Family violenceFootnote 1 has historically been understood as a concern predominantly impacting heterosexual cisgenderFootnote 2 women, as perpetrated by cisgender men (Donovan & Hester, 2010). Framing of family violence in this manner has led to overlooking and even dismissing the experiences of others (Seymour, 2019). This is particularly pertinent for lesbian, gay, bisexual+, trans and queer (LGBTQ+) people who are as likely, if not more likely, to experience family violence (Finneran & Stephenson, 2013; Leonard et al., 2008; Victorian Agency for Health Information, 2020), with a growing body of literature illustrating that experiences of family violence are underreported (Leonard et al., 2008; Workman & Dune, 2019) and yet not infrequent among LGBTQ + people (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2016; Barnes & Donovan, 2018; Donovan & Barnes, 2020; Donovan & Hester, 2014; Finneran & Stephenson, 2013). Further, LGBTQ + people face unique forms of violence from intimate partners (intimate partner violence; IPV) and family members (family of origin violence; FOV), including LGBTQ+-specific violence such as rejection from family members due to LGBTQ + status, threats of disclosing sexual or gender identity to others and withholding of gender affirming care.

Concerningly, LGBTQ + people are less likely than non-LGBTQ + peers to seek support from mainstream agencies (i.e., those that cater to the general population), such as the police, and specialist family violence services (Barnes & Donovan, 2018; Donovan & Hester, 2014). A previous Australian study of people in LGBTQ + relationships, found that 53.5% of women and 67.1% of men who had experienced IPV did not seek any form of support (Farrell & Cerise, 2007). Previous literature has identified a number of barriers to accessing family violence services and support faced by LGBTQ + people who have experienced IPV or FOV, including fear of disclosing their LGBTQ + identity, fear of reports not being taken seriously, and perceived or actual experiences of discrimination and harassment within healthcare and service settings (Bornstein et al., 2006; Leonard et al., 2008). Further, responders in the family violence sector may perceive reports as less serious or not requiring the same support as they would afford a heterosexual cisgender woman. Research findings from previous studies suggest that laypersons (Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Russell et al., 2012; Seelau & Seelau, 2005) and police officers (Cormier & Woodworth, 2008; Russell, 2018) perceive male-to-female IPV as more serious than female-to-male IPV or IPV in same-sex relationships, as well as perceiving victims of non-male perpetrators as less credible in their claims of violence (Russell, 2018). There has been little research to date examining perceptions of violence perpetrated or experienced by non-binary people.

The perceptions of others, coupled with the use of heteronormative language and assumptions regarding relationships inherent in the family violence sector likely impedes LGBTQ + people’s ability to recognise and name violence as well as their confidence to report experiences of family violence (Donovan & Barnes, 2019; Rogers, 2019). A qualitative study conducted by Donovan and Barnes involving interviews of LGBTQ + survivors of IPV, concluded that LGBTQ + experiences of family violence, including the process for recognising and reporting violence, needs to be acknowledged as a social issue rather than a private concern (Donovan & Barnes, 2020). In line with Liang et al.’s (Liang et al., 2005) framework for understanding family violence support-seeking, the findings of Donovan and Barnes, further suggest that the broader social context of cisgender heteronormative expectations in which LGBTQ + individuals live is likely to impact on their ability to recognise and seek support for their experiences of family violence. Moreover, the study found that interview participants frequently relied on self-care and maintained low expectations of mainstream services for family violence support. This qualitative research highlights an urgent need to understand and address the experiences of LGBTQ + people who seek to report and receive support for family violence.

Currently lacking are larger studies that examine broader patterns of reporting and seeking support for experiences of IPV and FOV. In particular, there is a need to improve knowledge of the extent to which LGBTQ + people report these experiences, some of the factors associated with a likelihood of reporting as well as factors associated with feeling supported for those who do report their experiences. Intersecting individual traits, broader experiences of abuse and discrimination and experiences of healthcare are likely to play an additional role in the likelihood that LGBTQ + people report experiences of family violence and their experiences of support after reporting. There is little research that has explored LGBTQ + family violence survivors’ experiences with specialist family violence services (whether LGBTQ + peer-led or mainstream), justice systems and healthcare, However, in the United States, a scoping review of barriers to help-seeking among LGBTQ + survivors of IPV suggests that some LGBTQ + survivors of family violence have been falsely arrested for IPV and others have experienced discrimination in healthcare settings and a lack of knowledge of LGBTQ + issues among providers (Calton et al., 2016). These experiences are likely to further hamper an individual’s confidence to report or seek support when experiencing family violence.

