Currently, there is a lack of evidence of culturally safe approaches for addressing family violence (FV) experienced by ethnic communities in Aotearoa–New Zealand. This paper aims to report findings that may help develop FV strategies specific to African, Middle Eastern and Latin American victim-survivors. The study is significant in light of the recent proposals that community-led and community-mobilising approaches would be most effective for addressing FV within ethnic communities. Findings from this study indicate that community-led approaches can only be safely used if and when the identified critical issues are addressed.
Narrative inquiry methodology guided the original study. This methodology effectively creates spaces where participants can narrate their lived experiences and “stories” from their perspectives. First-hand telling and hearing their stories is empowering, considering the many forms of social exclusion these communities face. Through semi-structured interviews, a space was created for the participants in this study to share their experiences of successfully or unsuccessfully accessing the victims of family violence visa policy. The stories shared included factors that made seeking help inside and outside their communities less or more challenging.
Findings from this study indicate that community-led approaches can only be safely used if and when the identified critical issues are addressed. The issues identified include the small and dispersed size of the communities, which impacts support networks and conditions created by immigration visa status, a critical factor linked to reporting, help-seeking and support offered to victim-survivors by the community members.
The study sample focused on Middle Eastern, Latin American and African communities and only a small sample within these communities. Therefore, it cannot present information explaining all factors that could be considered in developing and implementing FV strategies for ethnic communities. FV is complex and often goes under-reported. The participants in this study were self-referred. The victim-survivors in this study had sought help, engaged with relevant support services, and were willing to share their experiences. These findings cannot be extrapolated to ethnic victim-survivors who have not sought institutional help or have access to advocacy services. Therefore, generalisations should be made with caution.
The evidence provided in this paper suggests that community-based approaches, including community mobilisation and current approaches using state-based legal tools, will not be effective unless the issues identified are addressed. The article suggests ways of addressing these issues to implement community-based strategies safely. Further research is needed with a large sample of ethnic victim-survivors from specific ethnic communities to gain further insight into the factors impacting these strategies’ effectiveness.
As highlighted in the literature review section, some significant New Zealand Government initiatives increasingly call for community-led and culturally responsive FV strategies. Considering the findings from this study, some critical questions should be asked. The first is whether such strategies would be effective at all. The second is, if such strategies are to be implemented, how can this be done safely so as not to cause further harm to the victim-survivors? The findings also question whether current strategies, mainly those using the legal system as the main protection mechanism for ethnic victim-survivors, are enough.
Recent New Zealand Government-based studies investigating strategies that could effectively address FV experienced by ethnic communities have highlighted and proposed community-led and community-mobilising approaches for addressing FV with ethnic communities. However, a lack of evidence of culturally safe approaches was identified as a significant gap. This paper reports findings that may help develop FV strategies specific to African, Middle Eastern and Latin American victim-survivors. Findings from this study indicate that community-led approaches can only be safely used if and when the identified critical issues are addressed.
Introduction
Aotearoa–New Zealand has taken significant steps towards addressing family violence experienced by ethnic communities (defined according to the Ministry of Ethnic Communities) at many levels. However, there is still an ongoing discussion regarding practice approaches considered practical and culturally responsive for this population group (Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Ministry of Social Development, 2025). Emerging family violence (FV) studies led by ethnic-background researchers and practitioners have questioned whether the “traditional” approaches, mostly developed from Anglo/European perspectives, are effective and safe for use with ethnic communities. The interrogation of practice strategies is provoked by evidence showing that FV in ethnic communities has a distinctive profile, including underlying risk factors or drivers different from those in non-ethnic communities. The patterns of reporting and help-seeking, or the lack thereof, are also influenced by unique characteristics, such as immigration and ethnic minority status (Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; El-Kafafi et al., 2019; Simon-Kumar, 2019; Te Aorerekura, 2022).
At a practice level, the dominant approaches have been debatably premised on studies that tended to overly focus on cultural beliefs around gender norms as the main underlying cause of FV in ethnic communities, and accompanying strategies aimed at “fixing” cultural beliefs or “erasing” them entirely. Safety is primarily individualised and implemented through state-legal justice mechanisms. Most studies refer to the strategy as the culturalization approach (Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, 2020; Ministry of Social Development, 2023; Nair, 2017; Simon-Kumar, 2019). In contrast, the aforementioned studies emerging from ethnic researchers and practitioners argue that while some cultural beliefs or their interpretation are a risk factor, immigration-specific structural and systemic factors play an equal role that should not be ignored or minimised. Within this perspective, an effective strategy considers and addresses all cultural, structural and systemic risk factors. Notably, the introduction of the victims of family violence (VFV) visa policy was a significant development in this regard, recognising the risks and vulnerability created by temporary and dependent visa status (Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, 2020, 2025). In addition, these studies increasingly call for such strategies to be developed with ethnic communities, at a local level and from their lived experiences. An example is a community mobilising approach, whereby safety is primarily approached from a collectivist perspective, characterised by collective responsibility and accountability. A whole community, family or group approach is taken in the first instance instead of the dominant individualised approach. (Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; El-Kafafi et al., 2019; Simon-Kumar, 2019; Simon‐Kumar et al., 2017). The latter observation and proposal are not unique to Aotearoa-New Zealand (ANZ) (Adelman et al., 2012; Maturi and Munro, 2022; Menjívar and Salcido, 2002; Rashida, 2013). Examples of studies from other migrant-receiving countries where community and cultural mobilisation approaches have been proposed include (Adelman et al., 2012; Kim, 2010; Sokoloff, 2008a, 2008b; Strang and Braithwaite, 2002).
