Abstract
This study examines the experiences of intimate partner violence victims and advocates across three timeframes: before the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, during the pandemic, and after the pandemic. Utilizing self-administered questionnaires, findings indicate that victims faced increased barriers to seeking help during the pandemic, including limited access to crisis intervention and support resources. Advocates reported adapting their strategies to provide remote support but also highlighted significant challenges in maintaining effective communication with victims. The post-pandemic phase reveals a complex landscape where some victims have regained access to resources while others continue to struggle with lingering effects of isolation and trauma.
Introduction
Violence and coercive control within relationships, often referred to as intimate partner violence (IPV), is a pernicious and pervasive social problem. IPV includes varying degrees of physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse. While IPV impacts individuals of all walks of life, the overwhelming burden is borne by women. Accordingly, it is estimated that 736 million women—almost one in three—are subjected to physical and/or sexual IPV at least once in their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2021). Indeed, IPV is widely acknowledged as a form of gender-based violence (GBV), rooted in systems of unequal power dynamics between women and men.
In the USA, responses to IPV have changed tremendously over the years. Originally viewed as a private matter, the public's willingness to engage in IPV concerns was minimal. Beginning in the 1960s, thanks to the second-wave feminist movement, GBV was pushed into the sociopolitical sphere. IPV was declared to be a public health crisis (Bair-Merritt, 2010), paving the way for the nation's first victim assistance programs (Barner & Carney, 2011). During this time, the primary societal response to IPV shifted to criminalization. However, despite advancements, some survivors and professionals have labeled primary responses to IPV as narrow and remarkably lacking (see Kulkarni, 2019; Leisenring, 2012; Sudderth, 2006). This raises the importance of considering the experiences of IPV victims and advocates in response development.
Research on victims’ and advocates’ experiences highlights numerous contextual factors contributing to IPV. This includes social, environmental, and cultural contexts, as well as factors related to broader societal attitudes toward gender equality (Bell & Naugle, 2008; Beyer et al., 2015; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020). Furthermore, contextual factors can interact with other characteristics like race and ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status to exacerbate IPV risks and experiences (Cardenas, 2023). Altogether, understanding contextual factors is crucial for effectively supporting victims and developing interventions that address the complex influences impacting their abuse.
More recently, IPV experiences were impacted by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. In 2020, the rapid spread of COVID-19 led to government-sanctioned lockdowns across the globe, bringing political economies to a screeching halt. Many contextual factors, including newly implemented restrictive measures, led to an observable increase in IPV reports. To enumerate, the United Nations (UN) noted record levels of IPV in numerous nations, including Africa, Asia, South America, North America, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans (UN Women, 2021). In the USA, an audit of the National Domestic Violence Hotline revealed a surge in crisis calls during the implementation of nationwide shelter-in-place orders (Frontz, 2022). Thus, attempts to control the spread of COVID-19 created exceptional and dire consequences for victims and advocates alike. While there is considerable research focusing on these consequences as they were occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic, many aspects related to victim and advocate experiences throughout the different stages of the pandemic remain unknown and noncollectively explored.
Henceforth, the present study seeks to contribute to this research gap. With a focus on COVID-19 as a contextual event, victims’ and advocates’ experiences before, during, and following the pandemic are analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Findings indicate that physical IPV and sexual IPV were particularly experienced by victims during the onset of the pandemic and that victims faced considerable barriers when attempting to access support resources. For advocates, workloads, as well as personal stressors and professional conflicts, increased during the pandemic's earlier stages. For both victims and advocates, many of these experiences continued postpandemic. Accordingly, in this context, IPV is revealed as a pattern of evolutionary abusive behavior that emanates from cultural norms, social politics, and public health. Future research directions and recommendations are further discussed, paving the way for more effective and relevant discussions of IPV prevention and intervention.
Literature Review
Incidence and Prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Research denotes that disruptions to social, political, and economic functioning can increase the potential for harm against women (see Peterman et al., 2020; True, 2012). Relying on such literature, many scholars made early predictions for COVID-19's impact on GBV. Specifically, a series of short communications and articles in briefs anticipated an increase in IPV as the virus reached pandemic status (Jarnecke & Flanagan, 2020; Kumar, 2020; Sharma & Borah, 2020; Usher et al., 2020). Additionally, some studies included preliminary data on IPV during quarantine. For example, Bright et al. (2020) presented exploratory research from a content analysis of 300 news articles from the first 6 weeks of lockdowns in the U.S. The authors observed trends from articles that either predicted or reported an increase in IPV. These studies drew attention to the collision of the public health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing public health crisis of IPV, calling for more conclusive work to be done.
Using varying methodologies and samples to understand the occurrence of IPV during the pandemic, a range of estimates were reported. One of the largest studies, a meta-analysis and systematic review of 18 empirical studies, noted an 8.1% increase in IPV postlockdowns (Piquero et al., 2021a). In a systematic review of 53 articles, Bhuptani et al. (2022) found a consistent increase in IPV victimization and perpetration, with the prevalence of victimization increasing between 5% and 25% during stay-at-home orders. Other studies analyzed smaller regional samples. This includes Richards et al. (2021), who examined IPV in seven cities in 2020. Using Bayesian structural time-series analysis, the authors estimated that there were 1,030 more calls to police and 1,671 more calls to emergency hotlines than would have occurred without the pandemic. Likewise, in an interrupted time-series analysis of cases at a single Level 1 trauma center, Smith et al. (2022) found that of the 4,624 injuries admitted, 292 (6.3%) were due to IPV. The authors further noted a 17% increase in IPV-related injuries following lockdowns. Lastly, using data from the Atlanta Police Department, Evans et al. (2021) observed a spike in IPV crimes by 11% following the statewide implementation of shelter-in-place orders.
