Practitioner Experiences with Domestic and Family Violence in COVID‐19

Abstract

The advent of COVID‐19 as a global public health crisis in 2020 was quickly followed by predictions regarding likely increases in occurrences of domestic and family violence (DFV). The aim of this study was to understand the impact of the pandemic on practitioner experiences of DFV in one service organisation in New South Wales, Australia. Qualitative focus group interviews were performed with senior practitioners at Relationships Australia (NSW), and a grounded theory approach was employed in formulation of a perspective which highlighted social isolation under public health management social distancing measures as that which distinguished practitioner experiences of DFV during COVID‐19. Social isolation was conceived as the overarching factor across categorisations of practitioner responses, including: (a) situations of client domestic relations; (b) client general life circumstances; (c) emerging client self‐awareness; (d) organisational and social systems changes; and (e) necessary work practice changes. Organisational and workplace recommendations address the relative difference of pandemic management measures from natural disaster occurrences, with respect to supporting people experiencing DFV.

Key Points.

1. Implications of COVID‐19 with respect to domestic and family violence (DFV) are explored for workers in a community services organisation through qualitative research using focus groups.

2. Social isolation is a key distinguishing factor between COVID‐19 and natural disasters.

3. Forced proximity in domestic and family situations due to pandemic management like lockdowns was observed to highlight prior issues for clients and coercive control.

4. While people had more need to reach out to seek support for DFV, services were less immediately available for vulnerable community members.

5. Organisations working with DFV can address social isolation factors in relation to COVID‐19 through resourcing telepractice and supporting the psychosocial as well as supervision needs of practitioners.

Preliminary research on natural disasters, including research on Cyclone Yasi (Barrett et al., 2014), Hurricane Katrina (Anastario, Shehab, & Lawry, 2009; Harville et al., 2011), the earthquake in Haiti (Kolbe et al., 2010), and 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria (Bryant et al., 2014; Parkinson, 2019) reveal significant increases in reports of domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault during these times. Illness associated with previous pandemics has also been shown to be linked to increased reporting of domestic violence, such as with HIV/AIDS (Rigby & Johnson, 2017). With respect to gender‐specific vulnerabilities, these incidents particularly impact women (Kolbe et al., 2010; Schumacher et al., 2010; Sety, 2012) and children (Biswas et al., 2010).

Post‐disaster analyses predict that increased stresses associated with fractured community infrastructure and diminished access to resources function as part of the overall conditions which precipitate the general increase in interpersonal violence (Lauve‐Moon & Ferreira, 2017), including domestic and family violence (DFV) (Parkinson & Zara, 2013; Xu et al., 2016). In research on the 2009 Victorian bushfires in Australia, experiences of violence were higher in high bushfire‐affected regions compared to those in low‐bushfire affected regions (Molyneaux et al., 2019). Whether for acute ‘one‐off’ natural disasters or longer pandemic situations such as COVID‐19, there remains a relative paucity of data to inform early intervention and prevention of disaster‐related DFV (Parkinson et al., 2011).

For the purposes of this paper, the DFV is situated in an Australian context to refer to acts of violence occurring between individuals in intimate relationships or family relationships, in domestic settings (Mitchell, 2011). Such acts may include physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological forms of abuse. Unless otherwise stated, DFV is used as an umbrella term to include intimate partner violence (IPV), violence that occurs within known familial relations (e.g., elder abuse, parental abuse, and adolescent/child abuse), violence that occurs between caring relations even if un‐related (e.g., carer abuse), and violence that occurs between domestic relations (whether or not these are recognised as ‘family’, e.g., housemates).

