Abstract
Introduction
At the onset of the novel Coronavirus 2019-SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) outbreak and the associated spread of the disease, many countries around the world, including Canada, implemented COVID-19 policies to limit the rate of transmission and decrease COVID-19 morbidity and mortality rates (Maquiling et al., 2023; Mohammed et al., 2022). These policies included strict stay-at-home orders, limited access to social services, work from home, and online learning that increased the risk of family violence such as intimate partner violence (IPV) (Bourgault et al., 2021; Bradbury-Jones & Isham, 2020; Matoori et al., 2021). IPV, the pandemic at home, nonpartner violence, or both impacts about 1 in 3 (30%) of women aged 15–49 years worldwide (World Health Organization [WHO], 2021). Indeed, Evans et al. (2020) suggest that frequency and severity of IPV increased during the pandemic, resulting in what is characterized as “a pandemic within a pandemic.”
IPV encompasses physical, sexual, and emotional mistreatment perpetrated by a present or former spouse or nonmarital partner within the framework of coercive control. This control involves actions such as threats, humiliation, intimidation, and other forms of abuse aimed at causing harm, punishment, or fear in the victim (Krug et al., 2002). Vulnerability, stress, risk, and decreased access to services during the pandemic exacerbated the likelihood of experiencing IPV (Peterman et al., 2020). Research has also shown a relationship between financial, environmental, or sociopolitical crises and increased incidence rates of IPV (Lyons and Brewer, 2021). While there is mounting research on the increased prevalence of IPV during the pandemic globally (Bourgault et al., 2021; Garcia et al., 2022; Viero et al., 2021) and in Canada (Moffitt et al., 2022: Ogrodniczuk et al., 2021), IPV service providers responded to this double pandemic by adjusting service provision to meet needs of individuals impacted by IPV (Garcia et al., 2022; Renov et al., 2022). The purpose of this article thus, is to explore the challenges faced by equity deserving organizations providing IPV services and the impact of COVID-19 on IPV service provision in Alberta, Canada. We apply an intersectionality lens to examine the issues presented by diverse individuals accessing services in an already limited social service sector in Alberta.
Literature Review
In Canada, IPV pertains to acts of violence carried out by present or past legally married spouses, common-law partners, individuals in dating relationships, and other intimate partners (Statistics Canada, 2022). Canada has reported a gradual increase in IPV for seven consecutive years. In 2021, 114,132 police-reported victims of IPV (violence committed by current and former legally married spouses, common-law partners, dating partners, and other intimate partners) were recorded among individuals aged 12 years and older. Seventy-nine percent of victims identified as women and girls and reported a higher rate of victimization than men and boys (Statistics Canada, 2022).
IPV is a gendered issue worldwide, disproportionately perpetuated by men against women. Therefore, much of the knowledge generated on IPV including interventions and service provision comes from cis-gendered women (Carney et al., 2007; Lysova et al., 2022; Scott-Storey et al., 2023). Also, there are existing gaps in the conceptualization of men's experiences with and victimhood of IPV (Scott-Storey et al., 2023). IPV impacts individuals across all races, classes, ages, socioeconomic statuses, genders, sexual identities, and relationship status (Renner & Whitney, 2010). Though women and gender-diverse people are disproportionately vulnerable to domestic violence (DV) and IPV, any gender can experience or perpetrate abuse. Several factors contribute to the severity and incidence of IPV; gender, age, the presence of young children, income, migration, race, and gender are all significant predictors (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, 2016; Matoori et al., 2021; Pallansch et al., 2021; Peitzmeier et al., 2021).
Barnes and Donovan (2018) stress the historical reluctance to examine DV and IPV within the 2SLBGTQIA + community and the impact it has had on conceptualizing IPV research, response, policy, and practice. Together, they point to gaps in situating and identifying abusers/perpetrators. For example, research by Jaffray (2020a) and Simpson (2018) suggest non-cis-men report a higher risk of all forms of violence including IPV than cis-men. Because these gaps play a role in the framing of the problem, they can also play a role in the response to the problem. IPV service provision has historically been female-centered and, while this is changing, there is still a lack of agreement on cultural and gender-related issues in service provision for both abusers/perpetrators and victims/survivors (Barner & Carney, 2011).
