Abstract
As COVID-19 traversed the world, public health control measures introduced to reduce the spread of the virus restricted people’s movements and confined many victim-survivors to homes with their abusers. These restrictions raised challenges for services providing support to victims of domestic and family violence (DFV) leading many to rapidly pivot to remote service delivery models. Much of the existing knowledge about victim-survivor service use during COVID-19 is based on the reflections and observations of practitioners and service providers. This article centres on the experiences and expertise of victim-survivors, using findings from an Australian study that investigated victim-survivors’ use of DFV services during lockdowns. Our exploratory survey data revealed that lockdowns created conditions in homes that made it challenging to receive support remotely with concerns about privacy looming large. At the same time, several victim-survivors reported that the widescale shift to remote service provision during lockdowns improved the accessibility of support services. Positive experiences of remote service provision during COVID-19 provide support for the retention of hybrid service models in the future to cater for diverse victim-survivor needs and communities.
Key messages
Remote delivery of services during COVID-19 dismantled long-standing barriers to services use for some victim-survivors.
Hybrid service models should be retained to cater for diverse victim-survivor needs and communities.
Substantial investment is required to establish the digital infrastructure necessary to provide hybrid service models.
Introduction
Times of crisis and disaster are associated with increased domestic and family violence (DFV) and often with reduced access to support services (Parkinson and Zara, 2013; True, 2013; Kinnvall and Rydstrom, 2019; Peterman et al, 2020). Since the first confirmed cases of COVID-19, reports of increased DFV have emerged (Pfitzner et al, 2020; 2022b; Boxall and Morgan, 2021; Piquero et al, 2020; Bagheri Lankarani et al, 2022). April 2020 forecast modelling published by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA, 2020) predicted that for every three months that lockdowns continued an additional 15 million cases of domestic violence would occur worldwide. This report revealed that in France incidents of domestic violence rose by 30 per cent from its first March 2020 lockdown; in Argentina emergency calls for domestic violence rose 25 per cent post its March 2020 lockdown; and in Cyprus and Singapore helpline calls increased 30 per cent and 33 per cent respectively (UNFPA, 2020).
In Australia, a survey of 15,000 women conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology in May 2020 during initial national lockdowns revealed that 3.4 per cent of women who were in a relationship in the 12 months prior to the pandemic reported experiencing physical violence for the first time during COVID-19 (Boxall and Morgan, 2021). For those women who had experienced violence prior to the pandemic, 41.7 per cent reported that their experiences of violence had become more frequent or severe during the pandemic (Boxall et al, 2021). Similar increases in the prevalence and severity of DFV were reported in studies with Australian DFV practitioners during this time (Foster and Fletcher, 2020; Pfitzner et al, 2020; 2022b; Carrington et al, 2021).
Innovation in DFV services systems during COVID-19
As reports about increased DFV emerged internationally following the initial COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020, services providing support to victims of DFV encountered new challenges and unprecedent demand (Pfitzner et al, 2022a; 2023). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most DFV services were based on in-person, face-to-face interactions between service providers and clients (Lee et al, 2017; Martin et al, 2020; Joshi et al, 2021; Pfitzner et al, 2023). Government imposed restrictions, particularly physical distancing and stay-at-home orders, forced many DFV services to swiftly transition to remote service delivery models. These involve using phones and digital communication technologies, such as video conferencing, chatrooms and instant messaging applications, to deliver services and interventions. The widescale adoption of digital technologies by DFV sectors internationally during COVID-19 led to some service users encountering barriers to access for the first time and amplified existing barriers for others. The digitisation of client/service provider interactions has excluded some groups of service users from accessing DFV services because they cannot afford or do not have access to the internet and/or have low levels of digital literacy (Tarzia et al, 2018; Joshi et al, 2021).
Researchers have identified many barriers to DFV service use. A growing body of DFV practitioner and service provider reflection shows that disruptions to DFV service systems during the COVID-19 pandemic created new barriers and exacerbated existing challenges to service access. Missing from this body of work is an exploration of the views and experiences of individuals affected by DFV who sought support during the COVID-19 lockdowns. There are some notable exceptions to this. In the UK, Richardson Foster et al (2022) speaking with over 70 victim-survivors about their experiences of service provision during the pandemic identified mixed outcomes for service users. A reduction in face-to-face contact was mitigated by regular communication and, while digital support was perceived as convenient by service users, failed in its capacity to build the client–practitioner relationship (Richardson Foster et al, 2022). Other research from the UK, focusing on stalking behaviours during the pandemic, reported some negative experiences for users of the criminal justice system (Bracewell et al, 2020). While not specific to the user experience of specialist DFV services, this relevant research revealed dissatisfaction with delays and limited court capacity during the pandemic.