From the beginning of the global spread of COVID‐19 in early 2020, there were increased reports of DFV around the world (Payne, Morgan, & Piquero, 2022), which were associated with implementation of mandatory lockdowns. Anurudran et al. (2020) described this as a problem with the ‘“stay at home” mantra,’ which addressed one public health need (the need for physical distancing between people to prevent transmission of airborne COVID‐19) while exacerbating the conditions that may give rise to other public health and criminological problems (e.g., those who are victimised by DFV remaining trapped at home with abuser/s). In March/April 2020, early in the spread of COVID‐19 in Australia, initially there was little to no indication of increased reports of DFV in New South Wales (NSW) (Freeman, 2020; Payne, Morgan, & Piquero, 2022). However, an online survey of 15,000 Australian women by the Australian Institute of Criminology in May 2020 indicated that consistent with overseas patterns, there was some increase in specific experiences of gender‐based violence in Australia:

… 54.8 percent of women who experienced coercive control from a current or former cohabiting partner in the three months prior to the survey said either that they had experienced emotionally abusive, harassing or controlling behaviour by that partner for the first time, or that the abuse had escalated since February 2020. (Boxall, Morgan, & Brown, 2020, p. 12)

Where many natural disasters occur as ‘one‐off’ events and are thus visible and time‐limited, by contrast, pandemics such as COVID‐19 are invisible, and people are required to act differently without immediate evidence of anything having changed dramatically in their environments. Social network approaches to examining the occurrence of DFV in the context of natural disasters speak to the necessity of whole community responses to the disaster, which assist both practitioners and clients in reducing the impact of the event on their lives and thus mitigating possible development of DFV (Breckenridge & James, 2012).

Research literature also describes processes of social ‘debonding’ during natural disasters in the context of profound interruption to the continuity of everyday life (Gordon, 1991, 2004), with significant consequences for the social fabric of society, which may also impact on the capacity of practitioners to respond to DFV. The aim of this project was to explore practitioner experiences with DFV during COVID‐19, to understand in what way the pandemic conditions may differ from conditions associated with natural disasters as described in previous literature, in order to inform any necessary changes to practice, organisational policy, and service planning. The organisation in question was a mainstream generalist service provider, which had an organisation‐wide commitment to family safety but was also not a direct first responder service for DFV, such as a call centre service, or DFV specialist counselling service.

Method

Procedure

Ethics approval was obtained and sought for this project from the Relationships Australia (NSW) Human Research Ethics Committee. Three focus group interviews were conducted internally by Relationships Australia (NSW) researchers with Relationships Australia (NSW) staff, to survey the perspectives and professional experiences of team leader practitioners across different services. The different services included counselling (Counselling) (seven practitioners), family dispute resolution (FDR) (10 practitioners), and relationship education programs (REP) (four practitioners). All three focus group interviews were conducted over Microsoft Teams, during a time where social distancing recommendations were active, and lasted approximately one hour each, in October and November 2020.

Data were recorded within Microsoft Teams, and the transcripts produced by Microsoft Teams were stored on secure servers and utilised as the basis for the analysis and coding that followed. An interview guide was used for the discussions, with later questions eliminated where the topic had largely already been addressed in process. The questions were as follows:

1. What (if any) are the positive effects of the virus/lockdown that you have noticed for practitioners or service recipients in work with clients and community?

2. What are some of the problems associated with social isolation and lockdown that you have observed for practitioners or service recipients in your work with clients and community?

3. In what ways are the restrictions impacting on relationships?

4. Which relationships are most affected and in what ways?

5. Have you noticed any increase in DFV?

6. Have you noticed any particular changes in the dynamics of DFV being presented?

7. In relation to ongoing clients who commenced prior to COVID‐19, what has been the impact on their relationships of the lockdown or isolation?

8. Which DFV behaviours were most evident? For example, physical abuse? Coercive control?

Researcher positioning statements

The first researcher has a background in health promotion and epidemiology in the prevention and treatment of blood‐borne viruses (HIV and viral hepatitis), and a qualitative research background in trauma‐informed approaches to DFV interventions. The second researcher comes from a background investigating the limits of quantitative research methods, and is a registered psychologist in practice, with a psychodynamic‐constructivist orientation. Social network theory (Kadushin, 2012) strongly informs the way that we as researchers conceptualise the situation that may be present for individuals experiencing DFV and the practitioners who support them. Social network theory also underpins a family safety framework which has been implemented across all services at the state‐based organisation, and can be understood to underpin practice approaches, which are relevant to all services listed above. In social network theory social structures are conceptualised in link and node relationships, with social actors cast as nodes, and information flows occurring in the relational link.

