“It was Like a Volcano Erupted”: Community-Based Advocates’ Observations of Intimate Partner Violence and Intimate Femicide in Alabama During COVID-19

Abstract

This study examines how community-based advocates describe their observations of women in Alabama experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) during COVID-19 and the impacts on their roles as service providers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten participants from six agencies covering 22 counties in Alabama, to investigate contributing factors of IPV during the initial phases of the coronavirus pandemic and to share their experiences in providing services to survivors during this historic time. Along with existing barriers, COVID-19 introduced new and exacerbating factors for women experiencing violence and for those attempting to provide services. Advocates observed that pandemic-influenced circumstances such as confinement, isolation, and economic instability exacerbated certain types of violence and that Black women, immigrant women, and women in rural areas faced heightened barriers. Advocates also revealed a relationship between these heightened barriers brought on by COVID-19 and their own experiences of isolation, grief, and a yearning for connection. These findings reveal the pertinent needs of survivors and advocates as we move through, forward, and beyond this global pandemic.

Keywords

intimate partner violence intimate femicide COVID-19 advocacy

Introduction

Alabama's history in the violence against women movement is complex and has roots dating back to the 1800s when the state formally charged George Fulgham with assaulting his wife (Fulgham v. State, 1871). This case would prove to be the beginning of a nationwide and yet convoluted crusade against domestic violence, as it later brought into question racialized double standards in the legal system, a system birthed in white supremacy, and whether the function of this ruling was to actually protect women (Mahan, 2017). Before Alabama's modern statewide response to violence, Black women's protests against sexual assault fueled civil rights campaigns throughout the South that began during World War II and continued through and beyond the Black Power movement (McGuire, 2011). Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks is infamous for sparking the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, but what is often left out of the story is her own survivorship and advocacy efforts as a sexual assault investigator including her involvement in the case of a rape survivor, Recy Taylor (Brown, 2021). Rosa Parks's radicalism and passion for eradicating racism and sexism created a powerful legacy for calling out injustices of violence against women and in particular, violence against women of color (Rogers et al., 2021). In 1978, Alabama formally joined the ongoing national movement against domestic violence through the creation of the Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence and later opened its first two shelters in 1979 (ACADV, 2022).

Alabama's high poverty rate, historic racism, failure to adequately support infrastructure, and weak gun safety protections have contributed to the continued violence against women (Council on Violence Against Women, 2002; Everytown Research & Policy, 2022). Alabama consistently has one of the highest rates of domestic violence as well as the number of women killed by intimate partners (Synder 2015; Violence Policy Center, 2011). Today, Alabama's 67 counties are served by only 16 domestic violence programs (ACADV, 2022). This creates unique challenges for advocates and the women they seek to help, especially women in rural counties who experience limited access to support, geographic isolation, transportation barriers, and poverty (Rural Health Information Hub, 2021).

Overview: COVID-19 and IPV Advocacy

On January 20, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first U.S. laboratory-confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States and by mid-March, states within the United States began to shut down to prevent the spread (CDC, 2022). With the number of deaths, COVID-19 is now the deadliest disease in American history (CDC, 2022; McKeever, 2021). In March 2020, lockdown orders or restriction orders prohibiting social gatherings and mandating closures of establishments were put into place throughout the United States to protect against the spread of the coronavirus (Haider, 2020). Along with existing barriers, COVID-19 introduced new and exacerbating factors for women experiencing violence and for those attempting to provide services. Throughout COVID-19, a pandemic of respiratory illness, essential workers risked their lives to help maintain some semblance of normalcy for others and to ensure people could access services (Hopkins, 2022; The Lancet, 2020). A report showed that 83.7% of survivors indicated that intimate partner violence (IPV) had increased during the pandemic and 60.2% revealed that sexual assault rates had also increased (Lynch & Logan, 2021). Two systematic reviews highlighted that pandemic-related circumstances created additional complications for women experiencing abuse, such as male unemployment, isolation, the stress associated with childcare and homeschooling, and the increased use of alcohol and other substances (Kourti et al., 2021; Piquero, et al.). Furthermore, Lynch & Logan (2021) surveyed 222 gender-based violence advocates across the United States and revealed that 33% reported femicides had increased in their communities during COVID-19.

Advocates working within IPV agencies hold incredible amounts of knowledge and experience from working with survivors, day-in and day-out. Their positions require a level of proactivity beyond mandated service delivery and encourage them to focus on working with and on behalf of survivors to ensure their access to resources (Sullivan & Goodman, 2009). Advocates also accompany survivors through various systems, including medical, legal, and immigration; provide safety planning; provide direct care to survivors and their children; and work on challenging policies and public attitudes to improve the responsiveness to women experiencing abuse (Davies et al., 1998; Peled & Edleson, 1994). Additionally, advocates experience the unique complexities of working with survivors who face real and present danger at the hands of an intimate partner, and they offer emotional support by listening to women's stories, many of which involve terrifying acts of abuse (Davies et al., 1998; Dutton, 1992; Koss et al., 1994).

Theoretical Framework

Feminist standpoint theory (FST) and intersectionality act as the theoretical frameworks for this study. Standpoint feminism attempts to give voice to the knowledge arising from the lives of women in patriarchal and capitalistic societies and advocates that women's lived experiences are the beginning point of scientific inquiry (Comack, 1999; Harding, 2004). FST guides the study design by centering knowledge about women from women advocates and through the incorporation of the author's reflexivity. The differences among women are critical. And yet, collective points of reality can be shared regardless of a woman's identity (Harding, 2004). Similar to how FST broadened the tenets of Marxist feminism to focus on structural oppressions in addition to capitalism (Hartsock, 1983; Punyanunt-Carter, n.d.), intersectionality deepens our scope for understanding IPV in relation to multiple standpoints and identities and how these shape women's experiences of violence (Cullen et al., 2021; Gill, 2018; Kulkarni, 2018; Nixon & Humphreys, 2010; Rice et al., 2021). Rather than solely focusing on gender as a single analytic frame, race, class, migration status, etc. must also be explored to understand how these identities impact one's experience as a woman (Samuels & Ross-Sheriff, 2008). Through the application of FST and intersectionality, the study aims to broaden the understanding of community-based advocates’ (CBAs’) observations of IPV including intimate femicide (henceforth IF) during COVID-19 and to highlight their realities in providing services to those experiencing violence in Alabama.

Aims

This study aims to qualitatively understand how COVID-19 has impacted women experiencing IPV. My approach centers the experiences of service providers through interviews with frontline advocates in Alabama. There has been very little research conducted on the impact of COVID-19 on IPV, including IF, from the viewpoint of advocates (Bagwell-Gray, 2020; Lynch & Logan, 2021) and no research with a specific focus on Alabama. The following questions guided this study (1) What are community-based advocates’ observations of how COVID-19 affected women experiencing IPV in Alabama?, (2) How do community-based advocates describe contributing factors of IPV cases during COVID-19?, and (3) in what ways did COVID-19 impact community-based advocates providing services to women?

Method

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore CBA's observations of IPV including IF during COVID-19. In addition to this specific interviewing method, sensitive topic interviewing techniques were used as a tool. Nested in feminist practices, sensitive topic interviews require careful planning and employing various techniques such as communicating the researcher's role and responsibilities, creating a safer environment where participants can share their experiences and views, using judgment-free language and mannerisms, looking out for cues that signal distress, offering fair compensation, and engaging in debriefing sessions with participants that may include referrals or reference to materials (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Goodrum & Keys, 2007; Murgalia, 2020; Oltmann, 2016; United Nations, 2011 ).

Sample

This sample included 10 interview participants from six agencies covering 22 of Alabama's 67 counties. The CBAs (also referenced as participants throughout this article) were initially chosen according to a purposeful sampling process and recruited through my network of colleagues within the 16 domestic violence agencies across Alabama as well as advertisement via electronically shared flyers. The indicated inclusion criteria for participant interviews included that advocates must have provided direct services to adult clients during COVID-19 (March 1, 2020-present). Recruitment began in September 2021 and additional CBAs were identified through snowball sampling reaching a total of 10 participants. All interviews were completed by December 2021. As a collective, participants’ agencies served a total of 22 Alabama counties.

All of the CBAs identified as women which is representative of a large majority of advocates in the field and aligned with my feminist theoretical lens that focused on centering and providing a space for women's voices and experiences. However, the races, ethnicities, and number of years serving as an advocate were diverse, representing a range of perspectives and experiences. The average age of the advocates was 39.5 years old, and the average number of years served was seven. Four of the participants identified as White, three as Black, and three as White, Hispanic. It is important to note that 40% of the sample self-disclosed their survivorship, meaning that four out of the 10 participants disclosed that they had experienced IPV at some point in their own lives.

Procedure

Approval was obtained from the University of Alabama's Institutional Review Board. I requested and was granted a waiver of written consent from the IRB so as not to have the advocates’ names attached to this study. I conducted, recorded, and transcribed all 10 of the interviews. Interviews ranged from 45 min to 90 min with two of the interviews conducted in person and the remaining eight conducted online via Zoom. Since participants provide advocacy in multiple county areas and were overwhelmed by an increase in services, video conferencing interviews allowed me to enable access to advocates in areas that otherwise would not have been able to participate. To honor participants’ time, each CBA who completed the interview was gifted a $25 prepaid debit gift card.

Data Analysis

An inductive six-phase thematic analysis (TA) (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2013) was used to analyze the qualitative interviews to focus on themes and patterns of meaning within the data. Within TA, it is recognized that themes are strongly linked to the data and do not emerge but rather are reflected in the researcher's own ontological, epistemological, and paradigmatic assumptions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). TA proves useful for summarizing key features of a larger data set and it helps to produce clear and organized findings (King, 2004). I began by listening to each interview recording before transcription to immerse myself in the data with limited distractions. I proceeded to manually transcribe each interview verbatim using InqScribe software and then transferred each interview into word documents for printing and uploading. As part of my reflexive processing, I was intentional in continuously writing down my thoughts and experiences regarding data collection, analysis, and interpretation. I also noted at various points, my feelings about the study, the participants, and my overall work.

To connect the participant's survey to their interview, a number was assigned to each transcript. I introduced the member checking process by sending all 10 participants a copy of their transcribed interview and later inquiring about their agreement with the created themes and codes. I asked participants to provide feedback that I planned to incorporate into the TA. All 10 advocates engaged with the member checking process by responding that the themes were representative of what they shared. Electronic copies of the entire dataset were uploaded into NVivo 12 software so that I could interact with and visualize the data, and any consistencies across participants’ responses were noted to generate the initial codes. An inductive coding approach was employed as this allowed me to develop code categories directly out of the data. After further review and grouping of the dataset, I collapsed eight of the codes and four of the themes, finalizing a total of 38 codes and five themes.

Trustworthiness and Quality

Creswell (2014) refers to the trustworthiness of a study as central to establishing a qualitative research study's credibility and requires that a researcher follows procedures aimed at maintaining the accuracy and consistency of the methods and analysis. To increase the trustworthiness of this study and to ensure its quality, I engaged in various activities. To begin with, I kept a detailed audit trail. This audit trail included notes on the description of the method (TA), data collection, and data analysis processes that I used including Braun & Clarke's (2013) 15-point checklist. I also relied on the use of thick description through the use of direct quotes from the participants in developing themes and engaged in individual reflexivity pre-, during, and post-analysis. I was intentional about scheduling regular debriefings with my committee Chair and taking time for self-care as a way to address coder fatigue; a common threat to trustworthiness that makes it difficult to look at each case with fresh eyes (Kleinheksel et al., 2020); and engagement with the CBAs throughout my research process including discussions around interpretation, presentation, and dissemination strategies.

Results

The research process took an exciting shift based on what the participants shared. What initially started out as a study examining CBA's observations of how their clients had been impacted by COVID-19, quickly turned into space for the advocates themselves to discuss the ways their work changed. The research interview ended up serving as a much-needed break from the demands of COVID-19. Advocates expressed gratitude for the opportunity to share their experiences as for most of them, it was the first time they were not having to provide comfort and validation to someone else. The major themes uncovered from this data include: “Complexities of COVID-19 and its impact on Intimate partner violence including Intimate Femicide,” “Racism, Rurality, and Risk,” Ambiguous Grief and the Toll on Advocates,” Adaptability and Resiliency: Leaning into the Collective,” and “Moving Through and Moving Beyond: Identifying the Needs of Women in Alabama.”

Complexities of COVID-19 and its Impact on IPV Including IF

Across interviews, CBAs unanimously implicated COVID-19 as an event that was an aggravating factor for violence and that although gaps in safety nets and services already existed, the pandemic made these gaps more apparent, ultimately creating a more dangerous environment for women facing abuse here in Alabama. With incidents of IPV nearly doubling during the coronavirus pandemic (Balasubramanian, 2020), CBAs noted pandemic-influenced circumstances as risk factors exacerbating all types of violence, including physical, financial, emotional, and sexual abuse. One CBA summarized the heightened danger that victims faced: “just being quarantined in a lockdown with your abuser is just, it's adding fuel to a fire already.” While measures including lockdown orders that prevented people from being around others were put in place to prevent the spread of COVID-19, another CBA noted how the lockdown negatively impacted survivors:

During the pandemic, everyone was on lockdown, so you had control of everything, finance, the people, everything, and so the other person doesn’t have a job and they’re home too, now all the finances have stopped, and all the abuser is looking at is hey ‘now I’ve got total control and I’m alienating you from everybody.

Risk factors brought on by COVID-19 such as unemployment and access to firearms have long been acknowledged in lethality research (Campbell et al., 2003; Goodmark, 2018). This point is particularly pertinent, given Alabama's recent change in the law that no longer requires residents to hold a permit to conceal and carry a handgun in the state (Cason, 2022). IPV certainly existed pre-COVID, however, as one participant shared, “for women, I think it's they’re still in this volatile space, that is volatile under normal circumstances and it's kind of just this perfect storm that we see so much more instances of sexual violence and domestic violence.”

Most of the participants pointed to the increasing severity of the types of abuse reported including strangulation and a rising number of femicide victims due to firearms. One participant discussed the increasing number of femicide victims honored during their 2021 candlelight vigil, an annual event remembering victims whose lives were taken because of IPV: “This year, we’ve had 11 victims within our county, and I think COVID has had so much responsibility for that you know.”

Racism, Rurality, and Risk

Three groups of women became prominent focal points in many of the conversations including Black women, immigrant women, and women living in rural areas. Participants shared additional concrete examples as they pertained to help-seeking, further uncovering how the intersections of gender, geographic location, and race further complicated survivors’ experiences of violence. It is interesting to note that while most CBAs did not directly indicate the theory of “intersectionality” during the interviews, they articulated aspects of its application when describing the plights of their clients:

Race does play a big part in the help factor for some reason. African American women, their abuse is not taken as serious as White women and their abuse. When we accompany a woman to court to do a PFA and she's trying to explain herself you know and what happened, from what I see it's not taken as serious.

It made it really hard to receive those services, especially in rural Alabama where women have difficulty obtaining services. And I think too that sometimes race played a part as sad as it is. I had survivors that would tell me just because of the color of my skin I feel I’m not being helped like I should.

It is evident from the participants’ quotes, that race and rurality only made help-seeking more difficult, which builds upon previous research examining the intersections of identities and violence (reference).

Advocates serving more rural parts of the state discussed how COVID-19 further jeopardized access to services for survivors: “it was hard for them to be able to get the services they need, and I think our rural Caucasian females have suffered during the pandemic.” This finding is pertinent due to a large proportion of rural counties in Alabama and how the number of counties is divided up among agencies.

Additionally, advocates brought attention to Hispanic or Latino individuals experiencing violence by inviting communities to acknowledge that “immigrant women have different obstacles than other women.” Considering that 56% of the foreign-born population in Alabama are not U.S. citizens and that Hispanic or Latino individuals comprise the second-largest minority group in this state at 18.7% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021), it is pertinent to draw attention to immigrant women and their survivorship, noting the complexities of COVID-19, as exemplified below:

Most of our survivors work restaurant jobs or I’d say the highest percentage would be housekeeping, cleaning houses. So when the pandemic started most of those services were canceled. So, because of their immigration status, they can’t apply for benefits and that puts them to rely more on the perp to help them financially and keep them going especially when they have children.

This CBA also elaborated on the fear of seeking help especially as it pertains to law enforcement, indicating that a lot of victims are undocumented immigrants, so they fear calling the police. Given the large immigrant population in Alabama, is important in understanding the complex barriers of victims.

Ambiguous Grief and the Toll on Advocates

A concept introduced by Dr. Pauline Boss (1999), ambiguous grief is a loss that cannot be easily described and is steeped in uncertainty. Participants frequently expressed feelings of exhaustion, isolation, fear, and a yearning for human connection. For example, one participant talked about the uncertainty of working during COVID-19 in particularly stark terms: “it was a little isolating and it was very I guess, post-apocalyptic, or like kind of dystopian feeling of like we are in this uncertain time and people are calling you ‘cause they are in crisis and you are also in crisis because you have no idea what's going on.” Without a doubt, COVID-19 caused the day-to-day to look dramatically different and CBAs were not exempt from the effects of the pandemic not limited to the loss of loved ones, the instability of systems, the additional roles to take on, and the postponement of activities and gatherings.

CBAs discussed the additional job duties that COVID-19 created for them including cooking meals, excessive amounts of cleaning and sanitizing, counseling clients on symptomology and safety protocols, and coordinating services. At the same time, CBAs expressed fear of not only risking their health as well as the client's health, but also how newly mandated safety precautions impacted their service delivery. As one described: “I was more mentally distant from my patients because I was afraid of the situation” and “it has made it difficult to create that bond with the victim because now the contact is over the phone and it's harder to gain their trust.” Advocates expressed a deep level of care for their clients and in many ways, COVID-19 limited their opportunities for more meaningful connection with survivors seeking services.

Given the grueling nature of the 2020–2021 years, CBAs experienced the residual effects of navigating uncharted territory, compounded by the increasing demand for services, high rates of staff turnover, and having to implement several safety protocols. While there was agreement that safety was always a top priority, there was also discussion on how safety measures such as masking, the use of plexiglass, and social distancing made the connection with clients and with colleagues increasingly difficult.

Adaptability and Resiliency: Leaning into the Collective

Despite the chaos of navigating co-occurring crises such as COVID-19 and violence against women, the women in this study were able to give examples of adaptability and resiliency to continue providing services to victims. The use of telehealth services, online video conferencing, sanitizing, masking, interagency collaboration, and the use of online support groups all served as mechanisms of advocacy that both allowed CBAs to maintain their roles and clients to get the services they needed. As one CBA explained: “we had to spend more time in making sure that the services were going to be met and more than anything just being flexible.”

As discussed previously, safety precautions were not always ideal and did affect some level of connection, however, advocates were able to implement strategies to continue their life-saving work. One CBA discussed holding court hearings in a parking lot and introducing Zoom as a way to enhance safety and engagement: “we started requiring that defendants come in person to hearings and then letting victims do the option of Zoom if they wanted to.” Another CBA corroborated those sentiments noting the pros of using Zoom, particularly during a court hearing: “they are less intimidated by not having to see the person face to face.”