Furthermore, studies note that larger municipal regions were disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 infections due to their greater population size and density. Accordingly, these areas also reported larger increases in IPV. For reference, Boserup et al. (2020) detailed the increases to flat calls for service after the implementation of stay-at-home orders in Jefferson (Alabama), a 27% increase; Portland (Oregon), a 22% increase; San Antonio (Texas), a 18% increase; and New York City (New York), a 10% increase. Similarly, work by Anderberg et al. (2020) showed a 15% increase in IPV-related calls to law enforcement in Los Angeles (California) following lockdowns.
Some studies critiqued estimates of IPV during the pandemic. In an analysis of data from Miami-Dade County, Piquero et al. (2021b) noted initial increases in IPV during the pandemic. However, after robust model identification, evidence revealed there were neither transient nor consistent changes in IPV-related arrests during the periods examined. Also, Mahmood et al. (2022) documented a 46% drop in IPV calls during lockdowns in Bangladesh. The authors specified that although there is enough theoretical and experimental data to suggest that IPV increased during lockdowns, many women may have been limited in their opportunity to report while cohabiting with an abusive partner. This was a barrier to reporting for women around the globe. Similarly, Sacco et al. (2020) elaborated that under nonpandemic circumstances, victims utilize domestic violence hotlines to get help; however, reporting decreased during lockdowns, as many victims were forced to isolate with their abusive partners (see also Kofman & Garfin, 2020). Moreover, Smyth et al. (2021) noted the overt focus on physical and sexual violence experienced during the pandemic. Indeed, the authors acknowledged the inherent challenges in measuring coercive control, which was likely underreported, and another potential global trend.
Causes of IPV During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Economic hardship has a well-established relationship with IPV (see Jewkes, 2002; Lucero et al., 2016). As the pandemic grew and lockdowns were extended, many workers were furloughed or laid off, exacerbating financial entanglement and pushing entire households into poverty. Duly, Kaukinen (2020) predicted that the pandemic's economic impact would increase the risk of IPV. Support for this prediction was found in a study of 374 adults, where respondents who reported loss of income were among those who were more likely to belong to the IPV-reporters group (Cannon et al., 2021). Likewise, using data from the Assessing the Social Consequences of COVID-19 study, Drotning et al. (2023) found that household income loss was associated with the incidence of verbal violence. Furthermore, in a review of 24 studies published during the first 6 months of the pandemic, key factors contributing to the increase in IPV included both low socioeconomic status and unemployment (McNeil et al., 2023).
Other studies deem economic hardship to have a moderating and/or mediating effect on IPV. For example, unemployment may impact substance use behaviors such as heavy drinking, which is associated with IPV (Caetano et al., 2005, 2017). However, it is noted that many scholars consider alcohol use as neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of IPV but rather a contributing cause (see Leonard & Quigley, 2017). Accordingly, job loss was associated with heavy drinking during the pandemic, although women were more likely to report high-risk drinking than men (Nesoff et al., 2021). Furthermore, in a study of 107 low-resource North Carolina residents, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2022) found that increased couple conflict during the pandemic was related to various economic factors such as the loss of health insurance and the greater use of alcohol and/or illicit drugs. Moreover, economic independence is critical in violence prevention (see Postmus, 2010). As unemployment rates for women soared during the pandemic (Kochhar, 2020), many victims were prevented from leaving abusive relationships.
Secondly, there is evidence that mental health problems are associated with IPV. For reference, in a study of males arrested for IPV, high rates of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorders, and social phobias were common (Shorey et al., 2012). Research also found IPV perpetration to be stronger among military-involved groups with PTSD and combat-related stress (Kwan et al., 2020; Sparrow et al., 2017). Similarly, pandemic-related stressors increased mental health disruptions. For example, Howard et al. (2022) explained that experiencing psychological distress during the pandemic may increase the risk for IPV. The authors clarified that while many people with mental health disorders are not violent, when compounded with other issues such as substance misuse, it can heighten the risk for IPV.
Thirdly, both social and geographical isolation are shown to be barriers closely related to IPV in rural communities (Averill, Padilla & Clements, 2007), immigrant communities (Menjívar & Salcido, 2002), and among aging populations (Beaulaurier et al., 2008). Accordingly, travel restrictions and stay-at-home orders increased isolation effects. Jarnecke and Flanagan (2020) acknowledged that due to social distancing, many victims would be isolated or coerced away from resources, including psychological and medical support. Likewise, in an examination of 27 unique risk markers related to COVID-19, Spencer et al. (2021) found that loneliness was the strongest risk marker for IPV perpetration, which increased the likelihood by over 400%. Additionally, as previous scholars predicted, social isolation decreased opportunities for interventions by healthcare and criminal legal practitioners. By June 30, 2020, an estimated 41% of U.S. adults had delayed or avoided medical care because of COVID-19 concerns (Czeisler et al., 2020). Lyons and Brewer (2022) explained that due to social restrictions, victims would be isolated from law enforcement. Hence, the pandemic left many victims without access to personal networks and support services.
