Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using interviews of 26 nonprofit domestic violence advocates, this article analyzes how South Asian–focused nonprofit organizations in the United States address the domestic violence–related intersectional needs of Asian Indian marriage migrants and the challenges they encounter in doing so. Our research indicates that these organizations offer services addressing a combination of structural and cultural needs that emerge from their clients’ social locations, but these organizations also encounter challenges in providing services targeting the specific subgroups of Asian Indian marriage migrants. To meet the intersectional needs of clients, there should be greater coalition-building within and between Asian Indian–focused and mainstream organizations.

Keywords

Asian Indians domestic violence intersectionality micro nonprofit organizations research categories social work/social welfare history and philosophy social work history social work practice

Introduction

Since the late 1980s, there has been a growth of nonprofit organizations in the United States, catering to the needs of non-English–speaking immigrant women experiencing domestic violence. However, it was not until the 1990s that the growing need for victim services focusing on immigrant populations received national attention (Parameswaran, 2007), which coincided with studies that noted the high prevalence of domestic violence in immigrant communities (e.g., Bui & Morash, 1999; Loke, 1996; Roy, 1995; Teran, 1999). More recent studies of different immigrant communities suggest the high rates of abuse continue, with 48% of Latina immigrants (Dutton, Orloff, & Hass, 2000) and 60% of Korean women immigrants (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000) experiencing violence.

Among Asian immigrants, the South Asians (i.e., immigrants from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, and Nepal) received particular consideration due to: a high incidence of domestic violence (Abraham, 2000a; Hazen & Soriano, 2007; Menjívar & Salcido, 2002; Raj & Silverman, 2003) and the wide range of immigration statuses represented (Ghosh, 2011), including marriage migrants—that is, people who migrate to join their spouse (Fan & Li, 2002). For women, this status is tied to their vulnerabilities, some of which are unique to this group.

First, marriage migrants face immigration-related conditions that increase their vulnerability to domestic violence and act as barriers to leaving abusive relationships (Abraham, 1999, 2000b; Chaudhuri, Morash, & Yingling, 2014; Dasgupta, 2000; Narayan, 1995; Raj & Silverman, 2002). Since marriage migrants depend on their “sponsor” for their legal status, abusers can “exploit the legal vulnerability of victims by destroying their spouse’s immigration papers, threatening to withdraw their petitions for immigration, or threatening to call immigration authorities and have them deported” (Ingram et al., 2010, p. 859; Merali, 2008). Relatedly, for many immigrant women, access to services may be hindered by linguistic and cultural barriers, the lack of knowledge about service agencies, and the lack of familiarity with the U.S. legal system (Dasgupta, 2000; Postmus, McMahon, Silva-Martinez, & Warrener, 2014).

Second, studies of domestic violence among Asians (Ho, 1990; Kibria, 1990; Tran & Des Jardins, 2000) delineate common cultural factors that hinder a victim’s ability or willingness to speak up or leave an abusive relationship: (1) glorification of suffering and sacrifice, (2) valuation of family, and (3) negation of a woman’s self-interest in favor of familial interest. Further, under patriarchy, “the senior man has authority over everyone else in the family” (Maghadam, 2004, p. 141). Hence, for immigrant South Asian women, issues related to domestic violence are heightened by the patriarchal nature of marriage (Venugopal, 2014), wherein the wife has no authority but is responsible for guarding the honor of the family. If the wife speaks about being abused, she brings shame to the entire family (Abraham, 2000a; Dasgupta & Warrier, 1996).

The patriarchal view of marriage is also true in immigrant Asian Indian communities, a subgroup constituting the majority of the South Asian immigrants in the United States. In addition, immigrant Asian Indians also encounter the model minority image, which associates their educational and economic success with their cultural attributes, especially the family structure (Osajima, 2005). In all, the patriarchal culture, the importance of family honor and intact families, as well as model minority image contribute to the culture of silence, increases women’s vulnerability to abuse and necessitate the creation of culture-sensitive domestic violence services (Abraham, 2005; Dasgupta & Warrier, 1996).

Currently, the South Asian Women’s Empowerment and Resource Alliance (sawera.org) lists about 30 domestic violence nonprofit organizations addressing the needs of Asian Indian women as well as women from other South Asian countries. Historically, some of these organizations were established when media drew attention to domestic violence incidents within the Asian Indian community, and others were started when Asian Indian women activists heard the personal stories of women experiencing domestic violence (Parameswaran, 2007). Although initially these organizations were run by volunteers and focused on linking abused women to external victim services, as the magnitude of the problem came to light, many adopted a more formal character, hiring paid personnel to provide direct services (Dasgupta, 2000). This process can be understood through feminist, cultural, structural, and intersectional social work frameworks that have informed the design of domestic violence services (Almeida & Delvecchio, 1999; Dominelli, 2002; Lockhart & Mitchell, 2010; Parton, 2000).

Early feminist social work framework defined women’s oppression as primarily rooted in gender relations and focused on abused women as the central category to address gender oppression (Dominelli, 2002). Consequently, organizations relying on the early framework tended to homogenize women and their needs (Forcey & Nash, 1998). This tendency was addressed by the cultural competency framework (Almeida & Delvecchio, 1999), which required the provision of “linguistically and culturally sensitive—and responsive—services” (Purnell, Teng, & Warrier, 2011, p. 6), and entailed recruiting diverse staff (Lockhart & Mitchell, 2010). Importantly, services provided by organizations using this framework tend to diminish differences derived from factors other than culture, including structural constraints related to dominant institutional regulations, policies, and practices (Sokoloff, 2008). Recognizing that cultural and structural factors mutually influence each other, the structural framework was integrated into culturally competent domestic violence practice (Viruell-Fuentes, Miranda, & Abdulrahim, 2012).

The integration of structural and cultural approaches has been an important step in meeting the needs of the women for whom the interplay of culture-specific influences and structural factors intensifies the vulnerability to domestic violence (Bui & Morash, 1999; Dasgupta, 2000; M. Mehrotra, 1999; Merali, 2008; Raj & Silverman, 2002). However, the cultural–structural approach tends to focus on the overall effects of culture (e.g., Asian Indian) and immigration on domestic violence experiences. Yet the effects of each of these factors are complicated by their unique intersections as well as their intersections with other categories of distinction, such as specific immigration status (green card holder vs. marriage migrant) and social class. To address the issue of crosscutting social locations, scholars have recently incorporated an intersectional framework into the cultural–structural perspective (e.g., Lockhart & Mitchell, 2010; Ono, 2013; Purkayastha, 2010).

