“I’m Not Really Sure of What Exists Here”: Frontline Perspectives on Services for Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence

Abstract

Technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) is a pervasive issue, yet research on the availability, accessibility, and effectiveness of services for TFSV victim-survivors remains limited, particularly in Canada. This qualitative study examines the state of service provision for TFSV in Nova Scotia, drawing on insights from 12 interviews with service providers specializing in sexual violence prevention and response. The study explores the availability and nature of services offered to TFSV victim-survivors and the key challenges faced by professionals in providing support. Thematic analysis highlights significant gaps in service provision, including a reliance on generalized approaches, restrictive eligibility criteria that exclude certain victim-survivors, and a widespread lack of awareness regarding available services. Service providers also reported major challenges to integrating TFSV into existing services, such as the absence of specialized training, inadequate strategies for addressing the technological dimensions of TFSV, and ongoing tensions between generalist and specialized approaches to service delivery. While many existing sexual violence services remain accessible to TFSV victim-survivors, current systems are not fully equipped to address the complexities of technology-facilitated violence. Findings underscore the urgent need for tailored training, expanded eligibility criteria, and specialized resources to improve service provision for TFSV victim-survivors in Nova Scotia and beyond.

Introduction

Technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) is a form of sexual violence that encompasses a range of harmful behaviors that exploit digital platforms and technologies to perpetrate abuse (Henry & Powell, 2018). Common behaviors include image-based abuse, where explicit content is created, distributed, or threatened to be distributed without consent; coercive sexting, which involves pressuring or manipulating someone into sending explicit material; digital sexual harassment which involves unwanted sexual comments or advances, including those targeting an individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation; and cyberstalking, where perpetrators use technology to relentlessly monitor, contact, or intimidate their victims in ways related to their perceived or real romantic or sexual connections (Dreßing et al., 2014; Henry & Powell, 2018). Estimates of TFSV vary considerably based on the behavior (Martínez-Bacaicoa et al., 2023; Patel & Roesch, 2022; Powell & Henry, 2019); however, studies suggest that approximately 84% of undergraduate students in Canada (Snaychuk & O’Neill, 2020) and 24% of Canadian adults (Centre for International Governance Innovation [CIGI], 2023) have experienced at least one form of TFSV, highlighting its pervasiveness.

As with other forms of sexual violence (Stockman et al., 2023), TFSV can have profound and long-lasting impacts on victim-survivors, manifesting in psychological distress, anxiety, depression, social isolation, and reputational harm (Bates, 2017; McGlynn et al., 2021; O’Malley, 2023; Short et al., 2015; Worsley et al., 2017). Although TFSV exists on the continuum of sexual violence (Dunn, 2021; Kelly, 1988), it has several unique factors that make it distinct from other forms of sexual violence. For instance, in cases where nonconsensual explicit content shared online is repeatedly or widely distributed, it can create the perception that it is nearly impossible for victim-survivors to regain control over their images and reputations (McGlynn et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2024). Furthermore, unlike physical forms of violence, TFSV can transcend boundaries of proximity, space, and time, creating an especially inescapable form of abuse that can occur anytime and anywhere (Woodlock et al., 2020). The potential anonymity enabled by technology further compounds these issues, as victim-survivors may be unaware of their abuser’s identity (Salerno-Ferraro et al., 2022). Moreover, the pervasive integration of technology into daily life means victim-survivors are often unable to avoid triggers or escape the digital spaces where abuse occurs without withdrawing from essential platforms used for work, education, and social interaction (Freed et al., 2017; Woodlock et al., 2020).

