essay on domestic violence during lockdown

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Finding middle way out of Gaza war

Roadmap to Gaza peace may run through Oslo

Why Democrats, Republicans, who appear at war these days, really need each other

At the onset of the pandemic, the number of calls into hotlines went down. “But that didn’t mean that suddenly domestic violence was declining. It meant that the opportunities to have a safe space to call or ask for help were limited,” said Marianna Yang.

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

‘Shadow pandemic’ of domestic violence

Harvard Staff Writer

Law School’s Marianna Yang examines rise in factors, hurdles in courts for victims

Violence against women increased to record levels around the world following lockdowns to control the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The United Nations called the situation a “shadow pandemic” in a 2021 report about domestic violence in 13 nations in Africa, Asia, South America, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans. In the United States, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported alarming trends in U.S. domestic violence, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline ( The Hotline ) received more than 74,000 calls, chats, and texts in February, the highest monthly contact volume of its 25-year history. The Gazette spoke with Marianna Yang, lecturer on law and clinical instructor at the Family and Domestic Violence Law Clinic at WilmerHale Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, about the crisis.  The interview was edited for clarity and length.

Marianna Yang

GAZETTE:  The most recent statistics about domestic violence during the pandemic are worrisome. What do those numbers mean?

YANG:  In 2021, the United Nations published the report “Measuring the Shadow Pandemic: Violence Against Women During COVID-19.” It said that since the pandemic, violence against women has increased to unprecedented levels. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine said that domestic violence cases increased by 25 to 33 percent globally. The National Commission on COVID-19 and criminal justice shows an increase in the U.S. by a little over 8 percent, following the imposition of lockdown orders during 2020. I don’t have anything more specific for Massachusetts, but there is no reason to believe that we are any different from the rest. Domestic violence is prevalent everywhere.

According to all statistics I have seen from 2020-2021, domestic violence and intimate partner violence during the pandemic has increased because the risk factors have increased with lockdowns and pandemic restrictions.

GAZETTE:  What role did the pandemic play in the rise of risk factors for domestic violence?

YANG:  The increase in numbers really shows that there are unintended consequences to some of the lockdowns recommended by global health experts to address the pandemic. There are good reasons for lockdowns to protect public health, but we have to recognize the collateral and unintended impacts as well. That’s not to say that we should not have lockdowns, but there must be more focus on the resources to address those secondary impacts as well. A lockdown increases the risk factors for domestic violence in multiple ways: there are more financial stressors because of income loss due to unemployment; there is also the loss of the ability to have breathing spaces for people who are in risky relationships. When people are working outside the home, interactions with their partner are limited to certain hours of the day, and the potential time for conflict is also limited. In a lockdown, not only do you take away those breathing spaces, but you also increase the dynamics where domestic violence can occur. Also, beyond that, during a lockdown, the ability to get help is limited because you don’t have the private space to call somebody; you’re isolated from your support system as a victim/survivor, and you can’t access your family and friends, the people that you rely on. In all those facets and all those ways, the risk goes up for violence.

“There are good reasons for lockdowns to protect public health, but we have to recognize the collateral and unintended impacts as well.”

GAZETTE:  How did the reporting of domestic violence incidents fluctuate during the pandemic?

YANG:  I do know that at the very beginning of the pandemic, the number of calls into hotlines were showing a decrease, but that didn’t mean that suddenly domestic violence was declining. It meant that the opportunities to have a safe space to call or ask for help were limited. As the restrictions were relaxed a bit, we saw an increase in the calls for help, but they could also mean that the situation might have escalated to a point where it would push someone to make calls they otherwise would not have before the pandemic.

Generally speaking, domestic violence and intimate partner violence are underreported, and that was before and during the pandemic. There are plenty of folks who, for many good reasons, do not reach out for help. Before the pandemic, there were two hashtags — #WhyIStayed, #WhyILeft — which helped facilitate discussions around many of the reasons why people decide to stay or leave.

GAZETTE:  In which other ways were domestic violence victims affected by the pandemic?

YANG:  I don’t have direct access to information about shelters during the pandemic. I’m sure they remained open for the current residents, but I don’t know whether they were accepting new residents. What I do know is that judges were less likely to grant motions like Motions to Vacate the Marital Home due to the pandemic restrictions. Although this didn’t happen in any of my cases, there were anecdotes about judges being much less willing to consider those motions because of the inability of anyone to leave the house and go somewhere else. But in situations where there is clear violence, and the plaintiff can show imminent physical safety issues, judges must first and foremost consider the safety aspects of the plaintiff seeking a protective order. Judges handled restraining orders during the pandemic as emergency petitions, and the courts were open for those, but everything had to be remote and remote on a dime. There were situations where it was more difficult to provide evidence because documents or affidavits were usually filed with the court and had to be filed in person. There were gaps in the court’s systems during the pandemic, and understandably so, but that doesn’t lessen the impact and hardships that the victims had to endure.

GAZETTE:  How did the pandemic impact the services provided by the Family Law and Domestic Violence Clinic at HLS?

YANG:  By the time domestic violence victims get to us, it’s several steps removed. The clinic has a partnership with the Passageway program  at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which provides services directly to domestic violence clients, including safety planning. My understanding is that they’ve faced an increased number of clients seeking their assistance. Those who needed to seek restraining orders and address issues through the probate and family courts were referred to us to the extent that we could access the courts. Because of the court’s closures, we provided increased levels of consultation and education around the law for when the clients could make a legal move.

Now that the courts are open again, what we’re noticing, especially in the courts that we’re practicing in, is that things are getting delayed a lot longer than they used to. Even if people can go to court, getting motions in a divorce case or getting custody and child support issues heard in front of a judge has taken months longer. Before the pandemic, it took about 30 days for motion to be heard. These days, it takes two weeks or more just to get motions docketed and then another 30 or 60 days, if not more, after that. We’re seeing a lot of chaos in terms of the workings of some of the courts; there are files that go missing and pro se litigants [those representing themselves] needing to get in front of the judges can’t get through the bureaucracy of the courts.

The biggest hurdle has been the bureaucratic aspects of getting in front of a judge. Minimizing that delay is now a much bigger part of our advocacy. We also need more legal aid and pro bono lawyers who understand that people who are in domestic violence situations are going through trauma. One of the best ways to support victims of domestic violence is to offer trauma-informed lawyering, which is another way to holistically support a client going through a difficult situation.

Share this article

You might like.

Educators, activists explore peacebuilding based on shared desires for ‘freedom and equality and independence’ at Weatherhead panel

Former Palestinian Authority prime minister says strengthening execution of 1993 accords could lead to two-state solution 

Political philosopher Harvey C. Mansfield says it all goes back to Aristotle, balance of competing ideas about common good

College accepts 1,937 to Class of 2028

Students represent 94 countries, all 50 states

Pushing back on DEI ‘orthodoxy’

Panelists support diversity efforts but worry that current model is too narrow, denying institutions the benefit of other voices, ideas

So what exactly makes Taylor Swift so great?