Historically, intersectionality dates back to the black feminist epistemology developed by black women intellectuals, including Anna Julia Cooper, Ida B. Wells, and Mary Church Terrell (Murphy, Hunt, Zajicek, Norris, & Hamilton, 2009). More recently, feminist women of color used the framework of intersectionality to challenge white middle-class feminist approaches to inequality and social change (Anzaldua, 1990; Brewer, 1993; Collins, 1993; Crenshaw, 1991; King, 1988). In the 1990s, Kimberle Crenshaw (1991, 1994) documented how the intersections of race, class, and gender influenced abused black women’s access to services. Since this first systematic application of intersectionality to the study of domestic violence, intersectional framework has been increasingly applied to domestic violence research among various populations, including immigrant communities (e.g., Donovan & Hester, 2014; G. Mehrotra, 2010; Nixon & Humphreys, 2010).

The intersectional framework attends to the unique identities and structural locations of different social groups (Murphy et al., 2009). Unique positions are shaped by multiple categories of oppression, including gender, race/ethnicity, and class, which create “complex set of interlocking and self-perpetuating relations of domination and subordination” (Rothenberg, 2001, pp. 1–2). Interlocking oppressions have negative effects on women’s well-being, including vulnerability to domestic violence, as well as their responses to domestic violence, which are shaped by experiences with service professionals. The framework emphasizes the importance of social justice and activism, which require addressing institutional-level power and privilege by challenging the system from within (Mattsson, 2014).

To address the needs of victims and promote the institutional and structural changes at a deeper level, “advocates and social work practitioners must focus on all the points of intersection, complexity, dynamic processes, and structures that define these women’s access to rights and opportunities” (Lockhart & Mitchell, 2010, p. 21). However, to avoid unrestricted regression into minor distinctions, intersectionality also suggests that depending upon the sociohistorical context and the issue under consideration, some intersectional categories may be more important to consider than others (Hulko, 2009). Hence, the importance of specific social locations cannot be assumed a priori; it is an empirical question that requires attending to how, when, and what categories become significant in shaping domestic violence experiences.

With this in mind, while the existing literature on domestic violence among Asian Indian community draws on differences between the experiences of women from mainstream groups and those from the Asian Indian community (Chaudhuri et al., 2014; Dasgupta, 2000; Goel, 2005; Kallivayalil, 2010; Mahapatra, 2012), it largely fails to analyze intragroup differences among Asian Indian women. Furthermore, scholars have explored the experiences of marriage migrants in the United States and other countries (Charsley, 2005; Kim, 2013; Merali, 2008; Thai, 2005; Ullah, 2014), the help-seeking behaviors among abused immigrant women and their service needs (Cho, 2012; Dutton et al., 2000), and evaluated services offered (Bhuyan & Velagapudi, 2013; Lee, 2013; Sullivan, 2011). However, there is a dearth of intersectional literature that examines the nonprofit organizations’ services to address domestic violence among marriage migrants (Bhuyan, Shim, & Velagapudi, 2010).

Using interviews with domestic violence victim advocates—workers, volunteers, or founders of nonprofit organizations providing services to domestic violence survivors—we explore how nonprofit organizations meet the diverse needs of Asian Indian women experiencing domestic violence and the challenges related to incorporating a deeper level of intersectional approach to addressing the needs of clients. We ask two questions: How do the organizations address domestic violence–related intersectional needs of Asian Indian marriage migrants, and what challenges do they encounter in addressing intersectional domestic violence–related needs of Asian Indian marriage migrants? We argue that these challenges can be best addressed through greater efforts at coalition building among organizations by practically employing an intersectional analysis to address the needs of the Asian Indian marriage migrants.

Data and Methods

Sampling Strategy

We interviewed 26 advocates from 14 nonprofit organizations providing services to Asian Indian women experiencing domestic violence. Two selection techniques were used to find these organizations. We first selected organizations based on purposeful sampling, using two criteria: (1) organizations working with Asian Indian clients and (2) organizations located in the states with the highest population of Asian Indians. These criteria were met by 12 organizations located in California, New Jersey, New York, and Texas—the four states that account for almost 50% of the total Asian Indian population residing in the United States (Hoeffel, Rastogi, Kim, & Shahid, 2012). During our initial attempt to establish contact with these organizations, six agreed to participate. One organization refused to participate, stating that the Asian Indian group is not their main focus. Five organizations did not respond. While making first contact, we found two more organizations in California that agreed to participate. Subsequently, along with purposeful sampling, we used snowball sampling. The initial California-based respondents helped recruit participants from six organizations.

The nature of organizations in our study varies—10 provide direct services to clients and 4 are legal/advocacy organizations. While majority of participating organizations state that they meet the needs of South Asian clients, including Asian Indian women, others state that they are broader in scope as their clientele include Asian Pacific women (e.g., Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia). However, the majority of the clients of these organizations are Asian Indian women. Hence, in practice, both direct service and legal advocacy provided by the nonprofits meet the specific needs of this population. The advocates from both types of organizations were asked the same set of basic questions. We observed only a slight variation in responses: The advocates from direct service organizations focused on individual-level experiences of women, and the advocates from advocacy/legal organizations answered in relation to policy and legal issues. Otherwise, the observations of advocates from both types of organizations were similar.

Instrument and Procedure

Three types of interviews were conducted: (1) 16 participants were interviewed in face-to-face individual setting, (2) 5 participants were interviewed in face-to-face group setting, and (3) 5 participants were interviewed on the phone. Although the interview settings varied, we ensured that issues related to validity of data were well addressed, as we used the semistructured interview guide to ask all participants the same set of basic questions. The interviews lasted from 45 min to an hour and 30 min. Participants were reminded that the research’s purpose was to identify how nonprofits meet the needs of abused Asian Indian marriage migrants. The participants were asked questions related to: (1) existing and future programs to meet the needs of their clients; (2) how other organizations address the needs of the Asian Indian group; (3) advocacy and policy-related programs; and (4) funding and program design. Since the questions were part of a larger study, our findings may reflect some information shared by the participants while responding to questions that did not explicitly fall within the scope of this article but were important to consider, given the goal of this analysis.