In the context of care systems, service access is generally conceived of as multiple factors that operate on different dimensions to influence an individual’s service use (O’Penchansky and Thomas, 1981; Donnell, 2007; Peters et al, 2008). This article adopts Saurman’s (2016) six-dimensional model of access building on Penchansky and Thomas’ 1981 framework (1981). The six dimensions comprise: affordability, availability, accessibility, accommodation, acceptability (or adequacy) and awareness. Affordability refers to the direct cost to service providers and clients and focuses on the client’s perception of the worth of the service relative to the total cost including their ability to pay (Penchansky and Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Availability centres on the timeliness of service provision and whether the service provider has the requisite resources, such as personnel and technology, to meet the volume of service provision required and specific needs of clients and the community served (Penchansky and Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Accessibility considers practical factors such as venue location, proximity to public transport and travel time in determining how easily a client can reach the service provider’s location (Penchansky and Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Accommodation looks at operational aspects of service provision, such as hours of operation, client communication, and referral and appointment systems, and whether these attributes align with client preferences (Penchansky and Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Lastly, acceptability refers to a client’s comfort with ‘immutable characteristics’, of the service provider such as age, sex, ethnicity and/or religious affiliation, as well as social and cultural aspects (McLaughlin and Wyszewianski, 2002: 1,441; Penchansky and Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Service provider preferences relating to client attributes and payment options also apply here (Penchanksy and Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Finally, awareness centres on the use of a service by those in need and those who benefit from it rather than service utilisation alone (Saurman, 2016). This dimension underscores the importance of effective communication strategies. As Saurman (2016: 38) explains, awareness extends beyond knowing that a service exists, ‘it includes identifying that the service is needed, knowing whom the service is for, what it does, when it is available, where and how to use it, why the service would be used, and preserving that knowledge’.
The authors’ recent exploration of DFV practitioners’ views on the dimensions of service access felt most acutely during the COVID-19 lockdowns revealed that awareness, accessibility and to a lesser extent availability played a crucial role in DFV services use during this time (Pfitzner et al, 2023). This article explores Saurman’s dimensions of service access from the perspective of victim-survivors themselves. It examines the enablers and inhibitors to service use encountered by victim-survivors in the widescale shift towards remote service models that occurred during the Australian COVID-19 lockdowns.
Australian responses to the COVID-19 pandemic
In the early years of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns characterised the Australian response to managing the public health crisis. Initially in 2020, Australian states and territories largely sought to maintain zero COVID cases. Their elimination strategies primarily relied on periods of lockdown and other restrictions on personal freedoms and movement. Restrictions typically included working from home directives, remote online education, the closure of ‘non-essential’ business such as retail and hospitality, and ‘stay at home’ orders where individuals were only able to leave their homes for essential reasons such as grocery shopping. Other measures included social distancing, banning or restricting public gatherings outside homes, density limits indoors and mask mandates.
Like other countries, Australia implemented a national lockdown in March 2020 following the World Health Organisation declaration of COVID-19 as a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Lockdown restrictions varied between different states and territories and lasted around six weeks with restrictions beginning to ease across the country between late April and May 2020.1 In the Australian state of Victoria restrictions began to tighten again in late June 2020 and the state capital Melbourne and the regional Mitchell Shire re-entered Stage 3 restrictions on 9 July. Under Stage 3 restrictions people were required to stay at home and could only leave for four reasons: shopping for food and necessary goods, providing care, exercising and work or education if unable to do either from home. This was followed by a mask mandate and the declaration of a State of Disaster on 2 August 2020 which saw some of the world’s most stringent restrictions introduced. Adding to the Stage 3 restrictions, the Victorian Government imposed a nightly curfew from 8 pm to 5 am, limited people’s movements to a five kilometre-radius from their homes, closed all kindergarten and day care centres except for children of essential workers, restricted household shopping to one person per household per day and limited daily exercise to one-hour per person. These restrictions lasted until 28 October 2020 and saw Melbourne, achieve the unenviable status of the world’s longest cumulative lockdown extending nearly nine months from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (Vally and Bennett, 2021). During the Victorian COVID-19 lockdowns, public awareness around which services remained open, the hours of operation and how to access them via new, remote access channels became crucial to obtaining DFV support.
Method
This article presents the findings from our survey of victim-survivors who sought DFV advice or support during the lockdowns in Australia. The anonymous online survey combined a series of short demographic questions with open-ended questions. Respondents could choose to answer some or all of the survey questions which invited victim-survivors to reflect on their experiences of, and any challenges to, accessing DFV support during lockdowns, the method by which remote support was provided during lockdowns and whether that method was helpful, and what services could have done better to deliver DFV support during lockdowns.
The survey was delivered via the Qualtrics platform and ran for a six-week period during May and June 2022. Information about the study was distributed on social media outlets, through the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre network, and by providing information about the survey directly to relevant organisations. The survey was targeted at victim-survivors who sought help for DFV during COVID-19 lockdowns and utilised a self-selecting sampling method. Consequently, this exploratory study does not generalise beyond the survey sample and we note that the experiences reported here may not be representative of the broader Australian victim-survivor population. However, as discussed earlier, there is little research into victim-survivors’ lived experiences of accessing services during the pandemic and therefore the survey data offer unique insights and evidence to inform practice.