Experts weigh in on pop superstar's cultural and financial impact as her tours and albums continue to break records.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches
• Browse content in B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925
• B21 - Microeconomics
• B22 - Macroeconomics
• Browse content in C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
• Browse content in C1 - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General
• C10 - General
• C14 - Semiparametric and Nonparametric Methods: General
• Browse content in C2 - Single Equation Models; Single Variables
• C23 - Panel Data Models; Spatio-temporal Models
• C25 - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions; Probabilities
• Browse content in C5 - Econometric Modeling
• C50 - General
• C52 - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
• Browse content in C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
• C70 - General
• C72 - Noncooperative Games
• C78 - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
• Browse content in C9 - Design of Experiments
• C91 - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
• C92 - Laboratory, Group Behavior
• Browse content in D - Microeconomics
• Browse content in D0 - General
• D01 - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
• D02 - Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact
• D03 - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
• Browse content in D1 - Household Behavior and Family Economics
• D11 - Consumer Economics: Theory
• D12 - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
• D14 - Household Saving; Personal Finance
• D18 - Consumer Protection
• Browse content in D2 - Production and Organizations
• D21 - Firm Behavior: Theory
• D22 - Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
• D23 - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
• Browse content in D3 - Distribution
• D30 - General
• D31 - Personal Income, Wealth, and Their Distributions
• Browse content in D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design
• D40 - General
• D42 - Monopoly
• D43 - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
• Browse content in D6 - Welfare Economics
• D60 - General
• D61 - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
• D62 - Externalities
• D63 - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
• Browse content in D7 - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
• D70 - General
• D71 - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
• D72 - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
• D73 - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
• D74 - Conflict; Conflict Resolution; Alliances; Revolutions
• D78 - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation
• Browse content in D8 - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty
• D80 - General
• D81 - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
• D82 - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
• D83 - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
• D86 - Economics of Contract: Theory
• Browse content in D9 - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics
• D91 - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
• Browse content in E - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Browse content in E0 - General
• E00 - General
• E02 - Institutions and the Macroeconomy
• Browse content in E1 - General Aggregative Models
• E12 - Keynes; Keynesian; Post-Keynesian
• Browse content in E2 - Consumption, Saving, Production, Investment, Labor Markets, and Informal Economy
• E24 - Employment; Unemployment; Wages; Intergenerational Income Distribution; Aggregate Human Capital; Aggregate Labor Productivity
• Browse content in E5 - Monetary Policy, Central Banking, and the Supply of Money and Credit
• E51 - Money Supply; Credit; Money Multipliers
• Browse content in F - International Economics
• Browse content in F1 - Trade
• F10 - General
• F13 - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
• F18 - Trade and Environment
• Browse content in F2 - International Factor Movements and International Business
• F22 - International Migration
• Browse content in F3 - International Finance
• F34 - International Lending and Debt Problems
• Browse content in F5 - International Relations, National Security, and International Political Economy
• F53 - International Agreements and Observance; International Organizations
• F55 - International Institutional Arrangements
• Browse content in G - Financial Economics
• Browse content in G0 - General
• G01 - Financial Crises
• Browse content in G1 - General Financial Markets
• G12 - Asset Pricing; Trading volume; Bond Interest Rates
• G14 - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
• G18 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G2 - Financial Institutions and Services
• G21 - Banks; Depository Institutions; Micro Finance Institutions; Mortgages
• G24 - Investment Banking; Venture Capital; Brokerage; Ratings and Ratings Agencies
• G28 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in G3 - Corporate Finance and Governance
• G31 - Capital Budgeting; Fixed Investment and Inventory Studies; Capacity
• G32 - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
• G34 - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
• G38 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in H - Public Economics
• Browse content in H0 - General
• H00 - General
• Browse content in H1 - Structure and Scope of Government
• H10 - General
• H11 - Structure, Scope, and Performance of Government
• Browse content in H2 - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H20 - General
• H23 - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
• H24 - Personal Income and Other Nonbusiness Taxes and Subsidies; includes inheritance and gift taxes
• Browse content in H3 - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
• H31 - Household
• Browse content in H4 - Publicly Provided Goods
• H40 - General
• H41 - Public Goods
• Browse content in H5 - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
• H51 - Government Expenditures and Health
• Browse content in H6 - National Budget, Deficit, and Debt
• H63 - Debt; Debt Management; Sovereign Debt
• Browse content in H7 - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations
• H70 - General
• H71 - State and Local Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
• H72 - State and Local Budget and Expenditures
• H73 - Interjurisdictional Differentials and Their Effects
• H74 - State and Local Borrowing
• H75 - State and Local Government: Health; Education; Welfare; Public Pensions
• H76 - State and Local Government: Other Expenditure Categories
• Browse content in H8 - Miscellaneous Issues
• H81 - Governmental Loans; Loan Guarantees; Credits; Grants; Bailouts
• H82 - Governmental Property
• Browse content in I - Health, Education, and Welfare
• Browse content in I1 - Health
• I10 - General
• I11 - Analysis of Health Care Markets
• I12 - Health Behavior
• I13 - Health Insurance, Public and Private
• I18 - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
• Browse content in I2 - Education and Research Institutions
• I21 - Analysis of Education
• I28 - Government Policy
• Browse content in I3 - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
• I38 - Government Policy; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs
• Browse content in J - Labor and Demographic Economics
• Browse content in J0 - General
• J00 - General
• Browse content in J1 - Demographic Economics
• J12 - Marriage; Marital Dissolution; Family Structure; Domestic Abuse
• J13 - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth
• J15 - Economics of Minorities, Races, Indigenous Peoples, and Immigrants; Non-labor Discrimination
• J18 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J2 - Demand and Supply of Labor
• J22 - Time Allocation and Labor Supply
• J28 - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy
• Browse content in J3 - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
• J30 - General
• J31 - Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
• J32 - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; Retirement Plans; Private Pensions
• J33 - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods
• J38 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J4 - Particular Labor Markets
• J41 - Labor Contracts
• J45 - Public Sector Labor Markets
• J48 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers
• J61 - Geographic Labor Mobility; Immigrant Workers
• J62 - Job, Occupational, and Intergenerational Mobility
• Browse content in J7 - Labor Discrimination
• J71 - Discrimination
• J78 - Public Policy
• Browse content in J8 - Labor Standards: National and International
• J81 - Working Conditions
• J83 - Workers' Rights
• J88 - Public Policy
• Browse content in K - Law and Economics
• Browse content in K0 - General
• K00 - General
• Browse content in K1 - Basic Areas of Law
• K10 - General
• K11 - Property Law
• K12 - Contract Law
• K13 - Tort Law and Product Liability; Forensic Economics
• K14 - Criminal Law
• K19 - Other
• Browse content in K2 - Regulation and Business Law
• K20 - General
• K21 - Antitrust Law
• K22 - Business and Securities Law
• K23 - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
• Browse content in K3 - Other Substantive Areas of Law
• K30 - General
• K31 - Labor Law
• K32 - Environmental, Health, and Safety Law
• K34 - Tax Law
• K35 - Personal Bankruptcy Law
• K36 - Family and Personal Law
• Browse content in K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
• K40 - General
• K41 - Litigation Process
• K42 - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
• K49 - Other
• Browse content in L - Industrial Organization
• Browse content in L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
• L11 - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
• L12 - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
• L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
• L14 - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation; Networks
• L15 - Information and Product Quality; Standardization and Compatibility
• Browse content in L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior
• L22 - Firm Organization and Market Structure
• L24 - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures; Technology Licensing
• Browse content in L3 - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise
• L38 - Public Policy
• Browse content in L4 - Antitrust Issues and Policies
• L40 - General
• L42 - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts
• L49 - Other
• Browse content in L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy
• L51 - Economics of Regulation
• Browse content in L8 - Industry Studies: Services
• L83 - Sports; Gambling; Recreation; Tourism
• Browse content in L9 - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
• L91 - Transportation: General
• L96 - Telecommunications
• Browse content in M - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics
• Browse content in M1 - Business Administration
• M13 - New Firms; Startups
• Browse content in M4 - Accounting and Auditing
• M42 - Auditing
• M48 - Government Policy and Regulation
• Browse content in M5 - Personnel Economics
• M50 - General
• M52 - Compensation and Compensation Methods and Their Effects
• Browse content in N - Economic History
• Browse content in N1 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations
• N11 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• Browse content in N4 - Government, War, Law, International Relations, and Regulation
• N40 - General, International, or Comparative
• N41 - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
• N42 - U.S.; Canada: 1913-
• N43 - Europe: Pre-1913
• Browse content in N5 - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment, and Extractive Industries
• N53 - Europe: Pre-1913
• Browse content in O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth
• Browse content in O1 - Economic Development
• O13 - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Energy; Environment; Other Primary Products
• Browse content in O3 - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
• O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
• O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
• Browse content in P - Economic Systems
• P4 - Other Economic Systems
• P5 - Comparative Economic Systems
• Browse content in Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
• Browse content in Q1 - Agriculture
• Q15 - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
• Browse content in Q3 - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
• Q30 - General
• Browse content in Q5 - Environmental Economics
• Q53 - Air Pollution; Water Pollution; Noise; Hazardous Waste; Solid Waste; Recycling
• Browse content in R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics
• Browse content in R1 - General Regional Economics
• R10 - General
• R11 - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes
• R14 - Land Use Patterns
• Browse content in R2 - Household Analysis
• R21 - Housing Demand
• R23 - Regional Migration; Regional Labor Markets; Population; Neighborhood Characteristics
• Browse content in R3 - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location
• R31 - Housing Supply and Markets
• R38 - Government Policy
• Browse content in R5 - Regional Government Analysis
• R50 - General
• R52 - Land Use and Other Regulations
• R58 - Regional Development Planning and Policy
• Browse content in Z - Other Special Topics
• Browse content in Z1 - Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology
• Z12 - Religion
• Z13 - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Social and Economic Stratification
• Z18 - Public Policy
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Books for Review
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About American Law and Economics Review
• About the American Law and Economics Association
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. data and summary statistics, 3. the impact of lockdown on domestic violence, 3. the impact of lockdown on the extensive versus intensive margin of domestic violence, 5. conclusion, acknowledgement, supplementary material.

• < Previous

The Impact of the Coronavirus Lockdown on Domestic Violence

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Justin McCrary, Sarath Sanga, The Impact of the Coronavirus Lockdown on Domestic Violence, American Law and Economics Review , Volume 23, Issue 1, Spring 2021, Pages 137–163, https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahab003

• Permissions Icon Permissions

We use 911 call records and mobile device location data to study the impact of the coronavirus lockdown on domestic violence. The percent of people at home sharply increased at all hours, and nearly doubled during regular working hours, from 45% to 85%. Domestic violence increased 12% on average and 20% during working hours. Using neighborhood-level identifiers, we show that the rate of first-time abuse likely increased even more: 16% on average and 23% during working hours. Our results contribute to an urgent need to quantify the physical and psychological burdens of prolonged lockdown policies.

In this article, we examine the impact of the coronavirus lockdown on domestic violence. In response to the coronavirus pandemic, nearly all U.S. states issued stay-at-home orders designed to restrict the movement of people. 1 The anticipated public-health benefit of these policies was to arrest the spread of Covid-19 and lower the peak resource use of health care and emergency services. But these policies came at considerable cost. The economic costs of lost GDP and mass unemployment are large, well-measured, and well-understood. Much less understood, however, are the physical, psychological, and emotional costs of lockdown—of which domestic violence is one tragically common example. 2 These costs are difficult to quantify and unlikely to be reflected in standard economic measures of welfare ( Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009 ). To evaluate the true social cost of ongoing lockdown policies, it is therefore crucial to account for these sources of harm. 3

We quantify the impact of lockdown on domestic violence by assembling a database of approximately 50 million 911 call records from 14 large U.S. cities. We also obtain mobile device location data from these same cities. Together, these data allow us to study the impacts of lockdown on at-home patterns and domestic violence. We find that both increased sharply during lockdown ( Figures 1 and 2 ). Domestic violence calls increased throughout mid-March and peaked in early April. By the end of April, domestic violence calls returned to pre-lockdown levels. At the same time, the number of people at home also abruptly increased but stayed high throughout April. The largest increases in both at-home patterns and domestic violence occurred during weekday daytime hours, when most adults would have otherwise been at work and most children would have been in school.