The question in this paper is whether either of the approaches could be effective in addressing some of the challenges to help-seeking and support barriers facing ethnic women victim-survivors. While there is some evidence showing that, for the most part, culturalization approaches are not practical in the current form (Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; El-Kafafi et al., 2019; Simon-Kumar, 2019; Te Aorerekura, 2022), the implementation and effectiveness of community mobilising approaches are still underexplored in ANZ (Ministry of Social Development, 2023). This paper reports findings that may provide insight into the effectiveness of community mobilisation approaches, as well as culturalization approaches. The findings may help develop FV strategies specific to African, Middle Eastern and Latin American victim-survivors. Findings from this study indicate that either of the approaches can only be safely used if and when the identified critical issues are addressed.
Literature review: factors linked to help-seeking and support experiences for ethnic victim-survivors
Addressing help-seeking and support challenges facing ethnic victim-survivors in their communities requires an understanding of the broader context in which FV occurs in the ANZ context.
Collectivist experiences in a predominantly individualistic culture
FV experienced by ethnic communities in ANZ occurs in a context that cannot be separated from the advantages and challenges of resettling in a new country and the reception in the receiving country (Ayallo, 2021; Simon-Kumar, 2019). In other words, experiences of migration and of being a migrant (Ayallo and Rasheed, 2024; International Organization for Migration, 2022; Menjívar and Salcido, 2002). Existing research has established the many opportunities migration brings in areas such as employment, education, access to healthcare and cultural exchange (Menjívar and Salcido, 2002). Simultaneously, resettling in a new country can create conditions that result in or increase people’s vulnerability to many psychosocial issues and challenges (Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Ayallo and Rasheed, 2024; Simon-Kumar, 2019). For instance, navigating cultural differences is one of these areas identified in ANZ and other international literature (Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023). While what it means to be a “Kiwi” generates a lot of heated debates, many agree that the perceived dominant cultural way of being in ANZ is significantly shaped by Anglo/European worldviews characterised by individualist culture (Neill, 2018; Wood, 2022). In comparison, many ethnic cultures are collectivists (Simon-Kumar, 2019). Challenges in navigating cultural differences or redefining social norms to fit the dominant culture have been directly or indirectly linked to known causes of FV. Commonly noted areas include gender norms, parenting and perception of mental health or illness (Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Bhatnagar, 2021; Erez and Harper, 2018; Maturi and Munro, 2022). These challenges are accentuated when particular cultural differences become associated with inequality, disadvantage, misrecognition and denial of access to critical resources and rights (Williams, 2017). In ANZ, this has been demonstrated in experiences such as the inability to find employment and the non-recognition of prior qualifications from countries of origin. Both can cause financial strain, frustration and social isolation. These, together with language barriers and loss of social and structural support, are known risk factors for FV (Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Bunn et al., 2022; Connor et al., 2017; Menjívar and Salcido, 2002; Simon-Kumar, 2019).
Perceptions of cultural differences, particularly ethnocentric views, have affected the way family violence services respond to the specific needs of ethnic communities (Nair, 2017). For instance, the focus on gender norms as the primary driver of FV in ethnic communities often stems from the argument that violence is reinforced or even sanctioned by practices endorsed by cultural conventions in some of these communities (Chaudhuri et al., 2014; Simon-Kumar, 2019). Patriarchal constraints, such as men being afforded a higher level of socially sanctioned power and control than women, are often cited as determinants, creating women’s vulnerability to abuse (Rashida, 2013). Recent studies from ethnic communities contend that violence results from unequal power dynamics embedded within structures, such as patriarchal structures. However, they point out that the problem with this perception is that strategies resulting from it are mainly based on comparing Anglo/European and non-Anglo/European women and cultures, whereas in one cultural worldview, women are treated well; in the other, women are treated poorly. Anglo/European lenses and worldviews are primarily used to measure oppression (Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Simon-Kumar, 2019; Somasekhar, 2016). This concern is shared by some FV studies from the Global South, women of colour, indigenous and Pacifica communities (Kim, 2010; Maturi and Munro, 2022; Rashida, 2013; Sokoloff, 2008b). Strategies stemming from this perspective are argued to be increasingly concerned about individual physical safety and separation, which aligns with individualistic remedies that remain impractical in collectivist communities (Nair, 2017).