Globally, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV have varied, with research suggesting consequent increases or decreases in IPV prevalence rates. While research in the United States showed no overall increase in IPV prevalence during the pandemic (Peitzmeier et al., 2021), other research show a lower prevalence of IPV during the pandemic (Muldoon et al., 2021; Ojeahere et al., 2021). However, many studies show an increase in IPV during compared to before the COVID-19 pandemic across country settings (Arenas-Arroyo et al., 2021; Gebrewahd et al., 2020; Pallansch et al., 2021; Pattojoshi et al., 2021). Where no increase in the incidence of IPV was found, more severe violence was observed (van Gelder et al., 2021).
According to Pallansch et al. (2021), the co-occurring pandemics of COVID-19 and DV disproportionately impacted Black people, Indigenous people, and people of color. Macklin (2022) reported that migrant workers worldwide faced deadly vulnerability during the COVID-19 crisis, exacerbated by racism and anti-immigrant nationalism (p. 65), again speaking to the multiple jeopardy faced by vulnerable populations. IPV for this group is exacerbated when economic factors render the victim financially dependent on the abuser. Marginalization due to immigration status points to vulnerabilities that are caused by broader governance structures, such as border security. Nonstatus or undocumented migrant people, including women, in nonpandemic times face risks related to lack of access to health care, poor working conditions, exploitation, and stress due to fear of deportation. COVID-19 intensified this disadvantage in all areas. In Canada, without a Social Insurance Number (SIN), migrants had no access to COVID-19-related income support. For immigrants in abusive relationships who lack adequate documentation, fear of deportation is used by abusers and can hinder reporting of IPV (Abji et al., 2020). Similarly, service providers for victims/survivors in rural and northern regions in Canada identified isolation as a barrier to seeking help and other social supports including housing, financial assistance, and transportation (Letourneau et al., 2023).
The pandemic increased barriers to services responding to IPV. Lockdowns led to reduced shelter availability, the shutdown of courts that typically hear abuse cases, and slowdowns in obtaining protection orders due to remote access inconsistencies (Hodes, 2021). Many services shifted to remote access during the pandemic, and survivors of IPV faced obstacles to care, such as unequal access to technology, language and/or cultural barriers, lack of childcare, as well as economic insecurity (Williams et al., 2021). The result was an often-observed decrease in instances of women seeking assistance from anti-violence centers and/or emergency services during the COVID-19 pandemic (Barbara et al., 2020). Research in the United States has also shown many IPV advocated and agencies adjusting their services to meet the needs of people experiencing IPV while also grappling with pandemic-induced changes within their organizations and personal lives (Garcia et al., 2022). In Canada, surveys conducted among service providers for violence against women have revealed notable effects related to the pandemic. These include difficulties in providing services, such as increased demand for personal protective equipment, adherence to physical distancing measures, and the need for technological support. Additionally, challenges have been observed in women accessing these services, particularly those who are sheltering at home with abusive partners (Trudell & Whitmore, 2020; Women's Shelters Canada, 2019; Yakubovich & Maki, 2022).
Theoretical Framework
Theoretically, we approach the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV service provision to victims/survivors at the intersections of gender, race, and migration due to limited studies that focus on IPV service provision for individuals with unique circumstances and vulnerabilities (see Muldoon et al., 2021 and Matoori et al., 2021). We employed an intersectional theoretical lens to consider service provider perspectives on the pandemic's impact on IPV. This analytical lens enabled researchers to think about the interactions (and interoperability) of diverse aspects of social location, social difference, and identity (Hankivsky et al., 2010).