The impact of lockdown on being at home.

The fraction of mobile devices at home at 12 p.m. each day (a proxy for the fraction of people at home) for the sample of 14 U.S. cities listed in Table 1 .

The impact of lockdown on domestic violence.

The average daily number of domestic violence 911 calls in the sample of 14 U.S. cities listed in Table 1 .

While the surge in domestic violence appears to have been temporary, there are at least two reasons to suspect that the harms will be long-lasting. The first reason comes from the long-lasting nature of physical and psychological trauma. While economies can recover from large, even catastrophic, shocks, people may not be so resilient. Children who suffer or witness abuse also suffer a range of psychological, behavioral, and academic problems throughout their lives. 4 The harms from domestic violence will therefore persist well after lockdowns end. The second reason is that violence begets violence. Inasmuch as domestic violence is state dependent, in the sense used by Heckman (1981) , exposure to violence today increases the likelihood of violence tomorrow, and temporary surges in abuse will lead to a permanent increase in long-run levels. 5

While we cannot directly estimate state dependence or the long-run impact of lockdown, we nevertheless begin to address these issues by asking whether lockdown caused people to commit abuse for the first time. The impacts of lockdown could be especially persistent if the surge in domestic violence came from households without a history of violence, or put another way, if it caused an increase on the extensive margin of domestic violence. This is because any state dependence would then act as a multiplier, causing those households to experience more violence in the future.

To estimate changes on the extensive margin, we construct neighborhood identifiers using address records attached to each 911 call. (City authorities anonymize the address to the level of about half of one city block.) We then show how the neighborhood-level data can provide a close approximation of the percentage change in the household-level extensive margin, as well as an upper bound on the household-level intensive margin. Applying our procedures to the data, we find that the impact on the extensive margin was at least twice as large as the impact on the intensive margin: 16% on the extensive margin versus an upper bound of 8% on the intensive margin. Lockdown therefore had larger impact, in percentage terms, on households without a history of domestic violence. To the extent that domestic violence is state dependent, we conclude that the temporary surge will lead to a permanent increase.

The surge in domestic violence in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic and lockdown has been documented across scores of countries. See, for example, Perez-Vincent et al. (2020) (Argentina); Sifat (2020) (Bangladesh); Das et al. (2020) and Ravindran and Shah (2020) (India); Dahal et al. (2020) (Nepal); Calderon-Anyosa and Kaufman (2020) (Peru); Sediri et al. (2020) (Tunisia); Leslie and Wilson (2020) and Boserup et al. (2020) (United States); Javed and Mehmood (2020) (various countries)—among many others. The closest study to ours is perhaps Leslie and Wilson (2020) , which also studies the U.S. context. Virtually all studies demonstrate that domestic violence significantly increased in the post-lockdown period.

Our study provides three unique contributions to this literature: (1) we assemble the largest sample of 911 calls for service (14 U.S. cities that constitute |$\sim$| 5% of the U.S. population); (2) we provide the first credible estimate of the extent to which increased time spent at home is responsible for the surge in domestic violence (specifically, an upper bound on this estimate); and (3) we theoretically motivate and demonstrate how neighborhood-level data can be used to separately identify bounds on changes in the household-level extensive and intensive margins of domestic violence.

Two caveats are in order. First, we use the term “lockdown” as a catchall for the total disruption caused by the pandemic and subsequent suspension of regular economic and social interaction. We do so with the understanding that the pandemic and the myriad public and private responses to it likely affected domestic violence through a variety of channels. In our view, it is likely that the surge in domestic violence did not come from sheltering in place per se—that is, only from spending more time at home—but rather from spending more time at home under the uniquely stressful conditions created by the pandemic. The most straightforward reason comes from Figures 1 and 2 , which show that simply being at home under lockdown was not sufficient to sustain an increase in domestic violence: domestic violence call volumes rose with the number of people at home, but then dropped significantly throughout April even as the number of people at home remained constant.

The second caveat is that our conclusions on changes in domestic violence are based on reported incidents that result in a 911 call. Since most incidents of domestic abuse do not result in a 911 call, the data are subject to considerable reporting bias. Moreover, reporting bias may have increased or decreased during lockdown. If domestic violence incidents were less likely to be reported during lockdown, then our results would underestimate the change in domestic violence. 6 Indeed, lockdown made it much more difficult to leave the house and go to a shelter or stay with a friend. A victim unable to leave the house might reasonably conclude that involving the police would make matters worse. Even more troubling, the return to pre-lockdown domestic violence levels could reflect additional increases in reporting bias as lockdown wore on. 7 Nevertheless, the reporting bias inherent in our study is, relative to a typical empirical study of crime, straightforward to characterize. A typical study might use crimes reported by law enforcement authorities, and therefore be subject to the reporting bias of victims, witnesses, and police. In contrast, we use 911 calls, which are typically placed by victims or witnesses. Any reporting bias would thus come directly from the victims and witnesses themselves.

The article is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes the 911 call records and mobile device location data. Section 3 reports the main results. Section 3 reports estimates of the response to lockdown on the extensive and intensive margins of domestic violence. Section 5 concludes.

Our analysis combines two sources of data. The first source is 911 call records for police service from 14 large U.S. cities. The second source is mobile device location histories from those same cities. This section briefly summarizes both sources of data. Additional details on data construction can be found in the Supplementary Appendix .

2.1. Calls for Police Service

We obtained records of about 52 million 911 calls for police service, of which about 6.3 million were placed during the main sample period of January 1, 2020 through April 24, 2020 ( Table 1 ). The records come from 14 cities (or more precisely, 13 cities and 1 county) with a collective population of about 17 million people. Depending on the city, there are anywhere between 2 and 15 years of call records. The records are complete for each city beginning January 1 of the starting year listed in Table 1 and running through April 24, 2020.

911 Calls for Police Service

Notes . Neighborhoods is the total number of unique locations from which a domestic violence call originated. The geographic origin of each call is known up to the 100-block level. For example, “303 Main St” and “340 Main St” would both be recorded as originating from the same neighborhood (“300 Block of Main St”). The origin of domestic violence calls is not known for Los Angeles, Seattle, and Sacramento. Population comes from the 2019 U.S. Census estimates.

Out of the 52 million 911 calls, approximately 1.6 million (3%) are domestic violence-related. To determine whether a call was domestic violence-related, we tabulated the short textual descriptions that accompany each record, separately for each city, and manually read them to identify domestic violence-related descriptors. This process yielded 291 unique domestic violence-related descriptors across the 14 cities. 8

The domestic violence calls come from 116,809 distinct neighborhoods. We constructed these neighborhoods from the call records by analyzing the “origin of call” information attached to each record. For 11 of the 14 cities, each call record includes information about the geographic origin of the call. 9 The addresses in the call records are typically anonymized to the 100-level address block. For example, the locations “310 Chicago Ave,” “319 Chicago Ave,” and “375 Chicago Ave” would all be recorded as “300 Block Chicago Ave.” Some cities also use intersections to record locations (e.g. “Chicago Ave / State St”). We standardize these addresses to ensure consistency within a city and then use them to define unique neighborhood identifiers. Each neighborhood is thus about half of one city block or smaller.

Domestic violence calls exhibit strong seasonality ( Figure 3 ). In general, call volumes increase linearly from the beginning of the calendar year, peak in early and late summer, and then linearly decline throughout the rest of the year. Four calendar days also stand out as outliers: July 4, July 5, and December 25 each exceed average domestic violence call levels by more than 20%, while January 1 exceeds the average level by more than 40%.

The seasonality of domestic violence 911 calls.

This figure shows that the seasonality of domestic violence 911 calls is, in years before lockdown, continuous throughout the pre- and post-lockdown period. Each dot is the average number of domestic violence 911 calls on that calendar day divided by the average number of domestic violence 911 calls (across all days). The sample is domestic violence 911 calls from all cities for all calendar days except February 29 and all years except 2020. The vertical line at March 14 indicates the start of the lockdown period in 2020.

Importantly, however, the seasonal trend is stable throughout the period we study: It is roughly linear and continuous during the weeks before and after the calendar day of March 14 (which, for reasons explained below, is the day we use to mark the beginning of lockdown). In the regression analysis, we will use simple linear and quadratic trends to account for seasonality.

Domestic violence calls increased sharply in the weeks following lockdown. Figure 2 plots the average daily call volume in 2020. The average call volume follows the usual linear trend up to the week ending on March 13. It then sharply rises throughout lockdown and peaks in early April. By the end of April, the call volume declines to the level predicted by the pre-lockdown linear trend.

2.2. Mobile Device Location Data

The mobile device location data are a daily cross-sectional sample of mobile devices physically located within the 14 cities in our sample. The sample ranges from approximately 1.3 to 1.8 million devices per day, which is roughly one-tenth the size of the total population of the cities they represent. The data provider identifies a mobile device as being “at home” by comparing its current location to its history of nighttime locations for the past 6 weeks. 10 The mobile device location data are available beginning January 1, 2020.

