COVID-19 pandemic, domestic violence, and victims' access to services: findings from a survey of victim service providers in the US PDF Free Download
1 / 17/17
100%
RESEARCH Open Access
© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modied the
licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit h t t p : / / c r e a t i
v e c o m m o n s . o r g / l i c e n s e s / b y - n c - n d / 4 . 0 /.
Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-025-00253-x Crime Science
*Correspondence:
Yasemin Irvin-Erickson
YIrviner@gmu.edu
1George Mason University, 354 Enterprise Hall, 4400 University Drive, MS
4F4, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
2John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York,
New York, USA
3The Graduate Center, The City University of New York, New York, USA
Abstract
Background This study aims to explore the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and domestic violence
victims’ help-seeking from victim service providers in the United States using the framework of Routine Activities
Theory.
Methods The analysis is based on primary data collected from an online survey that represents a national sample of
organizations serving domestic violence victims across the states and territories of the United States. We examined
the change in the number of domestic violence clients and the severity of domestic violence cases that came to the
attention of these organizations in the rst year of the pandemic.
Results Our regression analysis suggests a signicant decrease in the number of new domestic violence clients
coming to the attention of organizations primarily serving victims in rural areas and organizations partially operating
during the pandemic lockdown; a decline in the number of returning domestic violence clients among organizations
with a 24-hour hotline; and an increase in the number of returning clients among organizations that engaged in
targeted community outreach during the initial lockdown. We further found that organizations that have targeted
programs for Black/African American and Hispanic domestic violence victims were more likely to report an increase in
the severity of abuse that came to their attention during the rst year of the pandemic.
Conclusions Crime opportunity theories, such as the Routine Activities Theory, can be extremely benecial
in understanding the criminogenic environment for domestic violence and other crimes during the COVID-19
pandemic. Addressing and responding to a public health emergency at the scale of the COVID-19 pandemic that
can heighten the risk of domestic violence due to various stressors and physical and social isolation requires a
holistic approach to emergency preparedness. Planning should address the risk of domestic violence, the barriers to
help-seeking, and identify communities and the victim groups that are particularly vulnerable to victimization and
aggravated outcomes following such experiences.
Keywords Domestic violence, COVID-19 pandemic, Crime trends, Lethality of abuse, Help-seeking, Victim service
providers, Victim services
COVID-19 pandemic, domestic violence,
and victims’ access to services: ndings from a
survey of victim service providers in the US
YaseminIrvin-Erickson1* , MangaiNatarajan2, LindsaySmith1 and BrittanySuh3
Page 2 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
Introduction
ere have been numerous studies on domestic violence
(DV) trends in the past 50 years (Piquero & Wheeler,
2024). Increased research attention has been given to
DV during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States
(US) and globally in response to lawmakers’ and practi-
tioners’ strongly expressed concerns about the increased
risk of DV during stay-at-home orders. ese concerns
were raised due to individuals being conned in a highly
stressful home environment in the absence of others
who can witness signs of abuse and with limited access
to resources and services that can help individuals escape
violent home environments (Piquero et al., 2021).
In the US, a majority of studies on DV patterns during
the pandemic utilized data from law enforcement agen-
cies (including calls for service data, reports of crime, and
arrest data). Comparatively, a smaller number of studies
used DV emergency hotline data; data from social service
organizations, victim service organizations, and hospi-
tals; and data from annual national victimization surveys
to capture the relationship between the pandemic and
levels of DV, reporting of DV and victim help-seeking,
and severity of DV.
Many studies conducted at the beginning of the pan-
demic found that while there has been an increase in DV-
related calls for service to law enforcement organizations
(Bullinger et al., 2021; Demir & Park, 2022; Evans et al.,
2021; Hsu & Henke, 2021; Leslie & Wilson, 2020; Mohler
et al., 2020; McLay, 2022; Piquero et al., 2020; Sorenson
et al., 2021) and victim service organizations (Miller et
al., 2024; Sorenson et al., 2021) in the rst months of the
pandemic after the declaration of stay-at-home orders,
there has been a decrease or no signicant change in the
number of incidents reported as DV by the police and
arrests concerning DV (Bullinger et al., 2021; Demir &
Park, 2022; McLay, 2022). e research based on call for
service data has further suggested an increase in rst-
time help-seeking from law enforcement during the pan-
demic (Leslie & Wilson, 2020).
A systematic review of studies on the impact of the
pandemic on DV outcomes in the US suggested an 8.1%
increase in DV based on studies published or made pub-
licly available by the rst month of 2021 (Piquero et al.,
2021). However, longer-term studies and studies based
on calls for service data from multiple cities showed
that despite the initial increase in calls for service after
the declaration of stay-at-home orders, these eects nor-
malized after the lifting of these orders and later into
the pandemic (Demir & Park, 2022; Lersch, 2024; Nix &
Richards, 2021). ese studies further showed that, even
at the earlier stages of the pandemic, some variations
existed within cities about the eects of the pandemic on
DV-related calls for service to the police (Nix & Richards,
2021; Richards et al., 2021) and calls to DV emergency
hotlines (Richards et al., 2021). Finally, a handful of US
studies based on health records, social service and vic-
tim service data, and annual national victimization data
showcased concerning DV patterns in relation to chil-
dren’s experiences of DV, severity of DV experiences, and
reporting of DV by victims and third parties. ese pat-
terns included an increase in allegations of maltreatment
reports to Child Protective Services during the pan-
demic lockdown (Rebbe et al., 2023), an increase in DV
cases resulting in severe physical harm during the pan-
demic’s rst year (Gosangi et al., 2021; Shariati & Irvin-
Erickson, 2024a), a decrease in service utilization among
DV victims in 2020 (Wright et al., 2022), an increase in
victim-reporting of DV to the police during the pan-
demic lockdown (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024b), and
a decrease in third-party reporting of DV to the police
in the Fall of 2020—which coincided with the protests in
relation to the murder of George Floyd—followed by an
increase in these reports in the second year of the pan-
demic (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024b).
e aforementioned studies have suggested pandemic-
related changes to DV patterns, and they have specically
signaled an increase in the frequency and severity of DV
and victim help-seeking immediately after stay-at-home
orders and potential leveling o of these patterns later
into the pandemic. However, a majority of these studies
were based on calls for service data, which is not the best
data source to capture DV trends (Kaukinen, 2020). As
importantly, despite the existence of a handful of stud-
ies on DV and sexual assault hotline calls during the
pandemic (see Miller et al., 2024; Richards et al., 2021;
Sorenson et al., 2021) and victim service utilization at a
particular geography in 2020 (see Wright et al., 2022); no
studies systematically examined the impact of the pan-
demic on victims’ help-seeking from the perspectives of
victim service providers (VSPs) in dierent geographies
in the US.
e aforementioned gaps in the literature are con-
cerning, considering victims’ help-seeking from VSPs is
a related but a separate topic from victims’ help-seeking
from the police. DV victims’ help-seeking from VSPs and
utilization of services are crucial for removing victims
from high-risk environments, providing them recovery
support, and reducing their chances of revictimization.
After a DV incident, the victim can report the incident to
the police, receive victim services, do neither, or do both.
Over the years, analyses of data from the Bureau of Jus-
tice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS), a self-report survey of victimization elded with
individuals aged 12 or older in a nationally representative
sample of households in 50 US states and the District of
Columbia, have demonstrated that DV is underreported
to the police (with about half of the DV incidents being
reported to law enforcement in 2022) and a small fraction
Page 3 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
of DV victims (approximately one in 10 in 2022) seek
assistance from VSPs (ompson & Tapp, 2023).
According to a recent analysis of data from the 2017–
2021 waves of the NCVS, among violent crime victims
(i.e., victims of simple assault, aggravated assault, sexual
assault or rape, robbery), 53% of the victims did not call
the police or a VSP, 38% reported their victimization
to the police but have not received victim services, 3%
received victim services but not reported their victim-
ization to the police, and 5% reported their victimization
to the police and received victim services (ompson,
2024). According to the same analysis, receiving services
from VSPs was more likely in violent victimization cases
where perpetrator was a current/former intimate partner
or a family member and when the crime was aggravated
assault, sexual assault, or rape (ompson, 2024) show-
casing comparatively higher service utilization among
DV victims and victims of crimes with serious injury in
comparison to victims of robbery or simple assault.
Recent studies have further shown that there are vary-
ing levels of underreporting of DV across dierent police
departments, non-law enforcement agencies, geogra-
phies, and demographics in the US (Piquero & Wheeler,
2024; Strohacker, 2024). Victims can refrain from help-
seeking from the police or VSPs due to several reasons
including not believing the issue is serious enough, not
believing help-seeking will result in helpful outcomes,
concerns about condentiality, fear of retaliation, shame,
not trusting an organization, believing they will not
be treated fairly by an organization, the fear for others
(including the perpetrator), nancial dependency, con-
cerns about preserving relationships, and several barriers
including but not limited to not knowing whom to seek
help from and resources available to DV victims, time
burden in relation to reporting, lack of access to child
care/dependent care, isolation tactics by the abusers, and
not having access to transportation (Cook & Goodmark,
2022; Fugate et al., 2005; Felson et al., 2002; Richards et
al., 2021). DV victims are most likely to seek help when
they feared harm to self and others, when they experi-
enced severe injury, and when they reached a point of
not being able to tolerate more abuse (Irvin-Erickson &
Shariati, 2024b; Shearson, 2021).
Prior studies have further shown that victims in
remote settings and geographies prone to natural disas-
ters (Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
[HSCADV], nd; Peek-Asa et al., 2011), victims who are
from marginalized ethnic/racial groups who live in lower
socio-economic areas (Mishra et al., 2024), and immi-
grant victims (Reina & Lohman, 2015) might experi-
ence additional barriers to help-seeking. e COVID-19
pandemic likely amplied risk factors of DV and curbed
help-seeking among all DV victims and especially vic-
tims who are already marginalized and who live in
under-resourced areas due to the spillover eects of the
pandemic-related stressors and regulations on criminal
and social justice systems, communities, households, and
individuals. Data systematically collected from VSPs in
dierent geographic regions and settlements in the US
can provide critical information about how the pandemic
and pandemic-related regulations aected help-seeking
among DV victims and the nature of DV cases that came
to the attention of VSPs with dierent organizational
characteristics and client proles.
e current study adds to the literature on the connec-
tion between the COVID-19 pandemic and DV by study-
ing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on DV cases
coming to the attention of VSPs in the rst year of the
pandemic through the lens of Routine Activities eory
(Cohen & Felson, 1979). Our study is based on analysis
of data from an online survey with representatives from
a national sampling frame of VSPs in the 50 US states
and 5 US territories. First, using multinomial regres-
sion analysis, we examine the change organizations saw
in the number of new clients and established (returning)
clients coming to their attention during the pandemic
lockdown period in relation to several organization char-
acteristics including geographic region of the organiza-
tion, geographic settlement of victims, services provided,
organization size, and operational status of the organiza-
tion during the pandemic lockdown. en, using logistic
regression analysis, we examine if there was an increase
in the frequency and severity of physical DV cases that
came to the attention of these organizations in the rst
year of the pandemic in relation to the same organiza-
tional characteristics.
