A Short-Term Analysis of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Victim Services Following the Illinois COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Order

Introduction

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) a global pandemic. ^[1] Those working with DV victims expressed concerns about victims experiencing economic instability and increased stress due to the pandemic, as well as being in close quarters with abusers and having fewer opportunities to access help or leave. ^[2] Due to this considerable concern about how the COVID-19 pandemic may impact DV and SA victimization and victim service usage, we set out to analyze:

1. How did the volume of clients at DV and SA victim service providers change in the three months following Illinois’s stay-at-home order?
2. How did the volume of calls to DV and SA centers’ hotlines change in the three months following Illinois’s stay-at-home order?
3. Of those clients seeking DV and SA services, how did the characteristics of DV and SA offenses and offenders change in the three months following Illinois’s stay-at-home order?
4. Of those clients seeking DV and SA services, how did referral sources shift in the three months following Illinois’s stay-at-home order?
5. How did the services clients received from DV and SA center – particularly in shelter, housing, and counseling – change in the three months following Illinois’s stay-at-home order?

Literature Review

Several factors increased the risk of DV and the direness of victims’ circumstances, leading researchers and advocacy groups to issue warnings, calling on countries to expand access to safe spaces. ^[3] Housing has always been a prominent need for DV victims but may have been even more crucial for individuals at home with abusive household members during stay-at-home orders and for families who lost their ability to pay rent due to the pandemic-related rise in unemployment. ^[4] Both SA and DV victims likely also faced challenges accessing medical services (e.g., obtaining a forensic exam) and in-person counseling, as many offices temporarily closed or reduced capacity. Victims may have also experienced more mental health issues, as many people reported feeling more anxious, fearful, and economically unstable as a result of the pandemic. ^[5] Increased distress can exacerbate existing trauma-related issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, potentially prompting more victims to seek counseling and crisis services. Given the greater risks and increased stress, it is important to examine how these conditions might affect DV and SA victim service utilization in Illinois during the pandemic’s first few months.

Method

Procedure and Sample

We analyzed select data from InfoNet, a web-based, deidentified data collection and case management reporting system managed by ICJIA and used by approximately 80% of Illinois DV and SA victim service providers. InfoNet tracks the amount and type of services provided, client information and needs, information about offenses and perpetrators, and the various community education activities undertaken by providers. During the three analyzed spans (including the two pre-COVID comparison years), a total of 47,826 adult DV clients and 8,576 child DV clients received services or shelter from 70 agencies across Illinois. Additionally, 12,424 SA clients and 1,463 significant other SA clients received services, from 32 unique Illinois agencies.

Measures

Data were drawn from InfoNet. These data included counts of DV and SA clients, service contacts, service hours, and volunteers. Referral source, offense and victimization characteristic, and order of protection data were also examined. DV providers assess clients’ needs for housing services upon intake; researchers utilized these data in their analysis as well.

Data Analysis

Researchers calculated frequencies, percentages, and/or percent change for the number of DV and SA clients served, contacts, and contact hours from March 21st to June 30th, 2020 compared to the same time period in 2018 and 2019. They also examined these same descriptive statistics for DV and SA referral source, perpetrator characteristic, primary presenting issue, offense location, order of protection, and volunteer data fields. For DV clients, changes in housing and shelter needs were analyzed.

Limitations

First, impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected the quality and completeness of InfoNet data. Secondly, while these data can describe changes in service utilization and offense characteristics during the first months of the pandemic compared to recent years, they cannot explain why these changes occurred. Third, any changes observed in 2020 may be unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic and Illinois’s stay-at-home and, instead, the result of other factors. Fourth, providers are instructed to record any counseling where client and counselor can see each other face-to-face as “in-person counseling.” Thus, counseling via webcams is recorded as in-person counseling, understating the total amount of counseling provided remotely. Finally, we limited our analysis to the first three months following Illinois’s stay-at-home order, providing only a snapshot of change at the start of the pandemic.

Findings

Overall Client Numbers

The number of new DV and SA clients decreased; these included DV adult clients, DV child adults, SA victim clients, and SA significant other clients. Figure 1 shows the change in new DV client counts.