Data analysis

Coding and qualitative analysis was conducted under a general inductive approach (Thomas, 2006), using a trustworthiness matrix custom developed internally for use in community services environments, to support integrity of project findings (Connelly, 2016; Shenton, 2004). The two researchers independently coded the data adopting inductive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The steps included:

1. Contextualising the data – researchers read through each transcript several times.

2. Open coding – data were broken down into ‘units,’ such as phrases, words, and sentence clusters that could each represent discrete concepts being expressed by the focus group interviewee. Coding occurred according to themes that emerged (i.e. not necessarily according to questions).

3. Categorisation – units were then additionally labelled with ‘categories’ or codes created by the researchers, which retained the words and language of the participants as much as possible.

4. Hierarchy for categories – categories created through the process of open coding were subsequently examined and appraised for their similarities, differences, and relationships. These were then re‐formed into higher‐level or sub‐categories/themes, based on identified and emergent relationships with other identified subjects.

5. Completion of coding – coding was complete once categories had been thematically or theoretically ‘saturated,’ with each category identified as both discrete enough from other categories to be understood as a unique thematic unit, as well as related enough to overall themes to be identified as discursively relevant to our research questions.

Data collation and analysis were based on grounded theory methodology, as first described by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Grounded theory is primarily concerned with how meaning is constructed through the process of social interactions, and then acted on through a dynamic process of contextually contingent interpretations (Chenitz & Swanson, 1986). Grounded theory assumes researchers own reflexive involvement with the process of interpreting data is part of the object of research, and that it is important to consider these as part of ongoing data analysis, including, for example, making transparent any researcher biases and emergent interpretations through the process of conducting research.

Additionally, if any subject was disclosed and interpreted to be salient to the context of our research, it was included in our analysis, even if it was not mentioned by many practitioners (e.g., child self‐harm, which was mentioned by one participant). Throughout data analysis, researchers engaged in ongoing dialogue with one another, with a log of evolving notes and memos, to sketch emergent ideas, insights, patterns, and theoretical understandings.

Establishing trustworthiness

The position on trustworthiness here follows Lincoln and Guba (1986), with themes of credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability, and authenticity. Credibility is supported by a debriefing process engaged both with peers and with participants, regarding the interpretation of findings by researchers. Following the initial generation of themes, debriefing with a broader research team was conducted, and this was followed by confirmation undertaken with interview participants utilising synthesised member checking (Birt et al., 2016) as a technique to gain insights about whether our themes were consistent with participant experiences. Throughout the study, an audit trail was maintained for data, including collection and analysis, contact listings, transcripts, observation notes, memos, categories, visualisation documents, and other notes used in data analysis, to support dependability. Notes exploring researcher assumptions, preconceptions, and impressions particularly as discussed in the researcher debriefing meetings helped to mitigate bias, and researcher position statements are included above to address confirmability. In terms of transferability, we have included details about the setting of the study. There is not an expectation that the findings of this study would transfer to situations beyond the one represented in this account. In terms of authenticity, please see the discussion section, to answer the question of whether this study achieved what it set out to achieve.

Results

Several major themes were identified regarding observed changes in (a) client domestic and intimate relations; (b) client general life circumstances; (c) client self‐insight; (d) organisational and systemic issues; and (e) work practice on the ground. In addressing these themes below, the sections will also reflect any overlap with and/or deviations from the research literature on the subject.

Clients domestic and intimate relations

In respect of DFV, Peterman et al. (2020) note reports of perpetrators using broader circumstances and anxieties concerning COVID‐19 as interpersonal abuse. For example, perpetrators may withhold or threaten to withhold safety items, such as hand sanitisers, disinfectant, soap, and protective masks in behaviours driven by a need for control. Additionally, some may foster paranoia around danger and futility for victim‐survivors of leaving due to broader lockdown restrictions (Gearin & Knight, 2020). In our reports from practitioners, we noted the following, extending to include reflections on domestic relationships as well as DFV.

Forced proximity

The most frequent observation of all three focus groups was forced proximity for domestic and family relations due to lockdowns and other pandemic management.