Ethnic minority experiences: racism and discrimination
Ethnic participants at the Joint Venture, a 2018 New Zealand Government-led initiative to improve the whole-of-government approach to family violence and sexual violence, voiced that, for ethnic communities, violence occurs and cannot be effectively addressed without considering a social context of pervasive racism and prejudice (Te Aorerekura, 2022). This finding is supported by other studies showing how migrants in ANZ are “othered” and, in many areas of life, received with a certain degree of hostility (Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Ayallo and Rasheed, 2024; Education Review Office, 2023; El-Kafafi et al., 2019; Ministry of Social Development, 2023; Simon-Kumar, 2019). In the context of FV, this is one of the main reasons for the lack of or reluctance to report, disclose or seek help (Ayallo, 2021). The experience of racism is further compounded by the vulnerability created by immigration visa status, specifically temporary status. Based on the same study reported here, Ayallo and Kelly (2023) found that victim-survivors are unlikely or hesitate to report FV or seek help when their stay in the country depends on their immigration status, especially if this is linked to sponsorship by the abusive partner and their current status does not give access to subsidised social and economic support. Similarly, people who witness the violence are also unlikely to report it if their immigration status is uncertain, wary that reporting it will bring them to the attention of relevant authorities. The situation is further exacerbated if there are no alternative immigration pathways or access to existing pathways for victim-survivors is limited or complex. Studies from other migrant-receiving countries have reported similar findings (Erez and Harper, 2018; Jayasuriya-Illesinghe, 2018; Segrave, 2018; Triandafyllidou, 2022). What this means regarding developing community-based strategies for addressing FV with ethnic communities in Aotearoa–New Zealand has not been explored.
Emerging community mobilising approaches as a critique of the culturalization approach
Recent studies investigating strategies that could be effective have highlighted and proposed community-led and community-mobilising approaches for addressing FV with ethnic communities (Ministry of Social Development, 2023, 2025; Simon‐Kumar et al., 2017; Te Aorerekura, 2022). For instance, Simon‐Kumar et al. (2017), in their research with community-based practitioners in New Zealand, found that they effectively used various culturally-oriented invention techniques such as “family-oriented solutions”. The techniques used engaged multiple family members (not just the victim-survivor) and the victim-survivors’ communities by providing education and building support. The use of such approaches is not unique to Aotearoa. Culturally-specific community models of family violence prevention and intervention have been proposed and used in some countries, especially those coming from minority communities (Creative Interventions, 2012; Kim, 2005, 2010; Sokoloff, 2008b; Strang and Braithwaite, 2002). As discussed earlier, community mobilising approaches primarily argue that while cultural views can cause FV, culture can also be used to prevent FV (Kim, 2010).
The key arguments in these approaches include the following. Culture is not all bad (Adelman et al., 2012). Overly focusing on individual safety at the expense of the safety of the individual-in-relationships often translates to removing the victim-survivor from the place where violence is occurring, usually their communities. This is argued to be challenging for victim-survivors from collectivist cultures, where being part of the community is critical for social support and well-being (Kim, 2010). Relatedly, strategies based on this view are observed to rely on legal measures to implement individual safety. Kim (2010) argued that this tool may not be readily used by minority communities, who already have an ambivalent relationship with the justice system, including distrust. Adelman et al. (2012) made a similar observation about migrant communities in the context of immigration-status policing. Most FV community mobilisation approaches favour restorative and transformative solutions (Strang and Braithwaite, 2002). Community-based accountability is perceived to be critical in these strategies, arguing that people using violence (perpetrators) often return to live in these communities and should, therefore, be held accountable in a community setting as much as in the legal setting (Strang and Braithwaite, 2002). However, Coker (1999) points out the tension in the latter perspective. The extent to which perpetrators should be involved in addressing the harm caused and in what context remains a concern. Kim (2010) observes that the lines between sympathising with the perpetrators and not colluding, holding them accountable and providing space for second chances and behaviour change can be blurred. Jiwani (2001) also cautions that balancing the needs of the various parties, the victim-survivor, the perpetrator and the broader community, which, if not aligned, may compromise substantial interest in addressing FV in the long term. For instance, if the community prioritises their “good name” over the needs of the victim-survivor. Simon-Kumar (2019) raised a similar concern in the context of ethnic communities wanting to maintain a “model minority” status. In addition, internal power hierarchies may facilitate the ongoing use of violence by ignoring or minimising experiences of violence and the need for accountability (Jiwani, 2001). Therefore, while community-led approaches are promising, they are not without tension and challenges that need addressing.