Many victim-survivors of TFSV choose not to report or disclose their experiences for a myriad of reasons, including not knowing what their rights are, not recognizing TFSV as a legitimate harm deserving of a response, worrying that they won’t be taken seriously by formal agencies like the police, worrying that they will be victim blamed or shamed, or not knowing where to go for help due to a lack of awareness of formal services available specifically for TFSV, or an actual lack of those services to report to (Eaton et al., 2024; Mclocklin et al., 2024; Ray & Henry, 2025). However, some victim-survivors do seek formal and informal support, including legal, technological, emotional, and informational assistance (Colburn et al., 2023; Dodge, 2023; Fissel, 2021; Storry & Poppleton, 2022). For example, a study examining help-seeking behaviors among U.S. young adults who experienced technology-facilitated abuse (N = 1,154) found that among those who sought formal support (30%), 29.0% sought technology-related assistance, 19.6% pursued criminal justice or legal aid, 16.4% accessed health services, and 10.6% relied on victim services (Mumford et al., 2023). Despite considerable service utilization, many victim-survivors frequently report feeling dismissed or unsupported by formal systems (Adler & Chenoa Cooper, 2022; Flynn et al., 2023; McGlynn et al., 2019; Mclocklin et al., 2024; Woodlock et al., 2020). These experiences raise important questions about the capacity of existing systems to adequately address the unique needs of TFSV victim-survivors.

Research on service provision for TFSV has predominantly focused on the criminal justice system, underscoring the significant challenges technology poses in achieving justice through the legal system. Key criticisms include that the current legal response is often slow, reactive, inaccessible, and ad-hoc in nature (Dodge, 2023), often failing to address the full spectrum of TFSV impacts (Flynn et al., 2023; Rackley et al., 2021). Although legislative efforts have aimed to be more inclusive of TFSV, significant gaps remain in ensuring effective legal redress (Dietzel et al., 2023; Dunn, 2024). In terms of criminal law responses specifically, police often struggle to keep pace with the growing scope of digital abuse and may be uninformed about relevant laws or even resistant to recognizing the significant impacts that TFSV can cause, resulting in not taking victim-survivors seriously or otherwise failing to respond appropriately (Flynn et al., 2023). Some challenges for investigators that can lead to significant delays include the increasing volume of digital evidence, which often overwhelms the existing infrastructure designed for physical crime investigations; determining how to manage harms that occur across different jurisdictions; identifying anonymous digital perpetrators; and relying on cooperation from decentralized and global online platforms (Bond & Tyrrell, 2021; Dodge et al., 2019; Douglas et al., 2023; Flynn et al., 2023; Freed et al., 2017; Henry et al., 2018; Rackley et al., 2021). These challenges, combined with insufficient training and inadequate resources among some legal actors, delay the identification and prosecution of perpetrators, leaving some victim-survivors without the timely support and resolution they seek (Dunn & Aikenhead, 2022). This can be a particular challenge for victim-survivors of TFSV as the replicability and spread of digital content requires a swift response to avoid the repeated victimization of targets of TFSV (Dodge, 2023).

Despite the well-documented shortcomings of criminal justice responses to TFSV, relatively little research has explored the availability, accessibility, and effectiveness of services outside the criminal justice system. Studies by Freed et al. (2017) and Woodlock et al. (2020) highlighted the pivotal role of domestic and intimate partner violence practitioners in the US addressing certain forms of TFSV, while Champion et al. (2023) examined the role of Canadian post-secondary institutions in responding to these issues. Service providers in these studies emphasized the complexities of TFSV, particularly due to the rapid advancement of digital technologies, which makes staying ahead of evolving tactics used by perpetrators challenging (Freed et al., 2017). Despite these digital challenges, a common finding across studies is that inadequate training remains a significant barrier to delivering comprehensive support for TFSV victim-survivors (Champion et al., 2023; Freed et al., 2017; Woodlock et al., 2020). In the absence of TFSV tailored resources, professionals working in intimate partner violence report relying on “Google-on-the-go” approaches, conducting real-time online searches to address unfamiliar technological or digital abuse scenarios (Freed et al., 2017, p. 13). This dependence not only underscores the scarcity of formal training and resources but also raises concerns about the potential for professionals to provide unhelpful or even harmful advice instead of effective, actionable support for victim-survivors (Freed et al., 2017; Woodlock et al., 2020).

In Nova Scotia, Dodge (2021, 2023) examined initiatives like Nova Scotia’s CyberScan unit. Established in 2013, this government-led initiative was created to provide support to complainants experiencing cyberbullying and nonconsensual intimate image distribution. Legislative changes in 2017 significantly restricted CyberScan’s ability to issue civil orders and formal warning letters, limiting its original mandate. Interviews with CyberScan staff revealed that it is critical for victim-survivors to access expedient supports that address their technological, emotional, and informational needs without requiring that they necessarily engage in a legal response and that, for those who wish to utilize civil or criminal law responses, major changes are needed to make these avenues more accessible, expedient, and victim-centered (Dodge, 2021).