All participants, except one, permitted us to record the interviews. English is a second language for most participants, but, in transcribing the interviews, we consciously decided not to revise the language for fear of losing the meaning intended by the participants. To protect the respondents, we used pseudonyms. Each pseudonym is a distinctive three-letter code with a number at the end. The first two letters identify the state where the organizations are located: California (CA), New Jersey (NJ), New York (NY), and Texas (TX), and the third letter refers to the type of organization: Direct-service (D), Legal (L), and Advocacy (A). Where the first three letters of the code for the respondents are the same, the number at the end differentiates them.

Analysis

To code our data, we used the grounded theory method and initially developed our findings based on inductive analysis. Subsequently, we used deductive analysis to fine-tune our codes, categories, and themes. The initial process of moving from raw data to arrive at the findings entailed three steps: (1) open coding, (2) axial coding, and (3) theoretical coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Next, we employed the method of constant comparison to match and group data theoretically to arrive at the two final themes of our research (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The basis of these themes was to reflect most appropriately the findings in relation to the research question. At this stage, all categories that represented a particular theme were grouped together. Finally, we moved deductively back to the categories and codes and removed: (1) the codes that did not fit into a category and (2) the codes that fit more appropriately within the scope of a single category while initially they might have been cocategorized. This resulted in the final set of codes, categories, and themes. Additionally, during deductive reasoning, as we moved backward, we changed some of the names of the codes to reflect more appropriately the phenomena described by the code.

Findings

Existing Framework of Services: Cultural and Structural Accommodations

A great emphasis has been placed on the adoption of a cultural competency model to conduct domestic violence–related work among immigrant and minority groups (Almeida & Delvecchio, 1999; Bent-Goodley, 2005; Richie, 1996). Respondents stated that organizations catering to the needs of Asian Indian immigrants are needed to provide the necessary culturally sensitive services, including language services, outreach, transitional homes, counseling, pro-bono immigration services, and policy advocacy. Although respondents emphasized the cultural aspect of services offered, we observed that some services address clients’ structural needs. Subsequently, we present the services discussed by respondents and, when appropriate, we also note which services address structural needs and/or the specific needs of marriage migrants.

Language services

Limited English language skills affect the experiences of abused immigrants, including marriage migrants (Huisman, 1996), who are often unable to form social relationships, solicit support outside of their linguistic communities, and find jobs (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002). Structural language barriers result in isolation, a common experience among victims, and impede service access. Since language interpretation empowers victims to share their experiences and enables advocates to connect clients to necessary services, it is the most critical intervention provided by the organizations assisting immigrant Asian Indian women.

Outreach services

Silence and privacy surrounding domestic abuse (Bailey, 2010), coupled with language barriers, require targeted outreach in the Asian Indian communities. Importantly, recognizing diversity within this population, the nonprofits reach out to the specific cultural, religious, and other identity-based groups within this population:

If it is Hindu, Muslim, or sometimes it’s religion based. We try to categorize that. And presentations are geared towards that. And sometimes it’s depending on the age group, it could be youngsters, could be small kids, or it could be women or sometimes it could be senior citizens. So again age group is one of the other ways we cater to. (TXD19)

Since religion reinforces patriarchy (Goel, 2005), making it difficult for women to move out of abusive relationships, the nonprofits involve religious leaders: “We take verses from Quran, we take some verses from Bhagavad Gita, and we take some verses from Bible. Of course, we work with Imams, we work with pundits, and we work with pastors of the Church” (TXD19). Nonprofits also try to enlist the help of religious leaders in spreading positive messages about gender equality, which resulted in increased support from some religious leaders, who have provided housing to abused women.

Transitional homes

According to participants, the housing needs of Asian Indian women, especially marriage migrants, differ from those of mainstream clients in three ways: (1) they require more time in housing facilities, (2) they have specific cultural habits, and (3) they fear living in the housing facilities. First, with regard to the stay time, marriage migrants in abusive relationships often do not have control over economic resources, and few of them have an immigration status permitting them to work in the United States. Additionally, women may be undocumented because their spouses withdraw their immigration papers after filing them or never file for their immigration status at all. For abused marriage migrants, and here Asian Indian migrants specifically, a shelter with a 3-month maximum stay does not provide enough time to obtain independent immigrant status or to get a work permit:

The mainstream shelters are keeping the clients for one or two months and for [our clients] it is not possible to be independent within that short time because of the abuse and control. [ … ] So they were going back to the abuser. So [name of the organization] thought let’s open a transitional housing where we can keep clients more than few months so that we can help them to be on their own feet. (TXD18)

Second, while the participants from California and Texas emphasized that the shortage of transitional homes is a serious issue, others expressed that they would like to see more homes being setup to cater to Asian Indian women based on specific culture and food habits:

Like Parsi, [members of Zoroastrian community] we take into account what that means. Where they are coming from. The childhood and the needs. In understanding their needs we keep their background in mind. Similarly Pakistani or Bangladeshi. We keep in mind Ramadan and halal [food prescribed for Muslims] and not halal. (CAD25)

Moreover, the mainstream shelters often do not recognize the needs of clients who consume vegetarian food: “They think women need to adjust and don’t see it as a different culture” (CAD25). In contrast, in the homes setup by Asian Indian organizations, there are separate kitchens, pots, and pans for vegetarian and nonvegetarian food (CAD25).