Figure 1 plots our estimate of the fraction of people at home at 12 p.m. each day. The fraction at home on weekdays nearly doubled in mid-March, from about 45% to 85%. For weekends, the increase was smaller but similarly abrupt. The largest increase occurred on March 14. For this reason, we will use that day—March 14, 2020—to define the beginning of lockdown.

Since not everyone is at home during the early morning hours, our estimator of the fraction at home is biased upwards. To get a sense of the potential scale of this bias, suppose the maximum number of people at home occurs at 3 a.m. If the true fraction of people at home at 3 a.m. is 0.95, and the true fraction at home at 12 p.m. is 0.5, then our estimate at 3 a.m. would be biased upward by 5 percentage points ( ⁠|$= 95/95 - 95$|⁠ ) and our estimate at 12 p.m. would be biased upward by 3 percentage points ( ⁠|$\approx 50/0.95 - 50$|⁠ ).

More importantly, this procedure may also underestimate the change in the fraction at home caused by lockdown. Consider the change in at-home patterns on weekdays at 12 p.m. From Figure 1 , the fraction at home increased 40 percentage points (from 0.45 to 0.85). If lockdown caused the maximum fraction at home to increase from, say, 0.95 to 0.99, then the true change on weekdays at 12 p.m. would have been 41 percentage points (from 0.43 to 0.84). The bias for the weekday daytime change is therefore likely small. On the other hand, and continuing the example from above, suppose the maximum fraction at home always occurs at 3 a.m. Then the true change at 3 a.m. would be 4% (95–99), but our procedure would normalize this to zero by construction. In percentage terms, the scale of the downward bias is therefore modest for the main daytime estimates (where the percentage point charges are large), but potentially significant for the nighttime estimates (where the percentage point changes are small). We will keep this bias in mind when interpreting the results below.

3.1. Baseline Results

Our baseline estimate of the increase in domestic violence caused by lockdown is 12% ( Table 2 , panel A). The estimate is similar (13%) even without controls for hour of day, day of week, or seasonal trends. Because lockdown had the greatest impact in at-home patterns during working hours, we separately estimate equation 2 for periods defined by the interaction of daytime (9 a.m.–9 p.m.) and weekday (Monday–Friday). The largest increase occurred during daytime hours: 20% for weekdays and 17% for weekends. The nighttime increase was 9% for weekdays and less than 1% for weekends. The latter estimate is not statistically significantly different from zero at conventional levels of confidence.

The Impact of Lockdown on At-Home Patterns and Domestic Violence

Notes . All panels use 911 call records and/or mobile device location data from January 2, 2020–April 24, 2020. The unit of observation is the day-hour. Lockdown is an indicator equal to 1 if the day is March 14–April 24, inclusive. * and ** indicate statistically significantly different from zero at 95 and 99 percent confidence, respectively. (A) The impact of lockdown on the log number of domestic violence 911 calls. (B) The impact of lockdown on the log number of people at home. (C). An upper bound on the effect of being at home on domestic violence; the number of people at home is instrumented using the lockdown period.

3.2. The Effect of Increased Time Spent At Home

Since lockdown forced people to stay at home, it is natural to ask whether the impact of lockdown on domestic violence is, in percentage terms, equal to the impact of lockdown on at-home patterns (i.e. whether the elasticity of domestic violence with respect to people at home is equal to one). Further, it is also natural to ask whether the differential impacts we observe throughout the week are consistent with a constant-elasticity model.

Nevertheless, |$\gamma_1$| has two related and useful interpretations. Firstly, and as a matter of arithmetic, |$\gamma_1$| is the ratio of two causal effects: it is the reduced-form effect of lockdown on domestic violence ( ⁠|$\beta_1$| from equation 2 ) divided by the first-stage effect of lockdown on being at home ( ⁠|$\pi_1$| from equation 4 ). It therefore provides one way to scale the reduced-form estimates and compare the differential impacts of lockdown throughout the hours of the week. For example, if |$\gamma_1$| were, say, 0.40, then we would conclude that the impact of lockdown on domestic violence was 40% of its impact on being at home.

The second and related interpretation of |$\gamma_1$| is that, under plausible assumptions, it is an upper bound on the causal effect of being at home on domestic violence. To see this, recall that lockdown is not a valid instrument for being at home because it likely violates the “only through” assumption: lockdown caused more people to stay home, but it also caused economic and psychological distress that in turn may have directly affected rates of domestic violence. Yet suppose one partitions the impacts of lockdown on domestic violence into two channels: the first, which we will call the mechanical effect of lockdown, is the true effect of more people at home on domestic violence. The second, which we will call the collateral effects of lockdown, is the sum of all other nonmechanical influences of lockdown on domestic violence. The collateral effects include any channel—any economic or psychological stress—that increased the rate of domestic violence per person-hour at home. We refer to this set of effects as “collateral” because they were clearly not the intended effects of stay-at-home orders, private self-isolation, layoffs, and all the other public and private responses to the pandemic. If one assumes that the collateral effects jointly led to a net increase in domestic violence, then |$\gamma_1$| is an upper bound on the mechanical effect because it attributes the entire change in domestic violence to the change in time spent at home. Put another way, |$\gamma_1$| is the mechanical effect under the (invalid) assumption that lockdown increased domestic violence “only through” its increase on the number of people at home.

Moving to the estimates, panel B of Table 2 reports results from the first stage: the effect of lockdown on the number of people at home. As one might expect, the largest increase in at-home patterns occurred during regular working hours. The number of people at home for all hours increased 14 percent. The increase during daytime, however, was 32% for weekdays and 13% for weekends. The increases during nighttime were much smaller: 5% for weekdays and less than 1% in magnitude for weekends. It is worth noting, however, that the nighttime weekend estimate includes the hour-of-day and quadratic time trend. Without these controls, the simple post-lockdown difference is 2% and statistically significant.

For nighttime hours, there are two reasons to prefer the simple difference estimates without controls. First, as explained in Section 2 , the upward bias inherent in our estimate of the number of people at home, while small in terms of percentage point differences, increases in percent age differences as the fraction of people at home goes to 1. This could lead us to underestimate the change in at-home patterns, especially for the early morning hours. On the other hand, and partially mitigating the magnitude of this potentially large bias, the change in at-home patterns is substantial during many of the hours that are included in the nighttime estimates, specifically, during the hours between 7 a.m.–9 a.m. and 9 p.m.–11 p.m. Second, the change in at-home patterns at night are likely small to begin with, as most people are probably asleep during at least half the hours between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. The extrapolation of any pre-lockdown trend could therefore overwhelm these small differences, leading to a zero (or even negative) estimate ( Bound et al., 1995 ). For these reasons, we interpret the nighttime first- and second-stage estimates with caution, as the first-stage estimate may be biased downward. At the same time, however, one may be more confident in interpreting the daytime estimates because the impact of the two concerns outlined above is likely to be much smaller.

Moving to the second-stage estimates ( Table 2 , panel C), the upper bound on the elasticity of domestic violence with respect to people at home is 0.85 (column 2). Thus, in percentage terms, the total change in domestic violence was 85% of the total change in at-home patterns. We fail to reject the null hypothesis that the elasticity is equal to 1, using both a basic |$t$| -test and the more accurate Anderson and Rubin (1949) test. 11

With full controls, the daytime estimates of |$\gamma_1$| are 0.62 for weekdays and 1.29 for weekends. Relative to the change in at-home patterns, the increase in domestic violence during weekday daytime hours, while larger in absolute terms, is thus smaller than the increase during weekend daytime hours. The difference in these estimates is statistically significant at conventional levels ( ⁠|$p=0.02$|⁠ , column 4 versus column 6). 12

In summary, the results provide evidence against a simple proportional model. While we cannot reject the simple proportional model on average (column 2), we can reject equality of the proportions during daytime hours for weekdays versus weekends (columns 4 versus 6). We conclude that the lockdown-associated surge in domestic violence likely reflects a mixture of causal channels more complex than the simple mechanical increase in the number of people at home.

Finally, we ask whether the surge in domestic violence came from households with or without a history of domestic violence. To answer this question, one could use a panel of individual- or household-level data to estimate the impact of lockdown on the extensive versus intensive margin. The change in households without prior domestic violence calls would be the change in the extensive margin, while the change in households with prior domestic violence calls would be the change in the intensive margin. Unfortunately, the 911 call data do not include an individual or household identifier. They do include, however, addresses that were coarsened to the level of about one half of one city block, which we use to construct neighborhood-level identifiers. In this section, we show how the neighborhood-level data can provide an approximation of the change in the extensive margin of domestic violence, as well as an upper bound for the change in the intensive margin.

4.1. Theoretical framework

We begin by defining the extensive and intensive margins of domestic violence. We will say that a call occurs on the extensive margin if it is the first call for that household since period |$t=0$|⁠ , for some start date normalized to zero. Otherwise, the call occurs on the intensive margin.