Population Characteristics of IPV During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Research has remarked that IPV impacted some women more than others during the pandemic. Accordingly, in an analysis of 22 articles, Sutton and Beech (2023) noted the nexus of disproportionately impacted Latina immigrants. Similarly, Zero and Geary (2020) acknowledged escalated risks for undocumented victims. Furthermore, relying on peer-reviewed studies, gray literature sources, theoretical literature works, and field work, Ruiz et al. (2022) explained that Indigenous women and Black women, who experience the highest rates of IPV, are likely to encounter the greatest barriers to support during the pandemic. These authors concluded that women of color (WOC) were navigating three crises: IPV, racism, and COVID-19.
Other studies analyzed the occurrence of IPV during the pandemic among gender and sexual minorities. Using a cross-sectional survey of gay, bisexual, and men who have sex with men, Stephenson et al. (2022) examined IPV during the first 3 months of lockdowns. Results showed that 12.6% of participants reported experiencing IPV, with emotional IPV being the most frequently experienced (10.3%). For almost half of those reporting IPV victimization during lockdowns (5.3%), this was their first experience. Likewise, in a survey of 1,169 individuals throughout the state of Michigan, Peitzmeier et al. (2022) found that new or increased IPV during the pandemic was marginally associated with being transgender or nonbinary. These studies contribute to the wider literature on the relationship between minority stress and IPV within LGBTQ+ communities (see also Stephenson & Finneran, 2017).
Moreover, someone's risk of experiencing IPV can be amplified by their intersecting identities and the power dynamics associated with them. Crenshaw's early work on intersectionality highlighted the experiences of Black survivors in shelters and explicated how violence against Black women results from interlocking forces of sexism, racism, and classism (Crenshaw, 1991). Accordingly, recent research on population characteristics of IPV highlighted overlapping trends of sexism, racism, and classism alongside COVID-19. To enumerate, Willie et al. (2024) noted that COVID-19 hindered Black IPV survivors’ ability to obtain and sustain safe housing, as they navigated challenges of separate and unequal neighborhoods, pandemic-related economic inequalities, and economic abuse limitations. The authors explain that these experiences are consequences of structural racism, sexism, and classism. Addressing barriers that Black women and Indigenous women may face during the pandemic, Ruiz et al. (2022) also acknowledged intersections of poverty, isolation, and racialized care in urban metropolitan and rural areas where WOC already experience poorer treatment.
In addition, both Ragavan et al. (2022) and Ruvalcaba et al. (2024) suggested that the pandemic compounded intersectional challenges of racism, economic precarity, xenophobia, and disparities in health outcomes, creating staggering difficulties for marginalized victims and WOC. Similarly, Hassoun Ayoub et al. (2023) highlighted the cultural role that Black mothers play in their communities, acknowledging the intersections of COVID-19 inequities, increased parental stress, decreased emotional support, and greater exposure to physical or sexual violence. Lastly, Abraham and Vasil (2024) explained that anti-immigrant sentiment, alienation, restricted access to state protections, cultural and language barriers to help-seeking, and shifting gender roles all have intersecting implications for immigrant women's experiences of IPV during the pandemic. As such, it can be argued that multiple systems of oppression are attributable to the relationship between COVID-19 and IPV.
Finally, limited sociodemographic characteristics for perpetrators have been identified. Moreira and Da Costa (2020) explained that a combination of individual (i.e., low education and unemployment), relationship (i.e., family), and community (i.e., social disorganization) risk factors can increase the likelihood of IPV perpetration during the pandemic. In an analysis of crime during the pandemic, Boman and Gallupe (2020) raised the possibility that lockdowns have taken minor offenders and placed them into situations where there is rampant opportunity for IPV. This indicates that criminal history may have been an additional risk factor for IPV perpetration during the pandemic.
Current Study
The objectives of the current study are to examine IPV throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Respectively, this work focuses on a variety of victim and advocate experiences across three 12-month intervals (prepandemic, during the pandemic, and postpandemic). As such, preexisting, pandemic-specific, and lasting conditions are distinguished. Furthermore, the current study presents exploratory research. This approach was selected because it meets the research aims of describing IPV victims’ and advocates’ experiences throughout a recent crisis and amplifying their voices through an inductive data analysis process.
This study builds upon what is already known about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV in three important ways. First, this study examines postpandemic occurrences of violence. Although previous studies allude to ongoing threats to safety, health, and well-being for victims of IPV (see Bradbury-Jones & Isham, 2020; Drotning et al., 2023; Kaukinen, 2020), the long-term effects of the pandemic are not yet fully understood. Furthermore, there are limited data on victims’ access to services postpandemic. Second, this study offers more insight into the frequency and types of abuse experienced throughout the pandemic. This provides an opportunity to observe any changes in frequency, mode, and severity (see Peitzmeier et al., 2022). Third, the analysis of advocates’ experiences in this study allows for an examination of challenges and agency needs. While some studies explored how IPV advocates adapted their services during the pandemic (see Garcia et al., 2021; Wood et al., 2022), these assessments lack deeper understandings of personal and professional shifts. In addition, the transition to virtual support services raised questions on whether virtual advocacy created additional barriers for service providers as well as victims. Understanding advocate experiences is necessary for identifying safe and accessible services (see Haag et al., 2022) and what innovative practices could be beneficial beyond the pandemic.