The narrative study with 10 ethnic victim-survivors and 10 non-medical helping professionals investigating their engagement with the VFV visa policy in New Zealand queried participants, among other questions, on things that made seeking help within and outside their communities challenging or less challenging. Tables 1 and 2 present summaries of the participants’ characteristics. The paper reports on these findings.
Characteristics of the victim-survivors (n = 10)
| Participant characteristics (n = 10) | Description |
|---|---|
| Type visa held at the time of the application | 8 participants on a partnership visa |
| 2 participants on a visitor visa | |
| Type of visa held by the ex-partner using violence | 6 ex-partners were citizens |
| 4 ex-partners were permanent residents | |
| Form of abuse experienced | 7 participants experienced only one form (psychological abuse) |
| 3 participants experienced physical, psychological and sexual abuse | |
| VFV visa applied for | All 10 participants applied for a VFV work visa. Six were approved, and 4 were denied |
| 6 approved applied for VFV resident visa = all approved | |
| 4 declined VFV visa application = applied for open work visa (not under VFV visa policy) | |
| Waiting time during the initial application process | Between three months and two years |
Characteristics of the practitioners (n = 10)
| Participant characteristics (n = 10) | Description |
|---|---|
| Area of work | 3 immigration lawyers with experience working at local community law centres |
| 2 family lawyers | |
| 2 youth workers | |
| 3 social workers | |
| Cultural backgrounds | 5 from ethnic backgrounds |
| 5 from non-ethnic backgrounds |
Methodology and method
Narrative inquiry methodology guided the original study (Clandinin, 2006; Clandinin and Caine, 2008, 2013; Savin-Baden and Niekerk, 2007). Studies, mainly those involving minority and racialised groups, have found this methodology effective for creating spaces where they can narrate their lived experiences and “stories” from their perspectives. First-hand telling and hearing their stories is empowering, considering the many forms of social exclusion these communities face (Tuwe, 2015; Tuwe, 2018). In ANZ, principles of narrative inquiry as a methodology are embedded in decolonising methodological approaches such as kaupapa Māori and Talanoa Pacifica methodologies (Lee and Evans, 2021; Vaioleti, 2016; Walker et al., 2006). Through semi-structured interviews, a space was created for the participants in this study to share their experiences of successfully or unsuccessfully accessing the VFV visa policy. The stories shared included factors that made seeking help inside and outside their communities less or more challenging. The Unitec Research Ethics Committee (UREC) approved the research in 2022.
Participants and recruitment
The data used in this paper are drawn from the same study reported by Ayallo and Kelly (2023). Twenty people participated in this study. These included 10 women (victim-survivors) who had experienced FV and successfully or unsuccessfully applied for one or both VFV visas (work and/or Resident visa). As shown in Table 1, the women were from one or more of the Middle Eastern, Latin American and African Communities (MELAA) cultural groups. The main reason for choosing these cultural groups is that their experiences are still largely undocumented (Ayallo, 2021). The initial intention of the study was only to have this group of participants based on the gap or lack of their voices in FV studies (Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, 2020). However, a few of the first women interviewed recommended including non-medical practitioners who often supported the women in navigating the VFV visa process. UREC approved the amended participants’ pool. As shown in Table 2, ten practitioners from non-medical professions (including community lawyers, youth workers and social workers) who had experience in actively supporting victim-survivors to apply for one or both VFV visas participated in the study.
The two groups of participants (victim-survivors and practitioners, characteristics as shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively) were recruited using purposive sampling. The author used her community and professional networks and relationships to recruit potential participants. These included people and organisations who were involved in offering social, legal and educational support services for ethnic communities in Auckland, Hamilton and Wellington. Information about the research was circulated through these networks. Potential participants who matched the inclusion criteria self-referred by contacting the author (also the lead researcher). The final group of participants were provided with comprehensive information about the research, consented and voluntarily participated. A total of 20 participants were recruited and participated in the study.
Data collection
Data was collected using semi-structured interviews. All ten interviews were conducted by the author (also the lead researcher). These were individual interviews, except in two scenarios where the victim-survivors requested to be interviewed together (only for some parts) with the practitioners who supported them during the visa application process. The victim-survivors above guided which parts they wanted the practitioner to be present for. The data collection occurred during the COVID pandemic when ANZ still had several health protocols to minimise the spread. All interviews were conducted on Zoom. Participants scheduled interviews at their preferred times. Given the nature of the topic and emphasis on safety (physical and psychological), the researcher discussed venue choice with each of the women. For instance, if they needed support organising a private and safe venue for the Zoom conversation. Generally, both groups of participants were queried about their initial engagement with the VFV visa policy (when, how and who was involved) and their experiences during the process, as such factors that made it easier or challenging. The interviews lasted one hour (individual) and three hours (for the shared sessions). All interviews were conducted in English and were digitally recorded and transcribed by a professional transcription service in English. Data were stored and protected following UREC ethical guidelines.