It is worth pausing here to clarify the role that the “start date” plays in both the theoretical model and the empirical application. In principle, the first “true” extensive margin event for a given household is the first time that the household places a 911 call. Given household-level data, the ideal start date would therefore be the date that the household was formed. However, this is not feasible in our setting because the call data are at the neighborhood level. It is for this reason that we redefine the first extensive margin event as the first call since a given start date , and then show (in Appendix Section A ) how changes in the (redefined) neighborhood margins can identify changes in the (redefined) household margins. Thus, the interpretation of the results depends on the specific choice of start date. Since the exact choice of start date is arbitrary, the empirical section repeats the analysis for a variety of start dates.

As noted, a limitation of our data is that it identifies calls at a neighborhood level, but not a household level. However, neighborhood level data contain valuable information for the intensive–extensive breakdown of our results. An increase in calls from a neighborhood with no history of calls can only occur on the extensive margin. An increase in calls from a neighborhood with a history of calls, on the other hand, could come from either the intensive or extensive margin, and therefore represents a mixture of the two. Appendix Section A develops the implications of this intuition. Letting |$\sim$| denote neighborhood-level quantities, Appendix Section A shows that |$\widetilde{\eta}$| is a reasonable approximation of |$\eta$| and that |$\widetilde{\varepsilon}$| is a bound (upper or lower, depending on |$\eta$|⁠ ) on |$\varepsilon$|⁠ .

In practice, it may be that the impact of lockdown on the extensive margin differs by neighborhood. In that case, our estimate of |$\eta$| is valid for the households in neighborhoods with low rates of domestic violence. Note that a neighborhood-level rate can be low either because the rates of its constituent households are low, or because there are simply few households in the neighborhood.

4.2. Results

The change in the extensive margin is |$\phi_1$|⁠ , and the bound on the change in the intensive margin is |$\psi_1$|⁠ .

As a baseline, we use 18 months before the lockdown period (September 14, 2018) as the start date to define the extensive and intensive margins. A domestic violence 911 call thus contributes to the extensive margin if it is the first neighborhood-level call since September 14, 2018. Otherwise, it contributes to the intensive margin. In addition, since the functional form approximations from equations 10 and 11 hold only when |$t$| is sufficiently large relative to |$\theta$| ( when one is sufficiently far from the start date that defines both margins), we only use observations beginning 150 days after the start date to estimate both equations. The approximations appear to be valid about 150 days after the start date, at which point the extensive margin is roughly linear and the intensive margin is roughly constant ( figure 4 ). Finally, since the choice of start date and estimation window is arbitrary, we also produce estimates for other start dates and estimation windows.

The impact of lockdown on (a) the extensive margin and (b) the intensive margin of domestic violence (Monday–Friday, 9 a.m.–9 p.m.).

A call is on the extensive margin if it is the first call from that neighborhood since September 14, 2018 (18 months before lockdown begins). Otherwise, the call is on the intensive margin.

The impact on the extensive margin is consistently larger than the (upper) bound of the impact on the intensive margin. Table 3 reports estimates using the start date September 14, 2018 and commencing estimation 150 days later. The change in the extensive margin is larger on average (16 percent versus 8 percent) as well as for each of the sub-periods during the week. During daytime, the increase was 23 versus 14 percent for weekdays, and 25 versus 10 percent for weekends. During nighttime, the changes were smaller: 12 versus 6 percent for weekdays, and 1 versus -1 for weekends. (The latter result is not statistically significant.) Given that our estimate of the intensive margin change is an upper bound, these results suggest that the percentage change in the extensive margin is roughly twice as large (or more) than the change in the intensive margin.

The Impact of Lockdown on Domestic Violence (Extensive versus Intensive Margins)

Notes. This table estimates the impact of lockdown on the log number of domestic violence 911 calls for the extensive and intensive margins. A call is on the extensive margin if it is the first call from that neighborhood since September 14, 2018 (18 months before lockdown beings). Otherwise, the call is on the intensive margin. Lockdown begins March 14, 2020. * and ** indicate statistically significantly different from zero at 95% and 99% confidence, respectively.

Finally, the main result – that the impact on the extensive margin was greater than the impact on the intensive margin – is robust to a variety of start dates and estimation windows. Specifically, it is robust to using start dates between 12 and 24 months before lockdown, and estimation windows that begin 120, 150, and 180 days after the start date. In theory, one might prefer the earlier start dates as they are more likely to capture a household’s true first domestic violence call (and thus reflect the true change in the extensive margin). On the other hand, an earlier start date allows more time for household and neighborhood turnover to bias the estimates in unknown directions. In table 3 , we chose 18 months before lockdown as an (admittedly arbitrary) balance between these two concerns. Somewhat reassuringly, however, estimates of changes on the extensive margin are fairly stable, particularly for start dates that are 18 months or more before lockdown. 14

We used 911 calls for police service to study the impact of the coronavirus lockdown on domestic violence. Domestic violence calls surged in the weeks following lockdown, from mid-March to early-April, and returned to pre-lockdown levels by the end of April. The largest increases occurred during weekday daytime hours, when most adults and children would have otherwise been at work or in school. Using mobile device location data, we found that these hours also experienced the greatest disruption in at-home patterns. Lockdown is especially likely to have led to episodes of first-time abuse: the increase from neighborhoods with no recent history of violence was roughly double the increase from neighborhoods with a recent history of violence.

Our results are important for evaluating the total social cost of prolonged lockdown policies. Compared to the economic costs of lost GDP and unemployment, the physical and psychological costs of lockdown are much more difficult to observe and quantify. They are, however, just as important contributors to welfare.

We thank Bernard Black, Vandy Howell, Katherine Litvak, Max Schanzenbach, David Schwartz, Eric Talley, Kimberly Yuracko, and seminar participants at Northwestern University for helpful comments.

A. Technical Appendix

This appendix section formally shows how we use neighborhood-level data to identify household-level changes on the extensive and intensive margins.

As an estimate of |$\eta$|⁠ , |$\widetilde{\eta}$| has a second-order downward bias, a third-order upward bias, a fourth-order downward bias, and so on. The net bias is downward, and the magnitude increases with |$\eta$|⁠ , |$n$|⁠ , and |$\theta$|⁠ . For plausible values of |$\eta$|⁠ , |$n$|⁠ , and |$\theta$|⁠ , however, the bias is negligible. The order of magnitude of the bias is roughly |$\theta\cdot n$|⁠ . In neighborhoods without recent calls, it is likely that the typical household call rate is well below average. Nevertheless, using the conservatively high level of the average daily call rate from the data (about 0.00004) and a neighborhood size of 25, a household-level |$\eta$| of 1.5 would yield a neighborhood-level |$\widetilde{\eta}$| of approximately 1.4996. A neighborhood of 250 would be 1.4963. % (1-(1-x*y)^n) / (1-(1-x)^n) for x=.00004, y=1.5, n=250

Supplementary material is available at American Law and Economics Review Journal online.

To the best of our knowledge, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota did not issue state-level orders. Our sample of 911 call records does not cover any of these states.

On the psychological costs of domestic violence, see generally, Russell (1990) , White and Koss (1991) , Balsam and Szymanski (2005) , Truman and Morgan (2014) , and Golding (1999) .

This is especially urgent as subsequent waves of the virus—and potentially additional lockdown orders—are expected in the medium term.

See Edleson (1999) , Kilpatrick and Williams (1997) , Truman and Morgan (2014) , and Snyder et al. (2016) .

Repeat-victimization in domestic violence is a fundamental concern for law enforcement authorities. See, e.g., Hanmer et al. (1999) .

Perhaps the strongest evidence of increased reporting bias comes from widespread reports of an increased reluctance to contact emergency medical services for both covid-19 and non-covid-19 reasons, as well as the related increase in at-home deaths. At-home deaths spiked 4-fold in Detroit and 6-fold in New York City ( Gillum et al., 2020 ).

See, e.g., Ott (2020) .

A list of these descriptors is given in the Supplementary Appendix .

The origin of domestic violence calls is not known for Los Angeles, Seattle, and Sacramento.

The data were provided by SafeGraph. See the Supplementary Appendix for additional details.

The |$p$| -value for the Anderson and Rubin (1949) test is |$p=0.29$| (column 2). Generally for columns 1 through 6, the first-stage relationship is strong enough that there is little difference between an asymptotic |$t$| -test and an Anderson and Rubin (1949) test. However, for the results without controls (column 1), we reject the null that the elasticity is equal to 1 using either approach.

However, without controls, the estimates are much more similar (0.52 for weekdays, 0.61 for weekends). Given the sampling variability of each estimate, it is perhaps not surprising that the data suggest little difference between the two estimates ( ⁠|$p=0.60$|⁠ , column 3 versus column 5).

In our simple model, |$\psi_2\approx 0$| for sufficiently large |$t$|⁠ . See section A . Also, the estimates below do not include Detroit because data are not available before January 1, 2019. Similar results are obtained when one restricts the start dates to January 1, 2019 and later. (Results not shown.)

See the Supplementary Appendix .

The average daily call rate is about 3–5 per 100,000.

This is without loss of generality given sufficiently small |$\theta$|⁠ .

Anderson, Theodore W. , and Rubin Herman . 1949 . “ Estimation of the Parameters of a Single Equation in a Complete System of Stochastic Equations ,” 20 The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 46 – 63 .

Google Scholar

Balsam, Kimberly F. , and Szymanski Dawn M. . 2005 . “ Relationship Quality and Domestic Violence in Women’s Same-Sex Relationships: The Role of Minority Stress ,” 29 Psychology of Women Quarterly 258 – 269 .

Boserup, Brad , McKenney Mark , and Elkbuli Adel . 2020 . “ Alarming Trends in US Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic ,” 38 The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2753 – 2755 .