These included:

Prior issues becoming increasingly obvious

One observation was ‘the pressure point for a lot of things that had perhaps limped along all of a sudden become glaringly obvious’ in the context of inescapable lockdown (Counselling Team Leader). Another observation was of relationships that previously had been ‘managing reasonably well but [which may have] had minor fractures … [would soon find that these] fractures [would] then become crevices with the lockdown, because they didn't get [any] respite from each other.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Increase in coercive control

Forced proximity was observed to, in general, have increased the possibility for intimate partners and other domestic and family relations to instigate or enact coercive behaviours of ‘control, monitor[ing], and influence on life’ (REP Team Leader). As for those who may have been ready to leave, lockdown has meant that ‘they cannot separate effectively,’ that their ‘process [of leaving] has put on hold’ while there has been associated increases in ‘toxic complexity.’ (FDR Team Leader)

New dynamics of dependence

One counselling team leader observed that there were increasing instances of elderly clients caring for adult children coming back to live at home for financial reasons.

Forced separation

Another frequent observation was forced separation, with topics including:

Parent–child separation

‘… in some parents there was withholding a [dependent] child, the reason being COVID‐19 and the other parents stress and anxiety around that was not great’ (FDR Team Leader). Also ‘a client population where the access to their children through supervised access is been really affected because of lockdown and they really are suffering and struggling.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Separation from parents/adult children

One team leader observed the pain of the forced separation, circumstantially, of a ‘couple who in their 50s’ whose children ‘have grown and left home,’ and which then led to their ‘relationships deteriorate[ing].’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Differing needs/boundaries in managing COVID‐19

Related to issues around dynamics of control were differing client needs/boundaries in managing COVID‐19, significantly observed by counselling team leaders. This is defined as ‘tension and associated conflict in families where someone might be more conscientious about COVID‐19 and someone else isnt.’ (Counselling Team Leader). Features here included:

Intimate partner conflict

In the case of one heterosexual couple, ‘he’s been really reckless in not wearing a mask going out in public, and she feels very at risk of picking up COVID.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Post‐separation conflict re: access to children

Where there is a difference of opinion about how to approach COVID‐19 that involves the children and access weekends. (Counselling Team Leader)

Clients general life circumstances

Global research literature notes disproportionate economic and social impacts of COVID‐19 on marginalised people (Friel & Demaio, 2020). For example, loss of household income can lead to reduced discretionary spending, compromising nutritional needs for children, an inability to meet financial commitments for rent or mortgage repayments, and resulting homelessness and increased pressure on emergency accommodation resources (Hurd & Rohwedder, 2010). Loss of financial independence from reduced employment, entrenchment, and other economic stresses impact on the rates of DFV in communities (Broman et al., 1997; Davies et al., 2020). The following themes were of note:

Work and financial health

Pertaining specifically to DFV risks, two comments stand out:

Fear of leaving abuse situation

‘the victim has actually quite categorically said no. I will stay because to live with the COVID‐19 insecurity and lack of financial support is worse than if I stay.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Parent‐to‐child violence

One team leader gave the example of a male client who experienced ‘strain of losing his job and being at home all the time. With kids there all the time who werent at school themselves which was tragically associated with an increase in parent to child violence [in the] frustration around that.’ (REP Team Leader)

Social isolation

General lockdown circumstances, along with lack of opportunities to connect with recreational or face‐to‐face community services meant increasing social isolation was prevalent during the height of pandemic management strategies. Pertaining to COVID‐19 management, there is a strong correlation between the imposition of social distancing restrictions on populations and an increase in DFV incidents (Perez‐Vincent et al., 2020). Social isolation is named in some studies as directly implicated in the increase in violence against women and girls, even in the absence of any explicitly named disease‐related stresses (Devries et al., 2013; Peterman et al., 2020). In the context of this study, this was particularly observed by counselling team leaders. These included issues such as:

Loss of friendship support

‘lots of support groups and friendship groups [stopped] which may have been fragile in the first place … not reconnecting because they cant do it in the same way, especially if they were using pubs and clubs.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Disconnection of young people from peers

These included young people whose experiences with school and university would have been disrupted, thus impacting on ‘relationships with their peers.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Living alone

Adults who dont have adult children and live at home alone. (Counselling Team Leader)

Loved ones in aged care

‘loved ones in aged care facilities is really a big pressure. One client hasnt seen her mother for three months and shes actually quite unwell. And she feels that she might pass away before she gets to see her.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Mental health

There is extensive literature on the impacts of physical distancing from COVID‐19 management measures on physical and mental health, with implications expected for years to come across populations (Brooks et al., 2020; Fitzgerald et al., 2020; Van Rheenen et al., 2020). For example, perceived experiences of loneliness can increase the likelihood of extended depression and Alzheimers disease, among other conditions (Bzdok & Dunbar, 2020). All associated stressors from quarantine and social isolation can significantly increase the risk of DFV (van Gelder et al., 2020).