Figure 1

Total New Domestic Violence Adult and Child Clients, March 21 to June 30, 2018-2020 (n=28,402)

Similar patterns were noted among new SA clients. However, ongoing clients, those who had made their first contact prior to the period analyzed, did not experience such notable changes. The decrease in the number of ongoing DV child clients receiving services was only about half of the drop observed for new DV child clients. And the observed drops for ongoing adult DV clients, ongoing SA victim clients, and ongoing SA significant other clients was negligible.

Referral Sources

While providers can document referral information from dozens of sources, researchers focused on four referral sources with the greatest likelihood of being impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic: law enforcement, hotlines, hospitals, and legal referrals. As seen in Figure 2, for DV clients, referrals from hotlines increased, law enforcement referrals saw a small increase, and legal referrals decreased.

Figure 2

Percentage of Domestic Violence Service Provider Referrals by Three Sources, March 21 to June 30, 2018-2020 (n=12,614)

There was also a small increase in the percentage of referrals from law enforcement to SA providers. Referrals to SA providers from hospitals and helplines or hotlines increased in 2020 compared to 2018 but dropped compared to 2019. And while DV hospital referrals and SA legal sources referrals similarly fell, they comprise a relatively small portion of all referrals.

Medical Visits

The percentage of new DV clients who visited a hospital or medical center in 2020 dropped 22% from the previous year, while the percentage of new SA clients who visited a hospital or medical center remained unchanged.

Counseling

The number of DV and SA clients receiving counseling services decreased in 2020 when compared to both 2018 and 2019. However, there were negligible changes in the number of total counseling contacts and total counseling hours. Both DV and SA centers shifted towards telephone counseling during this period; the number of clients receiving telephone counseling increased, while the number of clients receiving in-person services decreased. Figure 3 shows these findings for SA counseling clients.

Figure 3

Total Sexual Assault Clients Receiving Counseling, March 21 to June 30, 2018-2020 (n=14,569)

Additionally, the length of the average telephone counseling sessions increased, growing 11 minutes for DV counseling contacts and 25 minutes for SA counseling contacts.

Hotline Calls

The number of DV hotline calls received from clients increased during the observed span in 2020, while the overall volume of SA hotline calls and DV non-client hotline calls did not notably change. As seen below in Figure 4, the share of DV hotline calls from clients compared to non-clients (i.e., survivors who had not gone through the intake process when the call was made or non-survivors calling on behalf of a victim they know) grew from 45% to 54%.

Figure 4

Percentages of Domestic Violence Hotline Calls from Clients, March 21 to June 30, 2018-2020 (n=38,643)

Additionally, the average length of both DV client and DV non-client calls remained unchanged, while the average SA hotline call length increased by 20%.

Housing Needs and Services

Changes in DV clients’ housing needs and shelter needs were negligible and the number of clients receiving housing advocacy remained unchanged in 2020 compared to recent years. While client numbers did not change, compared to 2019, the number of housing advocacy contacts increased by 35% and the number of housing advocacy hours increased by 42%. The number of clients entering shelter, whether on-site or off-site, dropped 33% in 2020 compared to the two previous years. As seen in Figure 5, how shelter was provided changed; in 2019 and 2018, 2% of shelter was off-site, but this grew to 51% in 2020.

Figure 5

Percentage of Off-Site Shelter Usage Among Clients Entering Shelter, March 21 to June 30, 2018-2020 (n=6,132)

Change in Offense and Perpetrator Characteristics

Analyses revealed that DV clients’ primary presenting issue and offender age and offender gender did not differ in 2020 from past years examined. However, a 16% rise in the percentage of DV offenses committed by other household members, compared to 2019, was observed. There negligible or inconsistent changes in SA offender gender and victim-perpetrator relationship. But perpetrators of SA offenders were 20% less likely to be minors. We also found that offenses committed in a public setting fell by 37% for DV victims and 17% for SA victims. The proportion of SA clients seeking help for child sexual assault or abuse fell from 30% in 2019 to 23% in 2020.

Orders of Protection

The number of clients seeking an order of protection fell 41% and the number of clients seeking an order of protection upgrade fell 49%.

Availability of Volunteers

In 2020, there were 49% fewer volunteers at DV agencies and 32% fewer volunteers at SA agencies, relative to 2019.