The larger study, from which the data is drawn, generally focused on the participants’ engagement with the VFV visa policy and the challenges and barriers encountered in this process. Questions about successfully or unsuccessfully engaging with this visa included aspects and prompts linked to broader help-seeking and support, such as.
For victim-survivors (characteristics as summarised in Table 1):
How did you come to apply for this visa? What was happening, and who else knew about what was happening? How did they respond and support you, or not support you?
Did you need any support with the process? What kind of support? Who provided or did not provide such support?
Were there any specific factors or reasons that you attribute to your successful or unsuccessful obtaining the visa applied for, with regard to the support received or not received?
Do you have any views or recommendations on enabling women in similar situations in your community to access this visa as a form of support? What works well in the community? What does not work well in the community?
For practitioners (characteristics as summarised in Table 2):
How did you first meet/engage with the participant(s) you supported? What was happening to them?
What kind of support did you offer? How did you go about providing the support?
Were there any specific factors or reasons you attribute to your successful or unsuccessful offering the support needed by the victim-survivor?
Do you have any views or recommendations on enabling women in similar situations in ethnic communities to access this visa as a form of support? What works well in the community? What does not work well in the community?
Data analysis
The data analysis followed inductive thematic analysis steps and was informed by narrative inquiry analysis (Clandinin and Caine, 2013; Clarke et al., 2015). Applying inductive thematic analysis involved continuously and carefully listening to Zoom session recordings, interview transcripts and researcher notes to identify patterns (similarities and differences). Questions linked to participants’ views on what made the process easy or challenging, with reference to the support received or lack of support during the VFV visa application process, guided the themes generated. For instance, the forms of support received and from whom, who supported or did not support them and what made the support or the lack thereof distinctive. Following narrative inquiry methodology, the themes were situated, understood and interpreted within existing studies on immigration experiences and FV experienced by ethnic communities (Clandinin and Caine, 2008). The author regularly debriefed and consulted with practitioners and researchers with relevant expertise. This was done to ensure rigour and trustworthiness using reflexive practice (Creswell and Poth, 2016).
Findings
The findings are reported under two themes. The first theme reports on victim-survivors’ views, and the second on practitioners’ views. All names in the reporting below are pseudonyms developed during the data analysis.
Participants’ characteristics were described in the first publication using the same data set (Ayallo and Kelly, 2023). A summary is provided below.
Theme 1: Views on factors that made seeking help within and outside the community challenging or less challenging
Responses under this theme were mainly generated from victim-survivors’ (as shown in Table 1) stories.
Most victim-survivors mentioned many times that their communities were small and dispersed. Most found this challenging in many contexts. A recurring statement was that “the community is so small, where almost everyone knows each other.”
For one participant, this became a barrier to seeking help from a culturally specific service. Okinyi narrated:
I had just had enough of the violence and wanted to leave […] I met someone who suggested that I call organization Y because people who work there would understand my culture. Then I called just to check my options if I left […] like, would I be deported, what would happen to my kids […] things like that […] So, I called […] I did not use my real name. When the person who answered introduced themselves, I realized I knew them […] someone from my community […] I got scared […] would they tell other community people […] would they try to convince me to go back […] I just did not know […] I think they would have been okay. Anyway […] I decided to contact another organization where no one knew me or my community […].
For three participants, their fear of asking for help from within the community was based on their experience of sharing their situation with people close to them, who instead tried to convince them to “work things out as a community”. Yani’s story below summarises their experience:
[…] the whole experience made me careful about what I share with some people in the community […] this is just my experience […] you cannot go to people you know […] because they will send you back to that person or they will manipulate you in some way […] I mean […] the first thing they may tell you is not to tell anyone; keep it within your house […].
Simon-Kumar (2019) explained that “wanting to keep things in-house” is influenced by many factors for migrants. For instance, in some situations, it is an effort to uphold “traditional” views amplified by the “othering” migration experiences. Many migrant communities “typically entrench a defensiveness around their cultural practices in an effort to maintain cultural ‘purity’ against the dominance of the host Anglo-European/white culture” (p. 16). Another study evaluating the effectiveness of community-based FV strategies for ethnic communities emphasised the importance of defining “community”, particularly determining who the power holders/brokers and those who “officially” (representatives, leadership and spokespersons) represent the community are and how their values and agenda align with the welfare of the victim-survivors. The study noted cases where community notables holding “traditional” views called upon or recruited to mediate or solve cases of FV against women have only served to help uphold dominant community views (Shalhoub-Kevorkian and Erez, 2002).