Pandemic environment and domestic violence
Routine activities theory
Cohen and Felson’s (1979) Routine Activities eory
(RAT) can help us explore the pandemic’s eect on DV
victims’ help-seeking from VSPs and help us unpack
some of the discrepancies in the literature on this topic.
RAT, one of the key theoretical frameworks to explain
crime opportunity in physical locations and cyberspace,
emerged in late 1970s to explain the increase in crime
rates after World War II by linking macro-level changes
in the generalized patterns in the society (such as
changes to spatial and temporal patterns of family, work,
and leisure activities) with micro-level criminogenic situ-
ations people encounter in their daily lives. Specically,
the micro-level assumptions of RAT suggest that, for a
crime to occur, three essential elements of crime must
converge in space and time: a likely oender, a suitable
target, and the absence of a capable guardian (Cohen &
Felson, 1979). Since its development, RAT has been fre-
quently used to explain a person’s risk of victimization or
Page 4 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
oending by linking how individuals’ routines intersect
with crime opportunities (Natarajan, 2017; Wikström,
2009).
RAT can be a specically useful theoretical frame-
work to study the change in the frequency of DV and DV
victim help-seeking by looking at various independent
variables relating to structural factors that impact the
environment. e COVID-19 pandemic aggravated the
nancial strain experienced by families (such as unem-
ployment/underemployment, food insecurity, inability to
pay housing expenses, see Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities [CBPP], 2021; Correia et al., 2024; McNeil et al.,
2023), a stress factor that has been widely documented in
the literature to increase risk of DV (Schwab-Reese et al.,
2016; Sorenson et al., 2021). ere has been an increase
in rearm purchases (Federal Bureau of Investigation
[FBI, nd]), alcohol use (Chaln et al., 2021), parental
stress and time burden (Alrawashdeh et al., 2024; Brown
et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2021), and anxiety and depression
(Czeisler et al., 2020; Ettman et al., 2020; Okoro et al.,
2021; Twenge & Joiner, 2020) during the pandemic. All
of these factors have been associated with an increase in
DV risk (Anderberg et al., 2016; Foran & O’Leary, 2008;
Kim & Capaldi, 2004; Livingston, 2010; Norlander & Eck-
hardt, 2005; Olsen et al., 2010; Sorenson, 2017; Spencer
et al., 2019; Wintemute et al., 1999).
During the rst year of the pandemic, and especially
in the rst few months of the pandemic, with the closing
of non-essential businesses, schools, and places of wor-
ship and stay-at-home orders, individuals including DV
victims started spending the majority of their time in a
high-stress and overcrowded home environment con-
ned with actual or likely abusers with limited access
to support networks (McNeil et al., 2023; Piquero et al.,
2021; Richards et al., 2021). is highly restrictive envi-
ronment was further coupled with limited availability of
services for victims of violent crime and disruption to the
court processes and law enforcement operations due to
pandemic-related regulations (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati,
2024a, b; Richards et al., 2021).
A handful of studies to date examined DV patterns dur-
ing the pandemic explicitly through a RAT framework
based on analysis of calls for service data including DV-
related 911 calls and calls placed at emergency DV and
sexual assault hotlines (see Lersch, 2024, Nix & Richards,
2021; Sorenson et al., 2021), police-recorded open crime
data (Ashby, 2020), and national victimization data (see
Shariati & Irvin-Erickson, 2024).
One of the earliest studies on the pandemic and crime
by Ashby (2020), using a RAT framework, examined
the eect of the pandemic on police reports of crime
including serious assaults in residences (a crime cat-
egory not identical to DV but likely to capture DV) in
the rst months of 2020 in 16 large US cities. e study
hypothesized that based on the basic tenets of RAT, there
should be an increase in assaults in residential settings
(assuming a non-trivial amount of these incidents are
DV) as individuals at high risk of DV might have had a
hard time in seeking help from those who can help them.
e author focused on only serious assaults, as seri-
ous incidents are more likely to be reported than minor
assaults. is study found no evidence of a systematic
increase in residential serious assault incidents during
the study time frame; however, the author discussed the
limitations of the data and analysis including underre-
porting of DV, serious assaults at residences not being
equal to DV, and the analysis covering only the rst few
months of the pandemic.
Using hotspot analysis, another study by Lersch (2024)
examined the change in domestic disturbance calls in
Tampa, FL, between March 1st and December 31st, 2020.
e author argued that, in line with the RAT frame-
work, there should be an increase in domestic distur-
bance calls with increased opportunities for DV during
the initial phases of the pandemic due to stay-at-home
orders and the closure of non-essential businesses. is
increase should be followed by a decrease in these calls
in later stages of the pandemic with the easing of pan-
demic-related regulations and increased routine activi-
ties of individuals outside their residences. is study
supported this argument with a signicant decrease in
domestic disturbance calls after the initial phases of the
pandemic between March 1st and June 4th. is study
further showed that the sporadic hotspots of domestic
disturbance calls coincided with temporary heightened
restrictions during reopening phases and communi-
ties with lower education levels, higher levels of poverty
and unemployment, a higher number of single-parent
households, and a higher representation of minority resi-
dents. Nix and Richards’ (2021) study of DV-related calls
for service in six US cities provided support for Lersch’s
(2024) ndings showing that there was an immediate
spike in DV-related calls for service in ve out of the six
study cities after stay-at-home orders. As these orders
were lifted, DV-related calls for service declined in all but
one of the study cities.
Sorenson et al. (2021) explored the changes in vic-
tims’ help-seeking based on an analysis of 911 calls and
calls to the emergency DV and sexual assault hotlines in
Philadelphia, PA during the pandemic lockdown period.
e authors argued that although from a RAT perspec-
tive pandemic related regulations including stay-at-home
orders could be argued to put likely oenders frequently
in close encounters with suitable targets (i.e., intimate
partners and other family members who might be obsta-
cles or additional targets); the pandemic’s impact on
household dynamics, the type and level of violence, and
victims’ help-seeking from dierent sources (i.e., calls for
Page 5 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
service, hotline calls, rst responders) might dier during
a specic time or at dierent time points during the pan-
demic. In line with these arguments, the study ndings
showed that although there was almost a 50% decrease in
911 calls for assault (including sexual assault) during the
lockdown, this was not the case for DV, and implementa-
tion of stay-at-home orders was associated with a slight
increase in calls to DV emergency hotlines.
Lastly, a study based on data from the NCVS by Shari-
ati and Irvin-Erickson (2024) examined the eect of the
pandemic on the odds of injury in DV cases. e authors
of this study argued that, guided by RAT, it is reasonable
to assume that DV injury risk and severe DV risk (i.e.,
DV incidents resulting in severe injuries) increased dur-
ing the early stages of the pandemic with increased time
spent at home with likely abusers and reduced access to
eective guardianship against DV (i.e., informal and for-
mal controls by law enforcement, social services, victim
services, and other support networks). e authors found
that in comparison to the pre-pandemic period, odds of
injury and serious injury were both heightened during
the rst year of the pandemic but not during the second
year of the pandemic, which coincided with the easing of
pandemic regulations.
ese studies based on a RAT framework provided
important insights into DV patterns. However, the dier-
ences in the results of these studies and the spatiotem-
poral dierences in some of the trends within the studies
underline Sorenson et al.’s (2021; p. 4902) caution about
“comprehensive claims about the pandemic’s eects on
violence.” Specically, in the line of inquiry about the
relationship between the pandemic and DV, the impact
of the pandemic on victims’ help-seeking from VSPs is a
far from answered question. In this study, we aim to ll
this gap by exploring the potential heterogeneous impact
of the pandemic on DV victim’s help-seeking from VSPs
through the lens of a RAT framework.
Expectations regarding domestic violence victims’ help-
seeking behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic
As mentioned earlier, prior studies have signaled that
there might have been localized dierences in the eect
of the pandemic on DV victims’ help-seeking and DV lev-
els, and some demographic groups might have been more
likely to experience increased odds of DV and aggravated
barriers against help-seeking due to marginalization and
structural constraints. With the global concerns about the
COVID-19 virus, increased pandemic-related stressors,
and more strict regulations at the onset of the pandemic
in 2020, it is reasonable to expect a universal increase in
opportunities for DV and more serious forms of DV at
the onset of the pandemic. However, making such a com-
prehensive statement about victims’ help-seeking from
VSPs is comparatively harder. One can argue that with
the increase in frequency and severity of DV cases and
continued stressors on households, a higher number of
DV victims should have come to the attention of all VSPs
in the US during the rst year of the pandemic, especially
immediately after stay-at-home orders. However, several
factors might have aected victims’ reach-out or referral
to VSPs during that time frame.
Victim service organizations in the US experienced an
unprecedented change in their service provision mod-
els and routine organizational activities during the pan-
demic. ese changes included limiting victim services
due to physical distancing measures, stang issues, and
remote provision of non-emergency services, especially
during the nationwide lockdowns (Feeney et al., 2023).
rough the lens of a RAT framework, a sensible hypoth-
esis we can draw from the conditions surrounding the
COVID-19 pandemic environment is that the pandemic
provided a uniquely ripe environment for DV with the
spatiotemporal convergence of likely oenders with vul-
nerable targets in the broad absence of capable guardians
(including VSPs) due to enhanced structural constraints.
However, based on this theory, it is also important to
anticipate dierences in the impact of the pandemic on
DV patterns and victims’ help-seeking behavior from
VSPs. is is because the challenges individuals and
organizations face can vary greatly, inuenced by the
interplay between organizational constraints, xed struc-
tural constraints faced by victims, and shifting pandemic-
related challenges within dierent geographies.
Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion’s (CDC) prominent guidance during major public
health emergencies before 2020, states, territories, and
localities took the leading role in regulations surround-
ing public health during the pandemic, in the absence of
coherent guidance from the federal government which
has tended to treat public health as the responsibility of
the states (Council on Foreign Relations, 2023; Gostin,
2020). Depending on states’, territories’, and localities’
priorities amid a public health crisis and changes in the
levels of coronavirus infections and deaths, these geog-
raphies had very dierent experiences of the COVID-19
pandemic throughout the dierent phases of the pan-
demic. Furthermore, although the COVID-19 pandemic
introduced unprecedented pressure on economies, the
health system, the criminal justice system, the educa-
tion system, and victim services all around the US, exist-
ing economy and health-related disparities and disasters
before and during the pandemic likely exacerbated
the risk of DV more. e pandemic introduced addi-
tional barriers against help-seeking in rural and remote
geographies.
Although there are no publicly available comprehen-
sive datasets on activity limitations in dierent states and
territories in the US at particular turning points of the
Page 6 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
pandemic (i.e., declaration of emergency, declaration of
stay-at-home orders, dierent re-opening phases of the
pandemic); we have a basic understanding of the hetero-
geneity in pandemic related regulations at dierent geog-
raphies in the US due to the dierences in start and end
date of pandemic related regulations, the scope of these
regulations, and who these regulations were addressing
(advisory orders, mandatory orders for everyone or par-
ticular high-risk groups or particular geographies with
high death or infection levels) (see CDC, 2020). Notwith-
standing some notable dierences across states, we have
some indication of the US Northeast and West regions
having more activity limitations at the 1-year mark of
the pandemic in comparison to the Midwest and South
based on publicly available analysis of various pandemic-
related regulations (see WalletHub, 2021).
Individuals in the US territories might have also had
elevated risks of DV during the pandemic. e US terri-
tories faced scal and health barriers and disaster-related
challenges before the pandemic (Stolyar et al., 2021). Fur-
thermore, due to their climate, US territories generally
face an increased risk of severe weather events, which has
been shown to increase DV risk in territories (HSCADV,
nd). e Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) declared major disasters between 2015 and 2020
in all US territories (US Census, 2024; FEMA, 2024),
including hurricane- and earthquake-related disasters in
Puerto Rico between 2019 and 2020. Among the 42 states
and territories in the US that issued a stay-at-home order
by May 31st, 2020, Puerto Rico was the rst territory to
issue a mandatory stay-at-home order for all on March
15th, 2020, before the issuing of such an order in the con-
tinental US for the rst time in the state of California on
March 19, 2020 (Moreland et al., 2020).
As mentioned earlier, another geographic aspect that
can aect DV victims’ help-seeking from VSPs is the set-
tlement of the DV victims due to the important structural
barriers against help-seeking and victim-related hesi-
tancy to seek help in rural DV cases (Strohacker, 2024).
Considering the increasing evidence on the geographi-
cal dierences in the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic
on DV, DV trends in rural settings during the pandemic
need further examination (de Lima et al., 2020; Mott et
al., 2022). Lastly, individuals who have been established
in the literature to have higher odds of DV and/or lower
utilization of DV services, such as ethnic/racial minori-
ties, individuals living in lower socioeconomic geogra-
phies, individuals with disabilities, and immigrants and
new victims of DV might have faced aggravated DV risk
and barriers to help-seeking due to the combined eect
of the stay-at-home orders and pandemic-related eco-
nomic hardship and disruption to social and criminal jus-
tice systems (Irvin-Erickson & Shariati, 2024a; Piquero et
al., 2021; Smith-Clapham et al., 2023).
On the whole, through the lens of a RAT framework,
we expect the risk of DV and more severe forms of DV to
have increased during the rst year of the pandemic. All
things being equal, we would have expected an increase
in the number of DV cases/clients coming to the atten-
tion of VSPs during the rst year of the pandemic. How-
ever, considering the potential dierential impact of the
pandemic on VSP’s routine services and particular barri-
ers faced by victim groups from dierent demographics
and geographies in seeking help even before the pan-
demic, it is reasonable to assume dierences in the num-
ber and nature of cases coming to the attention of VSPs
with dierent organizational characteristics, services,
and client proles.
While VSPs that oered limited services during the
pandemic lockdown due to regulations or organizational
constraints might have seen a decline in the number of
cases/clients that came to their attention due to their
reduced capable guardianship, they might have still seen
an increase in the severity of cases that came to their
attention. Alternatively, larger organizations that were
able to better absorb the pandemic’s eect on opera-
tions and/or organizations that continued regular scope
of services during the pandemic including emergency
shelter services and organizations that oered targeted
programs for underserved victim groups or engaged in
community outreach during the pandemic might not
have seen a decrease or have seen an increase in the
number of clients and severe DV cases coming to their
attention with the enhanced guardianship they were able
to provide for victims. VSPs might have also experienced
dierences in the number of new versus returning clients
coming to their attention. Although there is some evi-
dence in the literature regarding a potential increase in
the number of new DV victims coming to the attention
of law enforcement during the pandemic (Leslie & Wil-
son, 2020), the literature has also established the lack of
knowledge about services among new victims as a bar-
rier to service utilization (Oce for Victims of Crime
[OVC], 2013). While we do not have enough information
to be able to hypothesize on the eect of the pandemic
on help-seeking from VSPs in dierent regions or settle-
ments in the US, existing studies’ emphasis on the need
for considering the geographically heterogeneous impact
of the pandemic due to the variations in activity limita-
tions in dierent geographic regions and population den-
sities warrant considering the geographical regions of
VSPs and settlements of clients they serve.
Current study
Informed by the prior literature and the RAT frame-
work, we undertook this study to unpack some of the
unexplored aspects of DV victims’ help-seeking during
the rst year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specically,
Page 7 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
through online surveys with representatives from VSPs
from a national sampling frame of VSPs, our study exam-
ined the change in the number of DV clients and the
change in the frequency and severity of physical DV cases
that came to the attention of VSPs during the rst year of
the pandemic with particular attention to the geographic
region, geographic settlement, size, services, and opera-
tional status of the organizations. Specically, our study
aims to answer the following research questions:
•RQ1: Were there any geographic and other
organizational characteristics that predicted the
change in the odds of new and returning DV clients
coming to the attention of VSPs during the initial
pandemic lockdown?
•RQ2: Were there any geographic and other
organizational characteristics that predicted an
increase in the frequency or severity of physical DV
cases coming to the attention of VSPs in the rst year
of the pandemic?
Methods
Given the time-sensitive nature of public health concerns
regarding DV, we utilized a Rapid Assessment Methodol-
ogy (RAM) to establish a national sampling frame for our
survey data collection. RAM is widely used as an assess-
ment methodology in public health and international
development. It enables researchers to collect and share
timely national information on specic topics through
surveys and focus group discussions (Given, 2008; Nata-
rajan, 2024; Palinkas et al., 2021). Our research team rst
compiled a comprehensive list of organizations serv-
ing DV victims in the US states, ve US territories, and
Washington, DC. After that, we deployed a short survey
with representatives from these organizations across 12
weeks between August 2023 and November 2023.
Operationalization of domestic violence and the COVID-19
lockdown period
In our study, we included the following under our de-
nition of DV based on the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) denition of DV (VAWA MEI, 2024): physical,
sexual, emotional, psychological, or economic actions or
threats to control an individual by a current or former
spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with
whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person
who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the vic-
tim as a spouse or intimate partner, by a person similarly
situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or
family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant
monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth
victim who is protected from that person’s acts under the
domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.
We operationalized the initial lockdown period of the
COVID-19 pandemic between March 2020 and May
2020 because the CDC established the COVID-19 sur-
veillance system at the beginning of March, and extensive
pandemic-related regulations, including stay-at-home
orders, were in place around the US states and territories
in March, April, and May 2020.
Survey development, survey modality, and incentives
We developed our rst survey draft in English and piloted
our survey draft with representatives from three victim
service organizations. Based on the suggestions from
participants in our pilot survey, we revised our English
survey and created an online survey in Qualtrics. Upon
feedback from a victim service organization in Puerto
Rico (PR) regarding the challenges of elding English
surveys with victim service providers in PR, we had our
survey recruitment e-mail, informed consent protocol,
and survey instrument translated into the Puerto Rican
dialect of Spanish. During outreach to victim service pro-
viders in PR, we sent our recruitment e-mail in Spanish
with a link to our English survey indicating that we can
provide a Spanish version of the survey as a llable PDF.
All the respondents from PR (n = 9) completed the online
English version of the survey. However, most of these
organizations were asked to see the Spanish version of
the survey and the informed consent form before agree-
ing to complete the English survey. Our survey included
questions about the organization’s structure, the services
provided by the organization to DV victims, the impact
of the pandemic on the number of clients, and the nature
of cases that came to the organization’s attention. Survey
respondents were given the option to receive one of the
following incentives: a letter of appreciation in the orga-
nization’s name, a certicate of appreciation in the orga-
nization’s name, or a $10 electronic gift card.
Sampling frame
As of the writing of this article, the only publicly available
census data on victim service providers in the US is the
National Census of Victim Service Providers (NCVSP),
which covers all civilian organizations that serve victims
of crime in the US between October 2016 and July 2017
(BJS, 2024). To develop a sampling frame for our study,
we rst compiled a list of all organizations that are likely
to provide services or referrals for services for DV vic-
tims in the US. To create this list, we searched the list of
organizations in the Oce for Victims of Crime’s (OVC)
Directory of Crime Victim Services, the websites of the
National Coalition of Domestic Violence and Survivors.
org, and we did additional targeted web-based search
of Family Justice Centers (FJCs), organizations serving
South Asian DV victims, and DV service organizations in
the US territories.
Page 8 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
Our initial search resulted in the identication of 3,003
organizations serving DV victims in the US states and
territories. After a careful review of the scope of activities
of organizations (such as the type of victims served and
support provided to the general population and victims
of DV) over 12 months, the nal sampling frame for our
survey included 1,820 organizations in 50 US states, DC,
and ve US territories (i.e., American Samoa (AS), Guam
(GU), Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), PR, US Virgin
Islands (VI) which we identied to be either primarily
serving DV victims or umbrella organizations which we
identied to provide services to DV victims along with
victims of other crimes.