Bound, John , Jaeger David A. , and Baker Regina M. . 1995 . “ Problems With Instrumental Variables Estimation When the Correlation Between the Instruments and the Endogenous Explanatory Variable is Weak ,” 90 Journal of the American Statistical Association 443 – 450 .

Calderon-Anyosa, Renzo J. C. , and Kaufman Jay S. . 2020 . “ Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown Policy on Homicide, Suicide, and Motor Vehicle Deaths in Peru ,” 143 Preventive Medicine 106331 .

Dahal, Minakshi , Khanal Pratik , Maharjan Sajana , Panthi Bindu , and Nepal Sushil . 2020 . “ Mitigating Violence against Women and Young Girls during COVID-19 Induced Lockdown in Nepal: A Wake-up Call ,” 16 Globalization and Health 1 – 3 .

Das, Manob , Das Arijit , and Mandal Ashis . 2020 . “ Examining the Impact of Lockdown (Due to COVID-19) on Domestic Violence (DV): An Evidences from India ,” 54 Asian Journal of Psychiatry 102335 .

Edleson, Jeffrey L . 1999 . “ Children’s Witnessing of Adult Domestic Violence ,” 14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 839 – 870 .

Gillum, Jack , Song Lisa , and Kao Jeff . 2020 . “ There’s Been a Spike in People Dying at Home in Several Cities. That Suggests Coronavirus Deaths Are Higher Than Reported ,” ProPublica April 14 , 2020 .

Golding, Jacqueline M . 1999 . “ Intimate Partner Violence as a Risk Factor for Mental Disorders: A Meta-Analysis ,” 14 Journal of Family Violence 99 – 132 .

Hanmer, Jalna , Griffiths Sue , and Jerwood David . 1999 . Arresting Evidence: Domestic Violence and Repeat Victimisation , Vol. 104 . Home Office London .

Google Preview

Heckman, James J . 1981 . “Heterogeneity and State Dependence” in Rosen Sherwin , ed., Studies in Labor Markets . Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press , pp. 91 – 140 .

Javed, Saira , and Mehmood Yasir . 2020 . “ No Lockdown for Domestic Violence during COVID-19: A Systematic Review for the Implication of Mental-Well Being ,” 1 Life and Science 6 .

Kilpatrick, Kym L. , and Williams Leanne M. . 1997 . “ Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Child Witnesses to Domestic Violence ,” 67 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 639 .

Leslie, Emily , and Wilson Riley . 2020 . “ Sheltering in Place and Domestic Violence: Evidence from Calls for Service during COVID-19 ,” 189 Journal of Public Economics 104241 .

Ott, Haley . 2020 . “ In Countries Mired in Crises, Aid Organization Sees Huge Drop in Domestic Abuse Reports – and It’s Worried ,” CBS News .

Perez-Vincent, Santiago M. , Carreras Enrique , Gibbons M. Amelia , Murphy M. Amelia , and Rossi Martín A. 2020 . COVID-19 Lockdowns and Domestic Violence . Washington, DC, USA : Inter-American Development Bank .

Ravindran, Saravana , and Shah Manisha . 2020 . “ Unintended Consequences of Lockdowns: Covid-19 and the Shadow Pandemic ,” Technical Report , National Bureau of Economic Research .

Russell, Diana E. H. 1990 . Rape in Marriage . Bloomington, IN : Indiana University Press .

Sediri, Sabrine , Zgueb Yosra , Ouanes Sami , Ouali Uta , Bourgou Soumaya , Jomli Rabaa , and Nacef Fethi , 2020 . “ Women’s Mental Health: Acute Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Domestic Violence ,” 23 Archives of Women’s Mental Health 749 – 756 .

Sifat, Ridwan Islam . 2020 . “ Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Domestic Violence in Bangladesh ,” 53 Asian Journal of Psychiatry 102393 .

Snyder, James , Gewirtz Abigail , Schrepferman Lynn , Gird Suzanne R , Quattlebaum Jamie , Pauldine Michael R. , Elish Katie , Zamir Osnat , and Hayes Charles . 2016 . “ Parent–Child Relationship Quality and Family Transmission of Parent Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms and Child Externalizing and Internalizing Symptoms Following Fathers’ Exposure to Combat Trauma ,” 28 Development and Psychopathology 947 – 969 .

Stevenson, Betsey , and Wolfers Justin . 2009 . “ The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness ,” 1 American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 190 – 225 .

Truman, Jennifer L. , and Morgan Rachel E. . 2014 . “ Nonfatal Domestic Violence, 2003–2012 ,” Technical Report , Washington, D.C .

White, Jacquelyn W. , and Koss Mary P. . 1991 . “ Courtship Violence: Incidence in a National Sample of Higher Education Students ,” 6 Violence and Victims , 247 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1465-7260
• Print ISSN 1465-7252
• Copyright © 2024 American Law and Economics Association
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Violence against women and girls: the shadow pandemic

Date: Monday, 6 April 2020

With 90 countries in lockdown, four billion people are now sheltering at home from the global contagion of COVID-19. It’s a protective measure, but it brings another deadly danger. We see a shadow pandemic growing, of violence against women .

COVID-19: Women front and centre

As more countries report infection and lockdown, more domestic violence helplines and shelters across the world are reporting rising calls for help. In Argentina, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom [ 1 ], and the United States [ 2 ], government authorities, women’s rights activists and civil society partners have flagged increasing reports of domestic violence during the crisis, and heightened demand for emergency shelter [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Helplines in Singapore [ 6 ] and Cyprus have registered an increase in calls by more than 30 per cent [ 7 ]. In Australia, 40 per cent of frontline workers in a New South Wales survey reported increased requests for help with violence that was escalating in intensity [ 8 ].

Confinement is fostering the tension and strain created by security, health, and money worries.And it is increasing isolation for women with violent partners, separating them from the people and resources that can best help them. It’s a perfect storm for controlling, violent behaviour behind closed doors. And in parallel, as health systems are stretching to breaking point, domestic violence shelters are also reaching capacity, a service deficit made worse when centres are repurposed for additional COVID-response.

Even before COVID-19 existed, domestic violence was already one of the greatest human rights violations. In the previous 12 months, 243 million women and girls (aged 15-49) across the world have been subjected to sexual or physical violence by an intimate partner. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, this number is likely to grow with multiple impacts on women’s wellbeing, their sexual and reproductive health, their mental health, and their ability to participate and lead in the recovery of our societies and economy.

Wide under-reporting of domestic and other forms of violence has previously made response and data gathering a challenge, with less than 40 per cent of women who experience violence seeking help of any sort or reporting the crime. Less than 10 per cent of those women seeking help go to the police. The current circumstances make reporting even harder, including limitations on women’s and girls’ access to phones and helplines and disrupted public services like police, justice and social services. These disruptions may also be compromising the care and support that survivors need, like clinical management of rape, and mental health and psycho-social support. They also fuel impunity for the perpetrators. In many countries the law is not on women’s side; 1 in 4 countries have no laws specifically protecting women from domestic violence.

Gender-Based Violence and COVID-19 - UN chief video message

If not dealt with, this shadow pandemic will also add to the economic impact of COVID-19. The global cost of violence against women had previously been estimated at approximately USD 1.5 trillion. That figure can only be rising as violence increases now, and continues in the aftermath of the pandemic.

The increase in violence against women must be dealt with urgently with measures embedded in economic support and stimulus packages that meet the gravity and scale of the challenge and reflect the needs of women who face multiple forms of discrimination.The Secretary-General has called for all governments to make the prevention and redress of violence against women a key part of their national response plans for COVID-19. Shelters and helplines for women must be considered an essential service for every country with specific funding and broad efforts made to increase awareness about their availability.

Grassroots and women’s organizations and communities have played a critical role in preventing and responding to previous crises and need to be supported strongly in their current frontline role including with funding that remains in the longer-term. Helplines, psychosocial support and online counselling should be boosted, using technology-based solutions such as SMS, online tools and networks to expand social support, and to reach women with no access to phones or internet. Police and justice services must mobilize to ensure that incidents of violence against women and girls are given high priority with no impunity for perpetrators. The private sector also has an important role to play, sharing information, alerting staff to the facts and the dangers of domestic violence and encouraging positive steps like sharing care responsibilities at home.

COVID-19 is already testing us in ways most of us have never previously experienced, providing emotional and economic shocks that we are struggling to rise above. The violence that is emerging now as a dark feature of this pandemic is a mirror and a challenge to our values, our resilience and shared humanity. We must not only survive the coronavirus, but emerge renewed, with women as a powerful force at the centre of recovery.