As such, the research questions guiding this study are as follows:
Methodology
Instruments
Two questionnaires were created. The exploratory nature of this research did not allow for highly structured questionnaire instruments. Hence, a combination of open-ended and closed-ended questions was selected to accommodate a range of responses. The victim experiences questionnaire was modeled after portions of the National Crime Victimization Survey and the National Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence Survey. These items incorporated a scale of IPV behaviors, including physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, technology-assisted abuse, and psychological aggression. The advocate experiences questionnaire was developed using recommendations from Peled and Edleson's (1994) national survey of domestic violence advocacy services. Their survey used five domains: (1) organizational context of service; (2) definition of advocacy for battered women; (3) major issues and concerns of clients; (4) activities performed by advocates in a typical week; and (5) systems with which advocates worked. Questions within these domains were adjusted to fit the context of a global pandemic.
Procedure
An online data service (Qualtrics) was selected for managing the questionnaires. Qualifications to participate in the questionnaire included being 18 years of age or older, residing in the U.S. and having experienced IPV OR having worked in IPV victim services before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Participation was solicited through social media platforms, including Twitter/X, Facebook, and Instagram. Research participant solicitation fliers were also posted to the social media pages of victim/survivor ally organizations. As it is acknowledged that web-based instruments can generate lower response rates (see Evans & Mathur, 2018), the online questionnaires remained active for six months (January 1, 2023, to June 1, 2023) to maximize participation.
Furthermore, a convenient sampling technique was used for two main reasons. First, recruitment of IPV victims can be challenging due to stigma and fear of disclosure. Accordingly, recruiting from populations that are already seeking support for IPV, like those visiting IPV awareness pages or support groups, is crucial for studying unique victim experiences. Second, this sampling method allows for the prioritization of participant safety and autonomy by letting individuals self-select into the study. Indeed, a convenient sample was deemed the most feasible and ethical option to thoroughly explore this study's research questions.
Given the sensitivity of the data, the first page of the questionnaire included an informed consent form explaining the purpose and goals of the study. The first page also provided clear instructions on how to skip questions if participants did not wish to answer. The questionnaire likewise offered an option to pause and resume the questionnaire if needed. This was particularly necessary given that some victims may be residing with their abusive partners. The last page of the questionnaire displayed information about IPV support services, including contact details for crisis hotlines and counseling options. These recommendations are consistent with the ethical considerations for researching violence against women as put forth by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) and the World Health Organization (WHO) (see World Health Organization, 2005). Moreover, an anonymous link was used to distribute the survey, and personal information such as names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, IP addresses, and location data was not collected to protect anonymity.
Data Analysis
The responses were analyzed in three stages. In Stage 1, a descriptive quantitative analysis was constructed of the closed-ended questions. In Stage 2, a qualitative thematic analysis (see Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the open-ended questions was performed using a priori codes (themes) established in previous literature (see Elliott et al., 2023; Garcia et al., 2021; Lyons & Brewer, 2022). For the victim experiences questionnaire, the a priori codes were (1) economic, (2) mental health, and (3) isolation. For the advocate experiences questionnaire, the a priori codes were (1) general benefits of advocacy and (2) general limitations of advocacy. During Stage 3, a qualitative thematic analysis of the open-ended questions using posterior codes was developed, allowing for new codes to emerge. For the victim experiences questionnaire, the posterior codes included (1) religion, (2) health management, and (3) racial inequality. For the advocate experiences questionnaire, the general posterior codes developed were (1) the criminal justice system and (2) mental health. All qualitative data were coded with the computer software HyperResearch.
Victim Results: Quantitative Analysis
Victim Demographics
Fifty-seven individuals responded to the victim experiences questionnaire. The respondents were mostly cis women in heterosexual relationships (n = 56, 98.5%), with an average age of 27. Respondents were primarily White (n = 32, 56%), Black (n = 9, 15%), and Hispanic (n = 14, 25%). Almost half of the sample indicated that their highest level of education completed was high school (n = 27, 47%), with the other half completing some college (n = 13, 23.5%) and a Bachelor's degree (n = 16, 28%). Over half were employed at the time of taking the questionnaire (n = 37, 65%). Most respondents reported living with a romantic partner (n = 42, 74%). Finally, almost half of the sample identified a sector of Christianity as their religious affiliation (n = 28, 49%); this included “Lutheran,” “Baptist,” “Methodist,” and “Protestant.”