Most victim-survivors shared that getting support became more challenging after people close to them knew about the abuse or after they left the abusive relationship. For instance, in the case of Mama. She narrated how after she and the children left the abusive relationship, the support network also “disappeared:”
I got to know and be close to many families from × [participant’s culture]. After I reported the abuse and everything was out in the open, they just completely disappeared from the face of the earth. Some of these people lived next door to us for years, and our children played together […] The man was a work colleague of my ex; they went to the gym together […] After the event, they just cut contact with me and the children […] and I did not try to contact them either […].
Anyango also spoke about how life became very challenging after the event:
I lived in the same area for the next seven years […] well I had nowhere to go, and my children went to school there. I felt like an outcast […] people did not talk to me anymore […] I would see people who were close ‘friends’ every day at the veg shop, supermarket, school pickups […] it was tough. It was the humiliation and loss of face. I had to survive the scene because of my children’s schooling […] that is the challenge when our communities are so small […] For me, community support was and is out of the question. I would not recommend it.
The above experiences support research showing related reasons why victim-survivors may be reluctant or hesitate to leave abusive relationships and seek help – the fear of isolation and losing community support. In most ethnic communities and collectivist cultural contexts, individuals frequently think or do what is in the best interest of their family. They think of themselves as a family first and not as “individuals” (Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Nair, 2017; Simon-Kumar, 2019).
The fear of losing community support and networks or, as one participant put it, “weighing up loyalty” was noted as a factor influencing support. This was especially noted in cases where victim-survivors needed a witness to support their experience. Xavier stated that:
It was hard finding someone to support my account of the events [statutory declaration]. Our communities are very small […] we could say that everyone knows each other. So, to be honest, I can see how this is hard […] It’s kind of like […] what if I am called to give evidence in person? Am I going to be outing myself? How will this affect my relationship with community members and my stay in the country? Will x [the perpetrator] find out that I have provided evidence against them? […].
The view above of community members being afraid of providing support to the victim-survivor because of the implications of this on their relationship with the perpetrator and the wider community was also mentioned in the context where the victim-survivors did not have an established support network at the point of entry. They adopted the partner’s support networks, including friends. Weru shared:
Our neighbours, who were his friends when I first arrived and then became my friends witnessed what was happening to me. When I left and was asked to provide proof, I asked the lady (a friend’s partner) to support my story. She refused […] she said that she feared how it would affect her relationship with my ex-partner, her partner, and our community. They had children, too. So, she feared that her children would also be affected if she gave evidence against my ex. It was hard for me to hear […] but I could also understand where she was coming from. Fast forward […] a year later, she went through the same thing [family violence], and she called me to apologize for not supporting me when I needed her […].
In Weru’s experience, when the abuse happened or occurred, loyalty to “their” friend was prioritised. In some cases, community members only stepped up to offer support because of the potential impact not offering support would have on immigration status. This was Akinyi’s experience:
Everyone just disappeared from my life. This one family that I knew and had witnessed the abuse was my last chance at proofing the violence. I asked them, and they refused because they had applied for residency and were scared that being involved would affect their application. I went to the police and gave them details about when x family was there when my ex was being abusive. The police questioned them and reminded them that not telling the truth would be considered to interfere [perverting] with justice […] then they got scared and decided to give evidence, only to save their residency. They became police witnesses. But I never had any interaction or relationship with them after that […].
Ayallo and Kelly (2023) discussed the implications of this finding in the context of factors impacting ethnic victim-survivor’s ability to meet the required evidence for the VFV visas. Regarding community members offering support to victim-survivors, the fear caused by precarious immigration status can be a determinant of whether or not this support is provided. The findings above align with studies showing that legal status in the country (visa status) will most likely be prioritised by ethnic communities when making decisions in many contexts. This is mainly because having a valid visa (immigration status) is tied to their livelihood (such as employment and education). Erez and Harper (2018) argued that this is often a consequence of the policing and criminalisation of immigration, which in situations of FV can make people fearful and reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement or push them to cooperate.
For comparison, the author examined the data to understand factors that made it challenging or less challenging for practitioners to support the victim-survivors. Practitioners’ views (as shown in Table 2) of support with specific reference to the VFV visa policy have already been reported by Ayallo and Kelly (2023). Here, the paper focuses on any particular or unique skills and knowledge that contributed to adequate or inadequate support from the practitioners’ view.