In addition to using Zoom during court proceedings, advocates used Zoom to create spaces in the form of online support groups or telehealth for survivors to decrease isolation and increase camaraderie:

We tried it on Zoom and it was working, even if it was just one person or two, it worked because they wanted somebody on the other end that they could hear their story and feel supported.

Additionally, several CBAs talked about forging stronger connections with advocates at other agencies and how interagency collaboration acted as a protective factor for both the providers as well as the victims they served. As one stated: “those partnerships and those agencies we work hand in hand with became the lifeline.” Clearly, under “normal” circumstances, interagency support is vital, however, during a global pandemic that deeply impacted and changed resource availability, it became more salient to lean into these partnerships as they were critical and yielded innovative solutions to strengthen the communities where survivors live (Kulkarni, 2018). Overall, participants shared reflections that emphasized their adaptability and resiliency and how even amid the coronavirus, CBAs banded together to find ways to operate within imperfect systems and navigate the challenges as a collective.

Moving Through and Moving Beyond: Identifying the Needs of Women in Alabama

In some ways the chaos of COVID-19 only magnified what many advocates already knew; women in Alabama are underserved and under-resourced. Two of the interview questions focused on assessing what both survivors in Alabama were going to need as well as what advocates needed as they continued to move forward in the COVID-19 pandemic. For women experiencing abuse, needs that decrease dependence upon the perpetrator were mentioned as gateways for women seeking safer and more secure environments, such as safe and affordable housing, financial assistance, language access, and childcare.

Given that most women were killed with a gun, the issue of firearm access and accountability for offenders possessing firearms was mentioned when discussing ways to address IF. For example, one participant pointed to the underutilization of the Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) as a tool to help police officers and advocates recognize the level of danger in any given IPV call:

In Jefferson County, I have yet to see a law enforcement agency use them as a standard part of their response protocol, which is so disheartening. I believe LAPs can save lives and getting that up and running is definitely one of my goals.

Although the use of LAPs is standard in some counties in Alabama, this practice is inconsistent and is not statewide. This is problematic given that research has shown it to be effective in reducing intimate partner-related homicides and the program has been implemented in 31 states (National Institute of Justice, 2018).

For advocates, their identified needs included resources such as mental health services, avenues for self-care, and additional funding. For many of the participants, the interview served as a time in which they could vent, release, and be heard. The women expressed their exhaustion and feeling overwhelmed. As one participant stated: “mentally, it's draining. It's just draining and to see the suffering, the suffering with the women coming in who have COVID and having to stay isolated in their rooms.” Another participant indicated that along with the many challenges of COVID-19, an increase in her caseload and the types of cases including an increase in child sexual abuse had brought her to her limit: “I’ve been in tears many times. I’m just overwhelmed with the amount, and I was just like at a breaking point.”

One participant unabashedly stated, “listen, if we don’t get counseling, we can’t serve these ladies. We need counseling ourselves,” making the connection to the emotional toll of serving already isolated survivors during COVID-19 within inadequate systems. In addition to the need for counseling, one CBA discussed the need for genuine connection for advocates with one another: “I think they are just going to need connection. So, more time and more opportunities I think for constructive networking not I gotta know you for the business type stuff but a genuine connection with people.” In general, participants described some previous trainings and spaces before COVID-19 where advocates could interact with one another and build community, however, because of physical distancing, opportunities to network in a group setting were severed: “you would go out and meet these wonderful advocates and share stories, gain a confidante and friend, we just don’t have that anymore.”

Throughout these conversations, many advocates expressed a craving for a commonplace way to interact with fellow advocates and self-care as a critical component of this work. In many ways, the coronavirus pandemic illuminated breakdowns in Alabama's social safety nets and created a critical point for reexamining both the assets and needs of women, those experiencing violence, and those responding to violence. Healing can happen in relationships with others and now more than ever, the women's responses highlight that self-care must be a community activity rather than just an individual one and that agencies must support one another. The power lies in the collective.

Discussion

It is evident from the data that there has been an increase in the severity of abuse including strangulation and a rising number of women killed with firearms. This increased severity in abuse suggests a need for policy reform around accessing and possessing firearms specifically for those with prior domestic violence histories. Additionally, as mentioned previously, more consistent implementation of LAPs could help save the lives of women by identifying risk levels and prompting earlier intervention.

Additionally, my findings highlight the differences that gender, race, and rurality make in interpreting and responding to IPV including IF before, during, and after a pandemic. Such factors also produce unique barriers including language access, access to benefits, and economic insecurity. The rurality of many Alabama counties plays a significant role in barriers that women face as rural areas tend to have more limited resources. The State of Alabama's landscape includes numerous rural areas and counties as detailed in the data from the 2020 Census Bureau indicating that 1,146,765 Alabama residents live in rural areas (USDA-ERS, 2022). The distinct barriers that rural survivors face when seeking help and support have been extensively noted (Dudgeon et al., 2014; Pruitt, 2008). Rural victims tend to be less educated and earn lower wages (Logan et al., 2003), making the pandemic's effects on financial security even more devastating for these women. In Alabama specifically, the 2019 Census Bureau noted that the poverty rate in rural Alabama was 18.5%, compared with 14.8% in urban areas of the state, and that 18.8% of the rural population had not completed high school (USDA-ERS, 2022).