More broadly, Canadian resources have been developed to support victim-survivors and professionals who support them, such as the Tech Safety (Women’s Shelter Canada, 2025) and Need Help Now (Canadian Centre for Child Protection Inc, 2025) websites. However, not all service providers are aware of these emerging resources. Additionally, while some Canadian provinces have introduced more expedient and specialized supports for specific types of TFSV, such as British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal and Intimate Images Protection Service (Civil Resolution Tribunal, 2025), these supports remain piecemeal and are only available to a small portion of Canadians (Digitally Informed Youth, 2024).

Present Study

Given the limited research on the supports and resources available to those impacted by TFSV, questions remain about the availability, accessibility, and quality of services provided to TFSV victim-survivors, particularly within the Canadian context (exceptions include Champion et al., 2023; Dodge, 2021, 2023). The present study seeks to fill this gap by describing the state of service provision for TFSV victim-survivors in Nova Scotia, Canada. Drawing on the perspectives of frontline staff and professionals specializing in sexual violence prevention and response, this research aims to (i) evaluate the availability and nature of services provided to TFSV victim-survivors, and (ii) identify key challenges and issues faced by service providers in addressing this prevalent and emerging form of violence.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 12 service providers working throughout the province of Nova Scotia in Canada. These service providers held various roles, including sexual violence advisors, sexual violence prevention coordinators, policy consultants from local universities, victim services workers, and staff from sexual assault and/or gender-based violence support organizations. All participants self-identified as women (n = 11) and/or nonbinary (n = 1). Participants ranged in age from 26 to 42 (M = 34.42, SD = 4.93). Most participants self-identified as White (83.3%, n = 10) and as non-heterosexual (83.3%, n = 10).

Procedure

This study is part of a broader mixed-methods research project that examines the impacts of TFSV and related help-seeking patterns. The current paper draws exclusively from qualitative data collected from service providers in Nova Scotia whose roles focus on preventing sexual violence or supporting those affected by it. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit service providers in Nova Scotia. An initial list of potential candidates was compiled by the researchers through a review of various community organization websites. These individuals were then contacted via email, and those who expressed interest in the study were provided with additional details, including research objectives, eligibility criteria, and compensation information (i.e., an honorarium of $30). To be eligible, participants had to provide services, conduct research, or serve in an administrative capacity to prevent and/or respond to sexual violence in Nova Scotia. Interviews were scheduled at a time convenient for each participant. Prior to the interview, participants provided electronic consent through Qualtrics and completed a brief demographic questionnaire, which included questions on age, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. At the start of the interview, participants were re-informed verbally about the voluntary nature of the study, including their right to decline to be quoted and their right to withdraw from the study at any point. After the interview, participants were invited to recommend other potential candidates who met the study’s eligibility criteria.

Data Collection

The first and second authors conducted the interviews between July and August 2023 via Microsoft Teams. A semi-structured interview guide was developed with 12 questions focused on four key areas: TFSV victim-survivor impact and needs, knowledge of existing services related to TFSV, perceived barriers and facilitators to service access related to TFSV, and suggestions for improving access to support services for individuals affected by TFSV (See Supplemental Materials for interview guide). Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes to an hour. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Initial transcriptions were generated using Otter.ai transcription software, followed by two rounds of quality checks conducted by members of the research team to ensure accuracy. All identifying information, including the names of organizations, was removed from the data to ensure confidentiality. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Board at [BLINDED FOR REVIEW].

Data Analysis

The data were inductively analyzed using thematic analysis, following the six steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2013). The authors transcribed and read through the interviews. This approach allowed the authors to engage deeply with the data, increasing familiarity with participants’ responses prior to coding. Next, line-by-line coding began, which was conducted simultaneously for both service provider and victim-survivor interviews. The first and second authors independently coded a random subset of interviews (17%). This initial coding process allowed the authors to establish consensus on the interpretation of the data and refine the coding approach. The codes from this stage were reviewed and used to generate a preliminary set of codes that formed the basis of a codebook. The codebook guided the ongoing coding process and helped manage code proliferation. The remaining interviews were then coded by the first author. As the analysis progressed, codes were revisited, refined, and new codes were added where necessary to capture the data.

