center, 2016). To avoid projecting faulty (and potentially harmful) thinking or assumptions about IPV, race, homosexuality, incarceration, the environment at MCI-F, usefulness of services, etc., it is critical to engage stakeholders from as many systems as possible, including engaging input from participants and those within the MCI-F community (other inmates and staff).

Also, examining the participants’ respective environment within MCI-F and within their respective communities will inform decision making about other sectors which may be a good fit for a coalition because they share overlapping goals. These coalitions with sectors who share the similar goals, but perhaps can offer differing perspectives, will leverage the program’s ability to better address problems with program design, process, implementation, etc. at the outset and/or as they arise, and will ensure better outcomes (Snyder, 2013).

One natural choice, in terms of forming a coalition to leverage outcomes, is with the MA government and those who oversee the prison system, such as the Governor’s office and the Attorney General’s office. Both offices have a stake in reduced incarceration for the states most vulnerable citizens. Incarceration is costly, and so is treatment of IPV and its widespread effects in any community, so a coalition with both offices should be considered. A coalition with the government sector could also help secure the needed funding for the project. In this same vein, MA Department of Public Health might be an obvious choice for a coalition as it would have a shared interest in positive health outcomes and reduction in violence, deaths, and injury due to reducing IPV. These two sectors have a positive relationship in the system because as one changes in a positive direction, so will the other (Georgia Health Policy Center, 2016).

Another choice for a coalition partner for this program might be the criminal justice system, though with this target population, this could backfire. Perhaps overtime a coalition with this part of the government sector could be considered if the stakeholders agree. Similarly, the criminal justice system has a stake in ensuring that the states most vulnerable citizens receive just treatment, and that any incarceration should not compound prior trauma that has likely led to incarceration in the first place.

For a second choice, a coalition with local LGBTQ+ organizations, nonprofits, etc., would not only leverage the program’s potential success but also provide a strong base for community organizing a social awareness campaign for the program. Their stake in the program is likely the most apparent as their goals are most aligned with the programs.

The immigration would be another sector to consider as many Black lesbians might stand to be deported after incarceration because of immigration status. It would be preferable to work with immigration so that they work done with this population while at MCI-F could be followed-up after reentry in the community without interruption and risk of retraumatizing participants.

Some experts may argue that this program within a correctional institution (prison sector) is not “upstream” enough to prevent or even treat IPV in the target population. They might assert that overlapping elements (like the immigration sector and the criminal justice sector) will possibly discount the efforts made by the program in what is known as a “vicious cycle” (Georgia Health Policy Center, 2016). However, there is another possibility. Success within this program could be used to leverage organizational change in these other sectors and could potentially result in a symbiotic positive relationship for these other sectors which would affect change on a macrosocial level.

Community Organizing & Activism

Community organization starts with identifying stakeholders in the community and building relationships to encourage individuals to transcend individual differences and unite with each other for collective well-being (Cohen, Chavez & Chehimi, 2010). In the words of Maya Angelou:

If it is true that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, isn’t it also true a society is only as healthy as its sickest citizen and only as wealthy as its most deprived? (Angelou, 1997).

Building an enduring network of people to combat IPV amongst one of the most vulnerable populations in communities requires identifying individuals with strong interpersonal relationship skills and strong advocates in professional sectors who can lead and foster civic engagement (Cohen, Chavez & Chehimi, 2010). However, it is wiser to do so in ways that unite rather than divide communities further whenever possible. Partnerships with community-based service providers in the legal and healthcare sectors would be a good starting point for identifying professionals who could rally support and action for the program and for its awareness campaign. These professional connections would also be beneficial for participants in the program after incarceration.

Community Servings in Jamaica Plain is an example of civic engagement that could provide guidance for this program on overcoming stigma around poverty, race, homosexuality, etc., and engages volunteers in local communities in nonpolitical ways to best serve the program and the target population. Community Servings actively engages communities to prepare and deliver meals for those who are chronically ill. “Community Servings was founded in 1990 by a diverse coalition of AIDS activists, faith groups, and community organizations to provide home-delivered meals to individuals living with HIV/AIDS” (Community Servings, n.d.). The program has received federal funding and has engaged volunteers from every background and political affiliation to improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable citizens in local communities. It has demonstrated that civic engagement can destigmatize a problem and improve the lives of those who often suffer in silence.

Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts in another example of a potential collaborator to receive guidance from and bolster community action, as it has a base of support that this program could capitalize on. It could also serve as a partner to achieve the goal of reducing harsh punishments for displays of affection at MCI-F (as it already collaborates with Massachusetts Against Solitary Confinement or MASC). Its webpage provides useful information and an array of links which support the mutual goals of this pilot program (Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts, n.d).

Social Awareness Campaign

The target population for the social awareness campaign and de-stigmatization efforts will initially be at least three communities within MA where there is a higher number of Black/African Americans, lesbians and/or both. An assessment of the state for this information should be gathered in conjunction with the program’s partnering LGBTQ+ organizations and any coalition with the MA government, namely the Governor’s and Attorney General’s offices. Ultimately, the entire state of MA should be the target population for the awareness campaign and de-stigmatization efforts.

Potentially, the symbol for the program could be the interlocking female symbols because it is representative of the lesbian community and it has the capacity, if used correctly, to de-stigmatize incarceration. The symbol has dual messages for the purposes of this program: (1) the interconnectedness signifies a network support for IPV among Black/African American lesbians and (2) the two circles also resemble handcuffs or incarceration signifying the unjust incarceration rates of Black/African American lesbians who often receive disparate treatment while incarcerated due to homophobia and racism.

The motto for the campaign will be developed in part by the program leaders, counselors, participants, collaborating organizations, and community members. One example of a possible motto is: What You Don’t Know Might Hurt Us. This speaks to the fact that ignorance is dangerous for minoritized groups, especially when these groups are at heightened risk due to elevated rates of trauma, minority stress, fear, abuse, and incarceration (separating them even further from family, friends, community, and a network of support services which they already face barriers to accessing).

Social awareness campaign efforts to increase visibility of the problem and address the stigmatization associated with it will mostly be in the form of advertisements, through media and social media coverage of stories and the program itself. However, some other efforts, as described below, will also be employed. An example of a hashtag for a social media campaign is #ListenLearnLead to encourage target audiences to have a stake in changing the attitudes and actions towards Black/African American lesbians.

The campaign will run for as long as the program will run and possibly afterwards. The program will engage ambassadors from its coalitions with the LGBTQ+ sector to recruit participation, for fundraising efforts and to lobby the government for appropriate grants. The program will also look for community sponsors, such as media organizations, academic institutions, and religious organizations whose respective goals and visions align, as such a campaign might be mutually beneficial in attracting a greater audience for them and/or more diverse enrollment.

The program and its collaborators will design a webpage with information and updates about the program’s core missions, efforts, stories of participants of their success in overcoming stigmatization, trauma and IPV, and use an on-line funding software to secure donations from those interesting in financial supporting the mission.

The program’s campaign ambassadors will work with local communities to host awareness and de-stigmatization events. These events should be held both virtual and in person to reach as many as possible. Volunteers in the community with the help of coalition organizations and community partnerships should create email distribution lists to share information about events and the program’s successes.

Ultimately, the campaign efforts will be evaluated by formal questionnaires in targeted communities and ultimately the entire state to determine if the campaign is wide reaching and consistent with objective and goals.

Conclusion

The intention of this program is to raise-awareness of the problem of IPV amongst Black/African American lesbians, treat the effects of prior and current IPV and reduce future IPV amongst Black/African American lesbians, and provide information and support to this population to empower them to overcome barriers to access and improve their health and well-being while incarcerated and after reentry into the community. Correctional institutions come with a host of challenges, but they can also serve as an opportunity to disrupt cycles of abuse and violence. This program is primarily focused on treating individuals, but also concentrates on empowering these same individuals to effect change on a macrosocial scale. Survivors are some of the best advocates for social change. If provided access to the services needed to heal and protect themselves, participants in this program have the potential to change organizational policies and structures, as well as influence legislation from within MCI-F and/or after reentry into the community. The target population is one of the most vulnerable populations with respect to IPV and structural violence. If successful, this program could be modified for other populations within MCI-F and/or within other correctional institutions. The pilot program has a host of potential collaborators and partners already within the state which it could use to leverage its success and resolve issues as they arise. In addition, the social awareness campaign piece is an opportunity to spread awareness, de-stigmatize the problem and gain allies which will assist the target population after reentry.

References

Angelou, M. (1997). Even the stars look lonesome. Random House Publications.