Intersectionality, coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to explain oppression of Black women in the USA, examines the way that multiple systems of power intersect and interact with one another to shape experiences with discrimination, violence, and marginalization. In 2006, Crenshaw expanded on her work by considering how feminist approaches to politicizing gender-based violence (GBV) serve White women while marginalizing those of color. Crenshaw asserts that intersecting locations of race and gender position women of color in ways that make their experiences of GBV, and others’ response to violence, different from White women (Crenshaw, 2006). Work centered around intersectionality has since expanded to consider how race and gender intersect with other axes of privilege and oppression, including ability, citizenship, and class (Ellermann, 2020; Hill Collins, 1998, 2017). This work has conceptualized violence as a site of power and political domination where people and groups participate in violence in heterogeneous ways and with “varying expressions of power” (Hill Collins, 1998, p. 930). Intersectionality allows a capacious approach to both social structures and the complexity of identity when it comes to explaining how and why barriers to access and treatment exist. While intersectionality also exposes the challenges of holding so many details together, it also ultimately accounts for the often mutually reinforcing forces of both marginalization and privilege in the realm of service providers. This understanding considers the voice of service providers on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on DV and IPV as forms of coercive control. Providers explained how experiences with coercive control and support available to those seeking escape are shaped by survivors’ relationships with other institutions and systems of power, including White supremacy and hegemonic masculinity.
Methods
This article focuses on the impact of COVID-19 on IPV service provision in Alberta, Canada. The data collected and reported in this article is part of an environmental scan of equity-deserving organizations in Alberta that sought to understand how organizations were engaging in equity-deserving work at intersections of gender, as well as challenges and opportunities providers face in pursuing such work. Participating organizations were recruited through an internet search and retrieval of 960 organizations engaged in equity-deserving work at the intersections of gender across the province. Our internet search was done through a search of keywords: women, gender, two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, nonbinary, and queer (2SLBGTQIA+) communities, same-gender loving communities, Black, Indigenous, people of color, immigrants, refugees, newcomers, and differently abled communities. In addition to this keyword search, researchers scoured provincial and municipal government and commerce websites, information from umbrella service organizations, and a provincial list of women's organizations across the province.
A member of the research team contacted each of these organizations by email asking them to participate in this study. This resulted in a total of 60 organizations agreeing to participate in interviews. This low response rate was due to the pandemic, competing priorities for organization and research timelines. Participating organizations were located in both urban and rural settings throughout Alberta, including Edmonton, Calgary, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Fort MacMurray, Grand Prairie, Lloydminster, Morinville, and Taber (see Table 1). Each participating organization then assigned a representative or representatives to take part in an interview via Zoom. Most interviews were conducted with an individual representative but, in several cases, organizations requested two to four representatives attend to offer a more holistic account of their programming. Participants provided informed consent at the start of interviews, each lasting between 30 and 90 min and conducted using a semi-structured interview guide.
Organization Demographic Data.
Several organizations identified with multiple categories.
Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. A coding framework (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was developed by all researchers involved in the interviews by reading transcripts, highlighting key issues in the data, and reviewing reflexive notes (Vaismoradi et al., 2016). Data were coded and analyzed thematically using NVivo 12 qualitative analysis software by one researcher. The coding framework was reviewed by all members of the research team to refine codes, subthemes, and themes arising from the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). An intersectional lens was infused into the analysis to contextualize and articulate the structures that inhibit gender equity. Participating organizations were anonymized in the results to ensure confidentiality and protect participants working in these organizations. Anonymized quotations were included in this article to provide deeper understanding and meaning to our research findings (Corden & Sainsbury, 2006). Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Alberta Ethics Board (P2200170).
Results
Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on DV and IPV
The results presented here consider how race, gender, and class influence the experience of victims/survivors with IPV service provision as narrated by service providers. The term victim/survivor is used here not only to situate diverse lived experiences of IPV but also to acknowledge the place and purpose of both terms in describing service providers’ perspective on clients’ experiences with IPV in Alberta.
Two main themes arose from the analysis of interview data. First, service providers contextualized the difficulty of providing service and support to victims/survivors of IPV in a sector that is traditionally binary (cis-white) in both its understanding and response to violence. They provided nuanced accounts of IPV through the lens of otherness, race, and representation. Second, service providers reported accounts of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in a sector with existing structural/institutional challenges, including lack of funding (Evans et al., 2021) and limited integration between government policies and service programming (Simich et al., 2005). Subthemes discussed here include pandemic-induced changes in service provision, system navigation, and barriers to accessing services.