After the coding process, a subset of codes relevant to understanding service providers’ perspectives on TFSV service provision was extracted. Codes included: “call for training”, “conflicting mandates”, “confusion about services”, “gaps in training”, “general service referrals”, “ineffective enforcement”, “lack of specialized knowledge”, “lack of comprehensive TFSV service”, “limited training options”, “(mis)managing TFSV”, “restricted victim definition”, “policy gaps”, “poor service fit”, “TFSV as SV”, “TFSV as distinct”, “TFSV exclusion”, “TFSV inclusion”, “unclear service mandates”, and “(un)preparedness of TFSV.” These codes were carefully reviewed and analyzed to identify recurring patterns, which facilitated the development of candidate themes. Through focused analysis, the authors differentiated between structural and operational challenges within the service provision landscape for TFSV. This distinction led to the emergence of two main themes (1) Gaps in service provision, which encompassed (i) the generalist approach, (ii) restrictive eligibility, and (iii) lack of awareness, and (2) Challenges to integration, which included (i) insufficient training, (ii) lack of specialized strategies, and (iii) tension between general and specialized approaches. These themes were iteratively reviewed and cross-referenced with the original data until the authors were confident that they accurately reflected the perspectives of service providers in the context of TFSV.

Findings and Discussion

Theme 1. Gaps in Service Provision

Service providers in Nova Scotia point to an absence of adequate services for TFSV, reflecting a structural problem within the service landscape. As a result, TFSV victim-survivors are either inadequately supported or excluded from necessary services. These gaps can be seen in three key areas: (i) the generalist approach, (ii) restrictive eligibility, and (iii) lack of awareness of regarding services.

Subtheme 1.1. The Generalist Approach

A key gap identified by participants in this study is the reliance on generalist services for addressing TFSV. Many service providers emphasized that TFSV is recognized as a form of sexual violence, allowing it to be addressed under the mandates of existing services. As one participant explained: “technology-facilitated sexualized violence is still sexualized violence, which means that all of the services and supports we will be offering to anyone who’s experienced any form of sexualized violence, we would offer to someone disclosing [an experience of TFSV]” [SP8]. This recognition ensures that victim-survivors of TFSV can access some support through established frameworks designed for mental health, sexual violence, domestic violence, and trafficking.

However, these services are often generalist in nature and not specifically tailored to address the unique dynamics of digital abuse. For instance, one participant described the range of services they rely on to support victim-survivors of TFSV, noting the absence of dedicated programs: “I don’t know any [services] that are specific to technology-facilitated sexual violence, but in general, our service here at the sexual assault center, victim services, 211, or the legal advice program” [SP2]. Another provider shared a similar concern, noting the absence of centralized support: “To my knowledge, working in industry, there is no sort of one-stop for someone to go to get assistance in terms of how to actually address experiencing that form of violence” [SP12].

This generalist approach to addressing TFSV reflects broader legislative and systemic patterns, where only specific behaviors, such as nonconsensual intimate image dissemination, have received targeted attention through, piecemeal and geographically limited, initiatives like British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal and Intimate Images Protection Service (2023) and specialized legislation (e.g., Nova Scotia’s Intimate Images and Cyber-Protection Act [2017] and Manitoba’s The Intimate Image Protection Act [The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, 2015]). In contrast, most TFSV-related behaviors remain subsumed under the broader category of sexual violence and are addressed within existing systems originally designed for physical forms of abuse (e.g., McGlynn et al., 2017; Bailey & Dunn, 2024). While incorporating TFSV into the sexual violence framework is a crucial step toward acknowledging the harm caused by digital abuse (Dunn, 2021; Bailey & Dunn, 2024)—a sentiment shared by service providers—it exposes a significant gap in specialized programming and support. These findings demonstrate that generalized frameworks provide a baseline for service accessibility but often fall short in addressing the unique complexities of TFSV, such as the need for expedient technological supports to stop the circulation of intimate images or sexually harassing content that may be proliferating online in real time. This inadequacy is reflected in the absence of specialized technological training and the lack of appropriate tools for addressing technology-specific harms (see subthemes: “Insufficient Training” and “Lack of Specialized Strategies”), ultimately limiting the support available to victim-survivors and leaving a critical gap in services tailored to the digital dimensions of sexual violence.