Violence Occurring Prepandemic
Respondents were asked about experiences occurring in the 12 months before the pandemic (on or before March 1, 2020). Regarding major life events, respondents indicated that they lost a job (n = 12, 21%), left school (n = 4, 7%), and experienced the loss of a pregnancy (n = 3, 5%). For IPV, respondents experienced physical abuse, including being slapped (n = 16, 28%), being hit with a closed fist (n = 13, 23.5%), and being pushed or shoved (n = 28, 49%). IPV experiences also included verbal abuse, such as being called degrading or humiliating names (n = 56, 98%), and emotional abuse, such as their partner threatening suicide or self-harm (n = 16, 28%). Most respondents experienced a range of abusive behaviors, with five abusive behaviors being the minimum a single respondent experienced and eleven abusive behaviors being the maximum. Extreme abusive behaviors, such as being choked or strangled (n = 4, 8%), being smothered (n = 3, 6%), and being burnt (n = 1, 1.5%), were less frequently reported. Furthermore, over half of the sample indicated that they contacted victim services, including call (n = 25, 44%) and text lines (n = 17, 33%). All respondents who experienced extreme abusive behaviors reported contacting victim services at least once during this time. Experiences with victim services before the pandemic had an average rating of 6.5 on a scale of 1–10, where 1 is the lowest satisfaction and 10 is the highest satisfaction.
Violence Occurring During the Pandemic
Respondents were asked about experiences during the first year of the pandemic; this includes events occurring during lockdowns through the availability of the COVID-19 vaccine (March 2, 2020, to March 1, 2021). Regarding major life events, many experienced hardships such as having to leave an educational institution (n = 17, 30%), the death of a loved one (n = 25, 43%), and the loss of a living space (n = 18, 32%) during this time. For abusive behaviors, respondents reported being slapped (n = 23, 40%), being hit with a closed fist (n = 18, 32%), being pushed or shoved (n = 44, 77%), being called humiliating and degrading names (n = 42, 74%), being threatened with a weapon (n = 16, 28%), and being coerced into sexual acts (n = 22, 39%). These behaviors occurred at a higher frequency than prepandemic abusive behaviors. Respondents experiencing stalking behaviors, such as being followed or harassed through social media, decreased during this time. It was suggested in the questionnaires that this was largely due to the lockdowns. There was also a decrease in contact with victim services. A smaller number of respondents reported contacting a call (n = 7, 11%) or text line (n = 1, 1.5%). Experiences with victim services during the pandemic had an average rating of 3 on a scale of 1–10.
Violence Occurring Postpandemic
Respondents were asked about experiences occurring after the first year of the pandemic (March 2, 2021, to March 1, 2022). Major life events included the loss of a living space (n = 12, 21%), the loss of a pregnancy (n = 8, 14%), and the loss of a pet (n = 7, 12%). Accordingly, respondents revealed continuing trends of abuse such as being slapped (n = 17, 29%), being hit with a closed fist (n = 17, 29%), being pushed or shoved (n = 32, 57%), being called degrading names (n = 50, 87%), and being coerced into sexual activity (n = 23, 40%), albeit occurring in lower frequencies than the behaviors reported during the pandemic. Contact with victim services increased from the year prior, with almost half indicating they contacted a call line (n = 24, 42%). Experiences with victim services following the pandemic had an average rating of 6 on a scale of 1–10.
Victim Results: Qualitative Analysis
Open-ended sections of the questionnaire allowed victims to elaborate on individualized experiences. A variety of responses were received, highlighting the a priori themes of economic, mental health, and isolation brought on by the pandemic. Many of these responses did not fall into one single theme, but rather touched on multiple aspects of all three. Examples include: I lost both jobs. Things got worse when I wasn’t helping with the bills. He resent[ed] me. He started getting cabin fever around May. He was manic and anxious all the time. One day he hit me so hard I thought my face was going to explode. After they cut his hours back, he went from working 12-hour shifts to 4. Money was tight, and his drinking was bad. We both got laid off, lost our health insurance, and couldn’t afford his antidepressants anymore. He started spiraling, one minute he loved me, and the next he had a knife to my throat. Quarantining made him crazy. Just pissed off and mean for no reason.
Three additional codes emerged in the areas of religion, healthcare, management, and racial inequality. These statements described the overlapping effects of COVID-19 and corresponding social and political events. Some respondents noted their partners’ drastic shifts in social beliefs and moral ideals as part of these overlapping effects. Coded statements include: Our Deacons condemned face masks, so when I started wearing one, it was just another thing we fought about. I didn’t want to go to church during lockdown, and it really set him off. He bought into the whole ‘God is punishing us’ [with COVID-19] narrative. The Doomsday tangents were mad scary. When the COVID vaccine came out, he told me if I ever got it for the kids, he’d kill me. I’m immunocompromised. Knowing that my health depend[ed] on him gave him a lot of power over me. The health insurance is through his job. Leaving during the pandemic wasn’t an option. I tried to have a talk with him about racism. It got heated. Then, because COVID was still happening, we couldn’t separate. He jumped on the ‘Hong Kong Flu’ thing, and I told him he was ignorant. He flipped out. All the stuff about COVID and BLM [Black Lives Matter] was overwhelming. We were both stressed and tired. But he was more so just angry.
Respondents noted various barriers to accessing victim services during the pandemic. These barriers were mainly related to privacy. In particular, many found it difficult to reach out to victim services during quarantine with their abuser close by. Moreover, for those who were in contact with victim services during the pandemic, many interactions were characterized as negative; however, this was mostly ascribed to the available technology and not the behavior of the advocate (s). Examples included: My service is bad at home, so the call kept dropping. After three times, I gave up. The lady I spoke to was nice, but it was awkward with Skype. The sound kept lagging. They had all these telecommunication services. I’m not the best with technology, also my computer and phone are older, so it was hard for me.