Our sampling frame excluded juvenile justice agencies,
law enforcement agencies, attorney’s oces, health insti-
tutions, or campus organizations unless we identied a
specic unit with specialized sta within such organiza-
tions (such as victim advocates or DV units). Our care-
fully constructed list based on existing lists of victim
service providers and review of each of the 3,003 websites
we initially identied ensures a comprehensive represen-
tation of US organizations in our sampling frame that
provide services and referrals for services to DV victims
regularly.
Survey response rate
We reached out to all 1,820 organizations in our sam-
pling frame. Of the 1,820 organizations we contacted via
the Qualtrics e-mail function, 423 organizations agreed
to participate in our survey (23.2% of the organizations
in our sampling frame). From these organizations, 393
(92.9% of all respondents and 21.5% of our sampling
frame) answered all questions about their organizational
structure and additional questions we based our analy-
sis on about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
their services during the initial lockdown period and the
rst year of the pandemic. We included only these 393
respondent organizations that answered all the questions
necessary in our analysis and did not impute the miss-
ing data from the small number of respondents (n = 30,
approximately 7% of respondents) as our review of survey
data showed that these organizations stopped answering
the survey after completing questions about their organi-
zational structure and services.
e 393 respondent organizations to our survey were a
very close representation of the organizations in our sam-
pling frame. American Samoa and Hawaii were the only
geographies for which we did not have a DV VSP partici-
pation in our survey. Among the 13 respondents from US
territories, the majority were from PR (n = 9), and the rest
were from GU (n = 2), VI (n = 1), and CNMI (n = 1). We
acknowledge that, similar to the dierential impact of the
pandemic across dierent states in the same geographic
region in the US, each US territory might have had
diering experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Still,
we grouped US territories as a separate geographic region
to compare to the continental US regions, considering
the similarities of these territories with regards to their
sovereignty status (under US sovereignty but not a part
of the US in the same way as the US states), their island
geographies, the similar infrastructure barriers faced by
the US territories, and the severe weather and disaster
risk faced by territories. Furthermore, grouping these ter-
ritories allowed us to have a larger region category size
for territory organizations, considering the small number
of territorial DV organizations in the sampling frame and
the number of participants in our survey from each terri-
tory (the sampling frame included 44 organizations from
territories with 36 of them being from PR).
As shown in Table1, the organizations in our sampling
frame (n = 1,820) and the respondents to our survey that
we included in our analysis (n = 393) were very similar
in their geographical region and organization type. Spe-
cically, more nonprot organizations from the South
were represented in our sampling frame and among our
survey respondents. It is important to note that a higher
percentage of organizations with a 24-hour hotline and
emergency shelter service for victims were represented
in our survey compared to these percentages in our sam-
pling frame. is was not surprising, considering we
expected organizations that most regularly interact with
DV victims to be more responsive to our call for survey
participation.
In our survey, we collected additional information from
organizations regarding the settlement of the victims
they primarily serve and the number of their full-time
and part-time employees. Most organizations included
in our analysis were small organizations with less than
50 employees, and 31% of the organizations in our sam-
ple served victims from rural settlements. From the 393
respondents included in our analysis, 253 (64%) indi-
cated that their organization was fully operational (i.e.,
providing regular services) and 140 (36%) indicated that
their organization was partially operational (i.e., provid-
ing only some services) during the COVID-19 lockdown
period. Slightly more than half of the organizations in our
sample indicated that they provide targeted services for
racial/ethnic minority groups, with about a third of the
organizations indicating they provide targeted services
for underserved individuals from two or more racial
ethnic minority groups and individuals with disabilities.
About half of the organizations that participated in our
survey provided targeted services for immigrants. About
33% of the organizations engaged in community outreach
and targeted outreach to religious communities during
the pandemic lockdown.
Page 9 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
Study variables
Dependent variables
rough the lens of RAT and considering the changes
in the DV opportunity structure during the COVID-19
pandemic, we created four dependent variables to cap-
ture the changes in the frequency and severity of DV
incidents coming to the attention of the DV victim ser-
vice organizations during the rst year of the pandemic.
In our survey, we rst asked our respondents to describe
the change in the number of new DV clients and return-
ing DV clients (i.e., established clients) seeking assistance
from their organization either through directly con-
tacting their organization or being referred to by other
organizations during the initial pandemic lockdown in
comparison to pre-pandemic contacts/referrals. e
respondents had the option to indicate one of the follow-
ing in response to these questions: there was an increase,
there was a decrease, there was no change, or they were
unsure if there was a change. Based on these ques-
tions, we created the following two dependent variables
with three categories (i.e., no change/not sure, increase,
decrease): change in the number of new DV clients and
change in the number of returning DV clients.
To explore if there was an increase in the frequency
and severity of physical DV incidents during the rst year
of the pandemic (i.e., between March 2020 and March
2021), we asked our respondents if they observed an
increase in the severity or frequency of physical DV inci-
dents coming to their organization’s attention in the rst
year of the pandemic in comparison to pre-pandemic
patterns. We used the answers to these questions to cre-
ate the following dependent variables with two categories
(i.e., an increase in the frequency, no increase/not sure
of an increase): increase in the frequency of physical
DV incidents and increase in severity of physical DV
incidents.
Independent variables
Within the context of RAT, independent variables are
often related to the convergence of motivated oenders,
suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians.
In the context of DV, this opportunity structure includes
the routine activities of individuals, environmental char-
acteristics—especially the geographic environment that
inuences the likelihood of DV victims to seek help—and
broader societal trends that aect opportunity struc-
tures. We created two categorical variables to capture
the dierential geographical impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on the frequency and severity of DV matters
coming to the attention of victim service providers in the
Table 1 Characteristics of organizations in our sampling frame and survey
Organization Characteristics Sampling Frame
(n, %)
Survey
(n,%)
Region: South 436 (31.3%) 126 (32.1%)
Region: West 510 (28.0%) 93 (23.7%)
Region: Midwest 436 (24.0%) 102 (26.0%)
Region: Northeast 278 (15.3%) 59 (15.0%)
Region: Territories 44 (2.4%) 13 (3.3%)
Urbanicity: Rural -- 122 (31.0%)
Urbanicity: Not rural -- 271 (69.0%)
Org type: Non-prot or faith-based 1,621 (89.1%) 355 (90.3)%
Org type: Government agency 89 (4.9%) 21 (5.4%)
Org type: Other 110 (6.0%) 17 (4.3%)
Org size: Micro to small (less than 50 employees) -- 331 (84.2%)
Org size: Medium to large (50 employees or more) -- 62 (15.8%)
Family Justice Center: Yes 96 (5.3%) 5 (1.3%)
24h hotline 1,054 (57.9%) 288 (73.3%)
DV Shelter 987 (54.2%) 259 (65.9%)
Targeted programs: American/Alaskan Indian only -- 13 (3.3%)
Targeted programs: Asian, Hawaiian/Pacic Islander only -- 9 (2.3%)
Targeted programs: Black/African American only -- 13 (3.3%)
Targeted programs: Hispanic only -- 66 (16.8%)
Targeted programs: two or more ethnic/racial groups -- 118 (30.0%)
Targeted programs: individuals with disabilities -- 125 (31.8%)
Targeted programs: immigrants -- 201 (51.1%)
Community outreach during pandemic: yes -- 129 (32.8%)
Fully operational during pandemic lockdown -- 253 (64.4%)
Partially operational during pandemic lockdown -- 140 (35.6%)
n = 1 n = 393
Page 10 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
US. Our rst geography variable region captured if the
victim service organization was providing services in the
South (i.e., AL, AR, DC, DE, FL, GA, KY, LA, MD, MS,
NC, OK, SC, TN, TX, VA, WV), the West (i.e., AK, CA,
CO, ID, MT, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY), the Midwest (i.e.,
IL, IN, IA, KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI), the
Northeast (i.e., CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT),
or in the territories (i.e., CNMI, GU, PR, VI). Our second
geography variable rural captured if the organization
primarily provided services to DV victims in rural areas
(yes/no).
We created several other measures to capture organi-
zation-specic characteristics that might have aected
the number of clients coming to the attention of the DV
victim service organizations in our sample. Emergency
shelter variable captured if the organization has an emer-
gency DV shelter (yes/no). Hotline variable captured if
the organization has a 24-hour hotline/crisis line (yes/
no). Organization size variable captured if the organiza-
tion in our sample is a small or medium/large sized orga-
nization. For this variable, in line with Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) establishment size classications (BLS,
n.d.), we classied the organizations that indicated they
have a total of 49 or fewer full- and part-time employees
as small size and organizations that indicated they had
50 or more full- and part-time employees as medium to
large size organizations. Operational status variable
captured if the organization was fully or partially opera-
tional during the pandemic lockdown period.
We created three categorical variables based on the
questions in our survey regarding whether the organi-
zation provides any targeted DV programs for specic
demographic groups. Targeted programs for immi-
grants variable captured if the organization provided tar-
geted DV programs to immigrants, asylees/refugees, and
individuals who speak English as a second language (yes/
no). Targeted programs for individuals with disabili-
ties variable captured if the organization provides tar-
geted DV programs for individuals with disabilities (yes/
no). Targeted programs for ethnic/racial minorities
variable captured if the organization provided targeted
DV programs for DV victims who are Alaskan Native
or American Indian, Asian, Black or African American,
Hispanic, and Native Hawaiian or Pacic Islander. Lastly,
community outreach variable captured if the organiza-
tions engaged in community outreach and outreach to
religious and spiritual organizations to reach DV victims
during the lockdown (yes/no).
Analysis
We rst conducted a descriptive analysis to get a general
understanding of the changes in our dependent variables.