To help inform future policy and service provision, this study presents findings from a large nationwide survey of LGBTQ + people in Australia on their experiences of reporting and seeking support for IPV and FOV. Specifically, it takes an exploratory approach focusing on the most recent time that participants experienced IPV or FOV to answer the following questions (1) Who in the LGBTQ + community is most likely to report an experience of FOV or IPV? (2) Of those who reported their most recent experience, who is most likely to feel supported by the individual and/or service to which they reported?

Methods

Sample and Procedure

A sample of participants who had experienced either FOV or IPV was drawn from Private Lives 3, a cross-sectional Australia-wide survey of the health and wellbeing of 6,835 LGBTIQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex, queer and other gender or sexual minority identities) adults in Australia that was carried out by authors of this paper, 6,281 of whom chose to answer questions regarding family violence. The resulting sample involved 4,607 survivors of FOV or IPV (that is 73.4% of participants who responded to questions about family violence). The Private Lives 3 survey and the measures described below were designed in consultation with an Expert Advisory Group and Gender Advisory Board. The advisory board members provided guidance and advice on advice on the measures and wording used throughout the survey. Further details of the advisory board members and survey design are available in the Private Lives 3 national report (Hill et al., 2020). Participants were recruited from all states and territories. Private Lives 3 was approved by the [redacted for peer review] Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants were recruited through paid targeted advertising on Facebook and Instagram in conjunction with promotion by LGBTIQ + community organisations. The survey was open for completion from July to October 2019 and was completed by participants exclusively online. Participants were eligible to complete the survey if they were LGBTIQ+, aged 18 years or older and living in Australia at the time of taking the survey.

Several approaches were used to deter or remove fake responses to the survey. The survey was hosted online through the survey platform, Qualtrics, which uses cookies to prevent users from responding to the survey more than once for malicious reasons. The Private Lives 3 investigator team also performed a thorough examination of the survey responses and removed any that appeared to be fake. This included looking carefully at responses recording an age of 80 years old or scoring extremes on standardised scales included in the survey. It also included reading through responses to open-text questions, particularly to gender identity and sexuality questions, to identify those that appeared intentionally malicious. Finally, the full survey was extensive, taking 30–50 min to complete, many fake responses were likely removed during data cleaning because they didn’t finish the survey.

Materials

Demographics

The Private Lives 3 survey comprised items pertaining to basic demographic characteristics including gender, age, level of education, current engagement in paid employment, weekly net income, area of residence (inner suburban, outer suburban, regional, and rural or remote), and country of birth. Sexual identity was examined by asking, ‘Which best describes your sexual orientation?’ Participants were asked to choose from 12 options: ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘pansexual’, ‘queer’, ‘asexual’, ‘homosexual’, ‘heterosexual’, ‘prefer not to answer’, ‘prefer not to have a label’, ‘don’t know’ and ‘something different.’ For the purposes of the present study analyses, participants who identified as either gay or lesbian were grouped together. Although participants of any gender could have identified as gay or lesbian, in the present sample, those who identified as gay were predominantly cisgender men and those who identified as lesbian were predominantly cisgender women, resulting in moderate (0.73) to high correlations (0.95) between lesbian and gay and cisgender woman and cisgender man identities respectively. Given this, these two mono-sexual orientation categories were grouped together to avoid possible confounding of findings related to gender. Additionally, participants who preferred not to have a label were recoded into the ‘something else’ category. Those who identified as homosexual were also recoded into this category due to low numbers and in an effort to stay true to participants’ preferred identities.