Third, one respondent highlighted that, according to a survey conducted by her organization, Asian Indian clients are reluctant to access shelter from mainstream organizations because their services are not always designed in a culturally sensitive way:

There is a lot of resistance among our clients … we did a survey with 50 or more of our clients, asked them their feelings about shelter, police, and other things … with shelter a very small percentage would ever be willing to call or go to a shelter and part of that is because mainstream doesn’t understand me. I cannot get Halal food or whatever food … So there is a huge … resistance among our clients in accessing services/spaces. (CAD8)

Advocates also noted that in addition to sensitizing the mainstream organizations to the needs of Asian Indian clients, they work with the clients to address their prejudices: “You know sometimes our women do not get along, they go to mainstream shelters and they start fighting. They see like an African-American woman and think it’s dangerous you know. So we have to educate them as well—do not be biased, nothing is going to happen to you.” (CAD6)

Additionally, abused women are hesitant about going to live in a shelter because of other factors. The respondents stated that often as part of the isolation and abuse cycle, the abusive spouse instills fear of living in a shelter in his spouse to control her escape:

We have had clients whose husbands have almost like brainwashed them. Like said the same thing day after day, year after year—that if you go to shelter, you will be raped, that’s what shelters are. And I think vast majority of our clients, and I understand that, probably before I saw a shelter I didn’t know what a shelter was. Like our clients, vast majority of clients do not know the difference between a homeless shelter where people are lining up outside and domestic violence shelter. (CAD8)

In all, to address the need for extended housing and culturally sensitive services that cannot be provided by mainstream shelters, the nonprofits provide transitional homes, where abused women can stay for a longer term during their transition to independent living.

Counseling services

The Asian Indian domestic violence organizations also provide culturally sensitive counseling, which differentiates them from mainstream organizations:

In the South Asian society women are oftentimes ashamed and there is a lot of guilt and shame factors that we see for having to live under the conditions that they describe. So for the therapist to be able to understand the pressures of the South Asian community, I think that is huge. I have had people who are citizens, who are brought up in the South Asian culture and have huge families here, who have come in here and said that “I went to my therapist at [a mainstream counseling center] and the white woman just cannot understand our culture. She just couldn’t get it; she just couldn’t understand why I could not leave him.” (CAD12)

However, while the counseling services emphasize cultural differences, taking into account the individual’s specific location is important as well:

I see a lot of commonalities between different groups. And I also recognize that when you are working with somebody specifically, you have to understand where that person is coming from and address the specific ways in which she is responding to certain questions. So you do have to understand the part of culture baggage she brings. So sometimes there are specific issues that come up—like actually when you are looking at the personal laws of different countries, like you know what is in those states, what’s dowry, what’s Muslim Mehr [an agreed-upon amount promised to a bride in the event of divorce], and is Mehr understood the same ways in India versus Pakistan? (NJD22)

Counseling geared toward the larger sociocultural practices of clients’ culture addresses the interface between cultural and structural factors. This interface shapes the need to receive pro bono services of immigration attorneys.

Pro bono immigration services

Since a marriage migrant depends on her abusive partner for immigration status, when she moves out of the relationship, the services of an immigration lawyer are necessary to secure independent immigration status. Most South Asian organizations have in-house immigration services or refer clients to legal services, often at reduced rates. Organizations also work with the courts and legal system to sensitize them to the particular needs of their clients, including their cultural values and language barriers.

Policy advocacy

In addition to providing direct services, nonprofits engage policy change initiatives through networking with advocacy-specific organizations and sharing their clients’ experiences. However, according to respondents, policy advocacy is a small component of organizational activities mostly due to three factors: First, the demand for direct services leaves little to no time to commit to policy change initiatives. Second, the primary mission of nonprofits is to address situations of immediate danger for abused women. Third, 501(c) status restricts organizations from influencing public opinion because in the sphere of conflicting arguments, supporting or opposing a particular policy may be viewed as aligning oneself with a particular political group and hence as lobbying for political benefits (Boris & Krehely, 2002).

In sum, the above-mentioned discussion suggests that services offered by the nonprofit organizations serving abused Asian Indian women address a combination of cultural and structural needs that emerge from their clients’ social locations explicitly defined by the intersection of gender and culture, and implicitly acknowledged importance of a unique immigration status. As we discuss next, in attempting to recognize the deeper intersectional needs defined by the more complex social locations, the organizations are faced with intersectional dilemmas.

Intersectional Dilemmas: Meeting the Needs of Asian Indian Marriage Migrants

Dasgupta (2000) suggests that the nonprofit sector should devote more time and training to increasing the effectiveness of their work, especially by designing programs that meet the unique needs of Asian Indian women. In addition, since domestic violence–oriented nonprofit Asian Indian organizations are often staffed by Asian Indian women, these organizations should be at the forefront of creating viable solutions (Goel, 2005). Abraham (2000b) argues that the problem of domestic violence among Asian Indian immigrants, including the barriers that prevent immigrant women from accessing critical services, would be best addressed through institutional-level changes that emphasize a sensitive handling of cases by police and courts, keeping in mind the cultural and social complexities of the immigrant community.

With this in mind, we asked respondents whether, from their perspective as domestic violence advocates for Asian Indian marriage migrants, the needs and experiences of their clients are shaped by their intersectional locations. First, respondents explained that while their organizations collect client data—such as age, marital status, ethnicity, and immigration status—the purpose of data collection is to address the needs of individual clients and meet the requirements of funding agencies. The data are not used to systematically design programs meeting the needs of the more specifically defined client populations (e.g., young vs. old Asian Indian marriage migrants). Second, respondents appeared reluctant to address the issue of intersectional differences within the Asian Indian population, fearing that by discussing domestic violence experiences in that manner, they would stigmatize a specific group of clients. For instance, one respondent initially shared the data with us, but after consulting a senior member of the organization, she informed us we could not use the data. She explained the data might be used to stigmatize a subpopulation (e.g., Muslim Asian Indian marriage migrants) as especially prone to violence. Although the respondents ultimately provided examples of how individual clients’ intersectional experiences were shaped by social locations, they also emphasized the universality of domestic violence. The ambivalence toward an intersectional view of violence has surfaced in the form of two intersectional dilemmas: (1) intersectional competencies: zooming in or zooming out and (2) intersectional identities: cultural standards and anonymity.

Building Intersectional Competencies: Zooming In and Zooming Out

There are two directions in which organizations focused on Asian Indian clients are moving. First, they are working with mainstream organizations to address the issue of “overinclusion” (Patel, 2001), that is, the situation when the intersectional needs of Asian Indian clients are absorbed within the broader gender-based understanding of domestic abuse. Toward this end, the Asian Indian organizations provide expertise to the mainstream agencies, helping them to zoom in on the specific intersectional needs of Asian Indian clients. Second, organizations focused on Asian Indian clients are zooming out, expanding their focus to meet the needs of women from other ethnic groups while maintaining focus on specific subcultures (e.g., religion-based) within the Asian Indian communities.

With regard to the first effort, the Asian Indian organizations try to meet the needs of abused Asian Indian women by conducting training for the mainstream nonprofit sector:

We don’t want to filter down all the way and taper to specific needs. We want the South Asian to be as visible as any other mainstream Caucasian or African-American person. We don’t want it to be like South Asian problem, is only that South Asians understand and only South Asian have a perspective about. But it needs to be an open understanding of how a South Asian culture is. And how mainstream Caucasian and American they should also be aware what South Asian culture is. (TXD19)

However, it does not always bring the expected results due to burnout and high attrition rates among trained staff. Despite ongoing training efforts, the mainstream organizations face shortages of trained staff who understand the Asian Indian needs and experiences. Likewise, funding constraints limit the workload that the mainstream organizations can handle:

We are lucky that in California they have understood you know about diversity and they are making an effort to understand our culture and values and things like that. I am happy but they are limited, too; it’s not like they can take as many clients as we give them. Sometimes they have to turn away clients and they don’t have capacity. (CAA5)

With regard to the second effort, a respondent from one organization explained that her organization both zooms in and zooms out by combining a focus on Asian Indian women with a focus on the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) survivors of domestic violence:

Our focus is on people who don’t speak English and also LGBT [ … ]. And those are two big categories. So if we can cover undocumented people and gay and lesbian, then heterosexual is just part of it. As compared if we just flip it and if we focus on heterosexual, mainstream and speak English then the other are addition. Those are the way out there, if you are heterosexual, American citizen and speak English then you are part of the pot. So our capacity, our skills are geared at those two major categories but we do have queer, Asian woman and transgender support as a program … when we go out and do a training, anti-homophobia training, and working with LGBT survivors. (CAD3)

Since the social location of being an LGBT individual and a non-English speaker is the starting point for the services, this organization caters to diverse abused women rather than heterosexual Asian Indian women only.

Moreover, respondents reiterated that organizations focused on specific populations are surviving only because there is a need: “I mean, eventually when everything becomes so homogenous that we don’t have any special things it would be probably ideal and most cost effective as well, but until then you have to have. All these things are need based. The organizations have been born because a need was there” (TXD17).

Importantly, respondents also indicated that the simultaneous efforts to zoom out by expanding an organization’s focus to meet the needs of women from different Asian countries while also zooming in to specifically address the needs of subgroups creates challenges:

Am tempted to say let’s get bigger and bigger so we can serve a larger range but that creates its specific problems. But if you have also become smaller and smaller and break up into smaller pieces, that also creates problems in terms of funding and doing it on a funding basis and not on a volunteering basis. (CAD7)

Since these needs are organic and constantly changing, the organizations must keep up with the needs of the communities they serve. The respondents stated that the dynamics that play out in Indian marriages—issues of in-law abuse, arranged marriages, or silence around the issue—are better addressed by culturally competent organizations:

In my head whenever I say cultural competency I say cultural incompetency. Because I might think I am an expert in South Asian culture but no I am just an expert in the culture that I was brought up in, and that is not South Asian. It was a subset of a subset of a subset of a subset of a South Asian culture, right? So even if I meet a person with my exact same background, let’s say a person from the same city, the same educational background, the same social economic milieu…even then if I assume that she and I were thinking the same that’s not true. But we do understand the stories that a lot of non-South Asian person would find it challenging to understand. (CAD2)

Even when organizations are setup to address the cultural needs of the Asian Indian clients, the staff of these agencies do not necessarily know all the intricacies or variations within these cultures. Similarly, diversity within the Asian Indian community was also noted to highlight that the more specific competencies may be lacking in such organizations:

Every culture is so different [ … ]. It is India and within India we have so many different caste systems, religions, and areas where they come from; there are metropolitan cities or rural village [ … ] then there are siblings that she has back home and they don’t understand how she can’t go back. (CAD10)

On one hand, if organizations lack a focus on subpopulations such as those mentioned previously, they may lack competence to effectively address their clients’ needs, and on the other hand, as we discuss subsequently, women may be reluctant to approach the Asian Indian–focused organizations for fear of being judged by professionals whose values may be similar to theirs. This presents a challenge for organizations, as they must strategically decide whether, when, and how to broaden or narrow their focus to various groups and subgroups to most effectively meet needs.

Intersectional identities: Cultural standards and anonymity

Another dilemma exists when both clients and advocates belong to the same cultural community. In such cases, a client may fear that advocates will judge her according to the dominant cultural standards of her group and, consequently, may insist she be patient or tolerant of her husband’s violent behavior:

So there is also this kind of dynamics that play into one’s mind when they are you know going through abuse. [ … ] like I am from [country X] and [name] community is very small here, really small. So everybody knows everybody. So when we have a call and my other co-worker receives that, this person would say I know that [name of the interviewee] is working there, I don’t want to talk to [the staff from country X] thinking that I will know her or I will be … biased, maybe I will not understand her issues. So she would prefer not to talk to me and then after she would come here and meet me, then she would feel comfortable. But first initially she would say that if my co-worker would say there is a [person from the client’s country] here do you want to talk to her, she would say no no I don’t want to talk to any [person from the same country]. (TXD18)

Moreover, paying attention to the needs of specific groups of clients may be a disadvantage if these clients fear that their identity may be disclosed when they seek the support from organizations that focus on particular communities:

If you are from a small Asian Indian community [ … ] the chance that you are going to see somebody that knows a family member of your abuser is also high. [ … ] I have had clients who hadn’t wanted to go to [an organization] for that reason. Or [the organization] has referred people to the place where I used to work in [ … ] for that reason. But yes, I think they get more of a sense that somebody really understands the culture. (CAL1)

Hence, when the agency’s staff belong to the same community, clients fear endangering their anonymity. Sometimes callers insist on speaking to someone with whom they do not share a similar geographical region or religion. Additionally, the fear of being identified is present when the perpetrator and abused spouse are members of the same informal cultural or social group:

There are cultural agencies, which provide much needed social support. When I say cultural societies it is a double-edged sword. Because if you and your partner belong to the same cultural agency then it might actually be a deterrent in your reaching out or calling out in public that he is an abuser. (CAD2)

Respondents also mentioned that the social capital the abused woman has within her community may affect how she seeks help. Specifically, women who are well known in their community may decide not to approach Asian Indian organizations:

We have also seen, you know, two kinds of people. Those some kind of people who are visible in their community and don’t want anybody to know. Would be more willing to go to the mainstream and for them these organizations may not be needed. But they are not all of them. So both are needed and we have seen both. And we would look at the individual’s needs and come up with recommendations and multiple options that they would choose from depending on what would best fit. (TXD17)

In sum, Asian Indian–focused organizations face the dilemma of identity and anonymity. Having access to an organization catering to the needs of a specific community is important, but when communities are closely knit and some of the community members are visible, the fear that one’s anonymity will be compromised cannot be minimized.

Conclusion

According to Lockhart and Mitchell (2010), intersectional analysis should be a central component of any culturally competent social work practice, since such a practice implies being sensitive to a group’s specific needs. While earlier studies have discussed some of these challenges of incorporating intersectionality into social work practice (Belliveau, 2011; Murphy et al., 2009), in this work, we discuss these challenges with specific reference to better serving the needs of Asian Indian marriage migrants. In this work, our main goal was to begin addressing the gap in existing knowledge regarding how the Asian Indian–focused nonprofit organizations address the domestic violence–related intersectional needs and experiences of marriage migrants and the challenges they encounter in doing so (Bhuyan et al., 2010). Our research suggests that Asian Indian–focused organizations tend to address structural needs in a cultural framework. For instance, the advocates in this study emphasized the social locations of ethnic and cultural identities that demarcate the needs and experiences of Asian Indians as distinct from those of mainstream groups of women victims but often marginalized the intragroup variations in client’s experiences. At the same time, invariably, the nature of organizations catering to Asian Indian clients is intersectional due to the very character of the group they serve, and the nonprofits examined here a priori consider the intersection of gender and culture but do not appear to systematically organize their services using a deeper understanding of intersectional locations. In fact, their practices appear to cater to clients’ needs by privileging some social locations such as gender and culture and neglecting other intragroup differences, such as sexual orientation or social class.

Furthermore, the intersectional contradictions discussed in the study confine victim services to an individual mode of practice (Adams, Dominelli, & Payne, 2002; Dominelli, 2002; Mattsson, 2014). In fact, Mattsson (2014) explains that social problems are understood as “individual problems and not as problems related to greater social structures and society” (p. 8). In this regard, we found that nonprofits collect data related to intersectional locations of clients such as immigration status and social class, but the data are only used to address the issues faced by individual clients. The nonprofits represented in this research do not use an intersectional approach to create systematic and ongoing institutional interventions. This restricted use of the intersectional approach may be related to the fear that such data may stigmatize some client populations as victims of domestic violence, on one hand, and the two intersectional dilemmas that emerged in the course of the study, on the other: (1) building intersectional competencies: zooming in and zooming out and (2) intersectional identities: cultural standards and anonymity.

Even when the first competency can be addressed through training and sensitizing staff in mainstream organizations, the high attrition rates among trained staff creates challenges. Additionally, the intersectional complexity of Asian Indian identities creates challenges, as not every staff member is well versed in different Asian Indian subcultures and identities. Furthermore, clients may align with some social locations more so than others in different contexts based on their particular situations. This variability implies that to meet the needs of clients, organizations must be dynamic to change. At the same time, too much attention given to specific social locations is not without its own set of problems. Women victims fear being judged by someone who is too familiar with their culture and/or is a member of the same community. Moreover, women also fear that their identity will be disclosed when they approach organizations that specifically cater to their identity group.

Based on the interviews and the intersectional perspective, in order to effectively meet the needs and experiences of Asian Indian marriage migrants, two specific strategies can be used. First, by working in coalitions, Asian Indian–focused and mainstream organizations can address the intersectional needs of clients by streamlining their resources and building partnerships with stakeholders across different sectors while also taking into account the dynamic nature of client needs and challenges (Boris & Krehely, 2002). Specifically, by working together, the Asian Indian–focused and mainstream-focused organizations can supplement each other’s efforts, since catering to all intersectional needs may be challenging for the same set of service providers. To achieve this, Ono (2013) suggests “anti-violence organizations should engage in cross-training, share expertise and develop formal plans for collaboration, training and dialogue facilitated by racially minoritized women with experiential knowledge” (pp. 462–463). Moreover, since the incorporation of an intersectional analysis into social work equips practitioners to understand the relation of larger social structures to the situation of individual clients, it will aid their ability to “apply the core generalist skills to larger social systems where the outcomes are not individual client’s change but larger systems change in both laws and social conditions” (Cummins, Byers, & Pedrick, 2011, p. 8). Such policy practice is a necessary but often neglected aspect of social work practice (Figueria-McDonough, 1993; Jansson, 2003).

Second, the contexts of the United States and India are important in defining the needs of marriage migrants. Asian Indian-focused organizations are likely to have more expertise in understanding the Indian cultural belief systems and practices, while mainstream organizations may have greater expertise in practices and social categories that derive their meaning from the U.S. context. Also, when clients can approach different organizations with specific competencies, they may be less fearful of their anonymity being revealed (Sokoloff, 2008), making these organizations more effective. Therefore, both types of organizations could complement each other by working together to address the needs of Asian Indian marriage migrants.

As Sokoloff (2008) states, “it is important to acknowledge both the structural and cultural environments—both immigrant and mainstream—within which abuse occurs. One without the other will not free immigrant women from violence and violation” (p. 235). Consequently, to effectively address domestic violence among Asian Indians, it is important to explore the potential an applied intersectional framework can have in the process of empowering abused Asian Indian women.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research funding received from King Fahd Center for Middle East Studies, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

References

Abraham

(1999). Sexual abuse in South Asian immigrant marriages. Violence Against Women, 5, 591–618.