My study findings also point to experiences of ambiguous grief for CBAs, coping mechanisms, and suggestions to help increase support for survivors and CBAs. Participant feedback suggested that in addition to emotional support, survivors need financial assistance, stable housing, language access for Spanish-speaking victims, affordable childcare, and opportunities for economic advancement; a potent reminder for resisting the urge to individualize structural problems. While these supports are crucial at all periods for survivors, CBAs deemed these resources even more necessary given the additional strains brought on by COVID-19.

One way to further assist victims is to support the advocates providing services. In addition to funding concerns, CBAs discussed the importance of meaningful and reciprocal collaborations between organizations to holistically meet survivors’ needs and to also create spaces where advocates can debrief with one another. Advocate support groups could be crucial in decreasing isolation and offering space for honoring advocacy as a sisterhood. There are ways to decrease isolation such as the use of online spaces where advocates can come together in support of one another. CBAs are lifelines for survivors and their work, dedication, and passion are invaluable to this State. What has become clear is that we cannot aim for a return to normal but for the reconstruction of what advocacy can look like following this major disruption, one that focuses not on bouncing back, but on bouncing forward.

Limitations and Future Research

As with any study, there are strengths and limitations pointing to the need for further research. First, due to a lack of available research, we have a limited understanding of the longer-term effects of COVID-19 on violence against women, as much of the literature focuses on earlier waves of the pandemic that involved more restrictive mandates such as lockdowns and physical distancing. While this research provides valuable insight and a deeper glimpse into IPV in Alabama during the coronavirus, future research will need to examine the effects of violence against women as we move further out of the pandemic. Much more data remains to be uncovered about how the pandemic continues to affect women and the lasting impacts on communities and service providers. The research will need to continue examining COVID's role in IPV in Alabama and ongoing assets and needs, particularly for disproportionately affected groups.

Secondly, all the participants were CBAs living and working in Alabama. While the geographic focus of this study was the state of Alabama, participants were employed by six different agencies representing only 22 of the 67 counties, and thus findings are not necessarily representative of Alabama's entire advocacy landscape. Future studies should expand the geographic representation by considering interviews of advocates from the remaining 10 agencies placed within additional counties to capture a more accurate account of IPV including IF cases statewide.

Lastly, my interview questions focused on asking CBAs to interpret the intersections of race, gender, and geographic location for women experiencing violence. Therefore, their observations represent identities made visible to them and may not offer a detailed account of how the survivors themselves experience their intersections. Additional research could center survivors without professional advocacy experience to ensure that we understand a broad range of perspectives on IPV. Regardless, I do not believe these limitations undermine the credibility of the findings.

Conclusion

This study describes CBA's observations of how COVID-19 affected women experiencing IPV in Alabama and shares first-hand accounts of the ways service delivery was impacted. The overall findings reveal that COVID-19 exacerbated risk factors for women due to shifts in economic stability and the consequences of stay-at-home orders. In addition to gender, race, and rurality made help-seeking difficult for clients, and safety precautions such as physical distancing and masking impeded aspects of CBA's connections to survivors. Despite these challenges, participants provided evidence of resiliency including using collaboration and technology to meet clients’ needs and discussed specific strategies for moving forward.

The research is grounded in feminist standpoint and intersectionality theories by considering how systems impact women's diverse experiences. Women have been historically and institutionally disempowered and there remain gaps in how we understand and respond to violence. As one of the profession's grand challenges, social work's response to addressing gender-based violence including IPV is as relevant as ever (Edleson et al., 2015). Violence against women does not happen in a vacuum and therefore, social workers must educate themselves and others on the connections between violence and other forms of institutional violence such as inadequate gun restrictions, inaccessible reproductive healthcare, anti-trans laws, and structural racism associated with outdated immigration laws. Acknowledging ways to make services more accessible and culturally informed is essential in creating safer communities for women. Social work advocates, educators, and researchers could use the knowledge produced from this study to push for more consistent LAPs in Alabama and implement trauma-informed supervision to better support CBAs who continue to provide urgent services to women across the state and the country. Overall, the interviews with advocates provided an inspiring call to action on how we can continue to do better for women in this state including those providing services, while also encouraging us to think about this work in bigger and braver ways. Hope is still alive.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Amber Sutton