Theme 2: Views on factors that made supporting victim-survivors challenging or less challenging
The most commonly cited factor was understanding a victim-survivor’s cultural background, including the dynamics of that culture and how these impact FV situations. Many shared experiences of supporting women through the application process, mainly the interview processes to determine whether violence occurred, and noted a lack of cultural understanding by some professionals involved. Practitioner S’s narration below offers a good summary of the issues highlighted by most:
I have sat through many of these interviews […] which, to begin with, came across as interrogations […] very intimidating […] As the support person, we can’t really do much […] we just sit back and listen. For me, it was the type and tone of questions asked and the response […] in one example, the woman explained how the abuse happened, which was a cultural form of abuse from my perspective […] and the other professional just turned around and said, “that is not a real thing, surely.” I understand not knowing […] but it was just how it was expressed […] the woman felt that the professional did not believe and undermined her experience […].
I did not know about this practice before the woman came to us for support. But I researched it so I could understand her experience and support her better. This curiosity and capability building is missing in most support offered […].
Another practitioner shared how this lack of cultural responsiveness impacted a victim-survivor she supported. Participant M shared:
I accompanied this woman to her interview […] the form of abuse was psychological […] the ex-husband confiscated her passport, threatened not to support her with any further visa applications, and to report her to immigration. The other professional outrightly said to her, “You will not be able to prove any of that […] we look for hard evidence […] come back when you have hard evidence […] ” My interpretation was that the official concluded that the woman was ‘scheming’ […] the woman cried after we left the session, and I never saw her again. She just dropped off the radar […].
I hear that type of response a lot, like, “We are concerned about fraud”. I don’t know what evidence they have around how many cases have been established to be fraudulent as opposed to one that doesn’t have the type of evidence they are looking for […] I really don’t understand where this attitude is coming from, especially when it comes to providing support for people from other cultures […] I think it is really disappointing […].
The experience above shows a gap in understanding cultural-specific forms of FV in ethnic communities. There were several examples shared by practitioners in the study. Ayallo and Kelly (2023) reported and discussed how this gap impacts meeting the criteria and providing the evidence required for VFV visas. Regarding seeking help by disclosing or reporting, the lack of understanding can deter a victim-survivor from doing so (Simon-Kumar, 2019).
Some participants raised the issue of the language barrier and how this was addressed to support the victim-survivor adequately. English was an additional language for most victim-survivors they supported. The spoken or conversational English varied, with some having a limited ability and requiring the support of an interpreter. Most practitioners noted that a safe interpreter was someone who could speak the language and is, at the same, a culturally trained interpreter. Examples were provided where people were used as interpreters simply because they could speak the language, and careful thought was not given to other critical issues, such as the relationship with the victim-survivor. Practitioner Q gave a good example:
We had a traumatising experience supporting a client with limited spoken English […] first, a male interpreter was appointed, which was problematic when someone had been abused by an ex-male partner […] Then, this person was from the same community and same networks as the victim-survivor […] we thought, don’t they know how small these communities are and probably consider using someone from outside the community? We raised these issues. But it was too late to change anything if we wanted to speed up the process for the woman […].
Another specific area where challenges were noted was around referrals, mainly that a victim-survivor should be referred to a culturally-specific service simply because they come from that culture. Again, this highlights what the first group of participants shared about the small nature of ethnic communities. Practitioner K elaborately shared:
I think there is a bit of confusion in this space and training is needed. I want to point out two things. One is that there is a tendency to accept or refer a woman to a service such as a refuge centre based on their ethnicity without considering things like whether or not people from her community work there, etc. I don’t think Women’s Refuge should simply accept the referral based on ethnicity alone […] I have seen some women experience further harm because of this practice. The other thing is that […] it is the easiest thing to do since most of our mainstream services have been slow to upskill practitioners to be culturally responsive. This is a shame […] I have worked with a cohort of clients who prefer not to work with culturally specific services and ask to be referred to a mainstream service […] because their communities are quite small, and they get worried about bumping into someone from the community […].
These findings are further evidence that cultural responsiveness is crucial for practitioners and anyone involved in the helping process for ethnic victim-survivors (Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; El-Kafafi et al., 2019; Reina et al., 2014; Simon-Kumar, 2019).