Gender identity was examined by asking participants to choose from a list of 17 gender terms that best described them. Gender was then categorised based on responses to participants gender assigned at birth and their response to the gender identity question. Gender categories included cisgender woman (participants who were assigned female at birth and who chose only ‘female’ as their gender identity), cisgender man (participants who were assigned male at birth and who chose only ‘male’ as their gender identity), trans woman (participants who were assigned male at birth and who chose only ‘female’, ‘trans woman’ or ‘sistergirl’ as their gender identity), trans man (participants who were assigned female at birth and who chose only ‘male’, ‘trans man’ or ‘brotherboy’ as their gender identity), and non-binary (participants who chose only a gender that was not a binary identity or who indicated that they could not choose a single gender identity).

Regular GP

Participants were asked if they have a regular GP, with the option to choose from ‘Yes’, ‘No I don’t have a regular GP, but I attend the same health centre’ or ‘No I don’t have a regular GP, and I attend different health centres’.

Homelessness

To assess experiences of homelessness, participants were asked if they are experiencing or had ever experienced homelessness. Response options included ‘No’, ‘Yes – once and I am not currently experiencing homelessness’, ‘Yes – more than one, and I am not currently experiencing homelessness’, ‘Yes – I am currently experiencing homelessness for the first time’ or ‘Yes – I am currently experiencing homelessness and have also previously experienced homelessness’. For the purposes of the current study, these responses were categorised into a dichotomous variable of whether or not participants had ever experienced homelessness.

Reporting Family Violence and Feeling Supported

Participants who had experienced any FOV or IPV were identified by asking participants ‘Have you experienced any of the following from family members? (Choose as many as apply)’ and ‘Have you experienced any of the following from an intimate partner(s)? (Choose as many as apply)’. Participants chose from 10 forms of violence, violence such as “Physical violence”, “Social isolation” and “LGBTQ + + related abuse”. Participants were also given the option to indicate if they had not experienced any of these. To assess whether participants had reported their most recent experience of family violence, those who indicated that they had experienced any FOV or IPV were subsequently asked to respond to a sinlge item asking ‘The most recent time you experienced abusive behaviour from a family member of intimate partner, did you report it to any of the following? (Choose as many as apply)’. Participants were asked to choose from a list of 11 authorities, support services and community leaders, such as ‘Doctor or hospital’, ‘Domestic or family violence service’, and ‘Teacher or educational institution’, with the additional options of ‘Other’ and ‘I did not report this abusive behaviour’. For the full list of response options, see Table 1. These responses were then recoded into a dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no’ variable indicating whether participants had reported their most recent experience of FOV or IPV to anyone.

Table 1 Proportion of participants who reported to each individual service and proportion of those who felt supported when they reported
Full size table

Participants who reported their most recent experience of abuse were then asked, ‘The most recent time you reported abusive behaviour from a family member or intimate partner to the following, did you feel supported? (Choose as many as apply)’. Participants were provided with a list of the authorities, support services or community leaders that they indicated reporting to and asked to indicate for each relevant item ‘I felt supported’ or ‘I did not feel supported’. Responses to this item are reported for each form of support accessed while also combined into a single dichotomous ‘yes’ or ‘no’ variable indicating whether participants had felt supported after reporting.

Statistical Analyses

All analyses were performed using STATA (Version 16.1, StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). A series of univariable logistic regression analyses with robust standard errors to account for the variance in sample sizes were used to examine factors associated with reporting abuse and with feeling supported after reporting abuse. Additionally, two multivariable variable logistic regression analyses were conducted using robust standard errors to account for the variance in sample sizes and with reporting an experience of violence and feeling supported after reporting this experience as outcome variables. Predictor variables included sociodemographic factors (age, gender, sexual orientation, level of education, current engagement in paid employment, weekly net income, area of residence, country of birth), homelessness and having a regular GP. Missing data was addressed using multiple imputations, generating 20 imputed datasets. Tests of collinearity indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern, with all Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) < 2. Results are reported as unadjusted (univariable) odds ratios (OR) and adjusted (multivariable) odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P < 0.05 used to assess statistical significance.