Associated with social isolation is increasing use of alcohol (Colbert et al., 2020). In Australia, the Commonwealth Bank Group (2020) indicated that alcohol sales rose by more than 36% during COVID‐19 and researchers report use of alcohol has increased among perpetrators of DFV (Nancarrow, 2020; Payne et al., 2022; Womens Safety NSW & Foundation for Alcohol Research & Education, 2020). Interestingly, only one RANSW team leader independently mentioned use of alcohol and other drugs among clients. There were multiple observations, however, of the impact of early COVID‐19 pandemic management on mental health:

Seasonal affective disorder

This was mentioned by one counselling team leader accounting for the broader environmental circumstances in which COVID‐19 was being managed in Australia – that is, during cold winter months in the southern hemisphere.

Disbelief this could happen to ‘us’

One interesting perspective was experiencing COVID‐19 as a loss of privilege – a disbelief that this could ‘happen to us’: ‘People who have lived or are living in countries that are less affluent or less stable … [are potentially] more used to catastrophic events [than for us] in the Western world. People are really quite shocked that something like that can happen to us.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Grief

One counselling team leader noted that grief was more likely to be expressed in different ways:

More frequent: ‘all the themes of grief and loss will become far more frequent. Grief and loss on different levels. Of course, not only loss of a person, but anticipatory kind of loss as well or losing out on.’

More acute: ‘themes of grief and loss have been highlighted or becoming more acute.’

More complex: ‘grief [is] a lot more complicated if you cant be with the people that youd normally be with.’

Lack of hope

Associated with grief there was an additional loss of hope given the indefinite period of lockdown: ‘people are having to live in live on living with uncertainty’ (Counselling Team Leader) and also there is an impact on mood, with ‘lack of anticipation, positive anticipation … [for example, in] looking forward to a holiday, looking forward to an outing, you know, going to some theatre, [or] some intellectual discussion culture.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Child self‐harm

One staff member from FDR disclosed an experience of working with a family whose child had begun to self‐harm.

Derailed thinking

Experiences of stress, such as what might be expected with uncertainty surrounding lockdown in COVID‐19 are well evidenced as having implications for effective cognitive function (Lupien et al., 2007). In our study an increase in general derailed thinking among clients was reported, particularly by REP team leaders. This was observed especially (though not exclusively) among men, in two primary forms:

Conspiratorial thinking and spread of pandemic information

REP team leaders discussed the presentation of conspiracy theories in group education sessions and the challenge of addressing them in the context of relationship program delivery.

Increase in a ‘victim mentality’ among male clients

One REP team leader reflected on the increase of ‘victim mentality’ among male clients. We interpret that this may involve a number of possible scenarios, including: co‐optation of victim narratives for personal identity/meaning; and/or accurate identification of previously existent dynamic of victimisation; and/or accurate identification of an emergent dynamic during lockdown; and/or present but incomplete assessment of what was/is emergent. That is, it is not that coercive control and other problematic relationship dynamics are not occurring, but that assessment of themselves as victims is not the whole picture.

These may be contrasted with reflections on narratives of victimisation by women victim survivors of IPV, where ‘justification for the abuser, normalizing violence, attribution to karmic or godly intervention, minimization and social comparison, reappraisal/opportunity for growth, absence of a protective figure, and failure to make sense of abuse’ may be normative (Lim et al., 2015, p. 1065).

Client increased self‐insight

Associated with the above, some team leaders noted some clients ability to access increased self‐insight through reframing their experiences of lockdown and associated COVID‐19 circumstances.

