Lessons Learned From the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States by Domestic Violence Coalition Leaders

Virtual options

Coalitions reported that even after in-person, pandemic restrictions eased, staff members saw continued interest in, and benefit from, utilizing remote options. DV professionals noted that survivors found many advantages afforded via virtual options, such as removing contact with their abuser in court settings, reducing stress for securing child support, not worrying about securing childcare or figuring out transportation or paying for parking fees, and limiting COVID-19 exposures. Staff members found remote work options more compatible with balancing their own childcare or remote schoolwork needs, and many appreciated no longer incurring commuting costs. DV coalition leaders also discussed the benefits and future directions for hybrid and remote workplaces; benefits and future directions included financial savings due to downsized office space and the potential for moving forward without brick-and-mortar offices. One Coalition pointed out the scope of these benefits, noting that for victims, they are “not physically in the same space as the person who has abused you. You're not in the hallway and all of that you're, you're online. So, there were there were some real significant benefits for that.” This same Coalition went on to highlight other benefits noted by partners in the court system, including attorneys and court staff, who pointed out “the stuff [remote services] that works, we need to carry forward when the pandemic ends.”

Social service agencies often focus on the well-being of their clients and facilitate clients’ ability to negotiate the labyrinth of government programs and entities such as court systems. Not all Coalitions were comfortable with remote options for courts since service providers told them it was difficult to coordinate a victim advocate to accompany victims at virtual hearings. To address this challenge, some coalitions developed ways to coordinate advocates at virtual hearings and funded interpreter services to support people for whom English is not their first language, as well as for survivors who are deaf or hard of hearing.

While there were benefits to using hybrid and virtual platforms, one downside was that virtual or hybrid options removed the face-to-face interactions that have always been an important part of coalition work with advocates and community partners. As one Coalition stated, “…in policy and advocacy work, so much of that is done when you are in person” whether that is formally at a meeting or informally after a meeting or over coffee or lunch. They went on to say that “the platform[s] for casual connectivity is completely gone. All the meetings are virtual. People log on. They don't turn their cameras on. You can feed off each other's [energy] when you are in person, and I just do not know how we are going to get that back.”

The pandemic exposed the areas where equal attention to service providers’ working environment also needed accommodation and attention. Coalitions heard from the victim advocates about the advantages of remote work and virtual justice proceedings. The absence of face-to-face connections between co-workers meant that the opportunities to provide support for the secondary trauma of colleagues had to shift when teams were remote.

Takeaways

Some forms of virtual work are here to stay. Many coalitions are embracing continuing hybrid work to increase flexibility for employees and provide alternative ways for survivors to ensure their safety. The pandemic exposed the need to proactively develop protocols and provide tools (e.g., software and hardware) to better respond to the needs of DV survivors and workers.

Interagency collaboration

The pandemic increased the need to deepen collaborative relationships with community partners. Many coalition leaders mentioned forging stronger connections with legal aid societies, food banks, and public health agencies throughout the pandemic For example, one Coalition mentioned having “very detailed [information] about food banks and food pantries and free food [they] could get out to programs and survivors.” Many Coalitions believed it was crucial to have access to accurate and timely information about COVID-19, and therefore sought to build more robust relationships with public health departments. Several Coalitions shared that they already had a trained public health worker on their payroll or developed strong ties with their state's public health officials, and five others mentioned that their coalition would benefit from these roles and/or ties. We “worked with survivors to get them access to different things … masks and cleaning supplies and hand sanitizers and all of those items that our programs needed but we knew survivors also needed in their home.” Additionally, strong relationships with schools and local governmental entities were beneficial for ensuring the general public had access to information. Coalitions found it helpful when local officials (e.g., governors) held daily briefings and promoted hotlines and other DV resources. As one Coalition told us, “At every governor press briefing we had our 1-800 number displayed. The governor actually spoke directly to victims of domestic violence, but it was a result of all the advocacy that we did at the coalition level, to make sure that they understood the urgency of the multiple public health crises that we're having at the same time.”

While relationships with other agencies were important before the pandemic, maintaining and strengthening existing partnerships and forging new ones became even more crucial. Coalitions believed it was vital to cultivate and maintain positive relationships with other agencies and provide information about DV in nontraditional spaces.