Results

Sample Characteristics

Overall, 73.4% (n = 4,607) of participants had experienced either FOV (n = 2,675; 43.2%) or IPV (n = 3,716; 60.7%) in their lifetime. Of those who had experienced either form of violence, 1,239 (29.6%) indicated that they reported their most recent experience of violence to an individual or service. Of those who reported this experience, 1,034 (84.1%) felt that they were supported when they reported the violence. Frequencies and proportions of sociodemographic characteristics are presented in Table 2. Almost half of the participants identified as gay or lesbian, and more than three quarters of the sample identified as cisgender. The majority were aged under 45 years old, born in Australia and currently engaged in some form of employment. The largest proportion of participants lived in inner suburban areas. Almost three quarters of participants had completed tertiary education, and most earned an income under $2,000 net/week. A small proportion of participants (n = 554, 8%) did not answer the questions regarding IPV or FOV. While the demographic characteristics of this group were similar to those who answered these questions, there was a higher proportion of cisgender men in this group, and they were more likely to be of a younger age.

Table 2 Sample characteristics (n = 4,607)
Full size table

Rates of Reporting Violence and Feeling Supported

Table 1 provides a breakdown of where participants reported their most recent experience of FOV or IPV, along with whether they felt supported when they reported. The largest proportion of participants (18.7%; n = 886) reported to a counselling service or psychologist, followed by just 5.9% (n = 279) who reported to police (including LGBTIQ liaison officer). Participants most frequently felt supported by a counselling service of psychologist (89.4%) and a substantially smaller proportion felt supported by police (45.0%).

Factors Associated with Reporting Violence

The factors associated with reporting violence are presented in Table 3. Compared to cisgender men, non-binary people (AOR = 1.30, CI = 1.02–1.65, p = 0.033) were significantly more likely to have reported their most recent experience of FOV or IPV. Compared to 18–24 year olds, those aged 45–54 years were more likely to have reported their most recent experience of FOV or IPV (AOR = 1.35, CI = 1.03–1.76, p = 0.028). Participants who were born in a non-English speaking country were significantly less likely than those born in Australia to have reported their most recent experience of abuse (AOR = 0.62, CI = 0.43–0.89, p = 0.011). Compared to secondary school education or below, university undergraduate (AOR = 1.29, CI = 1.04–1.60, p = 0.018) and university postgraduate (AOR = 1.38, CI = 1.09–1.75, p = 0.008) were associated with a greater likelihood of reporting abuse. Sexual orientation, age, area of residence, income and employment status were not associated with reporting abuse. Finally, people with a regular GP (AOR = 1.47, CI = 1.15–1.88, p = 0.002), and those who had ever experienced homelessness (AOR = 1.59, CI = 1.37–1.85, p < 0.001) were significantly more likely to have reported abuse.

Table 3 Correlates of reporting most recent experience of FOV or IPV
Full size table

Factors Associated with Feeling Supported When Reporting Violence

Table 4 presents the factors associated with feeling supported when reporting violence. Few of the predictor variables were significantly associated with feeling supported, other than having a regular GP and experiences of homelessness. People with a regular GP were more than twice as likely to have felt supported after reporting experiences of abuse (AOR = 1.92, CI = 1.15–3.19, p = 0.013). People who had ever experienced homelessness were almost half as likely to have felt supported when reporting (AOR = 0.54, CI = 0.39–0.75, p < 0.001).

Table 4 Correlates of feeling supported when reported experiences of FOV or IPV
Full size table

Discussion

Experiences of family violence are believed to be underreported among LGBTQ + communities (Leonard et al., 2008; Workman & Dune, 2019), a concern reinforced by data from this study. Of the 4,607 participants from the present study who had experienced some form of FOV or IPV in their lifetime (almost three-quarters of the original Private Lives 3 survey sample), only one-quarter of participants had reported their most recent experience of violence to an individual or service, and more than one-in-ten of those did not feel that they were supported. In comparison, survey data from the general Australian population in 2016 found 63% of women and 32% of men sought advice or support with regard to violence from a current partner, and 54% of women and 41% of men had sought advice or support for their most recent experience of violence from a previous partner (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017).

Notably, participants most frequently reported abuse to a counselling service or psychologist with much smaller proportions reporting to the police or a domestic or family violence service. These findings may reflect participant preferences for reporting, or the accessibility and quality of care that they receive when reporting to these services. In fact, the greatest proportion of participants reported feeling supported when they reported to a counselling service or psychologist, with poor rates of feeling supported reported across most other services including police and domestic or family violence services.