After that, we conducted multinomial logistic regres-
sion analyses to understand the relationship between
our independent variables and two dependent variables
with three categories: change in the number of new
DV clients and the change in the number of returning
DV clients. Specically, we compared the organizations’
odds of reporting no change in the number of new and
returning clients coming to their attention during the
pandemic lockdown period to their odds of reporting a
decrease or an increase in these odds. For our two binary
dependent variables increase in the frequency of physi-
cal violence and increase in the severity of physical
violence variables, we conducted binary logistic regres-
sion analyses to compare the odds of DV victim service
organizations reporting an increase in the frequency
and severity of physical violence during the rst year of
the pandemic in comparison to the odds of reporting no
increase. Our collinearity tests (bivariate correlations,
tolerance, and variance ination factors) suggested no
multicollinearity issues in any of our models (no VIF val-
ues greater than 2; no tolerance value less than 0.5). We
further conducted goodness-of-t tests for our multino-
mial and binary logistic regression models. Our models
were an improvement over the intercept-only models.
e statistically non-signicant Pearson test values for
our multinomial logistic regression models and statisti-
cally non-signicant Hosmer-Lemeshow test values for
our logistic regression models showed that our models t
the data well.
Results
Table2 provides a descriptive account of the change in
the number of new and returning clients coming to the
attention of the 393 organizations during the initial lock-
down period of the pandemic and the VSPs’ response
to the question of whether they had seen an increase in
the frequency or severity of the physical DV cases which
came to their attention between March 2020 and March
2021.
As can be seen in Table2, a higher percentage of orga-
nizations (44%) in our sample indicated that they had
seen a decrease in the number of new clients during the
pandemic lockdown period in comparison to the organi-
zations that indicated they had seen an increase (38.9%)
or no change/being unsure of a change (17.1%). As also
seen in Table2, for returning clients, a higher percent-
age of organizations (44%) in our sample indicated that
they had seen no change or they were unsure of a change
(39.7%) in comparison to the organizations that indicated
they had seen a decrease (32.1%) or an increase (28.2%).
Most respondents in our survey indicated an increase
in the frequency of physical violence (54.7%) and sever-
ity of physical violence (60.3%) between March 2020 and
March 2021 in comparison to the pre-pandemic patterns.
Page 11 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
Regression ndings on the change in the new and
returning DV clients coming to the attention of VSPs
during the initial pandemic lockdown
Table3 illustrates our multinomial regression results on
the likelihood of organizations reporting an increase or
decrease in the number of new and returning DV clients
during the pandemic lockdown period. Organizations
that primarily serve rural DV victims (in comparison
to organizations serving non-rural victims; OR = 1.90,
p <.05) and organizations that were partially operational
during the pandemic lockdown period between March
and May 2020 (in comparison to VSPs fully operational;
OR = 2.64, p <.001) were more likely to report a decrease
in the number of new clients.
As illustrated in Table3, two organizational character-
istics were signicant predictors of reporting a change in
the number of returning clients during the initial lock-
down period. Organizations that had a 24-hour hotline
were more likely to report a decrease in the number of
returning clients in comparison to VSPs that did not have
a 24-hour hotline (OR = 2.48, p <.05). As also illustrated
in Table3, organizations that engaged in targeted com-
munity outreach, including outreach to religious organi-
zations during the pandemic lockdown, were more likely
to report an increase in the number of returning clients
during the lockdown in comparison to VSP that did not
engage in such outreach (OR = 2.83, p <.01).
Regression ndings on the change in the frequency and
severity of DV cases coming to the attention of VSPs
between March 2020 and March 2021
Table4 presents our logistic regression analysis results
regarding the likelihood of organizations reporting an
increase in the frequency or severity of physical vio-
lence between March 2020 and March 2021. Organiza-
tions that were fully operational during the lockdown
were more likely to report an increase in the frequency
of physical DV cases in the rst year of the pandemic
in comparison to partially operational organizations
(OR = 1.61, p <.05). We further found that organizations
that had targeted programs for Black/African Ameri-
can victims (OR = 4.60, p <.05) and Hispanic victims
(OR = 3.41, p <.01) were more likely to report an increase
in the frequency of physical DV cases that came to the
attention of their organizations during the rst year of
the pandemic in comparison to VSPs that did not have
targeted programs for racial/ethnic minorities.
As also illustrated in Table4, in comparison to VSPs
in the US territories, organizations in the Northeast
were more likely to report an increase in the severity of
physical DV cases during the rst year of the pandemic
(OR = 5.17, p <.05). Furthermore, in comparison to VSPs
that did not have targeted programs for racial/ethnic
minorities, VSPs that have targeted programs for His-
panic victims were more likely to report an increase in
Table 2 Change in the number of DV clients and frequency and severity of physical DV cases during the pandemic (n = 393)
Was there a change in the number of new DV clients seeking assistance (contacting directly/referred) from your organizationduring the
pandemic lockdownin comparison to pre-pandemic patterns?
There was an increase 153
(38.9%)
There was a decrease 173
(44.0%)
There was no change/don’t know or unsure 67 (17.1%)
Was there a change in the number of returning DV clients seeking assistance (contacting directly/referred) from your organizationduring
the pandemic lockdownin comparison to pre-pandemic patterns?
There was an increase 111
(28.2%)
There was a decrease 126
(32.1%)
There was no change/don’t know or unsure 156
(39.7%)
Based on the assistance provided by your organization, was there an increase in the frequency of physical DV casesbetween March 2020-
March 2021in comparison to pre-pandemic patterns?
Yes, there was an increase 215
(54.7%)
No increase/unsure of an increase 178
(45.3%)
Based on the assistance provided by your organization, was there an increase in the severity of physical DV casesbetween March 2020-
March 2021in comparison to pre-pandemic patterns?
Yes, there was an increase 237
(60.3%)
No increase/unsure of an increase 156
(39.7%)
Page 12 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
Table 3 Multinomial logistic regression models of reporting a change in the number of DV clients during pandemic lockdown
New clients Returning clients
Variables Decrease vs. No
change OR (95% CI)
Increase vs. No
change OR (95%
CI)
Decrease vs. No
change OR (95% CI)
Increase vs.
No change OR
(95% CI)
Region: Midwest 2.39 (0.39-14.6) 0.83 (0.20-3.46) 1.29 (0.21-7.74) 0.31 (0.06-1.58)
Region: Northeast 3.81 (0.58-24.89) 1.18 (0.25-5.51) 1.80 (0.26-12.53) 0.85 (0.14-4.93)
Region: South 1.95 (0.31-12.03) 0.86 (0.20-3.63) 1.59 (0.26-9.75) 0.49 (0.09-2.50)
Region: West 2.29 (0.37-14.2) 0.56 (0.12-2.44) 2.08 (0.32-13.28) 0.81 (0.15-4.35)
Settlement: rural 1.90 (1.03–3.05)* 1.31 (0.68-2.51) 1.33 (0.62-2.85) 0.85 (0.38-1.89)
DV Shelter: yes 1.30 (0.65-2.62) 0.93 (0.47-1.86) 1.31 (0.59-2.91) 1.07 (0.48-2.39)
24-hour Hotline: yes 2.11 (0.97-4.57) 1.97 (0.94-4.15) 2.48 (1.08–5.69)* 1.96 (0.85-4.51)
Organization size: small 0.69 (0.34-1.42) 0.79 (0.38-1.66) 0.56 (0.22-1.43) 0.54 (0.21 − 1.40)
Operational status: partial 2.64 (1.53–4.54)*** 1.68 (0.95-2.97) 1.65 (0.87 − 3.10) 0.67 (0.34 − 1.30)
Targeted programs: American/Alaskan Indian only 0.70 (0.13-3.56) 3.10 (0.73-13.08) 2.80 (0.30-26.20) 3.78 (0.38-36.96)
Targeted programs: Asian, Hawaiian/Pacic Islander only 0.81 (0.12-5.49) 1.48 (0.26-8.46) 0.98 (0.12-7.46) 1.67
(0.23 − 12.00)
Targeted programs: Black/African American only 0.50 (0.08-3.01) 2.59 (0.64-10.44) 0.84 (0.06-10.41) 8.70 (0.97-77.96)
Targeted programs: Hispanic only 0.87 (0.34 − 2.20) 1.71 (0.68-4.28) 1.04 (0.33 − 3.30) 2.71 (0.86-8.49)
Targeted programs: two or more ethnic/racial groups 0.75 (0.27-2.08) 1.37 (0.50-3.79) 1.12 (0.33-3.76) 2.03 (0.60-6.86)
Targeted programs: individuals with disabilities 1.71 (0.78-3.74) 1.83 (0.86 − 3.90) 0.95 (0.39-2.32) 0.94 (0.38-2.32)
Targeted programs: immigrants 1.41 (0.60-3.34) 1.55 (0.67-3.59) 0.71 (0.25-2.05) 0.58 (0.20-1.68)
Community outreach: yes 1.14 (0.66-1.97) 1.28 (0.73-2.25) 1.97 (0.95-4.08) 2.83
(1.36–5.88)**
*p <.05,***p <.001
Nagelkarke R2 = 0.173 (new clients model)
Nagelkarke R2 = 0.180 (returning clients model)
OR = Odds ratio, CI = Condence interval
Table 4 Logistic regression models of increase in the frequency and severity of physical domestic violence during March 2020-March
2021
Frequency of physical DV Severity of physical DV
Variables OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Region: Midwest 1.34 (0.67-2.69) 2.98 (0.81-10.89)
Region: Northeast 0.85 (0.48 − 1.50) 5.17 (1.29–20.70)*
Region: South 0.54 (0.29-1.01) 2.54 (0.69-9.31)
Region: West 0.36 (0.09-1.35) 1.48 (0.40-5.51)
Settlement: rural 1.16 (0.69-1.96) 0.95 (0.56-1.61)
DV Shelter: yes 1.46 (0.82-2.58) 1.49 (0.84-2.65)
24-hour Hotline: yes 0.89 (0.47-1.66) 0.99 (0.53-1.86)
Organization size: small 0.91 (0.50-1.66) 1.03 (0.56-1.91)
Operational status: fully operational 1.61 (1.03–2.52)* 1.21 (0.77 − 1.90)
Targeted programs: American/Alaskan Indian only 2.42 (0.71-8.29) 3.51 (0.95-12.98)
Targeted programs: Asian, Hawaiian/Pacic Islander only 2.23 (0.47-10.42) 1.43 (0.30-6.69)
Targeted programs: Black/African American only 4.60 (1.14–18.57)* 3.32 (0.82-13.35)
Targeted programs: Hispanic only 3.41 (1.52–7.63)** 2.28 (1.02–5.09)*
Targeted programs: two or more ethnic/racial groups 1.76 (0.74-4.18) 1.48 (0.62-3.53)
Targeted programs: individuals with disabilities 1.86 (0.97-3.56) 1.56 (0.81-3.01)
Targeted programs: immigrants 0.76 (0.36 − 1.60) 0.79 (0.37-1.65)
Community outreach: yes 1.26 (0.79 − 2.00) 1.43 (0.89-2.28)
*p <.05, **p <.01
Nagelkarke R2 = 0.116 (frequency model)
Nagelkarke R2 = 0.115 (severity model)
OR = Odds ratio, CI = Condence interval, DV = Domestic violence
Page 13 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
the severity of physical DV cases during the rst year of
the pandemic (OR = 2.28, p <.05).
Discussion
We undertook our study with the aim of lling a critical
gap in the literature regarding DV victims’ help-seeking
from VSPs in the US during the pandemic. We speci-
cally examined the change in the number of DV victims
and the nature of DV incidents that came to the atten-
tion of VSPs and highlighted geographic and organiza-
tion-specic characteristics that might be related to any
observed patterns.
Change in the number of DV clients coming to the
attention of VSPs during the pandemic lockdown
Our study generated insights that expanded upon the
existing research on DV victim help-seeking during the
pandemic. One of the most signicant ways we expanded
upon the prior literature was through our study of the
dierences in the help-seeking behavior of new and
returning DV clients from VSPs during the pandemic.
We observed in our sample that the decrease in help-
seeking from VSPs was a more signicant issue for new
clients during the pandemic lockdown in comparison to
returning clients. is nding is in contrast with Leslie
and Wilson’s (2020) nding on increased calls for service
from new households during the lockdown. is nding
might be an indication of the weaker correlation between
reporting DV to the police and being connected with vic-
tim services during the pandemic lockdown.
We further found that signicant correlates of help-
seeking during the pandemic lockdown diered between
new and returning clients. First-time outreach from DV
victims was signicantly lower in VSPs in rural areas
and that were partially operational during the lockdown.
However, being in a rural community or the operational
status of the VSPs were not signicantly related with
returning DV clients’ help-seeking or referral to VSPs
during the lockdown. is nding was not entirely sur-
prising considering although we expect COVID-19-re-
lated stressors and changes to the routine services of
VSPs to have aected all DV victims, and especially the
victims in remote communities, returning DV victims
who have established relationships with VSPs in rural
communities might have better navigated the systems
and might have been more knowledgeable about the
availability of services or better adjusted to the change in
operations with their existing connections than rural vic-
tims seeking help for the rst time from a VSP.
Our ndings on the association between targeted com-
munity outreach by DV organizations during the pan-
demic lockdown and increased contacts and referrals
of returning DV clients (but not new clients) with the
organizations in our sample emphasize the importance
of leveraging community outreach in general and dur-
ing large-scale crises to reach DV victims and tailoring
such strategies to better connect with victims who might
be seeking help for the rst time. Our ndings on the
decreased help-seeking from VSPs with 24-hour hotlines
might be capturing the additional barriers returning cli-
ents faced in seeking help at the height of the pandemic,
including increased surveillance by abusers or fear in
relation to the pandemic.
Increase in the frequency and severity of physical violence
during the rst year of the pandemic
Organizations’ observations on the increase in the fre-
quency and severity of physical abuse provided support
for the emerging literature on the increase in the sever-
ity of DV during the COVID-19 pandemic (Gosangi et
al., 2021; Rebbe et al., 2023; Shariati & Irvin-Erickson,
2024). Our ndings on the increased odds of reporting
an increase in the frequency or severity of physical vio-
lence in DV cases during the rst year of the pandemic by
organizations with targeted programs for Black/African
American and Hispanic victims add to the existing litera-
ture, which suggests that among DV victims, racial/eth-
nic minority victims living in low socio-economic income
areas might be more likely to experience increased DV
risk and additional structural barriers against help-
seeking and receiving services (Mishra et al., 2024). e
increase in the severity of DV cases handled by the VSP
in the Northeast, on the other hand, might be capturing
the aggravated impacts of the pandemic-related restric-
tions in this region, as during the period that we studied
the change in the severity of DV cases (March 2020-
March 2021), the states in the Northeast on the aggregate
had the highest level documented restrictions on activi-
ties in the US (WalletHub, 2021).
Policy and practice implications
Public health regulations throughout the COVID-19
pandemic in the US, and especially during the rst few
months of the pandemic, such as the stay-at-home
orders, were aimed at limiting individuals’ movements
to reduce the risk and spread of the coronavirus disease.
Unfortunately, the limitation in movements and person-
to-person interactions outside of households, coupled
with the macro-level impacts of the pandemic, created
the ideal environment for increased DV risk and reduced
access to services. is can be reasonably attributed to
victims’ fear for themselves and others (including per-
petrators), delays in criminal legal processes and victim
service provision, and other structural barriers against
help-seeking experienced by victims.
e results from our study suggest an increase in the
frequency and severity of physical DV along with barri-
ers against help-seeking, especially among victims of DV
Page 14 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
seeking help for the rst time and DV victims in rural
geographies. Rural populations are more likely to travel
long distances to access healthcare services, which could
lead to a signicant burden in terms of lack of reliable
transportation, travel time, cost, and time away from the
workplace. For DV victims in rural areas, whether they
are new or returning clients, such barriers could have
worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic because of
increased isolation with perpetrators at home. Respond-
ing to a public health emergency at the scale of the
COVID-19 pandemic that can increase the risk of DV
through various stressors and physical and social isola-
tion requires a holistic approach to emergency prepared-
ness. Such planning should consider the risk of DV, the
existing barriers against help-seeking, and the commu-
nities and the victim groups that are most vulnerable to
victimization and aggravated outcomes in the aftermath
of victimization. At the most basic level, connecting DV
victims with emergency victimization services neces-
sitates planning to inform the general community about
the resources available to them and their loved ones
in cases involving DV during catastrophes and work-
ing on strategies to increase the capacity of emergency
shelters, short-term shelters, and other alternatives to
shelters. Emergency preparedness also requires remov-
ing structural barriers against access to services, includ-
ing better access to public transportation or alternative
transportation sources and better access to technology
and the internet in cases where services become web-
based or hybrid. At the same time, we could also pro-
mote the training of key stakeholders who might be likely
to engage with DV victims outside of the victim service
provision or criminal legal settings for better recogniz-
ing signs of DV, as victims might have minimal contact
with others during or in the aftermath of catastrophes
due to isolation with the perpetrator or increased control
exerted by the perpetrator.
Theory and research implications
According to RAT, changes in routine activities can
increase or decrease the opportunity for crimes to occur
(Cohen & Felson, 1979). e COVID-19 pandemic
restricted many victims who have been going through
violence at home as well as the ones who have begun
to experience violence. Our study ndings indicate that
the nature of the environment the victims of DV are in
can explain their help-seeking behaviors. Moreover, our
study also illustrates how other crime opportunity theo-
ries, such as the Crime Pattern eory (Brantingham &
Brantingham, 1981), could also help us understand how
mobility patterns and geographic environment (whether
rural or non-rural) play a role in converging oender and
victim activity spaces during the COVID-19 pandemic.
is indeed explains the increase and decrease in victims’
help-seeking behaviors.
Our study illustrates that mobility restrictions are
signicant factors contributing to trends in DV, includ-
ing the frequency and severity of DV and DV victims’
help-seeking from VSPs. Activity patterns dictate the
behaviors of both victims and perpetrators, with the
occurrence of criminal events being shaped by these daily
activities and the specic actions of the oender, such as
in cases of DV. e lockdown restrictions heightened DV,
creating obstacles for many victims in accessing support
services. Service providers, who act as crucial advocates
for victims and as capable guardians, needed to change
their routine activities and mode of service provision and
faced limited resources due to sta shortages, COVID-19
regulations that impacted shelter operations, and dicul-
ties in communicating with victims and survivors.
ese circumstances had profound implications for
reporting DV and assisting victims who sought help.
e decrease in new clients seeking help in general and
in remote geographies presents signicant prevention
implications, emphasizing the need to expand services
to support DV victims who reach out and to rethink out-
reach strategies for those who do not or who cannot.
Limitations
One of the challenges we faced in our study was estab-
lishing a current national sampling frame of organiza-
tions serving DV victims primarily or as an umbrella
organization. Despite our best eorts to include all orga-
nizations around the US in our national roster, we likely
missed some organizations. However, considering our
triangulation of data sources to compile this roster, we
believe our national roster reasonably represents victim
service organizations in the US states and territories.
Another limitation of our study is the recall bias likely
associated with answering questions about past trends
about DV by the respondents in our survey. To reduce
this bias, in our survey instructions, we explained the
purpose of the survey, the type of questions we asked,
and the time frame of our questions. We encouraged the
point of contact for the survey to send the survey to the
most appropriate person in their organization and we
made it clear to the respondents that they could complete
the survey in more than one sitting.
Another limitation of our study was the low response
rate (23%) from the approximately 1,800 organizations we
contacted via e-mail. is can be attributed to the time
burden on victim service providers during our data col-
lection period, on top of the limited sta resources faced
by these organizations. Our response rate was in line with
the 25–30% common response rate in web-based surveys
shared via e-mail (Menon & Muraleedharan, 2020). Our
descriptive analysis showed that the characteristics of the
Page 15 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
organizations that responded to our survey were similar
to those in our national roster. Furthermore, our survey
included victim service organizations from US territo-
ries, organizations that have been largely left out in the
literature on the impact of the pandemic on DV.
An additional limitation of our survey was our inabil-
ity to dierentiate between DV trends among minor
and adult DV victims. During the piloting of our survey,
we were informed by our pilot participants of the time
burden that this kind of a distinction would put on ser-
vice providers to dierentiate between cases involving
minor and adult victims. We decided not to dierentiate
between cases involving adult and minor victims of DV
to reduce the time burden of completing the survey and
to increase the response rate.
Conclusions
Although physical distancing measures and lockdowns
are eective methods for controlling the transmission of
COVID-19, staying at home with restricted movement,
social isolation, and economic insecurity had an enor-
mous impact on those at higher risk for DV. Prior stud-
ies, mainly based on calls for service data, found leveling
eects of the pandemic on DV after the lifting of stay-
at-home orders. However, our study found a concerning
trend of increasing frequency and severity of physical DV
during the rst year of the pandemic.
Situational context and dierent data sources can pro-
vide essential insights into the broad statements in the
literature on the eect of the pandemic on crime pat-
terns. Our study added to the growing literature on DV
patterns by demonstrating the importance of considering
the geographic location of victims and the organizations
providing services to the victims. Our study demon-
strated the disproportionate eect of the pandemic on
the help-seeking behavior of DV victims in communi-
ties with extensive structural barriers and on DV vic-
tims seeking help for the rst time. Studies such as ours
reporting the increased severity of DV nationwide, espe-
cially from a service provider’s perspective, are critical for
criminal justice, public health, and social service sectors.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank several senior and junior research team members
who supported this project in the past few years without whose help our
study could not have been possible: Bryce Kushmerick-McCune, Dr. Yi-Fang
Lu, Emely Martinez, Maria Simonetti, Feven Weldeyes, Anika Amdahl, Brooke
M. D’Antonio, Sandy G. Shak, and Veronika Mata. We would like to thank
our advisory board members Annie Lewis-O’Connor, Dr. Bethany Backes,
Catherine Pierce, Grace Huang, Dr. Leila Wood, Dr. Lilie Macias, Sarah Gonzales
Bocinski, and Susan Howley for their insights. We would like to thank NSF’s
Build and Broaden Program’s Dr. Enrique Pumar and Dr. Lee Walker for their
continuous support and enthusiasm for our project. Above all, we would like
to thank all victim service organizations which participated in our study for
their time and invaluable information they provided for our project. The views
and interpretations expressed in this article are those of the authors, not the
institutions—NSF, John Jay College (CUNY) and George Mason University.
Author contributions
Yasemin Irvin-Erickson and Mangai Natarajan designed the study, collected
the data, analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. Lindsay Smith and
Brittany Suh supported data analysis and drafting of the manuscript. All
authors have read and approved the nal version of the manuscript.
Funding
The open access publication fees for this research were funded by John
Jay College of Criminal Justice, Oce of Advancement of Research. This
project was supported by a collaborative grant award from the National
Science Foundation’s (NSF) Build and Broaden 2.0 program (Award#
2127295/2127296).
Data availability
The data for this study are not publicly available due to information that could
compromise the privacy of study participants.
Declarations
Conict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial interests
or personal relationships that could have appeared to inuence the work
reported in this article.
Received: 6 December 2024 / Accepted: 26 May 2025
References
Alrawashdeh, M. N., Alsawalqa, R. O., Aljbour, R., Alnajdawi, A., & AlTwahya, F. K.
(2024). Domestic violence against women during the COVID19 pandemic in
jordan: A systematic review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications,
11(1), 1–11.
Anderberg, D., Rainer, H., Wadsworth, J., & Wilson, T. (2016). Unemployment and
domestic violence: Theory and evidence. The Economic Journal, 126(597),
1947–1979.
Ashby, M. P. (2020). Initial evidence on the relationship between the coronavirus
pandemic and crime in the united States. Crime Science, 9(1), 6.
BJS (2024). National Census of Victim Service Providers (NCVSP). US Department of
Justice. h t t p s : / / b j s . o j p . g o v / d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n / n c v s p
BLS (n.d.). Nonprot Sector Research Data. h t t p s : / / w w w . b l s . g o v / b d m / n o n p r o t s /
n o n p r o t s . h t m
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1981). Notes on the geometry of crime. In
P. J. Brantingham, & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp.
27–54). Sage.
Brown, S. M., Doom, J. R., Lechuga-Peña, S., Watamura, S. E., & Koppels, T. (2020).
Stress and parenting during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 110, 104699.
Bullinger, L. R., Carr, J. B., & Packham, A. (2021). COVID-19 and crime: Eects of Stay-
at-home orders on domestic violence. American Journal of Health Economics,
7(3), 249–280.
Tracking the COVID-19 Economy’s Eects on Food, Housing, and CBPP, & Hard-
ships, E. (2021). h t t p s : / / w w w . c b p p . o r g / r e s e a r c h / p o v e r t y - a n d - i n e q u a l i t y / t r a c k
i n g - t h e - c o v i d - 1 9 - r e c e s s i o n s - e e c t s - o n - f o o d - h o u s i n g - a n d
CDC (2020). Timing of State and Territorial COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and
Changes in Population Movement — United States, March 1–May 31, 2020. h
t t p s : / / w w w . c d c . g o v / m m w r / v o l u m e s / 6 9 / w r / m m 6 9 3 5 a 2 . h t m
Chaln, A., Danagoulian, S., & Deza, M. (2021). COVID-19 has strengthened the
relationship between alcohol consumption and domestic violence (No. w28523).
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine
activity approach. American Sociological Review, 588–608.
Correia, L. L., Machado, M. M. T., Vieira-Meyer, A. P. G. F., Araújo, D. A. B. S., Gomes,
E. D. A. B. M., Saldanha, A. B., Rodrigues, R. C. R., Gomes, Y. V. C., & Castro, M.
C. (2024). Domestic violence patterns in postpartum women who delivered
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Revista Brasileira De Epidemiologia, 27.
Council on Foreign Relations (2023). Judging How U.S. States Performed in the
COVID-19 Pandemic Depends on the Metric. h t t p s : / / w w w . c f r . o r g / a r t i c l e / j u d g
i n g - h o w - u s - s t a t e s - p e r f o r m e d - c o v i d - 1 9 - p a n d e m i c - d e p e n d s - m e t r i c
Page 16 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
Czeisler, M. É., Lane, R. I., Petrosky, E., Wiley, J. F., Christensen, A., Njai, R., Weaver, M.
D., Robbins, R., Facer-Childs, E. R., Barger, L. K., Czeisler, C. A., Howard, M. E., &
Rajaratnam, S. M. (2020). Mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation
during the COVID-19 pandemic—United States, June 24–30, 2020. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, 69(32), 1049.
De Lima, C. A., Alves, P. M. R., de Oliveira, C. J. B., de Oliveira, T. R. N., Barbosa, K. B.,
Marcene, H. C., & de Oliveira, S. V. (2020). COVID-19: Isolations, quarantines
and domestic violence in rural areas. SciMedicine Journal, 2(1), 44–45.
Demir, M., & Park, S. (2022). The eect of COVID-19 on domestic violence and
assaults. Criminal Justice Review, 47(4), 445–463.
Ettman, C. K., Abdalla, S. M., Cohen, G. H., Sampson, L., Vivier, P. M., & Galea, S. (2020).
Prevalence of depression symptoms in US adults before and during the
COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Network Open, 3(9), e2019686–e2019686.
Evans, D. P., Hawk, S. R., & Ripkey, C. E. (2021). Domestic violence in atlanta, Georgia
before and during COVID-19. Violence and Gender, 8(3), 140–147.
FBI (2021). NICS Firearm Checks: Top 10 Highest Days/Weeks. h t t p s : / / w w w . f b i . g o v / f
i l e - r e p o s i t o r y / n i c s _ r e a r m _ c h e c k s _ t o p _ 1 0 _ h i g h e s t _ d a y s _ w e e k s . p d f / v i e w
Feeney, H., Pfeer, R., D’Arcangelo, B., McCallum Desselle, L., & Vollinger, L. (2023).
Their own words: Challenges and successes for victim service providers during
Covid-19. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., Hoskin, A. W., & Deane, G. (2002). Reasons for report-
ing and not reporting domestic violence to the Police. Criminology, 40(3),
617–648.
FEMA (2024). Search Your Location. h t t p s : / / w w w . f e m a . g o v / l o c a t i o n s
Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-
analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1222–1234.
Fugate, M., Landis, L., Riordan, K., Naureckas, S., & Engel, B. (2005). Barriers to
domestic violence help seeking: Implications for intervention. Violence
against Women, 11(3), 290–310.
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vols. 1– 0).
SAGE.
Goodmark, L., & Cook, M. (2022). Law enforcement experience report: Domestic
violence survivors’ survey regarding interaction with law enforcement. h t t p s :
/ / w w w . t h e h o t l i n e . o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p l o a d s / m e d i a / 2 0 2 2 / 0 9 / 2 2 0 9 - H o t l i n e - L
E S _ F I N A L . p d f
Gosangi, B., Park, H., Thomas, R., Gujrathi, R., Bay, C. P., Raja, A. S., Seltzer, S. E.,
Balcom, M. C., McDonald, M. L., Orgill, D. P., Harris, M. B., Boland, G. W., Rexrode,
K., & Khurana, B. (2021). Exacerbation of physical intimate partner violence
during COVID-19 pandemic. Radiology, 298, E38–E45.
Gostin, L. (2020). Science, leadership, and public trust in the COVID-19 pandemic.
2020. h t t p s : / / w w w . m i l b a n k . o r g / q u a r t e r l y / o p i n i o n s / s c i e n c e - l e a d e r s h i p - a n d - p
u b l i c - t r u s t - i n - t h e - c o v i d - 1 9 - p a n d e m i c
HSCADV (nd). Natural Disasters and Gendered Based Violence. h t t p s : / / w w w . h s c a d v
. o r g / p o l i c y - a n d - r e s e a r c h / d i s a s t e r s - a n d - d v /
Hsu, L. C., & Henke, A. (2021). COVID-19, staying at home, and domestic violence.
Review of Economics of the Household, 19, 145–155.
Irvin-Erickson, Y., & Shariati, A. (2024a). Covid-19 pandemic’s impact on socio-emo-
tional problems experienced by victims of violence with disabilities. Disability
and Health Journal, 18(1), 101710.
Irvin-Erickson, Y., & Shariati, A. (2024b). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and
the murder of George Floyd on victim and third-party reporting of domestic
violence to the Police in the US. Journal of Criminal Justice, 90, 102141.
Kaukinen, C. (2020). When stay-at-home orders leave victims unsafe at home:
Exploring the risk and consequences of intimate partner violence during the
COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 668–679.
Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). The association of antisocial behavior and
depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in romantic
relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 82.
Lee, S. J., Ward, K. P., Chang, O. D., & Downing, K. M. (2021). Parenting activities and
the transition to home-based education during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Children and Youth Services Review, 122, 105585.
Lersch, K. M. (2024). An exploratory Spatiotemporal analysis of domestic distur-
bance calls for service in 2020: The case of tampa, orida, USA. International
Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 48(4), 375–390.
Leslie, E., & Wilson, R. (2020). Sheltering in place and domestic violence: Evidence
from calls for service during COVID-19. Journal of Public Economics, 189,
104241.