Related content

• COVID-19 and ending violence against women and girls
• Infographic: The Shadow Pandemic - Violence Against Women and Girls and COVID-19

[1] “Coronavirus: I'm in lockdown with my abuser” https://www.bbc.com/news/world-52063755 , accessed 3 rd April 2020

[2] “Domestic violence cases escalating quicker in time of COVID-19” https://missionlocal.org/2020/03/for-victims-of-domestic-violence-sheltering-in-place-can-mean-more-abuse , accessed 3 rd April

[3] Lockdowns around the world bring rise in domestic violence” https://www.theguardian. com/society/2020/mar/28/lockdowns-world-rise-domestic-violence , accessed 3 rd April 2020

[4] "Domestic violence cases jump 30% during lockdown in France” https://www.euronews.com/2020/03/28/domestic-violence-cases-jump-30-during-lockdown-in-france , accessed 3 rd April 2020

[5] “During quarantine, calls to 144 for gender violence increased by 25%” http://www.diario21.tv/notix2/movil2/?seccion=desarrollo_nota&id_nota=132124 ), accessed 2 nd April 2020

[6] “Commentary: Isolated with your abuser? Why family violence seems to be on the rise during COVID-19 outbreak”, https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/coronavirus-covid-19-family-violence-abuse-women-self-isolation-12575026 , accessed 2 nd April 2020

[7] “Lockdowns around the world bring rise in domestic violence” https://www.theguardian. com/society/2020/mar/28/lockdowns-world-rise-domestic-violence , accessed 3 rd April 2020

[8] “Domestic Violence Spikes During Coronavirus As Families Trapped At Home” https://10daily.com.au/news/australia/a200326zyjkh/domestic-violence-spikes-during-coronavirus-as-families-trapped-at-home-20200327 , accessed 2 nd April 2020

• ‘One Woman’ – The UN Women song
• UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous
• Kirsi Madi, Deputy Executive Director for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships
• Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, Deputy Executive Director for Normative Support, UN System Coordination and Programme Results
• Guiding documents
• Report wrongdoing
• Programme implementation
• Career opportunities
• Application and recruitment process
• Meet our people
• Internship programme
• Procurement principles
• Gender-responsive procurement
• Doing business with UN Women
• How to become a UN Women vendor
• Contract templates and general conditions of contract
• Vendor protest procedure
• Facts and Figures
• Global norms and standards
• Women’s movements
• Parliaments and local governance
• Constitutions and legal reform
• Preguntas frecuentes
• Global Norms and Standards
• Macroeconomic policies and social protection
• Sustainable Development and Climate Change
• Rural women
• Employment and migration
• Facts and figures
• Creating safe public spaces
• Spotlight Initiative
• Essential services
• Focusing on prevention
• Research and data
• Other areas of work
• UNiTE campaign
• Conflict prevention and resolution
• Building and sustaining peace
• Young women in peace and security
• Rule of law: Justice and security
• Women, peace, and security in the work of the UN Security Council
• Preventing violent extremism and countering terrorism
• Planning and monitoring
• Humanitarian coordination
• Crisis response and recovery
• Disaster risk reduction
• Inclusive National Planning
• Public Sector Reform
• Tracking Investments
• Strengthening young women's leadership
• Economic empowerment and skills development for young women
• Action on ending violence against young women and girls
• Engaging boys and young men in gender equality
• Sustainable development agenda
• Leadership and Participation
• National Planning
• Violence against Women
• Access to Justice
• Regional and country offices
• Regional and Country Offices
• Liaison offices
• UN Women Global Innovation Coalition for Change
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Economic and Social Council
• General Assembly
• Security Council
• High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
• Human Rights Council
• Climate change and the environment
• Other Intergovernmental Processes
• World Conferences on Women
• Global Coordination
• Regional and country coordination
• Promoting UN accountability
• Gender Mainstreaming
• Coordination resources
• UN Coordination Library
• System-wide strategy
• Focal Point for Women and Gender Focal Points
• Entity-specific implementation plans on gender parity
• Laws and policies
• Strategies and tools
• Reports and monitoring
• Training Centre services
• Publications
• Government partners
• National mechanisms
• Civil Society Advisory Groups
• Benefits of partnering with UN Women
• Business and philanthropic partners
• Goodwill Ambassadors
• National Committees
• UN Women Media Compact
• UN Women Alumni Association
• Editorial series
• Media contacts
• Annual report
• Progress of the world’s women
• SDG monitoring report
• World survey on the role of women in development
• Reprint permissions
• Secretariat
• 2023 sessions and other meetings
• 2022 sessions and other meetings
• 2021 sessions and other meetings
• 2020 sessions and other meetings
• 2019 sessions and other meetings
• 2018 sessions and other meetings
• 2017 sessions and other meetings
• 2016 sessions and other meetings
• 2015 sessions and other meetings
• Compendiums of decisions
• Reports of sessions
• Key Documents
• Brief history
• CSW snapshot
• Preparations
• Official Documents
• Official Meetings
• Side Events
• Session Outcomes
• CSW65 (2021)
• CSW64 / Beijing+25 (2020)
• CSW63 (2019)
• CSW62 (2018)
• CSW61 (2017)
• Member States
• Eligibility
• Registration
• Opportunities for NGOs to address the Commission
• Communications procedure
• Grant making
• Accompaniment and growth
• Results and impact
• Knowledge and learning
• Social innovation
• UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women
• About Generation Equality
• Generation Equality Forum
• Action packs

• Coronavirus Disease 2019

Why the Increase in Domestic Violence During COVID-19?

Covid-19 has triggered common factors associated with domestic violence..

Posted May 9, 2020 | Reviewed by Devon Frye

• What Is Domestic Violence?
• Find a therapist to heal from domestic violence

Among all of the horrors that COVID-19 has wrought, domestic violence is a growing scourge that lurks in the shadows. Indeed, a stark uptick in reports of domestic violence and abuse (more commonly referred to in clinical settings as “ intimate partner violence ” or “IPV”) has recently received national (and even global ) attention . New estimates from the United Nations Population Fund suggest that three months of quarantine will result in a 20 percent rise in IPV throughout the world. In total, the report predicts at least 15 million additional cases of IPV will occur as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns.

For some, the correlation between sheltering-in-place and increased IPV seems to have elicited surprise. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, expressed alarm upon learning of the increased reports of domestic violence within his state. But for anyone experienced with IPV, the increase in its occurrence arrived with the predictability of the tides. IPV surges in times of natural disasters and crises . We previously witnessed this ugly social phenomenon during Hurricane Harvey in 2017, and we will see it again during whatever form of Armageddon brings the nation to its knees on the next go-around.

The question still remains, though: why?

Plentiful research exists demonstrating several key factors associated with IPV, including during times of natural disaster and crisis. By examining this literature, we can better understand why today’s lockdown measures appear to be fueling increased instances of IPV.

With workplaces closed, visits to family and friends discouraged, and even public parks off-limits, social isolation has become government-sanctioned. Unfortunately, social isolation is one of the most common tactics employed by perpetrators of IPV. By isolating victims from friends, family, and any outside contact, abusers are able to assert control over the victim’s entire environment. Social isolation can lead to the normalization of abuse and allow abusers to more easily engage in gaslighting techniques. Severe and persistent isolation can cause victims to rely solely on their abusers to define a sense of reality, which feeds into a cycle of abuse that is very difficult to escape.

Another factor commonly associated with IPV is stress . Natural disasters and crises catalyze immense stress responses that often correlate with increases in IPV. As mentioned above, one study examining interpersonal violence in the wake of Hurricane Harvey found that stress associated with the disaster was related to higher rates of IPV both during and after the hurricane. A similar report following the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska found that disaster-related stress was associated with a nearly threefold increase in IPV.

With regard to the COVID-19 pandemic, stressors abound. In many ways, disease outbreaks can foster a type of stress more insidious than that of other disasters. Namely, pandemics ignite the unknown . During most disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes, we know whether or not we’ve been personally impacted. Although these events can be extraordinarily stressful , there is at least an established time boundary from which we can begin to assess damage and eventually move forward. But with viral pandemics, we are often left in an ongoing state of risk and worry, triggering an overexposure of the stress hormone cortisol . Elevations in stress hormones have long been associated with increased aggression .

Economic Anxiety and Joblessness

One specific type of stressor has been given significant attention in the context of IPV: economic anxiety . Indeed, plentiful research has shown that IPV is more likely (and more severe) in households that are economically distressed. For example, studies from the 2008 recession found that increases in unemployment claims correlated with a greater number of reported cases of IPV. Today, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented job loss at levels comparable to the Great Depression .

Many researchers believe that a perceived threat to the masculine identity undergirds the relationship between economic anxiety and IPV (e.g., Dutton & Browning, 1988; Totten, 2003). One qualitative study interviewed 33 men attending a domestic violence program and found that threats to masculine identities played a significant role in the occurrence of IPV (Anderson & Umberson, 2001). When masculinity is threatened (for example, by job loss and the perceived failure to “provide”), abusers respond with violence in order to regain a sense of power and control in their relationships.

Alcohol is also widely considered to be a key predictor of IPV, primarily due to its disinhibitory effect on aggression . As the nation has sheltered at home, sales of alcohol have skyrocketed , with some sales rising as much as 243 percent . Again, this trend mimics past experiences with natural disasters and crises—in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, alcohol consumption rose sharply . For relationships already marred with violence and abuse, alcohol adds fuel to the fire, particularly when coupled with the isolation and stress discussed above.

Lack of Resources

Finally, a lack of resources can also contribute to IPV. Although most court systems remain open for emergency matters such as granting restraining orders, reports suggest that some of these cases are being delayed. Legal services for victims have also been affected, with many legal aid organizations and advocates (upon which victims heavily rely) now being forced to work remotely. It is also possible that some judges will be reluctant to hold violent abusers in jail due to the increased risk of COVID-19 infections in state facilities.

Shelters are facing their own challenges. While shelters typically serve as a safe haven for victims seeking reprieve from abuse, they are now experiencing health concerns and closures due to their often dorm-like, group living arrangements. Even when these shelters are able to remain open, victims might be reluctant to expose themselves to high volumes of people in close quarters. Fortunately, some shelters are finding creative solutions, such as one shelter in Nashville using RVs to house individuals. But many victims—particularly those in densely populated cities experiencing rampant rates of infection—are finding shelters more difficult to access.