Seeing patterns between self and children

‘ I thought that was very specific to that particular target group to actually specify that there because theyre spending so much more time with the kids in isolation. Theyre not at school. They really noticing their behaviours. And for the first time I heard quite a few men make that relationship between the kids behaviours and their own in the home.’ (REP Team Leader)

Re‐evaluating domestic relations and gender experience

One REP team leader reflected during lockdown/containment that some clients may have experienced greater independence outside the dictates of ordinary social life, which was thought to be potentially gender‐affirming for some men. Another perspective was ‘a reversal in the financial set‐up of families at the beginning of COVID‐19 as the predominantly female‐held positions became essential. And women were getting a lot more work and the men had either lost their jobs, or had it reduced [and had] to move home.’ (REP Team Leader)

Re‐assessing life priorities

‘ … opportunity for people to really look at their priorities and kind of work through what was important for their families. What was important for them in their lifestyle choices, what was important for their children to be doing.’ (FDR Team Leader)

Normalising conversations on mental health

‘ Everyones had a common ground to say Im having some issues with my mental health.’ (FDR Team Leader)

RANSW organisational and systemic issues

Practitioners noted overall organisational and systemic issues pertaining to service access, capacity, and responsiveness to clients needs, including:

Increased telepractice service access for clients

Overall, ‘by participating online, th[ere was an increase of] opportunity to access support [for] people who were otherwise disparately located geographically.’ (REP Team Leader)

Lower barriers to service access

Reasons given by practitioners included reduced need for clients to travel or organise babysitters. One counselling team leader noted that clients do not even need to get dressed to access services.

Easier administration

Another FDR team leader noted telepractice options made it easier to obtain client consent, legal advice, and scheduling for sessions.

Challenge for clients in accessing telepractice

There were, however, challenges for clients, which included:

Lack of privacy

These included concerns about clients and other family members walking past or interrupting service sessions. One Counselling team leader related ‘stories of going into the garage into the car because its the only way he or shes been able to find a confidential space.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Safety concerns

This was especially where sessions involved client discussions of personal safety, while remaining in an unsafe environment. One practitioner expressed concern if ‘complex client circumstances would mean their refusal of online services/not reaching out.’ (FDR Team Leader). As another practitioner put it, regarding conflictual relationships, ‘there was no getting away from each other.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Blurred boundaries for client/practitioner

There were additional social‐professional issues arising from the sensitivities about exposure to the interiors of each others homes during video calls.

Low/no tech access (client)

That clients may not have access to technology was mentioned across all three groups: ‘the difference in the quality of internet access and technology awareness of clients’ (Counselling Team Leader). The physical dislocation also meant that clients may not show for sessions, in a way not typical otherwise: ‘I've had two of them, one sort of decided he didn't want to come anymore. Another decided he didn't want to come anymore, and it was the right decision cause it was getting too triggered and another one who sort of like voted with his feet and didn't come for a whole Saturday. And yeah, so its just really interesting but it sort of just dawned on me, hey these guys have had an extra impact from COVID. Not that it was the whole problem, but it was an extra load.’ (REP Team Leader)

Reduced service capacity

In part related to increasing client demand, it was also noted by the FDR team leaders that there may have been overall:

Lack of technical skills for staff

The sudden shift to telepractice meant that skills needed to connect to clients radically changed in a short time‐frame.

Lack of technical equipment/support

The sudden shift to organisation‐wide work from home orders which were followed by state‐wide shutdowns also meant that practitioners in the early instance were relying on their own home computers and telephones to connect to clients.

Insufficient resources to support children

This was of concern for children who may otherwise have received support through their broader community contacts, such as school or activity groups.

Insufficient referral services

One REP team leader also noted that referrals to other services were too difficult, as some services had closed during COVID‐19 early‐stage lockdowns.