Lastly, respondents were also asked how the violence they experienced during the pandemic differed from the violence they experienced during the other two time periods. Many noted that the abuse was heightened during the pandemic and remained present and/or a general concern after the pandemic. This was particularly true for respondents who experienced physical abuse and sexual abuse during the pandemic. Examples included: He would still hit me. But at least I could leave the house. Lockdown was hell. Afterwards, things weren’t worse, but they also didn’t get better. After he went back to working two jobs, I think he was too tired to fight with me at the end of the day. His having too much time was the problem. I hate the phrase ‘back to normal’. Things were never normal. But he didn’t start jumping on me until the lockdowns.
Advocate Results: Quantitative Analysis
Advocate Demographics
Thirty-four respondents responded to the advocate experiences questionnaire. The respondents were mostly cis gender women (n = 33, 97%), who were White (n = 28, 82%), and heterosexual (n = 30, 88%), which is reflective of most victims’ services agencies in the U.S. (see Zippia, 2022). All respondents earned at least a Bachelor's degree, with a few having obtained a Master's (n = 4, 12%). The average age was 29 years.
Advocate Experiences Prepandemic
The year before the pandemic, respondents reported an average caseload of 12 clients per week. Adverse experiences such as personal conflict (n = 7, 20%) and hostility from clients’ abusive partners (n = 9, 26%) were reported to occur more frequently than other workplace challenges during this time. The overall job satisfaction rating was an average of 7, on a scale of 1–10, showing higher levels of job satisfaction.
Advocate Experiences During the Pandemic
Respondents reported that their caseloads rose during the pandemic, with the group average increasing to 25 clients per week. Almost all respondents experienced displacement and/or lost their workspace (n = 33, 97%), likely due to lockdowns. Personal conflict with coworkers rose during this time (n = 15, 44%). Respondents also reported increased difficulties, such as hostility from clients (n = 7, 20%) and physical inability to complete job tasks (n = 6, 18%). Job satisfaction fell to 4.3 during the pandemic.
Advocate Experiences Postpandemic
Caseloads decreased to an average of 15 cases per week in the year following the pandemic, which was higher than it was the year before the pandemic. Many respondents reported experiencing hostility from clients (n = 7, 20%), hostility from abusive partners of clients (n = 12, 35%), and hostility from community members (n = 12, 35%). Furthermore, some respondents reported still experiencing the loss of their workspace (n = 6, 18%). Job satisfaction increased to 6.2.
Advocate Results: Qualitative Analysis
Respondents listed many advantages of working in victim services. These advantages included having the ability to assist individual victims of violence, as well as being a positive influence in broader missions to combat violence against women. Recognition of their work as critical remained consistent during the pandemic. Examples include: It had its challenges, but being able to help during such a disastrous time made me feel like I had a place in all of this. It was way worse than any of us could have imagined. So many women were hurting and being hurt. I’d like to think we made a difference. I remember the day the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic. My coworkers and I just looked at each other and knew. I’m grateful for the camaraderie we had.
The challenges respondents faced included organizational stress, compassion fatigue, and technological barriers. These were amplified as work shifted from the office space to remote work. Lack of privacy and/or work hindrance was mentioned in multiple responses, such as: With my man, our son, and me all at home, it was hard to give all my focus to survivors. Our webpage crashed a few times from all the traffic. Also, we don’t have an IT team, so when clients would have tech questions or problems, we were just kinda helpless. It was extremely naïve for everyone to think that we could just switch to digital. Some of these women don’t even have phones, and if they do, their abuser checks everything. The pandemic was exhausting, and I just kind of checked out after a bit. We had to operate our shelter at 40% capacity. Deciding which women to turn away was heartbreaking.
When asked about additional work-related experiences during the pandemic, two supplementary themes emerged. One involved dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system, including delays in case processing and a lack of responses from law enforcement. The second was mental health, where respondents highlighted disruptions in their psychological well-being, added emotional labor, and its impact on their work. These responses also detailed lasting social and psychological impacts on their personal and professional lives. Statements include: The police were useless. We flagged so many high-risk cases, even cases involving children, and they never even showed up for wellness checks. Everything was backed up, including applications to get restraining orders and emergency custody hearings. We were left in limbo throughout it all, and it put our clients at risk. My mother and grandmother died within 24 hours of each other. Both of COVID. I couldn’t take time off. I cried every day on my lunch breaks. I had a client who was a Trump supporter. Don’t get me wrong, everyone deserves to be free from abuse; but going hard for white women who could give two shits about Black folks was mentally and emotionally exhausting. The world was quite literally on fire, yet we were constantly told to do more with less… And it's not over. We’re going to be traumatized by this for the next 10 years.
Discussion
Crises, emergencies, and disasters are correlated with multiple forms of violence against women, including IPV. This includes the recent COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined IPV before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, drawing attention to the experiences of victims and victim service professionals.