Subtheme 1.2: Restrictive Eligibility

Service providers identified a gap in eligibility criteria for victim-survivors of sexual violence, particularly in cases of TFSV, which they linked to socially constructed notions of victimhood. One service provider explained, “[Of] course, there’s the concepts we have socially constructed about what it means to be a victim, and who is allowed to claim victimization, and in what circumstances we allow that” [SP12]. The traditional “ideal victim” is often seen as a white, female, passive individual who has been physically harmed by sexual violence (Christie, 1986). This ideal is clearly reflected in the eligibility criteria for many support programs, which prioritize visible, physical harm. For example, services like Nova Scotia’s Criminal Injuries Counseling and Independent Legal Aid rely on the criminal code’s definition of sexual assault, which specifically requires a physical element to qualify for support.

TFSV harms, however, are often less visible and harder to substantiate (Henry & Powell, 2015). This mismatch between traditional victimhood definitions and the realities of TFSV creates a significant gap in service provision. When TFSV experiences do not align with the physical, visible harm typically associated with sexual assault, victim-survivors often find themselves excluded from services. As one service provider put it, “I feel like a lot of organizations unintentionally build up what the perfect victim is. And a lot of the people coming forward don’t fit that criteria perfectly” [SP10]. Despite the rigid criteria, some service providers noted efforts to support individuals whose experiences do not fit neatly within these definitions. For instance, one provider shared, “I have snuck a few clients through there for things that are more like harassment or technology-facilitated violence where there’s not an active assault, but they’ve been traumatized in some way” [SP1]. This suggests that, despite institutional limitations, there is recognition that TFSV harms can still be deeply traumatic and deserving of support.

While efforts have been made to include TFSV victim-survivors under the restrictive criteria, the way eligibility is publicly advertised remains problematic. For example, one service provider noted that programs such as Criminal Injuries Counseling and Independent Legal Aid “are pretty specific on their website that it’s for survivors of sexual assault” [SP1]. Such specificity can unintentionally reinforce the stereotype of the “ideal victim,” one whose harm is both visible and physical, and can perpetuate the message that TFSV is a less serious form of violence. This not only limits who can access services but can also lead to victim-survivors self-excluding from services, either because they believe their experiences do not meet the established criteria or because they fear being denied help altogether (Mclocklin et al., 2024; Pijlman et al., 2024).

Ultimately, the restrictive eligibility criteria, rooted in outdated definitions of sexual violence, fail to address the complexities of victimhood in the digital age. While some services attempt to accommodate these gaps informally, such efforts highlight the need for a broader, more inclusive framework for supporting victim-survivors. To ensure equitable access to support and resources, a critical re-evaluation of how victimhood is defined and operationalized within support systems is essential. This would not only increase access to services but also challenge the outdated stereotypes of the “ideal victim,” fostering a more inclusive and supportive environment for all survivors of sexual violence.

Subtheme 1.3: Lack of Awareness Regarding Services

The widespread lack of awareness surrounding available services for addressing TFSV was another recurring theme discussed by participants. A key gap highlighted was the general public’s limited understanding of how established services, including mental health supports, sexual violence programs, and victim support services, can be applied to TFSV cases. This misunderstanding may be due in part to the social norms noted above, where a victim-survivor may not believe that their experience is captured under the mandates of sexual violence support services or may be due in part to the actual lack of services and expertise available at existing sexual violence support services. As one service provider noted, although organizations such as Avalon Sexual Assault Centre are available to assist individuals experiencing TFSV, the general public does not recognize these services as part of the solution: “[it] would still be under their mandate to work with someone experiencing tech violence, but I don’t think the general public knows that. I don’t think it’s something people would consider” [SP8]. These findings are consistent with previous research (Eaton et al., 2024; Mclocklin et al., 2024), which indicates that TFSV victim-survivors are often unaware of the resources available to them.

However, the insights from service providers reveal a more troubling issue: a sense of confusion about the boundaries of the services available within the system itself. Service providers themselves frequently expressed uncertainty about the full range of services or resources that are available for TFSV. While some were aware that TFSV-specific resources existed, they struggled to identify them or articulate the scope of these services. Several of these service providers expressed an interest in supporting victim-survivors of TFSV but lacked concrete awareness of the supports that are specifically available for these types of harms. For example, the CyberScan unit was often mentioned as a resource for TFSV victim-survivors, but participants were unsure about its role or integration into the broader service network. One service provider admitted: “I feel like I have a very good grasp of what’s out there, but I don’t actually know what CyberScan is doing these days” [Service provider, 3]. Another provider echoed this sentiment: “We have a CyberScan unit within the Nova Scotia government. . . it’s a program [that] should be quite integrated with the work that I’m doing, but I honestly couldn’t really tell you what they’re doing” [SP7].

Beyond CyberScan, there was even greater ambiguity about other critical services needed to support TFSV victim-survivors. One service provider shared their challenges in identifying resources for removing nonconsensual intimate images from the internet, despite actively seeking such services:

I’m not really sure of what exists here. I did ask that recently, and I didn’t get too many sources, but I know that there are resources out there. . .some of them are paid where you can reach out and get them to take pictures down on websites that are like posting people’s pictures without consent. I’m not sure what those sites are and I’m not sure what actually exists here. [SP2]

While research has previously identified a lack of service awareness among TFSV victim-survivors as a barrier to help-seeking (Eaton et al., 2024; Howard et al., 2024), an even more pressing concern is the limited awareness among sexual violence service providers of TFSV-specific resources. The continued reliance on generalized services to address TFSV (see Sub-Theme 1.1: ‘A Generalist Approach’) underscores the critical need to enhance providers’ understanding of specialized resources, such as CyberScan, Tech Safety, or Need Help Now, particularly because providers within generalized services are often the first point of contact for TFSV victim-survivors. Many of these service providers want to help victim-survivors of TFSV but lack adequate training or knowledge of services to provide the support needed to their clients experiencing tech-facilitated violence. This gap in service knowledge significantly hinders the ability of generalized services to provide appropriate referrals or to access relevant information on how to help victim-survivors of TFSV. This barrier is sometimes due to an actual gap in existing services for victim-survivors of TFSV in Canada more generally. Bridging this gap in service availability, therefore, requires a dual approach: increasing the visibility of TFSV-specific services through community outreach efforts (Eaton et al., 2024) and fostering stronger communication and collaboration between organizations to enhance the effectiveness of support for TFSV victim-survivors. Additionally, there is a need for additional resources for TFSV services and information to be created and disseminated, as the existing resources are relatively limited.

Theme 2. Challenges to Integration

Service providers in Nova Scotia also faced barriers when attempting to integrate TFSV into existing support structures. This theme explores the difficulties in adapting current frameworks to effectively address the unique aspects of TFSV and ensure adequate support for victim-survivors. Key challenges include: (i) insufficient training, (ii) lack of specialized strategies, and (iii) the tension between the general and specialized approaches to addressing TFSV.

Subtheme 2.1: Insufficient Training

A critical challenge to integrating TFSV into generalized services for sexual violence is the lack of specialized training available to service providers. While service providers in the current study were often expected to support victim-survivors of TFSV within their roles, they reported an absence of formal training specifically addressing the needs of these individuals. In fact, no one able to recall ever receiving such targeted training. As one participant remarked: “I work in this [area], and I’ve never got to receive formal training on it” [SP2]. The training that service providers did receive on TFSV was typically part of broader gender-based violence initiatives, such as those addressing sexual violence, human trafficking, or intimate partner violence. These programs generally provide only high-level definitions of TFSV, without equipping providers with the advanced knowledge or practical skills needed to address the unique challenges posed by technology-facilitated forms of violence. Furthermore, participants were largely unaware of training opportunities designed to enhance their knowledge and skills in addressing TFSV, in part because of a lack of these training opportunities being made available. As one service provider stated: “It’s not an area that we see a lot of training offered locally” [SP7]. Another shared, “I don’t think there is a lot of either, to my knowledge, training or resources out there that do equip service providers with an understanding of some of these issues” [SP11].