We note that surveys have been traditionally understood as a quantitative method and consequently their use in qualitative research is sometimes viewed as a limitation. While acknowledging this we also point to the increasing use of qualitative surveys for researchers seeking data on the lived experience of specific, and sometimes hard to reach, groups of people (Braun et al, 2017). As with similar research in this field (see Reeves et al, 2023), the decision to gather data using this method was made to maximise the reach of the research as well as to reduce, as much as possible, the burden for victim-survivors who wished to participate. Writing on innovative qualitative methods, Braun et al observe that qualitative surveys offer participants ‘more control over the research process’ as they can decide when they will complete the survey and significantly, given they are not in a face-to-face context, they can control the ‘“tone” of their engagement’ (Braun et al, 2017: 253). We aim to maximise victim-survivor opportunities to participate in our research and we have found qualitative surveys to be advantageous.
Ethics approval was received through the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee.
Survey participants
Our analysis is based on responses from 61 survey respondents who indicated that they sought DFV advice or support during the pandemic lockdowns. The following demographic details are calculated based on the total number of responses to each of the questions which, in some cases, was less than the total sample of 61.
Respondents lived in every Australian state and territory aside from Tasmania with the majority living in Victoria (50%, n=26). Most respondents (90%, n=54) identified their gender and sex as female with 10% (n=6) identifying as male. Just over three quarters (n=39) of the sample identified as heterosexual, 14% (n=7) as bisexual, pansexual or both, 4% (n=2) as queer and 2% (n=1) each as asexual and questioning. Nearly half the sample (46%, n=28) were aged 41 to 50 years old. Four out of five respondents spoke English only at home (82%, n=49) and just under 20 per cent of the sample (n=11) indicated that they spoke a language other than English at home. Almost one third of respondents identified as having a disability. Other characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1.
Sample characteristics
| Demographic category | Participant characteristics |
|---|---|
| Gender identity |
|
| Sexual identity |
|
| Age group |
|
| First Nations identity | Identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (12%, n=6) |
| Language spoken at home |
|
| English proficiency |
|
| Disability | 19% (n =15) identified as having a disability. |
| Type of disability |
|
| Location |
|
| Type of area resided in during lockdowns |
|
| Household type during lockdowns |
|
Survey data analysis
Qualitative survey data were thematically analysed in Excel to develop a rich description of victim-survivors’ experiences of help-seeking during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Drawing on Bazeley (2013) and Miles and Huberman (1994), we engaged in a two-stage coding process using NVivo 12. First level coding involved descriptive coding labelling passages of data with codes that summarised the data segments (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Bazeley, 2013). Second-level coding built on these summaries, refining, interpreting and grouping them into smaller analytical categories, themes or constructs (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Bazeley, 2013). This phase explored the interrelatedness of data within and across themes to construct meaningful explanations (Bazeley, 2013). This two-stage coding process is cyclical with researchers constantly moving from data to description to analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Bazeley, 2013).
Findings
Our analysis of the survey data draws on Saurman’s modified version of Penchansky and Thomas’s model of service access (2016) to explore the barriers and enablers to access encountered by victim-survivors during the COVID lockdowns in Australia. During the COVID-19 pandemic the dimensions of accessibility, accommodation, acceptability and availability have played a critical role in shaping access to DFV services. These dimensions are explored in the following discussion.
Accessibility, remote service provision and DFV victim-survivor helping-seeking during COVID-19
Accessibility, namely the practical ease, or otherwise, of accessing DFV services played a pivotal role in victim-survivors’ service use during lockdowns. For some, domestic conditions during lockdowns made remote access unsafe; for others, remote service delivery improved access to DFV support. These varied experiences of remote service provision during lockdowns are explored next.
Locked down and out from remote support
‘Lack of privacy (because schools were closed, and there is not enough space for privacy at home).’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘Finding privacy/safety in order to access it.’ (31–40 year old pansexual woman, VIC)
‘I had to leave the house to call.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual man, ACT)
‘Accessing without my perpetrator knowing. He was in the house most of the time and it was hard to escape to make a call or to take a call.’ (row 31, 51–60 year old heterosexual woman, NSW)
‘Just needed to find some private space and time where nobody else could see me.’ (51–60 year old heterosexual woman, WA).
‘The only way I was able to call [name of specialist DFV service] whilst my husband abuser and our teenage son were at home was to pretend I was speaking with a client or an organisation about a client… When I was unable to use the excuse of speaking with a client I had set up a safe comment as opposed to a safe word when I was seeking help.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC).