There were five main takeaways for victims of IPV from this study. First, most victims reported an increase in the frequency of violence and coercive control experienced during the first year of the pandemic. This provides some support for early reports, many of which predicted spikes in IPV (Boserup et al., 2020; UN Women, 2021). Second, victims reported an increase in the severity of violence experienced during the first year. Many particularly noted that while their partners were abusive the year prior, this violence was verbal or emotional and shifted to physical and/or sexual abuse during the onset of the pandemic. This was also consistent with previous studies suggesting an increase in the severity of IPV across the general population (Gosangi et al., 2021; Peitzmeier et al., 2022; Thiel et al., 2022). Third, the violence experienced during the first year of the pandemic was linked to other national and global events. For example, some victims referenced the Black Lives Matter protests. It is worth acknowledging that all the victim respondents who made references to race relations during 2020 were White women, identifying as Christian. Building on the work of Jones (2019), the domestication of misogynist White supremacy is linked to violence against marginalized groups, as well as violence against White women. In the U.S., American Christianity has long held a close relationship to White supremacy (Jones, 2021). Thus, the combination of COVID-19, White supremacy, and evangelicalism may be driving increases in IPV in some communities. Fourth, the pandemic presented numerous accessibility and communication barriers for victims seeking help and resources. This partially supports previous works noting a decrease in victims’ ability to access amenities such as medical services (Muldoon et al., 2021) and shelters (Sabri et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2021) during the pandemic. Lastly, for most victims, IPV was still occurring in the year following the pandemic. Although the frequency decreased, it was reported as more frequently occurring than the year before the pandemic. This indicates that IPV survivors may not be accessing longer-term support that would help address the economic and health impacts of COVID-19 (see Scoglio et al., 2023; Wood et al., 2023).
There were additional takeaways for victim service professionals. Firstly, although many advocates noted receiving support from fellow advocates and other staff members at the beginning of the pandemic, this appears to have weakened throughout the first year. This was observed alongside personal conflicts in the workplace and occupational disruptions, both of which increased organizational stress. Advocates also noted being limited in their role during the first year of the pandemic. Namely, many acknowledged the challenges associated with rapid changes in how materials and resources were delivered to victims. Furthermore, role limitation included technology barriers, as aspects such as slow internet, server crashes, and victims’ inequitable ability to access and/or navigate digital platforms reduced the efficiency of many organizations. Similar advocate limitations were noted in the works of Moyer et al. (2022), Nnawulezi and Hacskaylo (2022), and Wright et al. (2022). Moreover, all advocates reported experiencing some degree of individual stress/burnout during the first year of the pandemic. While some of this was related to increased caseloads, it was also derived from personal tragedies and co-occurring sociopolitical events. For advocates of color, the landscape of racial injustice in 2020 profoundly shaped their experiences with victims and influenced their emotional well-being. Garcia et al. (2021) noted that advocates of color, and more specifically advocates of color who work at culturally specific agencies, may have experienced an additional expectation to participate in uncompensated diversity and inclusion efforts during the pandemic. This further adds to their mental and emotional exhaustion. Addressing these issues requires commitment from advocacy organizations to integrate racial justice into their work (see Ramirez & Harris, 2022). However, agencies should also ensure this weight is not solely carried by advocates from marginalized communities. Although recent studies have mostly analyzed feedback from advocates and providers to better understand the pandemic experiences of victims (see Leigh et al., 2023; Ragavan et al., 2022), this study's findings provide new insights on the impacts of COVID-19 on advocates’ well-being, job satisfaction, and job performance.
The significance of this research can be translated into the legacy of COVID-19. On April 10, 2023, U.S. President Joe Biden ended the National State of Emergency for COVID-19 (The White House, 2023). Then, on May 5, 2023, the WHO Director General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, ended the Global Health Emergency declaration for COVID-19 (Heyward & Silver, 2023). While some resemblance to prepandemic conditions has been restored, other conditions are deep rooted. Accordingly, many of the trends and themes identified in this analysis persist.
Theoretical Implications
Research has acknowledged that preexisting societal violence is worsened by large-scale and sudden uncertainty, disruption of social networks, and economic instability (see Whiteman et al., 2023). These contributions help to elucidate the mechanisms by which emergencies, disasters, and crises influence IPV. To date, very few theoretical frameworks exist to understand victim and advocate experiences specifically in the COVID-19 pandemic context. However, the findings from this study have important implications for how they may inform the development of such theories.
Social Disorganization Theory
This theory suggests that when a community experiences significant social disruption, such as high unemployment or neighborhood instability, the lack of social cohesion can contribute to increased crime, including IPV (Piscitelli & Doherty, 2019). The data analyzed from this study indicate that the pandemic created a unique environmental context characterized by heightened economic insecurity and increased substance abuse, factors correlating with higher rates of IPV. In addition, victims reported difficulties in accessing resources due to lockdown measures. Moreover, advocates in this study experienced social disruptions, which impacted their work experiences. These findings align with social disorganization theory by illustrating how weakened community ties and unstable environments converged during the pandemic to increase vulnerability for victims and negative experiences for advocates.
Stress Theories
Stress theories broadly posit that increased external stress can create and/or exacerbate existing conflicts within intimate relationships (Meyer et al., 2024).
This study's findings reveal that the pandemic introduced numerous stressors. For instance, distress related to family relationships, financial instability, and physical health concerns heightened during the first year of the pandemic. Similarly, distress related to work conditions (working from home or being an essential employee) increased during this time. As such, the pandemic created an environment where tensions were high, resilience was low, and interpersonal dynamics were altered. This aligns with stress theories’ assertion that when individuals perceive that the demands placed on them exceed their resources to cope with those demands, the risk of experiencing IPV increases.