Takeaways

Coalitions recognize the vitality of maintaining existing partnerships outside of the domestic violence service system and need to strengthen their ability to build new ones rapidly.

Funding streams and empowerment

Coalitions routinely seek funding from traditional government sources and grants. Most of these grants and federal/state-level assistance mandate how the money must be spent. During the pandemic, funding allocations changed; however, based on new needs and situations created by the pandemic funding, mandates were not responsive to these emerging needs. For example, during the early stages of the pandemic, Coalitions were thankful that federal funds were readily available but were simultaneously frustrated by the many strings attached to the funding, including strict requirements regarding how to spend the money. These concerns persisted for more than two years into the pandemic. The due dates for progress reports on the grants through which funds were appropriated were very strict, and it was challenging to meet these reporting requirements while coalitions were struggling to switch to virtual platforms, keep survivors safe, and maintain the workforce needed to provide shelter and program services. For example, one Coalition said, “the [funders] were really lovely people, but they were so ridiculously tied to their rules … [we had to advocate for] a relaxation, like we may not have 24-hour coverage.” Other Coalitions mentioned things like:

I can't build a program right now. I just need to keep paying my staff right now, and I just need to keep the doors open … so we need the money to be as low barrier as possible, both for survivors, but also for organizations, because … it's a great problem to have a lot of money, but it's also a burden to have money that has so many strings attached that it's hard to spend or it's hard to manage it.

Coalitions discussed the extra burden of financial management for smaller programs. Take for example a “small organization with three staff. They just don’t have the capacity to figure out what to do with the whole new line of funding that doesn’t have any admin[istrative] support but creates a whole new line of work for staff.” Coalitions expressed wanting more flexibility for what they could spend the money on and sought ways to get cash directly into the hands of survivors. While many funding requirements were inflexible, coalitions also received some unrestricted money from donations, meaning that funds could be distributed at the coalition's discretion. These monies were used during the pandemic to help survivors pay for gas to get to their jobs, pay for car repairs, buy extra cleaning supplies or pet food, and cover utility bills, among other things, but all of these empowerment efforts supported survivors’ daily lives and well-being. Many Coalitions noted the benefits of being able to support their survivors through dispersing these unrestricted funds.

a lot of us have tried to figure out how do we get cash directly into the hands of survivors … [with] a lot of the federal money and a lot of the state money, you have to be really creative do that because they don't want us giving money to survivors. It's still that welfare mentality—prove that you deserve it, that you're going to do something useful with it … [But] let's just get cash, no strings attached, into the hands of survivors … and trust them, as you know they're the experts in their situation…

These frustrations involved both program requirements of funders and affected how coalitions and advocacy programs can best help victims with their financial needs. In both cases, coalitions felt they were not treating victims or advocates with dignity:

We need to raise the standard of living for advocates our programs have been running. It's been an unsustainable way for a very long time and COVID made it worse, but it didn't cause it, we can't just fix it with COVID money—we have to actually fix the broken system that was there and that's a conversation people are having that they weren't having before … We need to trust advocates and Member programs as much as we trust survivors. We had to convince people that if you just give survivors money, they're not going to run off to Mexico and have a vacation …, and we also have to trust member programs the same way.

Takeaways

Funding streams that are flexible enough to meet the rapidly changing needs of organizations and survivors are essential in disaster contexts. What was needed before the disaster may not be what was needed during and after the disaster. Keeping reporting requirements simple and straightforward will allow more organizations access to available funding.

Salary equity

The salaries of staff members and advocates associated with both the direct service programs and the coalitions have historically been shockingly low, despite the importance of their work and their extensive training and/or required degrees. Coalitions expressed dismay over the low wages and the strain they place on committed staff and advocates. As the pandemic progressed, many DV workers were forced to seek higher-paying jobs elsewhere in their communities despite their compassion and dedication to providing support for survivors.

I think that agencies [need to] look at essential staffing salaries. I know it's been a lot of frustration with that this past year. This was a big theme from the member programs because frontline staff were really overworked and they’re so underpaid. And the way that these funding structures have set up, there's no automatic [Cost of Living Increase] COLA. So, you get this flat grant for multiple years and there's no allowance for increases, and people working in shelters, some of the salaries are like the equivalent of Walmart—that's not right. I mean, the work is so much harder … they're putting their lives at risk. A shelter worker is working overnight at the shelter, should not have a situation of like, I'm afraid of going to work because I may get an illness that's going to kill me. I mean, that's the need for hazard pay.

Takeaway

Wage scales need updating based on requirements including experience and education, as well as the challenges of the work. Higher wages could empower staff and retain them in the field. Increasing base pay, building in cost-of-living increases, and providing hazard pay are all necessary approaches to retain skilled staff.

Self-care

Coalitions acknowledged that their staff (and advocates) experienced dual trauma—the trauma all households experienced during the pandemic (e.g., fear, concern for safety, and ability to secure PPE) and also increased secondary trauma from absorbing the trauma of the victims/survivors with whom they worked. Some coalitions reported trying to address the compounding stressors by ordering special chairs and lighting, paying for higher-speed internet, or sending lunch to staff via food delivery services. However, the demands of the work and the need for “all hands-on deck” made self-care interventions like providing time off next to impossible.

One of the things that I observed, is that advocates in these organizations that are coming out of this situation, with a lot more confidence … in themselves and their ability to maintain services and access, despite the challenge it's important for us to know that they responded to this with incredible creativity, it's not surprising, we're really good at figuring out what's wrong, but sometimes we miss the opportunity to say ‘Wow we did a really good job’.

Coalition leaders noted the dedication of staff while simultaneously navigating the personal costs of the heightened risk of exposure and home-based responsibilities. The exigency of the pandemic demands often eclipsed a more efficacious response to the extra burdens that staff experienced when trying to balance the needs of survivors and agencies with their own family circumstances and mental health.

Takeaway

Part of self-care is celebrating successes, but the constant crisis of the pandemic made it harder for organizations to acknowledge the ways in which they were doing good work under traumatizing circumstances. This acknowledgment of what was working could have, in turn, helped organizations to build on their strengths. Supporting DV workers by acknowledging creativity and celebrating success is crucial.

Meeting the needs of invisible groups

Coalitions mentioned that the pandemic spotlighted the needs of “invisible” populations who have historically been lost or trivialized by government services. Coalitions identified child abuse victims; indigenous populations, and elderly DV survivors—many of whom were uncomfortable with technology or did not have access to a computer as “invisible” communities. One Southwestern state Coalition commented that a DV shelter in “the Navajo nation had requested some type of [personal] protective equipment from the Federal Government, and, in turn, they were sent body bags, so it was really a pretty harrowing situation.” But this was not unfamiliar when it comes to marginalized populations, as demonstrated by other Coalition leaders’ statements regarding the invisibility of elderly DV victims, despite their increased vulnerability to COVID-19.

Because schools pivoted to remote learning, the traditional ways that child abuse is discovered disappeared because children no longer had in-person contact with teachers, classroom aides, nurses, or guidance counselors—all of whom are mandated reporters. Coalitions raised different and often contrasting points about how children were affected.

Child welfare workers were very worried that child sexual abuse and other forms [of abuse] were going to increase, but … there wasn't mandated reporting because kids weren't in school. No one really asked the question, what if rates actually didn't increase because what if a lot of reports are done out of racism and classism? What if a lot of mandatory reporting is actually unfounded reporting and now there's less because those people are not in the lives of children; we have no way to gauge that. But we should not make these assumptions.

As other Coalitions explained, “The significantly decreased calls to DFS [Division of Family Services] … were probably because kids were out of school so no mandatory reporters, and a lot of those calls come in through the schools since after school programs were closed too.” The Coalitions learned from their member programs that even though reporting to family services departments decreased, they saw significant increases in helpline calls about child abuse: “We knew that children were home, so the chances that children are being harmed increases as well” and working with family services to “make visible the danger” and continue providing “resources for people that are experiencing child abuse or reminding people we are all mandatory reporters, making sure that message was visible at all governor's briefings.”

Takeaway

Reinforce ways to assess the extra steps that may be needed for underserved populations, such as elderly survivors, survivors with disabilities, child victims, and indigenous survivors. Historically, and during the pandemic, these communities had the highest needs but the fewest resources available to meet them.