This study also aimed to identify significant factors linked to reporting and feeling supported when reporting a recent experience of FOV or IPV. A number of significant factors were associated with reporting violence, including gender, education, homelessness and having a regular GP. Feeling supported when reporting was only associated with two factors – homelessness and having a regular GP.

The present study found similar rates of reporting family violence across gender identities with the exception of non-binary people who had higher odds of reporting recent experiences of family violence compared to cisgender men. Previous research illustrates heteronormative assumptions made by family violence responders and suggest that men, and potentially those presumed male at birth or masculine presenting, as well as those who have been victimised by a female perpetrator, are less likely to have their reports of violence taken seriously (Cormier & Woodworth, 2008; Russell, 2018) and at times even wrongfully assumed to be the perpetrator (Calton et al., 2016). These types of assumptions made by responders as well as laypeople (Hamby & Jackson, 2010; Russell, 2018; Russell et al., 2012; Seelau & Seelau, 2005) may result in anticipated discrimination among all LGBTQ people (Calton et al., 2016) and result in similarly low rates of reporting across this population. A change in the framing of family violence policies and training for support services that involves correcting heteronormative assumptions is needed in the family violence sector to ensure that LGBTQ + people feel safe and affirmed to come forward when they are experiencing family violence.

Participants in the present study who were born outside of Australia in a non-English speaking country were less likely to have reported their most recent experience of family violence. These findings are unsurprising and reflect existing literature within the general populations which has illustrated cultural and language barriers to seeking support and accessing services for family violence among people who are culturally and linguistically diverse (Cox, 2016; Satyen et al., 2020). Additionally, cultural or religious objections may further lead to LGBTQ + people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds experiencing greater apprehension to disclose their LGBTQ + identity within services (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2016) and therefore avoiding reporting of family violence.

A United States study exploring help-seeking among LGBTQ + people who have experienced IPV found indicators of socio-economic advantage to predict help-seeking (Guadalupe-Diaz, 2013), where participants of a lower socio-economic advantage were less likely to have sought support for experiences of IPV. However, employment and income in the present study were not found to be associated with reporting family violence. This difference in findings may relate to geographical context or different measures of socio-economic indicators between the studies. The present study did find that a postgraduate level of education was associated with the greatest likelihood of reporting violence. This finding may reflect a greater level of literacy regarding family violence and greater awareness of the options available for reporting and seeking help.

Experiences of homelessness had the greatest association with reporting family violence. Participants who had ever experienced homelessness had higher odds of reporting their most recent experience of FOV or IPV. Experiences of homelessness as a result of needing to flee unsafe circumstances due to experiences of family violence are not uncommon among the general population (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, n.d.) and may be further exacerbated among LGBTQ + people due to the impacts of discrimination and family rejection (Dempsey et al., 2020; McNair et al., 2022). Therefore, reporting experiences of family violence may coincide with seeking homelessness services. Additionally, participants who had experienced homelessness are already linked into services that may provide them with a greater opportunity to report violence (State of Victoria, 2016).

However, the present study also found that participants who had experienced homelessness were considerably less likely to feel supported when they reported experiences of family violence. In the Australian setting, housing support services are likely to be prioritised over family violence services among people who are experiencing both homelessness and family violence. Consequently, a need for support in regard to experiences of violence may be overlooked. The Royal Commission into Family Violence in Victoria revealed that family violence crisis accommodation is predominantly only provided to cisgender women, and it can be difficult for cisgendered men, trans or gender diverse survivors to identify safe services (State of Victoria, 2016). Further, crisis accommodation services are often gendered, requiring the person to be placed in either a ‘women’s only’ or ‘men’s only’ service, neither of which may be appropriate and safe for a trans or non-binary person experiencing homelessness and family violence. Sexual minority men, trans men and non-binary people are therefore more likely than cisgender heterosexual women to be referred to general homelessness services (State of Victoria, 2016). This prioritisation of homelessness services, and lack of safe and affirming crisis support for LGBTQ people may result in a poorer experience when reporting family violence among those who are experiencing homelessness.