Bostwick, W. B., Hughes, T. L., Steffen, A., Veldhuis, C. B., & Wilsnack, S. C. (2019). Depression and victimization in a community sample of bisexual and lesbian women: An intersectional approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 131–141. .

Cohen, L., Chavez, V. & Chehimi, S. (Eds.) (2010). Prevention is Primary: Strategies for Community Well-being (2nd. Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Community Servings. (n.d). History. Retrieved on April 26, 2023 from https://www.servings.org/about-us/history/.

Cyr, S., Jaramillo, E. T., Garrison, L., Malcoe, L. H., Shamblen, S. R., & Willging, C. E. (2021). Intimate Partner Violence and Structural Violence in the Lives of Incarcerated Women: A Mixed-Method Study in Rural New Mexico. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6185. MDPI AG. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18126185

Garthe, R. C., Fedock, G., Rieger, A., Hsieh, W. J., McLay, M. M., & Malcome, M. (2023). Women’s Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence While Incarcerated: The Measurement Structure, Reliability, and Validity of a Novel Instrument. Violence against women, 10778012231155176. Advance online publication.

Georgia Health Policy Center. (2016). Systems Thinking Tools and Principles for Collaboration and Problem-Solving. (Healthcare Georgia Foundation Publication No. 97). Atlanta, GA.: Healthcare Georgia Foundation.

Goodmark, L. (2023). Imperfect Victims. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Gordon, S. (2023). Unique issues facing Black women dealing with abuse. Verywell Mind.

Greater Newburyport Domestic Violence High Risk Team. (2011). Safety and accountability report: 2005-2011. Newburyport, MA.

Hamby, S.L., (2006). The who, what, when, where, and how of intimate partner violence. American Psychologist, 13(3/4), 179-201.

Hill, N.A., Woodson, K.M., Parks, C.W. Jr. (2012). Intimate partner abuse among African American Lesbians: Prevalence, risk factors, theory, and resilience. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 401-413.

Jane Doe, Inc. (n.d). The Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence. Retrieved March 7, 2023 from https://www.janedoe.org .

Mclean-Riggs, E. (2017). “locked together/ in this small hate space”: Recognizing and addressing intimate partner violence between incarcerated women. California Law Review, 105, 1879-1909.

Meadows, D. (1994). Down to Earth. Vimeo.

Messing, J.T., Amanor-Boadu, Y., Cavanaugh, C.E., Glass, N. & Campbell, J. (2013). Culturally competent intimate partner violence risk assessment: Adapting the danger assessment for immigrant women. Social Work Research, 37 (3), 263-275.

Monazzam, N. & Budd, K. M. (2023). Incarcerated women and girls. The Sentencing Project.

Muscat, B. (2008). Violence and safety programs in women’s prisons and jails: Addressing prevention, intervention, and treatment. Gendered Violence and Safety, Bulletin Report (2008, November)

Rice, J., West, C.M., Cottman, K., Gardner, G. (2020). The Intersectionality of Intimate Partner Violence in the Black Community. In: Geffner, R., White, J.W., Hamberger, L.K., Rosenbaum, A., Vaughan-Eden, V., Vieth, V.I. (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Across the Lifespan. Springer, Cham.

Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (Eds.). (2004). Evaluation: A systemic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Simpson, E.K. & Helfrich, C.A. (2014). Oppression and barriers to services for Black lesbian survivors of intimate partner violence. Journals of Gay & Lesbian Social Service, 26:4, 441-465.

Snyder, R.L., (2013, July 22). A raised hand: Can a new approach curb domestic violence homicide? The New Yorker, 34-41.

Stokols, D., (1992). Establishing and maintaining healthy environments toward a social ecology of health promotion. American Psychologist, 47(1), 6-22.

Subirana-Malaret, M., Gahagan, J. & Parker, R. (2019). Intersectionality and sex and gender-based analyses as promising approaches in addressing intimate partner violence treatment programs among LGBT couples: A scoping review, Cogent Social Sciences, 5:1, 1644982, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2019.1644982

Vasquez, A., Kirkner, A., Gruschow, K., & Genkova, A. (2021). Trauma Experiences of LGBTQ+ Victims: Victimization, Discrimination, and Other Stressful Experiences.

Walters, M.L., Chen J., & Breiding, M.J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention