In the face of increasing risk for intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an urgent need to understand the experiences of the workforce providing support to survivors, as well as the evolving service delivery methods, shifting safety planning approaches, and occupational stress of frontline workers. We addressed this gap by conducting an online survey of members of IPV and sexual assault workforce using a broad, web-based recruitment strategy. In total, 352 staff from 24 states participated. We collaborated with practitioner networks and anti-violence coalitions to develop the brief survey, which included questions about work and health, safety planning, and stress. We used chi-square, t-test, and ANOVA analysis techniques to analyze differences within position and demographic variables. For qualitative data, we used thematic analysis to analyze responses from four open-ended questions. The sample was majority female-identified (93.7%) and essential workers in dual IPV and sexual assault programs (80.7%). Findings demonstrated that since the pandemic began, IPV and sexual assault staff are experiencing more personal and professional stressors, perceive a decrease in client safety, and lack resources needed to help survivors and themselves. Common problems included a lack of food or supplies at home and work and housing and financial support for survivors. There was a 51% increase in the use of video conference for work, which contributed to workforce strain. Reductions in overall service capacity and a shift to remote service provision have implications for both survivors and staff. These findings suggest a critical need for additional training, infrastructure, and support for the IPV and sexual assault workforce. There is an urgent need to classify IPV and sexual assault staff as first responders and address the occupational stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

The current study explores campus-based advocacy services for survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence, to increase understanding of how these supportive services are used on college campuses. Method: Semistructured interviews with campus-based advocates and studentsurvivors who used advocacy programs on 3 college campuses were conducted. The participating programs were diverse in setting and student population. Thematic analysis was used to identify program approaches and distinguishing features for advocacy in higher education. Results: Data from 48 participants were used to identify approaches guiding campus-based advocacy models. Campus-based advocacy models are trauma focused and student/survivor-centered similar to community programs with higher education-based applications. Campus-based advocacy is distinguished by attention to (a) developmental phase, (b) the university community experience, and (c) the role of the institution and institutional policy in services. Campus-based advocacy programs vary in service model and setting based on institutional structure and needs. Confidential advocacy services are critical to meeting student survivor needs. Conclusion: This study illustrates that similar to community approaches, campus-based advocacy models for survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence focus on empowerment, resource provision, and expanding social support during the college experience through a traumainformed lens. Campus-based advocacy programs provide potential benefit to student-survivors expressed needs, including prevention of further violence, enhanced well-being, increased academic outcomes, and support. Further research is needed to assess the outcome of campus-based advocacy and to guide program implementation as advocacy services in higher education grow.

Demonstrated impacts of intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault (SA) for college students include negative outcomes related to mental, physical, emotional, and academic well-being. As a result of increasing awareness of the long-standing epidemic of IPV and SA on college campuses, Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) are expanding the services provided to survivors of IPV and SA, including campus-based advocacy services that are adapted from community models. Like community advocacy, campus-based advocacy services focus on empowerment, support, resource provision, and addressing safety needs. However, the unique context of higher education produces specific student-centered needs, including an increased focus on educational goals, academic accommodations, and safety planning. The current study seeks to shed new light on the specific foci and tasks of advocacy in the context of IHEs, related to what we call “academic safety planning,” and to highlight the experience of student service recipients utilizing these forms of advocacy. Thematic analysis of 48 qualitative interviews with advocates ( n = 23) and service users ( n = 25) from five programs at three universities was used to discover practices applied by campus-based advocates and to understand student-survivor needs and preferences within academic safety planning. Findings reveal the core components of academic safety planning, which are: (a) Advocating for emotional and physical safety in the university context, (b) Assessing and identifying needed academic accommodations, and (c) rebuilding connections and institutional trust at school. These interviews reveal that academic safety planning has the potential to enhance the academic outcomes of survivors, which in turn could lead to important improvements in long-term personal safety, well-being, and economic security for student-survivors.

Emerging adults, aged 18-25, have come of age in a technology oriented world. The internet has been critical in mediating their personal relationships and their understanding of daily life. Emerging adults are also at unique risk of experiencing intimate partner and sexual violence (IPV & SV) Given the increasing infusion of information communication technology (ICT) into anti-violence advocacy, and the broad use of ICT among college-attending emerging adults, this study aimed to explore how both survivors and advocates are leveraging technology for support. Using a QUAL + qual methodology (Morse and Niehaus, 2009), data were collected as part of an evaluation of campus-based advocacy as implemented in five programs. Interviews took place with 23 campus and community-based advocates, and 25 survivors of interpersonal violence who had accessed campus-based advocacy services. Additionally, 63 survivors who engaged in campus-based advocacy services responded to an online survey. Key domains identified were: 1) technology as a means of informing potential clients about services; 2) the role of technology in help-seeking, including its role in tailoring and extending the reach of services; and 3) the importance of recognizing technology facilitated abuse in the advocacy and education process with emerging adults. As advocacy programs are rapidly shifting to technology facilitated services in the wake of COVID-19, this study provides data on advocate and survivor experiences with technology, which can inform these changes across the spectrum of IPV & SV services.