Four victim-survivors identified isolation during the lockdowns as a key challenge to accessing DFV support commenting that they felt ‘very isolated’ because there was ‘no family or social support’. Another victim-survivor explained that the ban on social gatherings outside of homes during lockdowns left them feeling isolated and unsafe: ‘The shutdowns of group activities made me feel isolated and extended my feelings of being unsafe for longer.’
Taken together these comments highlight the logistical challenges of accessing support remotely while locked down in homes with abusers. Strict lockdown conditions fostered a sense of isolation and left many victim-survivors feeling cut off from informal and formal support. This social isolation was compounded by the prohibitions on social visits to homes and outdoor gatherings making accessing DFV support extremely difficult.
Victim-survivors’ positive experiences with remote service models during lockdowns
‘It [telephone support] was positive and resulted in me being able to get a Violence Restraining Order.’ (51–60 year old heterosexual woman, WA).
‘The people I spoke to at 1800 RESPECT were amazing. I initially called as an act of desperation and had extremely low expectations for their ability to provide any help but they were so great. Very skilled at helping me understand my situation and think through absolutely every detail of my escape plan. It was an invaluable resource and support for me. I cannot speak highly enough of them.’ (31–40 year old pansexual woman, VIC)
‘I could receive weekly phone call support from Family Services. This saved travel time and meant that even if the kids were home, I could still have the appointment while they were occupied in a different room.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘Easier to access FV services during lockdowns because phoning them became the normal way of working with them, rather than “shame” about going to their offices.’ (51–60 year old bisexual woman, VIC)
‘I was able to apply for a protection order over the phone, without needing to go to court in person. I think it was significantly less stressful to do it that way.’ (25–30 year old bi-pansexual woman, ACT)
These experiences of these victim-survivors align with existing research on the use of online supports by women experiencing DFV in healthcare systems, which indicates that online services are not only convenient but also offer users greater control over help-seeking processes (Tarzia et al, 2018).
Accessing DFV support through non-specialist services
‘My GP [general practitioner] said they had an “open ear but were not really trained or able to help”.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘I had a GP [general practitioner] tell me he wouldn’t treat me because he did not want to be “involved” or have to write a report for police.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, QLD)
Australian research shows that victim-survivors are more likely to disclose DFV to health professionals than any other professional group (State of Victoria, 2016). It is estimated that one in three victim-survivors disclose to their GP and a full time GP will typically see five women per week who have experienced abuse in the previous 12 months (Hegarty and O’Doherty, 2011; State of Victoria, 2016). The experiences of these two respondents indicate that while health services were deemed ‘essential’ and stayed open throughout lockdown periods, some GPs were unable and/or unwilling to facilitate access to the specialist supports compounding the women’s experiences of being locked out from support in lockdown.
Accommodation: victim-survivor perceptions of remote support received during lockdowns
‘Telephone counselling was very helpful but face to face, I feel, or a Zoom call would have been preferred.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, NSW)
‘I prefer in-person therapy and this was not offered or possible.’ (41–50 year old bisexual woman, VIC)
The views and experiences of the other victim-survivors were more nuanced. Just over half of the 61 victim-survivors who sought advice or support from a DFV service during lockdowns said support and consultations provided over the phone were the most helpful remote service delivery method. Notably, six of these respondents reported that their only means of accessing support was by phone remarking that the ‘phone was helpful as it was all that was offered’.
‘If a service or personnel at a service isn’t that helpful, the delivery model isn’t going to change that. Some of the help that I did get over the phone was absolutely amazing.’ (31–40 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘Over the phone was most helpful as I had left my abuser and it was safe to talk.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, QLD)
‘Phone calls were good because they were easily accessible. If they had been video calls I would have felt more emotionally vulnerable to the support workers and therefore I would have felt I had less agency.’ (51–60 year old bisexual woman, VIC)
In contrast, another victim-survivor said that telephone support provided by private numbers caused distress because it mimicked their abuser’s behaviour. They said that ‘the phone calls from private numbers were distressing’ explaining that ‘[the] service provider would only call back on a private number. Just like my ex-partner does’. The experience of this respondent suggests that the transition to remote service delivery may have somewhat hindered the ability of support services to provide trauma-informed care.
‘Webchat was very [what felt like] automated responses that did not help at all and phone assistance was advised someone would return my call and they never did.’ (31–40 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘Difficult to convey the seriousness of my abuse via the phone.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘My kids really needed support dealing with the ongoing family violence. They suffer from trauma and my oldest boy is using violence and sexualized behaviour. Although my kids were linked in with a family services organisation for therapy, they were unable to access the therapy as in person appointments were not available and my kids wouldn’t engage via Zoom… The family violence got worse, as did the impact on my children, especially their mental health, school refusal, and violent behaviours.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
Clearly the communication preferences of the victim-survivors in this study varied. Their reflections on the utility or otherwise of telephone-based DFV services suggest that where support was delivered over the phone, it’s perceived accessibility and helpfulness largely depended on the conditions inside the home during lockdown and the skills of the practitioner delivering the services. Taken together the experiences of the victim-survivors in this study show that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to DFV support in times of crisis or otherwise is not effective. This is particularly pertinent for child victim-survivors whose needs are often overlooked by the largely adult-centred DFV service system in Australia (Meyer and Fitz-Gibbon, 2022; Richardson Foster et al, 2022).