Livingston, M. (2010). The ecology of domestic violence: The role of alcohol outlet
density. Geospatial Health, 5(1), 139–149.
McLay, M. M. (2022). When shelter-in-place isn’t shelter that’s safe: A rapid analysis
of domestic violence case dierences during the COVID-19 pandemic and
stay-at-home orders. Journal of Family Violence, 37(6), 861–870.
McNeil, A., Hicks, L., Yalcinoz-Ucan, B., & Browne, D. T. (2023). Prevalence & cor-
relates of intimate partner violence during COVID-19: A rapid review. Journal
of Family Violence, 38(2), 241–261.
Menon, V., & Muraleedharan, A. (2020). Internet-based surveys: Relevance, meth-
odological considerations and troubleshooting strategies. General Psychiatry,
33(5), e100264.
Miller, A. R., Segal, C., & Spencer, M. K. (2024). Eects of the COVID-19 pandemic on
domestic violence in Los Angeles. Economica, 91(361), 163–187.
Mishra, A., Gibson-Miller, J., & Wood, C. (2024). The pandemic within a pandemic:
Mental health and wellbeing of Racially minoritised women experiencing
domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. BMC Women’s
Health, 24(1), 662.
Mott, P., Aujla, W., Giesbrecht, C. J., Grant, I., & Straatman, A. L. (2022). Intimate
partner violence and COVID-19 in rural, remote, and Northern canada: Rela-
tionship, vulnerability and risk. Journal of Family Violence, 37(5), 775–786.
Mohler, G., Bertozzi, A. L., Carter, J., Short, M. B., Sledge, D., Tita, G. E., Uchida, C. D.,
& Brantingham, P. J. (2020). Impact of social distancing during COVID-19
pandemic on crime in Los Angeles and Indianapolis. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 68, 101692.
Moreland, A., Herlihy, C., Tynan, M. A. (2020). Timing of State and Territorial COVID-
19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population Movement — United
States, March 1–May 31, 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
69:1198–1203. h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 5 5 8 5 / m m w r . m m 6 9 3 5 a 2
Natarajan, M. (Ed.). (2017). Crime opportunity theories: Routine activity, rational choice
and their variants. Routledge.
Natarajan, M. (2024). Rapid assessment of human–elephant conict: A crime sci-
ence approach. Crime Science, 13(1), 1–18.
Nix, J., & Richards, T. N. (2021). The immediate and Long-term eects of COVID-19
Stay-at-home orders on domestic violence calls for service across six US
jurisdictions. Police Practice and Research, 22(4), 1443–1451.
Norlander, B., & Eckhardt, C. (2005). Anger, hostility, and male perpetrators of
intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review,
25(2), 119–152.
Okoro, C. A., Strine, T. W., McKnight-Eily, L., Verlenden, J., & Hollis, N. D. (2021). Indi-
cators of poor mental health and stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic,
by disability status: A cross-sectional analysis. Disability and Health Journal,
14(4), 101110.
Olsen, J. P., Parra, G. R., & Bennett, S. A. (2010). Predicting violence in romantic
relationships during adolescence and emerging adulthood: A critical review
of the mechanisms by which Familial and peer inuences operate. Clinical
Psychology Review, 30(4), 411–422.
OVC (2023). Vision 21: Transforming Victim Services. h t t p s : / / o v c . o j p . g o v / s i t e s / g / l e
s / x y c k u h 2 2 6 / l e s / m e d i a / d o c u m e n t / V i s i o n 2 1 _ R e p o r t . p d f
Palinkas, L. A., Springgate, B. F., Sugarman, O. K., Hancock, J., Wennerstrom, A.,
Haywood, C., Meyers, D., Johnson, A., Polk, M., Pesson, C. L., Seay, J. E., Stal-
lard, C. N., & Wells, K. B. (2021). A rapid assessment of disaster preparedness
needs and resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), 425.
Peek-Asa, C., Wallis, A., Harland, K., Beyer, K., Dickey, P., & Saftlas, A. (2011). Rural
disparity in domestic violence prevalence and access to resources. Journal of
Women’s Health, 20(11), 1743–1749.
Piquero, A. R., & Wheeler, A. (2024). Towards a Better Estimate of Domestic Violence
in America. h t t p s : / / c o u n c i l o n c j . o r g / t o w a r d - a - b e t t e r - e s t i m a t e - o f - d o m e s t i c - v i
o l e n c e - i n - a m e r i c a /
Piquero, A. R., Riddell, J. R., Bishopp, S. A., Narvey, C., Reid, J. A., & Piquero, N. L.
(2020). Staying home, staying safe? A short-term analysis of COVID-19 on Dal-
las domestic violence. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 601–635.
Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Jemison, E., Kaukinen, C., & Knaul, F. M. (2021).
Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic-Evidence from a system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 74, 101806.
Rebbe, R., Reddy, J., Huang, J. S., Kuelbs, C. L., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (2023). Counts
and child protection reports of diagnosed child maltreatment before and
after the COVID-19 pandemic onset. Child Abuse & Neglect, 146, 106450.
Reina, A. S., & Lohman, B. J. (2015). Barriers preventing Latina immigrants from
seeking advocacy services for domestic violence victims: A qualitative analy-
sis. Journal of Family Violence, 30, 479–488.
Richards, T. N., Nix, J., Mourtgos, S. M., & Adams, I. T. (2021). Comparing 911 and
emergency hotline calls for domestic violence in seven cities: What hap-
pened when people started staying home due to COVID-19? Criminology &
Public Policy, 20(3), 573–591.
Page 17 of 17Irvin-Erickson et al. Crime Science (2025) 14:11
Schwab-Reese, L. M., Peek-Asa, C., & Parker, E. (2016). Associations of nancial
stressors and physical intimate partner violence perpetration. Injury Epidemi-
ology, 3, 1–10.
Shariati, A., & Irvin-Erickson, Y. (2024). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on
domestic violence injury: Insights from the National crime victimization
survey (NCVS). American Journal of Criminal Justice, 1–25.
Shearson, K. M. (2021). Seeking help from Police for intimate partner violence:
Applying a relationship phase framework to the exploration of victims’ evolv-
ing needs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(3–4), 1745–1771.
Smith-Clapham, A. M., Childs, J. E., Cooley-Strickland, M., Hampton-Anderson, J.,
Novacek, D. M., Pemberton, J. V., & Wyatt, G. E. (2023). Implications of the
COVID-19 pandemic on interpersonal violence within marginalized commu-
nities: Toward a new prevention paradigm. American Journal of Public Health,
113(S2), S149–S156.
Sorenson, S. B. (2017). Guns in intimate partner violence: Comparing incidents by
type of weapon. Journal of Women’s Health, 26(3), 249–258.
Sorenson, S. B., Sinko, L., & Berk, R. A. (2021). The endemic amid the pandemic:
Seeking help for violence against women in the initial phases of COVID-19.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), 4899–4915.
Spencer, C. M., Stith, S. M., & Caerky, B. (2019). Risk markers for physical intimate
partner violence victimization: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 44, 8–17.
Stolyar, L., Orgera, K., & Rudowitz, R. (2021). Challenges in the U.S. Territories:
COVID-19 and the Medicaid Financing Cli. h t t p s : / / w w w . k . o r g / r e p o r t - s e c t i
o n / c h a l l e n g e s - i n - t h e - u - s - t e r r i t o r i e s - c o v i d - 1 9 - a n d - t h e - m e d i c a i d - n a n c i n g - c l
i - i s s u e - b r i e f - 9 7 1 9 /
Strohacker, E. R. (2024). Roadblocks to reporting: Examining barriers that deter
domestic violence Victim-Survivors from reporting to law enforcement in
rural communities of Pennsylvania. Rural Policy-The Research Bulletin of the
Center for Rural Pennsylvania, 3(1), 302–302.
Thompson, A. (2024). Building Knowledge About Victim Services. h t t p s : / / n i j . o j p . g o
v / t o p i c s / a r t i c l e s / b u i l d i n g - k n o w l e d g e - a b o u t - v i c t i m - s e r v i c e s
Thompson, A., & Tapp, S. N. (2023). Criminal Victimization. h t t p s : / / b j s . o j p . g o v / l i b r a r
y / p u b l i c a t i o n s / c r i m i n a l - v i c t i m i z a t i o n - 2 0 2 2
Twenge, J. M., & Joiner, T. E. (2020). US census Bureau-assessed prevalence of
anxiety and depressive symptoms in 2019 and during the 2020 COVID‐19
pandemic. Depression and Anxiety, 37(10), 954–956.
US Census (2024). Natural Disasters Are Primary Reason Island Areas Residents
Moved. h t t p s : / / w w w . c e n s u s . g o v / l i b r a r y / s t o r i e s / 2 0 2 4 / 0 2 / d i s a s t e r s - a n d - i s l a n
d - a r e a s - m o v e s . h t m l # : ~ : t e x t = B e t w e e n 2 0 1 5 a n d 2 0 2 0 % 2 C t h e , U . S . % 2 0 V i r g i n
% 2 0 I s l a n d s % 2 0 ( U S V I ) .
VAWA MEI (2024). Glossary. h t t p s : / / w w w . v a w a m e i . o r g / t o o l s - r e s o u r c e s / g l o s s a r y /
WalletHub (2021). States with the Fewest Coronavirus Restrictions. h t t p s : / / w a l l e t h u
b . c o m / e d u / s t a t e s - c o r o n a v i r u s - r e s t r i c t i o n s / 7 3 8 1 8
Wikström, P. H. (2009). Routine Activity Theories. h t t p s : / / w w w . o x f o r d b i b l i o g r a p h i e s .
c o m / d i s p l a y / d o c u m e n t / o b o - 9 7 8 0 1 9 5 3 9 6 6 0 7 / o b o - 9 7 8 0 1 9 5 3 9 6 6 0 7 - 0 0 1 0 . x m l
Wintemute, G. J., Parham, C. A., Beaumont, J. J., Wright, M., & Drake, C. (1999).
Mortality among recent purchasers of handguns. New England Journal of
Medicine, 341(21), 1583–1589.
Wright, E. N., Miyamoto, S., & Richardson, C. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 restric-
tions on victim advocacy agency utilization across Pennsylvania. Journal of
Family Violence, 37(6), 907–913.
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional aliations.