Despite their broader confidence in handling sexual violence cases, service providers expressed that the lack of specialized training in TFSV left them feeling unprepared to respond effectively to cases involving technology-facilitated violence. One service provider explained their concerns:

I oftentimes feel unable to provide support. And that’s not because I’m not well trained in the realm of sexual violence. It’s because I’m not well trained in this specific area. And because of that missing link, I think it feels like a lot of people fall through the cracks. . . if a survivor comes in once and is like, ‘oh, like this has happened, I don't know what to do,’ and we’re also like, ‘oh, we don't know what to do.’ [SP13]

This absence of training on TFSV, as highlighted by participants specializing in sexual violence, mirrors the gap in training among service providers in other areas, including domestic violence workers and law enforcement (Dodge et al., 2019; Dunn & Aikenhead, 2022; Woodlock et al., 2020). Knowledge and skill development through informal means, such as on-the-job experience, Google, and peer discussions, which may not be fulsome or evidence-based, risks spreading ineffective advice (Freed et al., 2017). Therefore, there is a need for specialized training that goes beyond basic definitions of TFSV, focusing on tangible, evidence-based approaches to equip service providers with the tools they need to effectively address and support victim-survivors of digital abuse (Woodlock et al., 2020).

Subtheme 2.2: Lack of Specialized Strategies

Participants noted that strategies designed for addressing sexual violence often fail to address the unique complexities of TFSV, emphasizing that approaches effective for physical sexual violence may not be suitable for TFSV due to its digital nature. A key issue identified was the disconnect between institutional policies and their practical application in digital spaces. While some policies formally recognize that sexual violence can occur online, they often lack actionable strategies to effectively prevent or address harms in these contexts. This gap in enforcement leaves victim-survivors of TFSV without adequate support, compounding the harm caused by the pervasive and far-reaching nature of technology-facilitated abuse. One participant illustrated this disconnect:

Internally, our policy does acknowledge sexual or sexualized violence clearly extends to digital and online spaces, but realistically, what can [the university] do to kind of prevent that harm from happening on Instagram or on Messenger or whatever. . .There’s just ways in which our policy-driven world is written for the real world and isn’t written to reflect technological spaces. [SP8]

The inadequacy of traditional measures becomes particularly apparent in cases of persistent online sexual harassment. Safety planning strategies, such as blocking perpetrators, fail when offenders circumvent these measures by creating new accounts. A service provider described the futility of offering such guidance:

[T]his one person I was dealing with, I would have told you to do the same thing, like ‘block this person every time they make a new account, report this person every time they make a new account.’ But now it’s been two years, and they’re still making new accounts every three months—I don’t know how to offer support in that situation. [SP13]

Another participant highlighted the misalignment between existing restitution frameworks and the urgent needs of TFSV victim-survivors. Financial support mechanisms are technically available to assist in removing harmful online content; however, these processes are often slow and bureaucratic, failing to account for the immediacy required to mitigate the spread and impact of digital abuse. One participant highlighted the disparity between procedural timelines and victim-survivors’ needs, something that is particularly relevant in the case of TFSV due to the capacity of the harmful content to be widely spread online if not contained quickly:

[I]t’s a service that we say we offer, and we do offer it, but the realities of actualizing that. . .people will apply for that early on, often, as soon as they report to the police. And they’ll put in their application and say, I’m looking for help with these finances to have this wiped off the internet, but then the court case can take two years. [SP7]

Consistent with previous research that underscores a lack of confidence in current approaches to addressing TFSV (Eaton et al., 2024; Rackley et al., 2021), participants in this study emphasized the limitations of adapting traditional services and measures without fully accounting for the unique characteristics of TFSV. As seen in other studies highlighting a disconnect between TFSV legislation and its practical enforcement (Bond & Tyrrell, 2021; Dodge, 2023; Douglas et al., 2023; Dunn & Aikenhead, 2022; Flynn et al., 2023; Freed et al., 2017; Henry et al., 2018; Rackley et al., 2021), the inclusion of TFSV in policy and programming often lacks the necessary specificity and actionable, expedient mechanisms to address the nuanced realities of tech-facilitated violence. This oversight perpetuates fragmented and ineffective responses, leaving victim-survivors without adequate support when they need it most and enabling the continued proliferation of TFSV.

