“Everyone is Living in the Same Storm,but our Boats are all Different”: Safety and Safety Planning for Survivors of Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault (SA) faced increased violence, new safety risks, and reduced services access in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. IPV and SA service providers have a critical role in safety planning and advocacy with survivors; however their patterns of working were dramatically impacted by changes brought on by the pandemic. Little is known about safety planning strategies and service adaptations employed in this context. Through semi-structured interviews with 33 service providers from across the United States, this study explores the experiences and perspectives of victim service agency staff with IPV and SA survivor safety and safety planning from March to December 2020. Qualitative data were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Four overarching themes related to survivor safety and safety planning emerged, including (1) “The violence is more severe, it’s more escalated,” describing an increase in the severity and frequency of violence; (2) “Perpetrating the violence through [technology],” describing a specific surge in technology based abuse (TBA) as the world shifted to virtual communication to facilitate social distancing; (3) “COVID-19 is now a tool in their toolbox,” describing the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and health guidance as a life generated risk that abusive partners used to further control and isolate their partner; and (4) “You just get real crafty,” highlighting the wide range of “work-arounds” and safety planning adaptations employed by victim service professionals trying to maintain services in a disrupted environment and in the face of evolving safety risks and increasing violence severity. These findings highlight the safety and safety planning challenges encountered as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded and the many creative strategies employed by service providers to adapt in the moment.

Keywords

intimate partner violence sexual assault safety services COVID-19

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Merrick

M. T.

(2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—National intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries, 63(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302634.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet (British Edition), 359(9314), 1331–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08336-8.

Davies

(2019). Victim-defined advocacy beyond leaving: Safer through strategies to reduce violent behavior. Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Davies

J. M.

Lyon

(2014). Domestic violence advocacy: Complex lives/difficult choices (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x.

Goodman

L. A.

Fauci

J. E.

Sullivan

C. M.

DiGiovanni

C. D.

Wilson

J. M.

(2016). Domestic violence survivors’ empowerment and mental health: Exploring the role of the alliance with advocates. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 86(3), 286–296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000137.

Hanson

G. C.

Messing

J. T.

Anderson

J. C.

Thaller

Perrin

N. A.

Glass

N. E.

(2019). Patterns and usefulness of safety behaviors among community-based women survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17-18), 8768–8791. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853401.

Hobfoll

(2011). Conservation of resources theory: Its implication for stress, health and resilience. In Folkmar

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping (pp. 127–147). Oxford University Press.

Kaukinen

(2020). When stay-at-home orders leave victims unsafe at home: Exploring the risk and consequences of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09533-5.

10.

Macy

R. J.

Giattina

Sangster

T. H.

Crosby

Montijo

N. J.

(2009). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Inside the black box. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(5), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.002.

11.

McClay

(2021). When ‘shelter-in-place’ isn’t shelter that’s safe: a rapid analysis of domestic violence case differences during the COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders. Journal of Family Violence. online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00225-.

12.

Messing

Ward-Lasher

Thaller

Bagwell-Gray

(2014). The state of intimate partner violence intervention: Progress and continuing challenges. Social Work, 60(4), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swv027.

13.

National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH) . (2020). COVID-19 special report. https://www.thehotline.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/06/2005-TheHot-line-COVID19-report_final.pdf.

14.

National Network to End Domestic Violence . (2020). 14th annual domestic violence counts report. www.NNEDV.org/DVCounts.

15.

Nnawulezi

Godsay

Sullivan

C. M.

Marcus

Hacskaylo

(2018). The influence of low-barrier and voluntary service policies on survivor empowerment in a domestic violence housing organization. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(6), 670–680. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort000029110.1037/ort0000291.

16.

Nnawulezi

Hacskaylo

(2022). Identifying and responding to the complex needs of domestic violence housing practitioners at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Violence, 37, 915–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00231-8.

17.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Jemison

Kaukinen

Knaul

F. M.

(2021). Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic- Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 74, 101806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101806.

18.

Piquero

A. R.

Riddell

J. R.

Bishopp

S. A.

Narvey

Reid

J. A.

Piquero

N. L.

(2020). Staying home, staying safe? A short-term analysis of COVID-19 on Dallas domestic violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09531-7.

19.

Ramsey

Carter

Davidson

Dunne

Eldridge

Hegarty

Feder

(2009). Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. The Cochrane Collaboration.

20.

Ravi

Rai

Voth Schrag

(2021). Survivors’ experiences of intimate partner violence and shelter utilization during COVID-19. Journal of Family Violence, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00300-6.

21.

Rivas

Vigurs

Cameron

Yeo

(2019). A realist review of which advocacy interventions work for which abused women under what circumstances. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, 6(6), CD013135. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013135.pub2.

22.

Sandelowski

(2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362.

23.

Smith

S. G.

Zhang

Basile

K.C.

Merrick

M.T.

Wang

Kresnow

Chen

(2018). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2015 data brief— updated release. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

24.

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.

25.

Sullivan

C. M.

Goodman

L. A.

Virden

Strom

Ramirez

(2018). Evaluation of the effects of receiving trauma-informed practices on domestic violence shelter residents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 88(5), 563–570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ort0000286.

26.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121.

27.

Weintraub

S. R.

Goodman

L. A.

(2010). Working with and for: Student advocates' experience of relationship-centered advocacy with low-income women. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01006.x.

28.

Wilson

J. M.

Fauci

J. E.

Goodman

L. A.

(2015). Bringing trauma-informed practice to domestic violence programs: A qualitative analysis of current approaches. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(6), 586–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000098.

29.

Wood

Backes

Baumler

McGiffert

(2022b). Examining the impact of duration, connection, and dosage of domestic violence services on survivor well-being. Journal of Family Violence, 37, 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-021-00298-x.

30.

Wood

Baumler

Voth Schrag

Guillot-Wright

Hairston

Temple

Torres

(2022a). “Don’t know where to go for help”: Safety and economic needs among violence survivors during the COVID-10 pandemic. Journal of Family Violence. advance, 37, 959–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00240-7#citeas.

31.

Wood

Clark

Cook Heffron

Voth Schrag

(2020b). Voluntary, survivor- centered advocacy in domestic violence agencies. Advances in Social Work, 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.18060/23845.

32.

Wood

Voth Schrag

Baumler

Hairston

Guillot-Wright

Torres

Temple

(2020a). On the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic: Occupational experiences of the intimate partner violence and sexual assault workforce. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, advance online publication . https://doi.org/10.1177/088620520983304.