“Otherness” and Access to IPV Service Provision (N = 21)
The context in which IPV occurs impacts the types of services and supports available for victims/survivors. Although women are disproportionately represented in cases of IPV, participants described gendered scripts attributing IPV toward women only as exclusionary with respect to “who experiences sexual violence and who perpetrates it” (Participant 21). Coercive control further complicates the experiences of victims/survivors to include the nonphysical (i.e., financial, emotional, and mental abuse) ways in which DV and IPV can occur. IPV is rooted in power dynamics between partners which, in turn, is influenced by the sources of inequity in relationships, for example, gender identity, race, income, employment, class, etc. Which, you know, brings me to the way that we understand sexual violence .. is that it is about power and control, and, you know, those who are considered to have less value in our communities are at a greater risk for sexual assault. And so it is a gendered crime, but it also really, you know, like underpinning. At the roots of sexual violence, are racism, colonialism, ableism, right? (Participant 8)
Participants explained how anchoring service provision in an understanding of coercive control expands the ways in which they can understand IPV. This lens aids their work because it helps them to recognize the ways in which many people are positioned as victims/survivors and perpetrators outside of heteronormative gender scripts. However, several participants reported that service provision for IPV and other forms of GBV is still essentially focused on the experiences of cis-gendered individuals. All gender or gender-inclusive shelters are few and far between in Alberta. Considering the quote below, some organizations have included social media campaigns highlighting their presence, and the intersections between gender identity, minority stress, and IPV, as part of their programming. .. social media campaign to talk about how we are an all-gender shelter, and to highlight how men and 2SLGBTQ + individuals experience intimate partner violence. (Participant 40)
However, the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these gaps in programing and service provision and contributed to individuals remaining in violent relationships for longer periods of time. And the thing that was probably the most frightening moment of the pandemic for our organization and a number of other women serving organizations, particularly around domestic violence, was the silence when things locked down. It was a terrifying silence, because we knew the issue hadn’t gone away. We knew it had just been locked up. And, you know, the added pressures of the economic impacts, we know that when the economy goes down, domestic violence rates go up. (Participant 54)
… like one of the things that I think it like intersects with all of that, is that people are often asked to perform in a certain way in order to get support, right? So like, “Okay, I do .. I do sex work because that's what makes sense for me right now, but I’m going to an organization that's like faith-based and so I have to talk about not wanting to do this work, because I actually won’t get help unless I say that I want to stop doing the sex work. Even if it's the sex work isn’t actually the problem for me, I have to say that particular narrative.” (Participant 56)
Understanding the interactions between gender, race, and access to services is key to providing adequate and inclusive responses and support. This is particularly true for people from minority ethnic and gender groups where first/police response to cases of IPV is situated within these factors amongst others. So, if you are a White RCMP officer supporting an Indigenous woman, the experiences and the perceptions are going to be really, really different, and I think there's a very strong challenge and strong need to understand how that impacts our service delivery. (Participant 21)
Considering the quote above, first responders who intend to support Indigenous people must understand the historical context of police brutality, ethnic stereotypes, and discrimination against Indigenous people and how this impacts trust and anxiety around access to service provision and supports. Cultural identity and representation also play a role in the lived or living experience of victims/survivors of DV or IPV. People from minority ethnic groups who are experiencing DV or IPV often find it difficult to leave abusive relationships for many reasons, including lack of housing, safety, and financial concerns. For example, we consider the case of women from minority religious and ethnic groups in Canada for whom the decision to leave abusive situations is often layered at the intersection of religion and culture. Clients from different racial backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds, different language backgrounds. I would say also from different religious backgrounds. Reality is that there is a lot of Islamophobia, and it is growing in Canada, too. And so, you know, in Edmonton alone there's been like .. I think this year, this year and last year, there's probably been more than ten incidents of Islamophobia against women, just in the community. … And those are the reported ones, right? Oftentimes a lot of these go unreported, unfortunately. And so that creates a stronger culture of fear. Like a lot of these women don’t want to leave because they don’t want to be stereotyped. They don’t want to be .. they don’t want to have to justify why they left or why their religion says this or that. Or they just don’t want to have to deal with any of that. Like it's enough, it's hard enough having to flee abuse, right? It's hard enough having to figure things out and try to put your life back together, but add to it having to also worry about, Okay, I’m painting all Muslims in a bad way because I, you know, I’m showing them that my husband was abusive. (Participant 30)
Vulnerability for some Muslim women does not emerge solely from their experience of IPV but also from Islamophobia in Canada and being Muslim in a country where social currency and community identity are important to visible minorities. Therefore, leaving the site and source of violence and accessing IPV service provision is not straightforward but multilayered. While accessing services and supports addresses the experience of violence, it also lends to the stereotype of submissive Muslim women and violent Muslim men and limits access to their community as victims/survivors become those who left and reported their husbands. All of these contribute to the narrative of Muslims in Alberta. This and other challenges such as the “lack of culturally informed services,” particularly for clients whose first language is not English, limits access to IPV services because they often lack the vocabulary to express themselves and their trauma.
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on IPV Service Provision
The uncertainty and service interruptions caused by the pandemic exacerbated the need for more support and services, noting that some of the issues presented here predate the pandemic.
Changes in Service Provision—the Move to Virtual and Service Interruptions (n = 30)
Participants situated the impact of the pandemic on service provision in the context of prepandemic sector-wide issues related to service provision and an entire overhaul of operations to adapt to changes in response to COVID-19 pandemic policies and safety protocols.
There were some months where we were experiencing like, you know, 60 plus percent increase in calls to Alberta's one line. All our centers were struggling with, you know, vaccination policies, and how can we continue to do this work and make it safe (Participant 8).
Amid these changes were ethical and practical concerns related to providing trauma and counseling services online, leaving many organizations with increasing anxiety and infrastructural costs to adjust to the new reality. During COVID that is obviously been more challenging to maintain, just because folks are Zoomed out and not necessarily wanting to participate virtually all the time (Participant 21).
The move to virtual service provision also heightened the barriers to service provision for clients in rural and remote communities where access to telecommunications networks can sometimes be inadequate. Virtual services also proved challenging due to Zoom fatigue and burnout from using videoconferencing software to navigate access to services. In addition to changes in service provision and system navigation, the pandemic exacerbated mental health concerns, isolation, and lack of support for ethnic and gender-diverse clients. Many participating organizations went into crisis management mode not only for current traumatic events but also for episodes of isolation, anxiety, and depression: “every week to week, they’re getting hit by something new” (Participant 21).
System Navigation (n = 13)
Although the movement of clients within multiple organizations and systems to respond to their needs was a major challenge prepandemic, issues relating to system navigation were heightened during the pandemic because victims/survivors lacked access to informal support that would have been available before the pandemic. You know, our shelter, for example, might be part of that greater system. And then they bounce around within the system, being shuffled from one caregiver to another caregiver to another organization, you know, and on and on it goes. And the need is never met, right? So .. and they have to keep telling their story, over and over and over and over again, which just augments the trauma that got them there in the first place. (Participant 25)
Accessing different services in a time of much uncertainty meant retelling and/or reliving their trauma multiple times and to multiple and inconsistent personnel to access support for the source of their trauma. And since a big part of our work is referring clients to longer-term supports, not knowing, you know, what's still running, or how it's running, or what's going on, and then add the funding cuts, it makes it harder for us to be able to refer those clients appropriately. (Participant 55)
Across interviews, participants consistently noted that this cycle of resharing can be minimized by employing holistic, cross-sector approaches to supporting clients. However, pandemic shutdowns created widespread uncertainty that made referrals or any cross-sector data sharing very difficult, leaving many organizations unable to connect clients to the range of support they often needed.
Barriers to Accessing Shelters and Transition Houses (n = 8)
Participants discussed increased barriers for people fleeing IPV as victims/survivors were staying in homes with IPV or DV longer than they had prepandemic, with serious implications for adult and child survivors. I would say like there's challenges pre-pandemic, and then there's current challenges, and those are similar but different. You know, what we’ve experienced with the pandemic is … and you’ve probably heard this if you’ve been talking to other organizations who are focused on violence against women, is that, you know, through the pandemic women have been like staying longer in their abusive relationships. It's harder for them, I think, to access services to plan to leave and then to leave, especially if they have a partner who's working from home as well. So, you know, the natural, I think the natural breaks that you would get when somebody goes to the office, or when you go to the office, are happening less. And so when we do see women come to the shelter, they’ve stayed in their abusive relationship longer. They’ve experienced more severe violence. (Participant 27)
Gender-diverse clients are impacted more by this situation as they have safety concerns around “okay, I’m a trans woman, what am I going to experience if I go to the shelter?”; there is a real fear/concern with respect to their experiences related to accessing already limited services. This is a major challenge for these clients when considering fleeing high-risk situations at home. For many gender-diverse clients, these experiences can invalidate their trauma. Consider these words from one of our participants, speaking from the perspective of one of her gender-diverse clients: “I’m trying to keep my family safe and you’re telling me there's nowhere for me to go,” is a pretty … it's not a very supportive experience for people who are already experiencing a lot of hardship. (Participant 56)
Here we see the ways in which people articulate an intensification effect: gender-diverse clients who are already feeling strained from the experience of living in a world that values two genders almost exclusively express additional hardship and exclusion when there are no services to support them at shelters. This is not a single-factor issue for such people.
Most of the organizations supporting clients with experiences of gender-based violence, including IPV, approached service provision through two main frameworks: holistic wrap-around service provision and “meeting clients where they are at” (Participant 3). While wrap-around service provision ensures better management, referral, and coordination between organizations and agencies, meeting clients where they are at ensures a trauma-informed and strength-based approach to engagement with survivors. This person-centered approach allows clients to choose the services that meet their needs instead of a one-size-fits-all approach to service provision for people experiencing IPV. Participants explained that providing services for a diverse population in a sector many perceive as traditionally, sometimes unthinkingly, created for cis-gendered, White women is difficult in the presence of fewer funding resources, as well as societal and cultural changes. Concerns about the practicality of designing inclusive shelters were raised considering the growing emphasis on 2SLGBTQIA issues, ageism, and the many sub-populations that access shelters and transition homes. What does it take to design an inclusive shelter? What .. you know, what might that look like, particularly now you’re seeing more emphasis on, you know, 2SLGBTQ issues. So, what does that look like, and how do you manage a shelter when someone who identifies as a woman but appears as a man, and, you know, is experiencing abuse, and other women are triggered because they’re seeing a man there. You know, we’re just not designed to be inclusive the way, you know, society has evolved. And then you get like, you know, you get that pushback about not being .. you know, not being inclusive because you’re not admitting. So, there's a real conflict in how you can provide those services. (Participant 46)
Discussion
This article adds to the growing literature on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV in Canada. The themes presented above show the complexity of being other and how “otherness” can limit access to services and supports for victims/survivors of IPV and the challenges shelters/transition houses face in doing equity-deserving work during the COVID-19 pandemic in Alberta. Our intersectional approach focuses on the many axes of inequity that impede people's access to services after experiencing violence. We argue that vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic depended on both the individual characteristics of the victims/survivors and the policies enacted that limited access to services and supports.
Many participants reported they approach service provision through an understanding that IPV may not be limited to physical violence, and instead extends into other forms of coercive control. However, they explained programming is still struggling to accommodate “otherness” and often reaffirms GBV scripts and myths. This is primarily due to the traditional and binary constructions of IPV and IPV response. The experiences of victims/survivors of IPV are not all the same. For example, research shows many shelter staff have internalized gender scripts and stereotypes that dismiss the severity of IPV among gender minority couples compared to those in cis-gendered relationships (Donovan & Barnes, 2018; Ford et al., 2013). Research has shown how cis-men experience barriers to accessing services in divergent ways, that is, the construct of IPV victimization and inadequate services for men compared to women (Lysova et al., 2022; Scott-Storey et al., 2023). Consequently, IPV response for men might, among other things, inadequately assess or dismiss situations that are atypical to the gendered construction of IPV, including the ways in which coercive control appears in violent relationships. Similarly, a report by Jaffray (2020b) focused on Canada suggests sexual minority women are much more likely than heterosexual women to experience all forms of IPV. Our findings stress the effect of
Social stigma related to reporting experiences of IPV is an important factor for people, particularly women from minority ethnic and religious communities. An intersectional analysis of “home” further complicates plans to report or leave violent relationships; this is because home is the site of IPV, the source of familial identity within religious and ethnic minority communities, and the site of stigma (Bhattacharjee, 2006; Hill Collins, 1998). We found such nuance of the public/private divide especially helpful in our analysis of the ways in which homes can be both the site of IPV and of refuge when trying to leave abusive living situations. While our findings link a lack of affordable housing in Alberta to increased vulnerability to IPV, some people from minority ethnic groups must layer this systemic issue with complicated ideas of “home” and image as married Muslim women.