Acceptability: diverse victim-survivor communities and persistent DFV service gaps
‘I wasn’t believed. It was all negative. There was no follow through or actual assistance – the workers seemed sick of hearing from me when I tried to follow up.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual man, ACT)
‘People thought I was lying but couldn’t say why and refused to accept any evidence.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual man, QLD)
‘Phone services were useless – they heard the story, acknowledged it was all too common (for men experiencing family violence as the impacted party) but were helpless to provide solutions.’ (60 plus year old heterosexual man, QLD)
The experiences of these men reflect gaps in the state and territory DFV service systems in Australia which largely reflect a heterosexual understanding of domestic violence which see cisgender heterosexual women as victims and cisgender heterosexual men as perpetrators (Ball and Hayes, 2009; Campo and Tayton, 2015; Commonwealth of Australia, 2021).
‘They didn’t want me to text they wanted me to ring. I said “I am Deaf” and they then said text Deaf organisation instead… Family Violence organisation need Interpreters or Deaf Counsellors. It’s hard for Deaf women to get help to leave violence.’ (51–60 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
The negative impact on access to safety and support when women with disabilities are referred back and forth between DFV and disability services is well evidenced in disability and DFV research (Maher et al, 2018). Women’s safety can be severely compromised if disability services are not DFV informed and conversely women’s needs related to disability such as carers or other aids may not be appreciated by a DFV service (Maher et al, 2018).
‘The service was not appropriate for our needs – they were not culturally sensitive or equipped to support people experiencing violence from their family of origin.’ (25–30 year old queer woman, VIC)
‘Family of origin’ violence refers to the violence that LGBTQIA+ people may encounter from their biological or adoptive family that may or may not be connected to their sexual orientation or gender expression. Research and literature on these forms of violence is scarce and it has been noted that this abuse is often not defined as DFV (Carmen et al, 2020). Prior to the pandemic, the paucity of specialist DFV services for victim-survivors from diverse groups, such as LGBTQIA+ people and people with disability, came under scrutiny and apparently this services gap was felt acutely during the pandemic (Commonwealth of Australia, 2021).
Availability: bearing the brunt of the ‘shadow pandemic’
Availability, particularly adequate personnel and infrastructure resources – played a critical role in shaping victim-survivors’ access to DFV support during lockdowns. Victim-survivors’ help-seeking experiences during lockdowns illustrate the challenges faced by a sector strained by years of funding insecurity, staff shortages and bare-bones infrastructure.
‘There were too many people asking for help and limited resources to help.’ (51–60 year old pansexual woman, VIC)
‘I think the challenge is related to the volume of victims, limiting accessibility.’ (51–60 year old heterosexual woman, ACT)
‘Communications were difficult as there were high numbers of people seeking services.’ (18–24 year old heterosexual woman, NSW)
‘The case worker was unresponsive for long periods (a week at a time) which was problematic.’ (25–30 year old queer woman, VIC)
‘Playing phone tag. The uncertainty of support workers working hours.’ (41–50 year old woman, sexuality and location not provided)
‘Not always talking to/dealing with the same person can be hard.’ (51–60 year old heterosexual woman, ACT)
‘I believe that the services were doing the best they could with the available resources. I believe the issue is the lack of funding from government.’ (51–60 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
They did pretty well but they need more people to answer phone.’ (51–60 years, heterosexual woman, WA)
‘They needed more funding and they need to be able to provide more and ensure that people do not have to wait. More government support is needed. It is not the services’ fault they could not keep up with demand.’ (51–60 year old pansexual woman, VIC)
‘Most organisations did not have things like Zoom set up during the first part of COVID.’ (51–60 year old pansexual woman, VIC)
‘Ensuring that text or chat options are readily available.’ (31–40 year old heterosexual woman, QLD)
‘Services needed to be open.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘Still open door, like an emergency hospital or police station. When you are in danger and you have to leave and have NO where else to go for help, I needed that… you are with someone trained to help direct you when in a crisis.’ (31–40 year old heterosexual woman, QLD)
‘It [support provided during lockdown] was basically a referral to several different services. I found it difficult and overwhelming to then contact various other agencies (safe steps, Centrelink, psychologist). I never did.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘Big hurdles were number of places I was expected to contact, feeling overwhelmed, I found it extremely difficult to talk about my situation once let alone several times.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
‘Actually follow through with promised support instead of handing me over to person after person and making me re-tell my story.’ (41–50 year old pansexual woman, VIC)
‘One contact who could provide immediate hands-on support (for example making appointments, having an expert who is able to assist and explain how for example Centrelink could help in my specific situation). Not having to fear the prospect of repeating details about my situation every time I contacted a service or talked to someone.’ (41–50 year old heterosexual woman, VIC)
The experiences of the victim-survivors in this study indicate that the volume of service provision encountered by the Australian DFV sector during lockdowns significantly hampered the timeliness of service provision and the continuity of care provided to those seeking DFV support. In particular, a lack of digital infrastructure in the early days of the pandemic and ineffective information sharing negatively impacted service users’ experiences.