Author biography

Amber Sutton is a licensed independent clinical social worker and an Assistant Professor of Social Work at Auburn University at Montgomery. Her research broadly focuses on intimate partner violence (IPV) and its various forms. Recently, her interest in IPV has expanded to figuring out how to support advocates in Alabama and creating braver and safer spaces through the implementation of a virtual support group. Other research interests include justice-involved women, reproductive coercion, pet protection, trauma-informed education and management, and rural communities. She has over 10 years of experience working with survivors of IPV and their families in many settings, including residential services, prevention education, the legal system, and as a telehealth provider. A survivor herself, she utilizes feminist praxis and intersectional feminist research to identify, improve, and support micro-, mezzo-, and macro-level responses to fellow survivors of violence. She is certified in the Danger Assessment, an evidence-based instrument that helps to determine the level of danger an abused woman has of being killed by her intimate partner. She has served as a member of the Board of Directors for the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) and currently serves as a Change Champion for The Family Sunshine Center. As a faculty member at AUM, she teaches Diversity and Social Justice, Human Behavior in the Social Environment (HBSE) II, and Practice II. During the summer, she will be teaching Introduction to Social Work and Family Violence. She also leads Diversity webinar series and serves as a professional advisor to social work students. Outside work, she enjoys spending time with her family and friends, boxing, weightlifting, reading, and organizing (she is a fanatic).

References

Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (2022). ACADV. Shelters. http://www.acadv.org/get-help/shelters/.

Bagwell-Gray

M. E.

Bartholmey

(2020). Safety and services for survivors of intimate partner violence: A researcher-practitioner dialogue on the impact of covid-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S205–S207. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000869

Balasubramanian

(2020, August 19). An unacceptable crisis: Incidents of domestic violence have nearly doubled during the coronavirus pandemic. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/saibala/2020/08/18/an-unacceptable-crisis-domestic-violence-has-skyrocketed-nearly-2x-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/?sh=765b09016070 .

Boss

(1999). Ambiguous Loss. Harvard University Press.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun

Clarke

(2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.

Brown

D. N. L.

(2021, October 28). How Recy Taylor's brutal rape has become a symbol of #MeToo and #timesup. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/11/27/the-gang-rape-was-horrific-the-naacp-sent-rosa-parks-to-investigate-it/.

Campbell

J. C.

Webster

Koziol-McLain

Block

Campbell

Curry

M. A.

Gary

Glass

McFarlane

Sachs

Sharps

Ulrich

Wilt

S. A.

Manganello

Schollenberger

Frye

Laughon

(2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089

Cason

(2022, March 11). Gov. Kay Ivey signs bill to end concealed carry permit requirement. AL.com. https://www.al.com/news/2022/03/lawmakers-could-approve-repeal-of-alabamas-concealed-carry-permit-requirement.html.

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2022, January 5). CDC Museum Covid-19 Timeline. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.cdc.gov/museum/timeline/covid19.html#:∼:text=January%2020%2C%202020%20CDC,18%20in%20Washington%20state.

11.

Comack

(1999). Producing feminist knowledge. Lessons from women in trouble. Theoretical Criminology, 3(3), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480699003003002

12.

Corbin

Morse

J. M.

(2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(3), 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403009003001

13.

Council on Violence Against Women [CVAW] (2002). Violence against women - Alabama department of public health. https://www.alabamapublichealth.gov/injuryprevention/assets/vawstateplan.pdf.

14.

Creswell

(2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

15.

Cullen

Dawson

Price

Rowlands

(2021). Intersectionality and invisible victims: Reflections on data challenges and vicarious trauma in femicide, family and intimate partner homicide research. Journal of Family Violence, 36(5), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00243-4

16.

Davies

Lyon

Monti-Catania

(1998). Safety planning with battered women. Sage.

17.

Dudgeon

Evanson

T. A.

(2014). Intimate partner violence in rural U.S. areas. AJN, American Journal of Nursing, 114(5), 26. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000446771.02202.35

18.

Dutton

M. A.

(1992). Empowering and healing battered women: A model for assessment and intervention. Springer.

19.

Edleson

J. L.

Lindhorst

Kanuha

K. V.

(2015). Ending gender-based violence: A grand challenge for social work (Working Paper No. 15). American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare. http://aaswsw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WP15.pdf .

20.

Everytown Research & Policy (2022, March 25). Gun Laws in Alabama. Everytown Research & Policy. https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/state/alabama/ .

21.

Fulgham v. State (1871). 46 Alabama Supreme Court 147.

22.

Gill

(2018). Survivor-centered research: Towards an intersectional gender-based violence movement. Journal of Family Violence, 33(8), 559–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9993-0

23.

Goodmark

(2018). Decriminalizing Domestic Violence: A Balanced Policy Approach to Intimate Partner Violence. University of California Press.

24.

Goodrum

Keys

J. L.

(2007). Reflections on two studies of emotionally sensitive topics: Bereavement from murder and abortion. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 10(4), 249–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570701400976

25.

Haider

I. I.

Tiwana

Tahir

S. M.

(2020). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on adult mental health. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(COVID19-S4), S90–S94. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.covid19-s4.2756

26.

Harding

(2004). The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader New York and. Routledge.

27.

Hartsock

(1983). The Feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Harding

(Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader (pp. 283–310). Routledge.