Abraham

(2000a). Speaking the unspeakable: Marital violence among South Asian immigrants in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Abraham

(2000b). Isolation as a form of marital violence: The South Asian immigrant experience. Journal of Social Distress & the Homeless, 9, 221–236.

Abraham

(2005). Domestic violence and the Indian diaspora in the United States. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 12, 427–451.

Adams

Dominelli

Payne

(Eds.). (2002). Social work: Themes, issues and critical debates. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.

Almeida

R. V.

Delvecchio

K. D.

(1999). Addressing culture in batterers intervention: The Asian Indian community as an illustrative example. Violence Against Women, 5, 654–683.

Anzaldua

(1990). Making face, making soul/haciendo caras: Creative and critical perspectives by women of color. San Franisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.

Bailey

K. D.

(2010). Lost in translation: Domestic violence, “the personal is political,” and the criminal justice system. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 1255–1300.

Belliveau

(2011). Gendered matters: Undocumented Mexican mothers in the current policy context. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 26, 32–46.

10.

Bent-Goodley

T. B.

(2005). Culture and domestic violence: Transforming knowledge development. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 195–203.

11.

Bhuyan

Shim

Velagapudi

(2010). Domestic violence advocacy with immigrants and refugees. In Lockhart

L. L.

Danis

F. S.

(Eds.), Domestic violence (pp. 155–182). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

12.

Bhuyan

Velagapudi

(2013). From one “Dragin Sleigh” to another: Advocating for immigrant women facing violence in Kansas. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 28, 65–78.

13.

Boris

E. T.

Krehely

(2002). Civic participation and advocacy. In Salamon

L. M.

(Ed.), The state of non-profit America (pp. 299–330). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

14.

Brewer

R. M.

(1993). Theorizing race, class, and gender: The new scholarship of black feminist intellectuals and Black women’s labor. In Hames

S. M.

Busia

A. P. A.

(Eds.), Theorizing Black feminisms: The visionary pragmatism of Black women (pp. 13–30). London, England: Routledge.

15.

Bui

H. N.

Morash

(1999). Domestic violene in the Vietnamese immigrant community: An exploratory study. Violence Against Women, 5, 769–795.

16.

Charsley

(2005). Vulnerable brides and transnational ghar damads: Gender risk and “adjustment” among Pakistani mariage migrants to Britain. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 12, 381–406.

17.

Chaudhuri

Morash

Yingling

(2014). Marriage migration, patriarchal bargains, and wife abuse: A study of South Asian women. Violence Against Women, 20, 141–161.

18.

Cho

(2012). Use of mental health service among Asian and Latino victims of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18, 404–419.

19.

Collins

(1993). Toward a new vision: Race, class, and gender as categories of analysis and connection. Race, Sex, & Class, 1, 25–45.

20.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

21.

Crenshaw

(1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. In Fineman

M. A.

Mykitiuk

(Eds.), The public nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). New York, NY: Routledge.

22.

Cummins

L. K.

Byers

K. V.

Pedrick

L. V.

(2011). Policy practice for social workers: New strategies for a new era. Boston, MD: Allyn & Bacon.

23.

Dasgupta

S. D.

(2000). Charting the course: An overview of domestic violence in the South Asian community in the United States. Journal of Social Distress & the Homeless, 9, 173–185.

24.

Dasgupta

S. D.

Warrier

(1996). In the footsteps of “Arundhati”: Asian Indian women’s experience of domestic violence in the United States. Violence Against Women, 2, 238–259.

25.

Dominelli

(2002). Feminist social work theory and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

26.

Donovan

Hester

(2014). Domestic violence and sexuality: What’s love got to do with it? Chicago, IL: Policy Press.

27.

Dutton

M. A.

Orloff

L. E.

Hass

G. A.

(2000). Characteristics of help-seeking behaviors, resources, and service needs of battered immigrant Latinas: Legal and policy implications. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 7, 245–305.

28.

Fan

C. C.

(2002). Marriage and migration in transitional China: A field study of Gaozhou, western Guangdong. Environment and Planning A, 34, 619–638.

29.

Figueria-McDonough

(1993). Policy practice: The neglected side of social work practice. Social Work, 38, 179–188.

30.

Forcey

L. R.

Nash

(1998). Rethinking feminist theory and social work therapy. Women & Therapy, 21, 85–99.

31.

Ghosh

(2011, 6 11). South Asian in America: Ten years after 9-11. International Business Times. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/south-asians-america-tenyears-after9-11-290945

32.

Goel

(2005). Sita’s Trousseau: Restorative justice, domestic violence, and South Asian culture. Violence Against Women, 11, 639–665.

33.

Hazen

A. L.

Soriano

F. I.

(2007). Experiences with intimate partner violence among Latina women. Violence Against Women, 11, 562–582.

34.

C. K.

(1990). An analysis of domestic violence in Asian American communities: A multicultural approach to counseling. Women and Therapy, 9, 129–150.

35.

Hoeffel

E. M.

Rastogi

Kim

M. O.

Shahid

(2012). The Asian population: 2010 census briefs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf

36.

Huisman

K. A.

(1996). Wife battering in Asian American communities: Identifying the service needs of an overlooked segment of the U.S. population. Violence Against Women, 2, 260–283.

37.

Hulko

(2009). The time- and context-contingent nature of intersectionality and interlocking oppressions. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 24, 44–55.

38.

Ingram

McClelland

D. J.

Martin

Caballero

M. F.

Mayorga

M. T.

Gillespie

(2010). Experiences of immigrant women who self-petition under the Violence Against Women Act. Violence Against Women, 16, 858–880.

39.

Jansson

B. S.

(2003). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy practice to social justice. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

40.

Kallivayalil

(2010). Narratives of suffering of South Asian immigrant survivors of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 16, 789–811.

41.

Kibria

(1990). Power, patriarchy, and gender conflict in the Vietnamese immigrant community. Gender and Society, 4, 9–24.

42.

Kim

(2013). Citizenship projects for marriage migrants in South Korea: Intersecting motherhood with ethnicity and class. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 20, 455–481.

43.

King

(1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of Black feminist ideology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14, 42–72.

44.