Discussion and implications for future crises
The experiences of victim-survivors who sought DFV support during the Australian lockdowns in this study generated mixed narratives about remote service provision. The rapid, large-scale shift to remote service provision and use of digital communication technologies improved access to DFV services for some previously under-serviced groups while decreasing access for some previously well-serviced clients. The experiences of several victim-survivors in this study tell a story about service accessibility (or lack thereof) that clearly demonstrates how lockdowns created conditions in homes that left many victim-survivors feeling locked out from formal and informal DFV support.
Simultaneously the incorporation of digital interfaces in DFV service delivery improved access for other victim-survivors. Remote service models have removed well documented geographic, logistical and operational access barriers encountered by clients living in rural and remote areas and those with mobility disabilities, providing them with greater access to specialised DFV services. Further to overcoming these longstanding barriers, this study indicates that the availability of remote DFV support during lockdowns enhanced the psychological accessibility of DFV services for some victim-survivors by creating a non-stigmatising entry point (see Weeks, 2004; Pfitzner et al, 2017). Psychological accessibility, that is individuals’ perceptions of the service delivery environment shaped by social and cultural attitudes, is a concern for DFV services due to long-standing social stigmatisation (Weeks, 2004; Pfitzner et al, 2017).
This study also highlights the importance of cross-sector collaboration and integrated responses to DFV. The findings indicate that health services could be better utilised as a pathway to specialised DFV support during crises. Outside of friends and family, health professionals are preferred sites for DFV disclosures, and they can act as a key site of referral into specialised support services (State of Victoria, 2016). While targeted training has been delivered to universal health services in some Australian states and territories, and health services remained open during lockdowns, the experiences of two victim-survivors in this study indicate that there is still more work to be done. International evidence has shown that when healthcare providers know about and are connected to specialist DFV services they are more likely to both identify and ask patients about experiences of DFV (García-Moreno et al, 2014: 1569).
Availability, specifically resourcing for staff and infrastructure, was key to victim-survivors’ ability to access support during lockdowns. While the participants in this study highlighted wait times and delays, many also acknowledged that the sector was facing an unprecedented period of demand. In the early days of the lockdowns, the requirement to interact with multiple workers, ineffective information sharing and a lack of digital infrastructure adversely impacted the continuity of care provided to victim-survivors seeking support. It is clear that the pandemic placed immense strain on a sector already stretched by long periods of underfunding and staff insecurity. In addition, survey participants criticised DFV services for not being open and available. This was due to the Victorian government’s categorisation of these services as ‘non-essential services’ and demonstrates the critical need for DFV services to be a central pillar in disaster response, management and recovery strategies.
Individual victim-survivor preferences for different modes of communication with support services, whether over the phone, via video calls, text messaging or in-person, significantly shaped their experiences and views on remote service provision underscoring the centrality of accommodation as a dimension of service use. To ensure DFV services are truly accessible, providers need to offer a range of service engagement options that respond to individual needs and preferences. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many DFV services lacked the financial resources to establish the digital infrastructure necessary to provide remote and/or hybrid service delivery models. From a strategic planning perspective, the rapid pivot to remote service provision lacked the required infrastructure and investment. This and other research investigating the impact of COVID-19 on DFV help-seeking and support (Richardson Foster et al, 2022) provide clear evidence of the need for sustained investment in DFV sectors and workforces to enhance the capacity of DFV services to nimbly meet the needs of the communities they serve during crises and beyond.
Note
Storen, R. and Corrigan, N. (2020). COVID-19: A chronology of state and territory government announcements (up until 30 June 2020). Research paper series 2020–2021. Department of Parliamentary Services. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/7614514/upload_binary/7614514.pdf
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Bagheri Lankarani, K., Hemyari, C., Honarvar, B. et al. (2022) Domestic violence and associated factors during COVID-19 epidemic: an online population-based study in Iran, BMC Public Health, 22(774). doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12536-y
Ball, M. and Hayes, S. (2009) Same-sex intimate partner violence: exploring the parameters, in B. Scherer (ed) Queering Paradigms, New York: Peter Lang, pp 161–77.
Bazeley, P. (2013) Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boxall, H. and Morgan, A. (2021) Intimate Partner Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Women in Australia, ANROWS (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety) Research report, 03/2021), Sydney: ANROWS.