Discussion

Changes in New and Ongoing Clients

Most clients receiving services from Illinois DV and SA providers prior to Illinois’ stay-at-home order remained engaged in services and continued to call hotlines. In contrast, DV and SA providers observed a decrease in new clients and there was a drop in hotline calls from survivors who had not completed the intake process. Referral source findings may help, in part, to explain the drop, as several key institutions referred a lower proportion of clients, following the stay-at-home order. For instance, there was a decrease in the percentage of DV victims who visited a hospital or medical center for their victimization, and legal referrals dropped by more than a third. Future research should assess whether interpersonal violence increased during the pandemic and identify victim barriers to services during that time.

Shifts in Counseling

While fewer DV and SA clients received counseling services, the average length of counseling received per client increased, as did the length of the typical telephone counseling session. With the pandemic came a variety of new stressors, including fear of infection and social isolation—which carry the potential to exacerbate already considerable trauma symptoms experienced by victims of DV and/or SA. ^[6] News reports point to a rise in the need for therapy during the pandemic; ^[7] this need may partially explain the increase in the length total counseling per received client and average telephone counseling length. Such increases suggest an impact from those multiple stressors resulting directly and indirectly from the pandemic.

While in-person counseling contacts and hours decreased for both SA and DV clients, SA telephone counseling contacts rose approximately five-fold and DV contacts more than doubled. Health and safety concerns over COVID-19 combined with the state’s stay-at-home order likely led both SA and DV providers to shift from in-person to telephone counseling. Time and future quantitative research will show if the shift toward telephone counseling persists as the dangers of COVID-19 waned.

More Off-Site Shelter Use

The shift from on-site shelters to off-site shelters in Illinois was stark: the number of victims in on-site shelters fell to roughly a third of what it was in 2019, while use of off-site shelters increased fifteen-fold. This may be due in part to a policy decision made by the City of Chicago ^[8] to house DV victims and homeless individuals in unoccupied hotel rooms, rather than official shelters to decrease risk of COVID-19 exposures. We saw a notable increase in housing advocacy contacts and hours, likely due in part to the need to overcome additional barriers to securing safe shelter for victims; barriers may have included changes in accessing emergency and short-term housing, temporary on-site closure of other agencies assisting with housing needs, and less housing availability as individuals likely delayed moves.

Changes in Victimization Characteristics

COVID-19 and the state’s stay-at-home order fundamentally changed people’s public interactions and daily schedules, impacting certain victimization characteristics. For example, clients receiving services in 2020 for a SA occurring in a public area dropped by a quarter and DV offenses occurring in a public area dropped by more than a third, compared to 2019; this is consistent with what we would expect, as the stay-at-home order and other guidelines sought to limit time spent interacting in public. We also observed a drop in the proportion of sexual assaults committed by minors. As victims’ peers and acquaintances commit the largest proportion of sexual assaults against youth, ^[9] perhaps being under stay-at-home orders minimized opportunities for victimization of youth by their peers.

Reduction in Order of Protection Filings

In the months following the state’s stay-at-home order, orders of protection and plenary orders of protection decreased. COVID-19-related court system delays and closures could have presented a barrier for victims seeking an order of protection. ^[10]

Loss of Volunteers

From 2019 to 2020, the number of DV volunteers serving clients fell by half and the number of SA volunteers fell by a third. The stay-at-home order, fears of contracting COVID-19 while doing advocacy work, and the of difficulty providing training during the pandemic likely led to the decrease in volunteers observed. Future research should examine the pandemic’s long-term impact on volunteerism in the SA and DV fields and whether the decline in volunteers has affected service provision.

Conclusion

While some research points to an increase in DV incidents in the first few weeks following Illinois’s stay-at-home order, ^[11] DV service providers in this study experienced a decrease in clients over the periods examined. This suggests that victims may have had a more difficult time accessing DV services. Future research can give us a clearer picture of why these changes occurred. The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have also impacted how counseling was provided to victims during the observed time period. Many service providers engaged in more telephone counseling and less in-person counseling. This change corresponded to the national trend of telehealth, which has increased access to health care and other services during the pandemic. ^[12] Specific to DV and SA victims, future qualitative studies will need to examine the efficacy of telephone counseling, and whether the phone counseling including a video component, is as effective as that of in-person counseling.