Wait time for services too long

‘ I just think for some people they must be very frustrated on the waiting list so we may not be hearing their aggression because were not talking to them.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Work practice on the ground

Earlier disaster literature notes that the personal implications for practitioners in terms of effects experienced in their own lives changes their capacity to respond to situations such as where DFV is present (Barrett Meyering et al., 2014). The need for workplace flexibility during the crisis may have a continuing effect on workplace policies and practices. As many team leaders comments reflect, concerns for work practice on the ground parallel the above presentation regarding client access to telepractice services (e.g., lack of privacy). Therefore, only relevant differences will be discussed here. These include:

Professional/personal boundaries blurred

Practitioners described the loss of usual ways to place distance between what happened with clients at work compared to being present with family at home: ‘I dont have the same processes in place that I had before, which is in a drive through a certain set of lights, and this is my home sort of space and leave the work behind.’ (REP Team Leader)

Mental health impact on practitioners

Professional isolation

Less incidental collegial contact was noted as making it more challenging to handle what were new challenges ‘…its a lot to be in a parallel journey too with our clients, not having the time to process it’ (REP Team Leader) and that it ‘is funny when youre in your own space and you cant walk away from it or you dont have a person to talk to. I live alone, but like you know you dont have someone who understands the field of the things that you might face each day.’ (REP Team Leader)

Emotional intensity of work

This includes working with clients expressing harsh emotions:‘one client who was very, very angry who recorded a telephone session, even though the rules had been clear, so I suppose thats one thing weve got people in an office, we can control things so to some extent its a lack of control that that we had in terms of the mediation or the interview environment.’ (FDR Team Leader), or also ‘I just think for some people they must be very frustrated on the waiting list so we may not be hearing their aggression because were not talking to them.’ (Counselling Team Leader)

Discussion

Since the start of the COVID‐19 pandemic, globally there has been an exacerbation of poverty, unemployment, and suicide (ILO, 2020; Kawohl & Nordt, 2020) with economic hardship and increasingly unstable economic conditions known to be significant factors associated with increased DFV (Peterman et al., 2020; Schwab‐Reese et al., 2016). Because healthcare and community service providers are often the first point of contact for people experiencing DFV, over‐burdened services managing COVID‐19 may mean fewer points of contact for people who experienced DFV in lockdown (Barrett Meyering et al., 2014; Bradley et al., 2020). At a time where people had more need to reach out to seek support for DFV, responses from our practitioners identified that services were less immediately available for vulnerable community members.

However another key factor that emerged from our analysis across all data categories was the theme of social isolation, and its impact for both service recipients and providers. To reflect further on this, protracted social isolation as a government‐mandated means for pandemic management distinguishes COVID‐19 from a natural disaster when assessing the impact on DFV. It is this feature which has emerged as key in our grounded theory analysis and in answering the aim of this study. Social isolation as a psychological factor is well addressed in the COVID‐19 research literature with recommendations supporting the management of loneliness (Banerjee & Rai, 2020) and more serious mental health concerns (Razai et al., 2020). The implications of protracted social isolation are less well addressed in the research literature with respect to responses to DFV. Indeed, this is characterised by drawing on social contact to connect people who have experienced DFV in the context of a natural disaster to bolster support and hope (Breckenridge & James, 2012).

Social isolation is a feature that was reported by practitioners to be utilised by some clients in enactment of behaviours consistent with DFV. Social distancing measures and subsequent social isolation also reduced opportunities for everyday connection with others in recreation and work contexts with financial implications for clients with a contracted economy. This resulted in practitioners reporting that clients experiencing DFV may be unable to flee their circumstances. Some positive aspects of social isolation were also reported by practitioners, including increased client self‐insight where sessions were happening with clients in the very contexts where problematic situations also occurred; here clients could see the implications of their behaviours reflected against the circumstances of everyday life. Reduced service availability in the context of social isolation was also noted by practitioners as a concern for responding to DFV during pandemic management, and social isolation effects were noted by practitioners, as well. Here the emotional impact of their work may be more deeply experienced when providing services from their home, isolated from the support of other practitioners.

Recommendations and Further Questions

Opportunities for organisational planning and development to mitigate against the effects of social isolation as a key distinguishing feature of practitioner experiences of DFV during a pandemic such as COVID‐19 include:

Resourcing telepractice supported services, including technical skills‐building for practitioners

Addressing what was named by participants in this study as technical, administrative, and ethical challenges in service provision, there is indication that more permanent resourcing of telepractice options can support client pathways for entering services. Examples of practical steps include investing in ongoing technical skills development for practitioners and clarifying service entry points for clients when face‐to‐face sessions are not an option to maximise client safety and accessibility, and practitioner management of risk.