Bracewell, K., Hargreaves, P. and Stanley, N. (2020) The consequences of the Covid-19 lockdown on stalking victimisation, Journal of Family Violence, 37(6): 951–57. doi: 10.1007/s10896-020-00201-0
Braun, V., Clarke, V. and Gray, D. (2017) Innovations in qualitative methods, in B. Gough (ed) The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Social Psychology, Basingstoke: Palgrave Handbooks, pp 243–66. doi: 10.1057/978-1-137-51018-1_13
Campo, M. and Tayton, S. (2015) Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Intersex and Queer Communities, Melbourne, VIC: Child Family Community Australia.
Carmen, M., Fairchild, J., Parsons, M., Farrugia, C., Power, J. and Bourne, A. (2020) Pride in prevention: a guide to primary prevention of family violence experienced by LGBTIQ communities, Rainbow Health Victoria, https://ltu-figshare-repo.s3.aarnet.edu.au/ltu-figshare-repo/29088549/PrideinPreventionEvidenceGuide.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=RADjuIEnIStOwNiA&Expires=1668499371&Signature=BsX%2Bv5AQJozoQtBb6mFSezy2jOg%3D.
Carrington, K., Morley, C., Warren, S., Ryan, V., Ball, M., Clarke, J. and Vitis, L. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Australian domestic and family violence services and their clients, The Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(4): 539–58. doi: 10.1002/ajs4.183
Commonwealth of Australia (2021) House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs: Inquiry Into Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Foster, H. and Fletcher, A. (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on Women and Children Experiencing Domestic and Family Violence and Frontline Domestic and Family Violence Services. Summary Report, Surry Hills, NSW: Women’s Safety NSW.
García-Moreno, C., Hegarty, K., d’Oliveira, A.F.L., Koziol-MacLain, J., Colombini, M. and Feder, G. (2014) The health-systems response to violence against women, The Lancet, 385(9977): 1567–79.
Hegarty, K. and O’Doherty, L. (2011) Intimate partner violence: identification and response in general practice, Australian Family Physician, 40(11): 852–56.
Joshi, A., Paterson, N., Hinkley, T. and Joss, N. (2021) The Use of Telepractice in the Family and Relationship Services Sector (CFCA Paper 57), Melbourne, VIC: Australian Institute of Family Studies, https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/2104_cfca_57_the_use_of_telepractice_in_the_family_and_relationship_services_sector_0.pdf.
Kinnvall, C. and Rydstrom, H. (eds) (2019) Climate Hazards, Disasters, and Gender Ramifications, Routledge Series in Hazards, Disaster Risk and Climate Change, New York: Routledge.
Lee, J., Flint, J. and McIntosh, J. (2017) E-screening to connect the dots on risks to family wellbeing: A literature review, Paper presented at the Family & Relationship Services Australia National Conference, 1 December, http://frsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/FFRSA-conference-ejournal-4.pdf.
Maher, J.M., Spivakovsky, C., McCulloch, J., McGowan, J., Beavis, K., Lea, M., Cadwallader, J. and Sands, T. (2018) Women, Disability and Violence: Barriers to Accessing Justice, Final report, ANROWS (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety) Horizons, 02/2018, Sydney: ANROWS.
Mandara, M., Wendt, S., McLaren, H., Jones, M., Dunk-West, P. and Seymour, K. (2021) First contact social work: responding to domestic and family violence, Australian Social Work. doi: 10.1080/0312407x.2021.1977969
Martin, J., McBride, T., Masterman, T., Pote, I., Mokhtar, N., Oprea, E. and Sorgenfrei, M. (2020) Covid-19 and Early Intervention Evidence, Challenges and Risks Relating to Virtual and Digital Delivery, London: Early Intervention Foundation, https://www.eif.org.uk/report/covid-19-and-early-intervention-evidence-challenges-and-risks-relating-to-virtual-and-digital-delivery.
McLaughlin, C.G. and Wyszewianski, L. (2002) Access to care: remembering old lessons, Health Services Research, 37(6): 1441–3. doi: 10. 1111/1475-6773.12171
Meyer, S. and Fitz-Gibbon, K. (2022) To end gender-based violence in one generation, we must fix how the system responds to children and young people, The Conversation, 20 October, https://theconversation.com/to-end-gender-based-violence-in-one-generation-we-must-fix-how-the-system-responds-to-children-and-young-people-192839.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, M.A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
O’Donnell, O. (2007) Access to health care in developing countries: breaking down demand side barriers, Cadernos De Saúde Pública, 23(12): 2820–34. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2007001200003
Onyango, M. and Regan, A. (2020) Sexual and Gender-Based Violence during COVID-19: Lessons from Ebola, The Conversation, 10 May, https://the conversation.com/sexual-and-gender-based-violence-during-covid-19-lessons-from-ebola-137541.
Parkinson, D. and Zara, C. (2013) The hidden disaster: domestic violence in the aftermath of natural disaster, The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(2): 28–35.