Housing innovations

Another future-direction shared by Coalitions challenged the continued reliance on shelters since they are not well-integrated into the community. The early goal of shelters was to keep victims safe, but Coalitions raised concerns about the fact that this separation from communities reinforced isolation and shame. Most Coalitions mentioned seeking new solutions that would extend shelters into the larger community, as these quotes indicate:

The way that we do sheltering and service delivery is becoming more and more outdated. The effectiveness of it is diminishing and the numbers and kind of people that the services are actually helping … it's fewer and fewer. We know what kinds of survivors our services would be the most helpful for … so more and more people are getting less and less of what they need, and then COVID—it just really has brought that home.

Several Coalitions mentioned getting the community more involved by bringing them into more contact with shelters: “it's not complicated—go out and buy a whole bunch of extension cords and some tables or have people donate tables. That's not a hard thing to do. It's not going to be fancy, but it’ll work [for a hot spot].” This innovative method for bringing shelters closer to the community, to normalize the situation of the residents to foster understanding and public support, was used in multiple states.

Prior to the pandemic, transitional and long-term housing options for survivors were extremely limited or nonexistent. Even short-term housing, such as battered women's shelters, faced critical shortages, with victims turned away when shelters were full and other options not viable. The Coalitions shared that the pandemic exacerbated this need given that social distancing requirements decreased occupancy numbers for shelters and other forms of short-term housing.

It was helpful to have an eviction moratorium for survivors living in transitional housing or ones who lost their jobs and faced hardship meeting their rents or mortgages. Since the country was shut down, hotels were almost empty. Hotel rooms, suites, and executive apartments were provided at lower costs (or costs covered by the CARES Act), with the suite-like hotels giving victims and their children a place to stay that had access to a kitchen. “We had a lot of hotel chains that came forward and gave incredible deals to folks because they were hurting also.” There were also “companies that do executive apartments for people who are traveling … [and]they gave a really reduced rate to allow people to move their families into that that setting for months.” At the same time, however, many city residents were fleeing expensive housing and moving across state lines to purchase or rent less expensive housing. This would decrease the availability of transitional housing, and out-of-towners with deeper financial pockets looked more attractive to landlords than victims with Section 8 housing vouchers.

Coalitions acknowledged that hotel living did not meet all the survivors’ needs that traditional shelters provide, since shelters have ways of keeping people safe (e.g., confidential location and elaborate ways to access the shelter), and providing services such as designated areas like a fenced-in yard for children to play in, groceries, on-site counseling, and laundry facilities. Providing these amenities for victims in hotels was a notable challenge, but the staff did their best to fulfill these needs. For example, staff dropped off food or had it delivered, connected victims with telehealth for medical or mental health appointments, and handled laundry. Some challenges could not be navigated; hotels were not typically in the safest locations and did not have any ways of ensuring victim safety and well-being. Wi-Fi and other computer access needs for school-aged children and for remote work were not established in many alternative locations. Coalitions reported additional issues with finding alternative housing for victims living in rural areas or resort towns as it was either not available or not offered.

The most critical unmet need was for more shelter options … We have some families that have been in the shelter for like nine months with nowhere for them to go or even blocked from some of the transitional units in the state because of the fears some landlords were not willing to let go. Even if someone had a voucher or were ready to take on that apartment, landlords just they didn't want to meet with people to sign a lease or to show it. So funding cuts also made it so that, when it was time to sign leases, the programs didn't have the money to be able to help, so we lost some transitional units in some parts of the city. It just takes such a toll on the advocates that they hear on the help line when listening to people saying, I have to sleep in my car again, so what can you do for me, and they just don't know what to do since nothing is open … You can't have safety if you don't have a safe place to lay your head at night.

It seems appropriate to let one of the Coalitions have the final word:

I think it showed us that our programs are very resilient and victims and survivors are very resilient. In the hardest circumstances we learned that our local programs are very, very capable and they're very resourceful and they are very dedicated, and they made it work, and so we know that nobody ever thought that this would never happen, nobody was prepared for this, and they all felt that they really knocked it out of the park.

Takeaways

The COVID-19 pandemic laid bare structural inequalities in service systems. Moving forward, the movement to end domestic violence needs to re-focus on addressing racial and economic inequality, which will likely require radical changes in services and partnerships.