Social networks and therapeutic conditions

There is evidence that ‘most individuals do not seek mental health services following catastrophic events, preferring instead to put their energies into surviving and rebuilding’ (Breckenridge & James, 2012, p. 243; see also Gordon, 1991, 2004). In formulating an organisational response, we therefore assume not only that an individual is the basic unit in relationships, but also that relationships are among the building blocks of individual experience, identity, and behaviour, including during pandemic management. In addition to improving existing targeted individual assessment and interpersonal therapeutic interventions for those impacted by DFV, healing and social transformation must also advocate broader community interventions, directly addressing other underlying and correlated determinants of interpersonal violence, such as gender inequality and economic inequality.

For example, financial safety nets such as JobSeeker and JobKeeper may have had a role in mitigating some of the worst financial impacts of the pandemic, but as yet this is unqualified by research findings. Humphreys (2020) argues that they both exist as ‘crucial tools’ for preventing DFV, even beyond COVID‐19, which may indicate that there is a role that organisations may play regarding advocacy for financial safety nets which have a preventative role, in occurrences of DFV. In addition to alleviating some of the correlative factors or causal determinants of DFV, financial supports may also address some of the additional concerns that people in financial stress may have around compliance with physical distancing and/or shelter‐in‐place protocols (Wright et al., 2020).

Therapeutic interventions for practitioners

Practitioners noted experiences of emotional intensity connected to their work were harder to handle without the immediacy of in‐person support as found in the context of face‐to‐face service delivery. This means recognising practitioners have been as directly impacted as community members in the pandemic with respect to the effects of social isolation. They are thus as deserving of support to address psychosocial needs that are emerging in the context of the workplace. While regular supervision may sometimes be sufficient, it may be useful to integrate grief work into regular workplace relations during the ongoing management of situations such as the circumstances of public health management in the context of COVID‐19.

Trauma‐informed/restorative systems responses

If the mental health impacts of the pandemic noted by participants are part of the overall context toward which we are directing our attention for systemic change, then it is worth differentiating between the characterisation of other natural disasters as one‐off acute traumatic events, and COVID‐19 pandemic management (and subsequent implications for longer‐term human services) as a prolonged period of potentially traumatising circumstances. While these may include any direct experiences of contracting the virus, it also includes the total circumstances of social and economic transformation that have had significant primary and secondary traumatic impacts for practitioners and broader communities.

For example, some practitioners noted that clients had gained positive insights during lockdowns, such as into the nature of DFV dynamics, which made possible corresponding shifts in behaviour and identity. One recommendation here would be to support practitioners to further catalyse and enable reframes for clients, not only with regard to behaviour change interventions (which may be difficult to achieve under diminished social opportunities), but also specifically around reframing identity and ones place in changing social worlds (e.g., reframing gender roles and dynamics, opportunities for self‐transformation), which do not diminish or deny the shared traumatic social context, nor advocate false hopes for periods of shared uncertainty.

Conclusion

As a wealthy liberal democracy, Australia was among the more successful developed nations in the world in slowing the spread of COVID‐19 in community, as part of a relatively swift and organised public health response. Despite flare‐ups in localised areas, strategies of minimising inbound international travel, public health communication in respect of social distancing measures, and the early adoption of mask‐wearing mandates are recognised as managing and mitigating the spread of COVID‐19 in local populations (WHO, 2020). OSullivan et al. (2020) suggest a combination of Australias stable Westminster parliamentary political system, national wealth, and relative geographic isolation as an island continent as significant contributing factors.

Where social prescribing is fast being adopted overseas to offset the effects of social isolation for wellbeing and mental health management (Razai et al., 2020), implications for a similar approach to support clients who may be experiencing concerns connected to DFV are not yet addressed in the literature. Such approaches may offer significant support and a social network approach that addresses more than one client need, overcoming both experiences of isolation and mitigating the possibility of DFV, in the context of rolling waves of COVID‐19 variants and spread.

Acknowledging the changing public health measures in Australia, it would be of value to conduct interviews again with practitioners to understand the current landscape of action with respect to their experiences of reported domestic violence. Future opportunities for research that address the contextual nature of delivery of DFV services can only enhance the early intervention, mitigation, and prevention of DFV in communities and in domestic and family relationships.