Penchansky, R. and Thomas, J.W. (1981) The concept of access: definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction, Medical Care, 19(2): 127–40. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001
Peterman, A., Potts, A., O’Donnell, M., Thompson, K., Shah, N., Oertelt- Prigione, S. and van Gelder, N. (2020) Pandemics and violence against women and children, Working Paper 528, https://www.cgdev.org/publication/ pandemics-and-violence-against-women-and-children.
Peters, D.H., Garg, A., Bloom, G., Walker, D.G., Brieger, W.R. and Hafizur Rahman, M. (2008) Poverty and access to health care in developing countries, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136(1): 161–71. doi: 10.1196/annals.1425.011
Pfitzner, N., Fitz-Gibbon, K. and Meyer, S. (2022a) Responding to women experiencing domestic and family violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: exploring experiences and impacts of remote service delivery in Australia, Child & Family Social Work, 27: 30–40. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12870
Pfitzner, N., Fitz-Gibbon, K. and True, J. (2020) Responding to the ‘Shadow Pandemic’: Practitioner Views on the Nature of and Responses to Violence Against Women in Victoria, Australia during the COVID-19 Restrictions, Melbourne, VIC: Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Monash University.
Pfitzner, N., Fitz-Gibbon, K. and True, J. (2022b) When staying home isn’t safe: Australian practitioner experiences of responding to intimate partner violence during COVID-19 restrictions, Journal of Gender-Based Violence. doi: 10.1332/239868021x16420024310873
Pfitzner, N., Fitz-Gibbon, K., Walklate, S., Meyer, S. and Segrave, M. (2023) Violence Against Women During Coronavirus, New York: Springer Nature. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-29356-6
Pfitzner, N., Humphreys, C. and Hegarty, K. (2017) Research review. Engaging men: a multi-level model to support father engagement, Child & Family Social Work, 22(1): 537–47. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12250
Piquero, A.R., Riddell, J.R., Bishopp, S.A. et al. (2020) Staying home, staying safe? A short-term analysis of COVID-19 on Dallas domestic violence, American Journal of Criminal Justice. doi: 10.1007/s12103-020-09531-7
Reeves, E., McGowan, J. and Scott, B. (2023) ‘It was dangerous, corrosive and cruel but not illegal’: legal help-seeking behaviours amongst LGBTQA+ domestic and family violence victim-survivors experiencing coercive control in Australia, Journal of Family Violence. doi: 10.1007/s10896-023-00569-9
Richardson Foster, H., Bracewell, K., Farrelly, N., Barter, C., Chantler, K., Howarth, E. and Stanley, N. (2022) Experience of specialist DVA provision under COVID-19: listening to service user voices to shape future practice, Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 6(3): 409–25. doi: 10.1332/239868021x16442400262389
Saurman, E. (2016) Improving access, Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 21(1): 36–39. doi: 10.1177/1355819615600001
State of Victoria (2016) Report and Recommendations, Melbourne, VIC: Royal Commission into Family Violence.
Storen, R. and Corrigan, N. (2020) COVID-19: a chronology of state and territory government announcements (up until 30 June 2020) (Research paper series 2020–2021). Department of Parliamentary Services, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/7614514/upload_binar y/7614514.pdf.
Tarzia, L., Cornelio, R., Forsdike, K. and Hegarty, K. (2018) Women’s experiences receiving support online for intimate partner violence: how does it compare to face-to-face support from a health professional?, Interacting with Computers, 30(5): 433–43. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwy019
True, J. (2013) Gendered violence in natural disasters: learning from New Orleans, Haiti and Christchurch, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 25(2): 78–89. doi: 10.11157/anzswj-vol25iss2id83
UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) (2020) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family planning and ending gender-based violence, female genital mutilation and child marriage, 27 April, Interim Technical Notes, https://www. unfpa.org/resources/impact-covid-19-pandemic-family-planning-and-ending-gender-based-violence-female-genital.
UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute) (2015) The Impacts of the Crisis on Gender Equality and Women’s Wellbeing in EU Mediterranean Countries, Turin: UNICRI, https://docs.euromedwomen.foundation/files/ermwf-documents/8147_4.222.theimpactsofthecrisisongender equalityandwomen%E2%80%99swellbeingintheeumediterraneancountries.pdf.
Vally, H. and Bennett, C. (2021) COVID in Victoria: 262 days in lockdown, 3 stunning successes and 4 avoidable failures, The Conversation, 17 December, https://theconversation.com/covid-in-victoria-262-days-in-lockdown-3-stunning-successes-and-4-avoidable-failures-172408.
Weeks, W. (2004) Creating attractive services which citizens want to attend, Australian Social Work, 57(4): 319–30. doi: 10.1111/j.0312-407X.2004.00162.x
Wendt, S., Natalier, K., Seymour, K., King, D. and Macaitis, K. (2020) Strengthening the Domestic and Family Violence Workforce: key questions, Australian Social Work, 73(2): 236–44. doi: 10.1080/0312407x.2019.1638429