In the Australian general population, people with a regular GP have been found to report better experiences of care (Kang et al., 2020; The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, 2018). While Australian GPs are not required to screen for family violence, many have received training and are encouraged to incorporate screening questions into their everyday communication with their patients, as such the general practice setting provides regular opportunity to screen for family violence among patients (Higgins et al., 2015). Accordingly, participants who had a regular GP were more likely to report their most recent experience of family violence than those who did not have a regular GP. Additionally, they were substantially more likely to have felt supported when they reported their most recent experience of family violence. A previous Australian study has associated enablers of GP service use with being able to disclose diverse sexual orientation and disclose intimate partner abuse, suggesting that disclosure of both sexual orientation and family violence are connected and more likely when attending a regular and trusted primary care provider (McNair et al., 2018). The role of GPs and other healthcare providers in supporting LGBTQ + people to report experiences of family violence should therefore be explored further. Health providers outside of the family violence sector may provide opportunities for LGBTQ + people to safely report experiences of violence with providers with which they have already built healthcare relationships, and GPs in particular provide an opportunity to regularly check-in with individuals in order to screen for experiences of violence and assist patients to navigate family violence supports. However, despite exceptions, general practice settings overall require significantly more training to provide safe and effective care to the LGBTQ + population (Horsley et al., 2016).

The findings of the present study further highlight an urgent need to improve the level of awareness of LGBTQ + experiences and needs with regard to family violence among police, service providers, healthcare services and the community generally. Additionally, the development of LGBTQ+-specific resources and programs as well as increased availability of LGBTQ + inclusive services is necessary to enable reporting of family violence within this population.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study utilised data from the largest nationwide survey of LGBTQ + adults in Australia to date. Literature on this topic is currently limited and this study provides new knowledge on the experiences of reporting family violence among a large cohort of LGBTQ + people in Australia. That said, the Private Lives 3 survey was designed to examine many aspects of health and wellbeing, and hence the family violence data, while substantial, is somewhat limited in its detail and nuance. For example, the survey item used to identify those who reported their most recent experience of family violence included both IPV and FOV in a single item. While the supports available to those who have experienced family violence are the same regardless of whether the violence was perpetrated by a family member or intimate partner, there may be marked differences in how and when these are reported. The findings of the present study provide much needed insight into engagement with family violence supports among an underserved population, but further research would be beneficial to generate more nuanced knowledge of experiences of reporting both IPV and FOV along with more detailed explorations of the experiences of services and how well they met the needs of those who accessed them. It is also important to note that the sample, while large, was a convenience sample recruited predominantly through social media and the generalizability of these findings to the broader LGBTQ + community is unclear. Population level data with appropriate inclusion of LGBTQ + populations is necessary to gain generalizable data. Additionally, explorations of reasons for not reporting and detailed accounts of the support received, through both quantitative and qualitative studies, are essential for guiding further research efforts and informing policy and practice initiatives. Other intersections could also be explored in future studies such as living with disability, or living in institutional or individual, community-based settings such as aged-care facilities or prisons. For example, a recent Australian study identified that managing multiple identities in healthcare including repeatedly needing to come out was a barrier to accessing services for LGBTQ + people living with disability (O’Shea et al., 2020). It would also be useful for future research to examine the knowledge, understandings, and assumptions made by family violence responders and service providers to further understand the contexts and experiences of LGBTQ + survivors when seeking support and how these experiences could be improved.

Conclusion

The findings of this study illustrate how the current family violence framework in Australia fails to support subsections of the population who are in need of services. An urgent shift in the narrative around family violence and the approach of family violence responders and service providers is required to re-frame heteronormative assumptions of violence dynamics. To encourage reporting of family violence, victims must not only have access to and knowledge of support services or authorities that they can report to, but they need to feel that their reports will be taken seriously, and that they will be safe and treated fairly and respectfully when doing so. Encouraging LGBTQ + community members to engage with a regular GP and establishing family violence services that cater to the specific needs of LGBTQ + communities, as well as training mainstream service providers to recognise diverse relationship dynamics in family violence, are likely to be successful approaches for improving support outcomes of LGBTQ + survivors of family violence. Further research into experiences of family violence services and preferences for service provision among LGBTQ + people is also greatly needed and critical for guiding approaches to supportive and inclusive care.