Furthermore, stress was also experienced by advocates. The shift to remote work and an increased demand for services created a taxing environment for many advocates concerned about their ability to effectively support victims. In addition, advocates reported being unable to adequately grieve loved ones due to demands from advocacy work. These insights underscore how stress theories can be used to describe the unique pandemic-related stressors experienced by those who advocate on behalf of victims.
Feminist Theory
Feminist theory highlights how existing gender inequalities can lead to violence. Indeed, this theory proclaims that patriarchal societal structures create environments that normalize male control and violence, while simultaneously infantilizing women and reinforcing their subordination (Becker et al., 2021). Feminist theory provides critical insights into how gender dynamics may have played a role within a pandemic setting. For example, some victims reported that their male partner's masculine role was threatened due to job loss or reduced work hours. This dynamic deepened power imbalances for women already experiencing IPV. Moreover, feminist scholarship on IPV has called for more conclusive works on the intersections of gender and race to be developed (see De Coster & Heimer, 2021). During the pandemic, WOC victims and advocates revealed compounded struggles. These findings reaffirm the importance of developing frameworks that capture the role of racialized patriarchy in IPV and advocacy.
Opportunity to Abuse Theory
Campbell (2021) proposed a new theory, the opportunity to abuse theory, to explain the increase in family violence related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The opportunity to abuse theory argues that if someone willing and capable of abuse shares space with someone vulnerable (adult, child, or animal), abuse is a likely outcome. This theory shifts from focusing on risk factors such as poverty and unemployment and instead elevating conditions of opportunity. For instance, the theory explains that pandemic conditions such as the victim being unable to stop the abuse, the absence of a capable and willing guardian, prolonged isolation, increased stress, and low accountability (little fear of outside detection or ramifications if abuse is detected) create opportunities for abuse regardless of socioeconomic status. This theory further proclaims that the opportunity to abuse may continue after a crisis for impacted families. In the present study, results indicate that IPV decreased after the pandemic, although abuse still occurred at elevated rates. Collectively, these findings offer support for the opportunity to abuse theory and imply that the pandemic may have produced long-term opportunities for abuse.
In summary, theoretical frameworks provide valuable insights into understanding how various factors associated with the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to an increase in IPV. By examining these implications through social disorganization theory, stress theories, feminist theory, and the opportunity to abuse theory, researchers and policymakers can better address critical issues moving forward. Given the social, political, and public health qualities of COVID-19, the development of theories at multiple stages of the crisis cycle is encouraged.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study had several limitations. First, due to the smaller number of respondents, the findings are not deemed generalizable to all victim and advocate populations. Future studies may consider multiple data collection methods, including questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. This will not only increase the sample size but also attract a broader range of participants based on comfort levels or personal circumstances. Second, as this study used a convenient sample, the results do not allow for a thorough analysis of regional differences. It is acknowledged that IPV risks and health outcomes can differ by geographical location and area type (see DuBois, 2022; Edwards, 2015). Furthermore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, local politicians adopted several management responses, ranging from full enforcement of masks and social distancing, to minimizing the virus. Therefore, it is important to examine regional and geopolitical similarities and differences.
Third, as there was a lower turnout of WOC respondents, the data may not fully capture all the adverse experiences of racial and ethnic minorities. WOC are disproportionately impacted by IPV in prevalence and severity (see Harper, 2022; Petrosky et al., 2017). It is therefore of the utmost importance that future studies prioritize the recruitment of racially representative groups to better understand their unique vulnerability to IPV before, during, and after the pandemic. Moreover, there are many barriers to participating in research for WOC, including mistrust of research goals and methods due to historical exploitation, cultural and linguistic barriers, technological limitations, and a lack of representation within the research team. Indeed, IPV researchers should seek to be inclusive, equitable, and responsive to diversity concerns (see also Tajima, 2021).
Finally, although the participation age minimum requirement of 18 allowed for a streamlined consent process and a more reliable assessment of IPV prevalence and patterns over an extended period, it also may have limited responses. For example, some research indicates that juvenile domestic violence trends (family and romantic) may have also been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (see Baglivio et al., 2022). Thus, future studies should seek to understand the individual, peer influence, and family environment factors that shaped dating and family violence outcomes among youth groups throughout the pandemic. Furthermore, LGBTQ+ youth of color, who experience a greater risk for dating violence, may have been additionally impacted by IPV during the pandemic (see The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2020). As such, future research will need to expand on the unique barriers and vulnerabilities faced by these groups, including the inability to access inclusive, culturally responsive, and affirming services.
Conclusion
Understanding of victims’ and advocates’ experiences is critically important to addressing a phenomenon as paradoxical as IPV. As policymakers have called for practical solutions that consider the complex interplay between individual, relationship, community, and societal factors of IPV, this study helps to fill that gap with evidence that there are three social climates of IPV (prepandemic, during the pandemic, and after the pandemic), each containing differing experiences for victims and advocates. This study also found promising evidence indicating that this relationship is not driven by the COVID-19 pandemic alone and that social politics and systemic issues are additionally responsible for outcomes resulting in violence against women. This further demonstrates the importance of considering recent sociopolitical movements in efforts that address IPV. Indeed, the adoption of protective measures that consider the transformed experiences of victims and advocates will be principal for future intervention and prevention efforts, as well as in the event of future emergencies, disasters, and crises.
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.