Discussion and conclusion
Overall, the women’s experiences show that help-seeking within their communities was complicated and challenging. People in a position to support them either did not do so or hesitated for many reasons, such as fear of losing their support networks, and the impact of doing so or not doing so had on their immigration status. As an advocate for community-led approaches in many other areas, such as bottom-up approaches to addressing community problems (Ayallo, 2024; Ayallo and Rasheed, 2024), the author found these findings revealing and thought-provoking. As highlighted in the literature review section, some significant New Zealand Government initiatives increasingly call for community-led and culturally responsive FV strategies (Ministry of Social Development, 2023, 2025; Te Aorerekura, 2022). Considering these findings, some critical questions should be asked. The first is whether such strategies would be effective at all. The second is, if such strategies are to be implemented, how can this be done safely so as not to cause further harm to the victim-survivors? The findings also question whether current strategies, mainly those using the legal system as the main protection mechanism for ethnic victim-survivors, are enough. These communities already have a complex relationship with the legal systems because of the conditions created by immigration status, mainly temporary immigration status. Other studies have asked this latter question in other migrant-receiving countries (Adelman et al., 2012; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023; Strang and Braithwaite, 2002).
Findings show a complex interplay between internal and external factors determining the support sought and provided to victim-survivors. Evidence negates the common view that cultural worldviews are the main barrier and should be the focus of intervention strategies (Adelman et al., 2012; Ayallo, 2021; Ayallo and Kelly, 2023). Immigration status plays an equally critical dual role. For instance, community members who witness the violence may want to be loyal to the community and to “their friend” by not “revealing community secrets.” The fear of losing their only social support in a new country becomes a barrier. However, their decision can also be influenced by immigration status, especially if this is uncertain or temporary. Precarious immigration status can make community members withhold or offer support by collaborating or not collaborating with legal authorities. This is in addition to the fact that ethnic migrant communities have a complex relationship with the justice system, which literature attributes to under or over-policing issues within these communities (Adelman et al., 2003; Jiwani, 2001).
Based on the findings above, safely implementing community-led and community-based FV strategies requires critical consideration of the following issues. The first is careful analysis and understanding of the “community” and the power dynamics in the community. As argued by Shalhoub-Kevorkian and Erez (2002), critical questions about who the power holders/brokers and those who “officially” (representatives, leadership and spokespersons) represent the community are and the extent to which their values and agenda align with the welfare of the victim-survivors. These are the people likely to lead these strategies. Therefore, they must hold views that carefully balance the needs of the victim-survivor, perpetrator and broader community. Otherwise, Jiwani (2001) warned that they may only serve to help uphold dominant community views. The power relations and differences between various groups in ethnic communities should also be examined. As Maturi and Munro (2022) found, immigration experiences can produce power imbalances or reproduce new hegemonies, impacting how community issues are understood or addressed in that community. In addressing FV, for instance, it is vital to ask whose voices are being heard and whose are not and why.
Community-led and base strategies should also address risks created by immigration experiences, especially precarious immigration status. For instance, the fear of isolation and losing community support and community members being fearful of collaborating with legal authorities due to uncertainty about how this may impact immigration status. Evidence from this study shows that both these factors contribute to the hesitation to report or support the victim-survivor. Ayallo and Kelly (2023) highlighted the need for community-based awareness creation and education on the purpose and responsibility of being part of a legal process as a witness to FV. Such initiatives may help address real and misconception-based fears that hinder support for victim-survivors (Bhatnagar, 2021; Ghafournia and Easteal, 2018; Segrave, 2017). This may also help improve the effectiveness of criminal legal tools, such as protection orders, which are currently heavily relied upon to achieve safety for victim-survivors (Adelman et al., 2012; Kim, 2010; Sokoloff, 2008b).
Some limitations concerning the reported findings need to be considered. The first is the study sample, which focused on MELAA communities and only a small sample within these communities. Therefore, it cannot present information explaining all factors that could be considered in developing and implementing FV strategies for ethnic communities. The findings can only be cautiously generalised to all MELAA ethnic communities. FV is complex and often goes under-reported because of some of the reasons cited in this paper. The participants in this study were self-referred. The victim-survivors in this study had sought help, engaged with relevant support services, and were willing to share their experiences. These findings cannot be extrapolated to ethnic victim-survivors who have not sought institutional help or have access to advocacy services. Therefore, generalisations should be made with caution.
Despite these limitations, the present study presents findings that add to the evidence on what works or does not for preventing and addressing FV in ethnic communities. As pointed to key ANZ-based studies, this is an underdeveloped area. This paper provides evidence that may help develop FV strategies specific to African, Middle Eastern and Latin American victim-survivors. Including victim-survivors perspectives in this study provides confidence that the findings are representative of some of the key people at the community level likely to be most impacted by the developed FV strategies. The inclusion of practitioners’ views adds to this confidence. The inclusion of literature from other migrant-receiving allows for some comparisons demonstrating rigour.
The evidence provided in this paper suggests that community-based approaches, including community mobilisation and current approaches using state-based legal tools, will not be effective unless the issues identified are addressed. The article suggests ways of addressing these issues to implement community-based strategies safely. Further research is needed with a large sample of ethnic victim-survivors from specific ethnic communities to gain further insight into the factors impacting these strategies’ effectiveness.