For Muslim women from collectivist backgrounds experiencing IPV in Alberta, reporting IPV is also layered with feelings of contributing to negative perceptions of Muslim men, particularly in the West. Additionally, women in ethnic and religious communities may be discouraged from leaving abusive marriages because of the negative perception of divorced women (Alghamdi et al., 2022). This added pressure on victims of IPV from minority communities contributes to both their lower rates of reporting and help-seeking behavior and misconceptions that members of their communities do not need, or access, public services for IPV. The social determinants of help-seeking behavior among women from minority communities and gender-diverse people need to be fully understood by all organizations involved in responding to cases of IPV to create an inclusive environment for victims/survivors of IPV.
This article also speaks to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV service provision in Alberta. Specifically, the themes that emerged highlighted the changes in service provision caused by the pandemic, issues with system navigation, and barriers to accessing shelters and transitional housing. Lockdowns, restrictions in capacity for one-to-one services, reduced shelter availability, closed or limited virtual service court hearings, and difficulty in obtaining court orders were some of the additional barriers to services at the peak of the pandemic (Hodes, 2021). The move to virtual service provision exposed inequalities in access to services for victims living in rural and remote areas due to poor internet service connectivity as well as internet fatigue for survivors in more urban areas. Language and cultural sensitivity played a more critical role in accessing service for women from minority ethnic groups, especially during the pandemic, as expressed by service providers interviewed in this study. Research by Williams et al. (2021) demonstrates the impact of language and cultural barriers on how victims of IPV access care. The article also shows the problematic nature of retelling experiences and reliving traumatic episodes every time victims of IPV access the system of services that responds to their need for service provision and calls for more collaboration and data sharing across organizations within the sector.
A more important factor to consider is the role structural reforms play in the response to IPV, particularly in relation to the many forms of oppression women and gender-diverse people face. While the argument can be made for cultural sensitivity in service provision, Smith (2005) argues for the inclusion of women of color, who have survived IPV, in the creation of programs and services geared toward addressing their trauma. This raises questions about how service providers can use an intersectional lens to open up to include “others” who have experienced IPV in “traditionally women's spaces” without triggering past and current trauma; how service providers can support all people that experience IPV with limited resources and services; and what it means to operate a truly inclusive shelter or transition house without concerns about “erasing women” to include gender-diverse people.
Conclusion
By investigating IPV through the lens of service providers, this article contributes to the growing literature on the multifaceted ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic impacted people's lives in Canada and around the world. Our intersectional perspective considers the complexity of IPV by unpacking who it affects, who is “allowed” to be affected, nonphysical IPV, the types and barriers to services available for “who” is impacted by IPV, and the overall impact of the pandemic on IPV in Alberta.
The pandemic impacted IPV service provision by exacerbating existing issues within the infrastructure and systems that support people fleeing violent situations. While some organizations used the opportunity to expand operations to include virtual service provision, these opportunities also highlighted barriers related to reaching technologically disadvantaged people experiencing violence. Similarly, prolonged lockdown and restrictions, economic hardship and isolation among clients, and suspension and interruptions in services and referrals put many organizations in survival mode and increased barriers to leaving domestic abuse.
Service provision across all systems responding to IPV should reflect complexity of this issue and provide truly inclusive client-centered services that deal with IPV at individual, community, and systemic levels. This article also proposes enhanced coordination between organizations to better support service provision, increased availability of gender-inclusive shelters, and increased public education on the complex nature of IPV, cohesive control, and other forms of GBV. Finally, this article advocates for greater systemic change in the policies, practices, and structural institutions that govern sites of oppression to promote gender equity and address other social sectors involved in housing, employment, and migrant settlement, all of which impact the onset of violence, the option to leave, and the types of services available to victims/survivors.
Footnotes
Acknowledgment
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iD