28.

Hopkins

(2022, July 29). What is coronavirus? Johns Hopkins Medicine. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus.

29.

King

(2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Cassell

Symon

(Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 257–270). Sage.

30.

Kleinheksel

A. J.

Rockich-Winston

Tawfik

Wyatt

T. R.

(2020). Demystifying content analysis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7113. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7113

31.

Koss

M. P.

Goodman

L. A.

Browne

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Keita

G. P.

Russo

N. F.

(1994). No safe haven: Male violence against women at home, at work, and in the community. American Psychological Association.

32.

Kourti

Stavridou

Panagouli

Psaltopoulou

Spiliopoulou

Tsolia

Sergentanis

T. N.

Tsitsika

(2021). Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211038690

33.

Kulkarni

(2018). Intersectional trauma-informed intimate partner violence (IPV) services: Narrowing the gap between IPV service delivery and survivor needs. Journal of Family Violence, 34(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-0001-5

34.

Logan

T. K.

Walker

Cole

Ratliff

Leukefeld

(2003). Qualitative differences among rural and urban intimate violence victimization experiences and consequences: A pilot study. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022837114205

35.

Lynch

K. R.

Logan

(2021). Assessing challenges, needs, and innovations of gender-based violence services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results summary report. University of Texas at San Antonio, College for Health, Community and Policy.

36.

Mahan

(2017). The racial origins of U.S. domestic violence law (dissertation). UC Berkeley. ProQuest ID: Mahan_berkeley_0028E_17135. Merritt ID: ark:/13030/m5fz26c7. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0zs890k1

37.

McGuire

D. L.

(2011). At the Dark End of the street: Black women, rape, and resistance- a new history of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the rise of Black Power. Alfred A. Knopf.

38.

McKeever

(2021, September 23). Covid-19 surpasses 1918 flu as deadliest pandemic in U.S. history. History. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/covid-19-is-now-the-deadliest-pandemic-in-us-history.

39.

Murgalia

Vasquez

Reichert

(2020, August). Conducting Research Interviews on Sensitive Topics. ICJIA Research Hub.

40.

National Institute of Justice. (2018). “How Effective Are Lethality Assessment Programs for Addressing Intimate Partner Violence?” June 11, 2018, NIJ.gov: https://nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/Pages/how-effective-are-lethality-assessment-programs-for-addressing-intimate-partner-violence.aspx.

41.

Nixon

Humphreys

(2010). Marshalling the evidence: Using intersectionality in the domestic violence frame. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 17(2), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxq003

42.

Oltmann

(2016). Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(2), http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1602156 .

43.

Peled

Edleson

J. L.

(1994). Advocacy for battered women: A national survey. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531952

44.

Pruitt

L. R.

(2008). Place matters: Domestic violence and rural difference (September 30, 2008). Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 23, 347. UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 149, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1276045.

45.

Punyanunt-Carter

N. M.

(n.d.). Standpoint theory. Retrieved March 8, 2022, from https://science.jrank.org/programming/Standpoint_Theory.html.

46.

Rice

West

C. M.

Cottman

Gardner

(2021). The intersectionality of intimate partner violence in the black community. Handbook of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse Across the Lifespan, 2705–2733. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89999-2_240

47.

Rogers

L. L.

Neufville

N. M.

Randall

Bamberg

(2021, January 20). National African American History Month: Remembering Rosa Parks’ work to address sexual assault. The United States Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/national-african-american-history-month-remembering-rosa-parks-work-address-sexual-assault.

48.

Rural Health Information Hub (2021, March). Rural Health Information Hub. Violence and Abuse in Rural America Overview. https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/topics/violence-and-abuse.

49.

Samuels

G. M.

Ross-Sheriff

(2008). Identity, oppression, and power. Affilia, 23(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109907310475

50.

Snyder

(2015, September 2). Alabama ranks as one of the top states in the nation for domestic violence. WBMA. https://abc3340.com/archive/alabama-ranks-as-one-of-the-top-states-in-the-nation-for-domestic-violence.

51.

Sullivan

C. M.

Goodman

L. A.

(2019). Advocacy with survivors of intimate partner violence: What it is, what it isn’t, and why it’s critically important. Violence Against Women, 25(16), 2007–2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219875826

52.

The Lancet (2020). The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet (London, England), 395(10237), 1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9

53.

United Nations (2011). Manual on human rights monitoring. https://ohchr.tind.io/record/4835.

54.

U.S. Census Bureau (2021, October 8). Alabama population grew 5.1% since 2010, surpassing 5 million. Census.gov. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/state-by-state/alabama-population-change-between-census-decade.html.

55.

USDA-ERS (2022). State Data. USDA ERS - Data Products. Retrieved February 23, 2022, from https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?StateFIPS=01&StateName=Alabama&ID=17854.

56.

Violence Policy Center (2011). When men murder women. https://vpc.org/studies/wmmw2011.pdf.