Subtheme 2.3: Tension Between Generalist and Specialized Approaches

Participants questioned how TFSV fits within the broader framework of sexual violence. While all participants acknowledged TFSV as part of the overarching category of sexual violence, perspectives diverged on the best approach to addressing it. Some participants emphasized the value of expanding specialized services tailored to TFSV, such as CyberScan, to provide tailored support to victim-survivors of TFSV. One participant noted:

[S]o things like expansion of those types of programs [CyberScan], both in expansion in terms of the size of that program, and the capacity that that program has, but also the expansion of public knowledge that that program exists and how they can help people navigate because that cyber world is so different. [SP7]

Others, however, cautioned against the potential drawbacks of further siloing TFSV from broader violence prevention efforts. Recognizing that TFSV is often intertwined with other forms of violence, such as intimate partner violence, there was a call for specialized roles and services that remain well-integrated with existing support systems while providing support for the technological aspects unique to TFSV. Relying on technology-focused supports that do not have adequate training on trauma-informed supports for victim-survivors of sexual violence, as seems to be the case with CyberScan in its current form (Dodge, 2023), could simply result in the opposite problem of providing good technological supports without fully understanding and responding to the complex impacts of sexual violence. It is clear that, regardless of the model selected, victim-survivors of TFSV are best supported when they access holistic supports that are able to simultaneously and expediently meet their technological, emotional, safety, and (potential) legal needs in one place.

Conclusion

Through interviews with those on the frontlines of sexual violence prevention and response, our findings reveal that although service providers recognize TFSV as a form of sexual violence and have a desire to provide support to those victim-survivors, there remain significant shortcomings in the current state of TFSV service provision in Nova Scotia, with key implications for future research, policy, and practice. Although victim-survivors of TFSV are excluded from certain programs based on outdated definitions of sexual violence and victimhood, many existing sexual violence services are still accessible to them in the absence of specialized support for TFSV. However, as underscored by the present findings, current systems are not fully equipped to address the complexities of TFSV, and a lack of resources and specialization has made it difficult to revamp these services to meet the unique challenges—despite the ubiquity of TFSV in our digital society.

A few limitations should be noted in this study. Although small sample sizes are common in qualitative research, this study may be limited by its small scale, particularly the narrow geographic focus on service providers operating in Nova Scotia, Canada. Consequently, the findings may not fully represent the broader experiences of practitioners in the sexual violence sector across different regions or contexts, as the insights provided may be shaped by the specific experiences of participants within this locality. Future research that includes a more diverse sample from multiple regions across Canada could identify additional barriers and offer a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges faced by practitioners in responding to TFSV. Furthermore, the use of purposive sampling to recruit service providers may have introduced a selection bias. Specifically, the researchers directly emailed specific individuals who were known to work within the sexual violence sector. As a result, the experiences and challenges of individuals outside of this network may not have been fully represented, which could affect the generalizability of the findings.

These limitations notwithstanding, the findings underscore critical gaps in the current approach to addressing TFSV. The research reinforces previous studies on the challenges faced by law enforcement in responding to TFSV (Dodge et al., 2019; Freed et al., 2017; McGlynn et al., 2019), highlighting the insufficiency of simply expanding existing frameworks to include this form of violence. The distinct nature of TFSV demands a specialized, holistic approach—one that goes beyond simply adding new responsibilities to existing roles or adjusting policies. Furthermore, TFSV is not a monolithic behavior, with victimization differing meaningfully across various forms such as nonconsensual image sharing and sexual-, gender-, and sexuality-based harassment (Henry & Powell, 2018). Recognizing this complexity is essential in developing interventions and supports tailored to the needs of victim-survivors. Without properly integrated and tailored responses, the unique needs of TFSV victim-survivors will remain unmet, leaving them vulnerable to inadequate support and continued harm (Dodge, 2023). Addressing these gaps requires developing supports that ensure victim-survivors receive the specific assistance they need to address their technological, emotional, safety, and (where desired) legal needs and that service providers are adequately resourced and informed to deliver that support.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605251390539 – Supplemental material for “I’m Not Really Sure of What Exists Here”: Frontline Perspectives on Services for Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605251390539 for “I’m Not Really Sure of What Exists Here”: Frontline Perspectives on Services for Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence by Jennifer L. McArthur, Kayla J. Goruk, Julie Blais, Alexa Dodge and Suzie Dunn in Journal of Interpersonal Violence