Lee

(2013). Breaking barriers: Addressing structural obstacles to social service provision for Asian survivors of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 19, 1350–1369.

45.

Loke

T. L.

(1996). Trapped in domestic violence: The impact of United States immigration law on battered immigrant women. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 589, 609–614.

46.

Lockhart

L. L.

Mitchell

(2010). Cultural competence and intersectionality: Emerging frameworks and practical approaches. In Lockhart

L. L.

Danis

F. S.

(Eds.), Domestic violence: Intersectionality and culturally competent practice (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

47.

Maghadam

V. M.

(2004). Patriarchy in transition: Women and the changing family in the Middle East. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 137–162.

48.

Mahapatra

(2012). South Asian women in the U.S. and their experience of domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 27, 381–390.

49.

Mattsson

(2014). Intersectionality as a useful tool: Anti-oppressive social work and critical reflection. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 29, 8–17.

50.

Mehrotra

(2010). Toward a continuum of intersectionality theorizing for feminist social work scholarship. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 25, 417–430.

51.

Mehrotra

(1999). The social construction of wife abuse: Experiences of Asian Indian women in the United States. Violence Against Women, 5, 619–640.

52.

Menjívar

Salcido

(2002). Immigrant women and domestic violence: Common experiences in different countries. Gender & Society, 16, 898–920.

53.

Merali

(2008). Theoretical frameworks for studying female marriage migrants. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 281–289.

54.

Murphy

Hunt

Zajicek

A. M.

Norris

A. N.

Hamilton

(2009). Incorporating intersectionality in social work practice, research, policy, and education. Washington, DC: NASW Press, National Association of Social Workers.

55.

Narayan

(1995). “Male-Order” brides: Immigrant women, domestic violence, and immigration law. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 10, 104–119.

56.

Nixon

Humphreys

(2010). Marshalling the evidence: Using intersectionality in the domestic violence frame. Social Politics, 17, 137–158.

57.

Ono

(2013). Violence against racially minoritized women: Implications for social work. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 28, 458–467.

58.

Osajima

(2005). Asian American as the model minority: An analysis of popular press image in the 1960s and 1980s. In Oho

K. A.

(Ed.), A companion to Asian American studies (pp. 215–225). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

59.

Parameswaran

(2007). Voices of the pioneers: The origin of the South Asian domestic violence movement in the United States. In Ochoa

Ige

B. K.

(Eds.), Shout out: Women of color respond to violence (pp. 51–67). Emeryville, CA: Seal Press.

60.

Parton

(2000). Some thoughts on the relationship between theory and practice in and for social work. The British Journal of Social Work, 30, 449–463.

61.

Patel

(2001). Notes on Gender and Racial Discrimination: An urgent need to integrate an intersectional perspective to the examination and development of policies, strategies, and remedies for gender and racial equality. Paper presented at the United Nations General Assembly, World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Homophobia, and Related Intolerance.

62.

Postmus

J. L.

McMahon

Silva-Martinez

Warrener

C. D.

(2014). Exploring the challenges faced by Latinas expereincing intimate partner violence. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 29, 462–477.

63.

Purnell

R. D.

Teng

Warrier

(2011). Cultural competency in California’s domestic violence field: Ensuring access to DV services for all Californians (pp. 1–30). Oakland, California: Blue Shield of California Foundation.

64.

Purkayastha

(2010). Interrogating intersectionality: Contemporary globalization and racialized gendering in the lives of highly educated South Asian Americans and their children. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31, 29–47.

65.

Raj

Silverman

(2002). Violence against immigrant women: The roles of culture, context, and legal immigrant status on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 8, 367–398.

66.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2003). Immigrant South Asian women at greater risk for injury from intimate partner violence. Amercian Journal of Public Health, 93, 435–437.

67.

Richie

B. E.

(1996). Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered black women. New York, NY: Routledge.

68.

Rothenberg

P. S.

(2001). Race, class, and gender in the United States: An integrated study. New York, NY: Worth.

69.

Roy

S. G.

(1995). Restoring hope or tolerating abuse-response to domestic violence against immigrant women. Georgetown Immigration law Journal, 9, 263–290.

70.

Sokoloff

(2008). Expanding the intersectional paradigm to better understand domestic violence in immigrant communities. Critical Criminology, 16, 229–255.

71.

Strauss

A. L.

Corbin

J. M.

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

72.

Sullivan

C. M.

(2011). Evaluating domestic violence support service programs: Waste of time, necessary evil, or opportunity for growth? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 354–360.

73.

Teran

I. J.

(1999). Barriers to protection at home and abroad: Mexican victims of domestic violence and the violence against women act. Boston University International Law Journal, 17, 1–70.

74.

Thai

H. C.

(2005). Clashing dreams in the Vietnamese diaspora: Highly educated overseas brides and low-wage US husbands. In Constable

(Ed.), Cross-border marriages: Gender and mobility in transnational Asia (pp. 145–165). Philadelphia: University of Pennyslvania Press.

75.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

(2000). Full report of prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Research Report. Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

76.

Tran

C. G.

Des Jardins

(2000). Domestic violence in Vietnamese refugee and Korean immigrant communities. In Chin

(Ed.), Relationships among Asian American women (pp. 71–96). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

77.

Ullah

A. A.

(2014). How international is international: A study on international marriage migration in Asia. In Zhang

Duncan

(Eds.), Migration in China and Asia, international perspectives on migration (Vol. 10, pp. 113–130). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

78.

Venugopal

(2014). The mother-in-law: The other woman in your marriage. India: Penguin.

79.

Viruell-Fuentes

E. A.

Miranda

P. Y.

Abdulrahim

(2012). More than culture: Structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 2099–2106.

Nonprofit Organizations Serving Domestic Violence Survivors

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Data and Methods

Sampling Strategy

Instrument and Procedure

Analysis

Findings

Existing Framework of Services: Cultural and Structural Accommodations

Language services

Outreach services

Transitional homes

Counseling services

Pro bono immigration services

Policy advocacy

Intersectional Dilemmas: Meeting the Needs of Asian Indian Marriage Migrants

Building Intersectional Competencies: Zooming In and Zooming Out

Intersectional identities: Cultural standards and anonymity

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References