Tying It All Together

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, instances of IPV were already extremely high. According to the CDC , 1 in 3 women in the United States have experienced IPV. The risks to victims are serious, with CDC data linking IPV to an increased risk of death. Unfortunately, one of the most striking findings to come out of research on IPV in the wake of disasters is that, in addition to the rate of abuse increasing, the severity of abuse can increase as well. With gun sales surging, many researchers are concerned that we will see an uptick in domestic homicides when the dust finally settles.

It is also important to note that the various factors discussed above are all reciprocal in nature. Stress begets alcohol abuse and job loss just as much as job loss begets alcohol abuse and stress. The factors underlying IPV are fluid, interrelated, and numerous, which makes IPV that much more difficult to extinguish. Today, the COVID-19 pandemic has elicited a perfect storm for IPV by provoking some of the most common factors associated with its occurrence.

Facebook image: Denizo71/Shutterstock

Anderson, K. L., & Umberson, D. (2001). Gendering violence: Masculinity and power in men’s accounts of domestic violence. Gender and Society , 15, 358–380.

Dutton, D. G., & Browning, J. J. (1988). Concern for power, fear of intimacy, and aversive stimuli for wife assault. In G. Hotaling, D. Finkelhor, J. T. Kirkpatrick, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), Family abuse and its consequences: New directions in research (pp. 163-175). Newbury Park, CA: Sage., A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavioral: A socialrole interpretation . Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Totten, M. (2003). Girlfriend abuse as a form of masculinity construction among violent, marginal male youth. Men and Masculinities , 6(1), 70-92.

Maclen Stanley is a Harvard Law School graduate, practicing attorney, and author of The Law Says What? Prior to his legal career, he received an Ed.M. in Developmental Psychology from Harvard.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

How the COVID-19 lockdowns affected the domestic abuse crisis

12 August 2022

A study found that restrictions kept victims in abusive relationships for longer and its findings have helped inform police policy.

Between April and June 2020 of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a 65% increase in calls to the National Domestic Abuse Helpline compared to the first three months of that year.

Lockdown restrictions appeared to increase the severity of abuse and made it difficult for victims to leave or seek help.

Unprecedented times

Dr Katrin Hohl of City, University of London and Dr Kelly Johnson of Durham University developed a project to analyse the introduction and lifting of lockdowns on domestic abuse.

A limited amount of information was available to the police to inform procedure. So, the academics set out to:

• provide a rapid, near real-time evidence base to inform the police approach to domestic violence and abuse during lockdowns and beyond
• determine if the pandemic had a statistically significant impact on the volume or nature of domestic abuse coming to police attention during the pandemic, or both.

The most extensive study of its kind

The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)-funded study was the most extensive and rigorous analysis of police domestic abuse case file data conducted anywhere in the world at the time.

The academics used statistical methods to examine all domestic abuse-flagged incidents and crimes reported to seven police forces since the onset of the pandemic. Forces included the Metropolitan Police Service and Merseyside Police .

Researchers interviewed a total of 73 officers, tracking the impact of the pandemic on domestic abuse from March 2020 to April 2021.

Key findings and recommendations

The study identified key findings, including:

• the pandemic lockdowns highlighted the pre-existing domestic abuse problem
• restrictions kept victims in abusive relationships for longer
• domestic abuse continued as lockdowns lifted and COVID-19 restrictions eased
• while ex-partner abuse decreased, current partner and family abuse increased
• domestic abusers used the lockdown to intensify or conceal their violence, coercion and control.

The study made recommendations, which were later used to inform police policy and procedure:

• look beyond lockdown-induced spikes and dips in domestic abuse reporting
• respond to the bigger picture of a long-term rise and gendered pattern in domestic abuse
• when lockdowns lift, anticipate and prepare for high-risk situations resulting from pent-up separations of victim-survivors from abusers
• police officers must have the knowledge and professional curiosity to recognise ongoing patterns of abuse
• officers must not be too quick to assume domestic incidents are one-offs caused by pandemic circumstances
• prepare for the consequences of the worsening negative impact of domestic abuse on victim-survivor mental health by providing adequate services and support.

Positive impact on resource allocation

Dr Katrin Hohl of City, University of London, said:

The study has meant the police forces now have empirical evidence to say that they need to allocate more resources to domestic abuse case handling. This is proving particularly important as lockdowns are lifted.

Informing policy and procedure

The study already has a far-reaching impact in helping real-time domestic abuse situations and is referenced in multiple research papers.

Dr Hohl and Dr Johnson shared their near-real-time evidence base with the:

• Home Office
• National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC)
• College of Policing.

The study has played a crucial role in developing the NPCC’s understanding of how COVID-19 impacts police-recorded abuse and decision-making.

Cumbria Constabulary used the findings to allocate resources to process demands relating to domestic abuse.

Dr Hohl also gave evidence on the study at the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee Home Office Preparedness for COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Consultation: Supplementary Call for Evidence Submission .

Read more about the study .

Top image:  Credit: martin-dm, E+ via Getty Images

Share this page

• Share this page on Twitter
• Share this page on LinkedIn
• Share this page on Facebook

This is the website for UKRI: our seven research councils, Research England and Innovate UK. Let us know if you have feedback or would like to help improve our online products and services .

Domestic Violence and COVID-19: Literature Review Essay

More than a year has passed since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The world is learning how to live in times of lockdowns and strict health safety regulations. However, the novel pandemic brought multiple challenges on social and economic levels, and sometimes those challenges were mutually related. Home isolation intended to curb COVID-19 brought unexpected side effects, and domestic violence became one of the most prominent. Therefore, the search parameters for this assignment included sources, which reflected the global impact of and anti-pandemic measures on the domestic violence situation.

The “stay safe, stay at home” mantra used by the governments and public health organizations was the opposite of safety for the victims of domestic violence. At the beginning of the pandemic, Anurudran et al. (2020) pointed to the risk of women’s exposure to domestic violence and urged to support those vulnerable to it. Their manuscript called for international organizations to come together and mobilize resources to address the problem. In that regard, the contradiction between staying at home and being in safety was highlighted in the beginning stage of the pandemic.

Some researchers admitted the importance of early anti-COVID-19 measures for the protection of health systems. Nevertheless, they also admitted the unintended negative consequences, such as isolation, loneliness, and emotional stress. For instance, Bradbury-Jones and Isham (2020) noted that women, already disproportionally affected by domestic violence, suffer even more in times of pandemics. They supported that claim with data from Brazil, Cyprus, Spain, and the UK, which registered an alarming rise in calls to domestic violence helplines (Bradbury-Jones & Isham, 2020). Overall, staying at home was considered important, but not at the cost of neglecting potentially vulnerable groups such as women and children.

The increase in domestic violence rates in the first weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic became an international trend. In the case of the USA, Leslie and Wilson (2020) revealed a 7,5% increase in domestic violence service calls in the first 12 weeks of social distancing. Moreover, in the first 5 weeks after the introduction of the anti-COVID measures, the calls increased by almost 10% (Leslie & Wilson, 2020). It should also be stressed that the increase was registered in reported cases. During the strict lockdown, a potential abuser has a better ability to control the victim and prevent the report. Therefore, the actual surge of domestic violence and the scale of the problem could have been well underestimated.

The spread of domestic violence took an especially significant place in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. According to World Health Organization (2021), the initial information from two countries in the region reported a 50-60% increase in women’s calls for help. The Eastern Mediterranean Region had a second-highest 37% prevalence of violence against women even before the pandemic (World Health Organization, 2021). The following disruption of social and protective services caused by COVID-19 and related economic hardships made the already bad situation worse.

The initial studies revealed a steady pattern of increase in domestic violence cases after the introduction of anti-COVID measures. Boserup et al. (2020) went a bit further and provided the possible reasons behind it. Harmful social and psychological factors such as unemployment, economic strain, quarantine-related depression, post-traumatic stress, and alcohol abuse exposed or worsened preexisting vulnerabilities (Boserup et al., 2020). In the end, stay-at-home policies implemented in various American states might have created a worst-case scenario for many households.

Domestic violence has a particular branch called intimate partner violence or IPV. Women typically experience it, but about one-third of men also experienced it to some extent (Mazza et al., 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic locked down whole families, forcing intimate partners to spend much more time together than previously. According to Mazza et al. (2020), these circumstances could have provoked IPV since people had no chance to leave their abusive partners due to COVID-related restrictions or economic reasons. In some cases, psychological pressure related to lockdown could breed violence even in what used to be normal relationships.

In terms of loss of life and economic damage, the COVID-19 pandemic has already surpassed a catastrophic natural disaster, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. However, the related stress and economic strain it is even bigger than in the case of natural disaster. Kofman and Garfin (2020) claimed that COVID-19 puts victims of domestic violence before a unique and distressing paradox. On the one hand, they risk becoming a victim of violence if they stay at home. On the other hand, leaving the seclusion exposes them to a dangerous virus. The choice between these alternatives is hard, to say the least, and the guidelines are unclear.

Eventually, the lockdowns would end, as the vaccination campaigns are going on across the world. By now, COVID-19 spreads in waves, and the lifting of restrictions is sometimes followed by their return in action. Therefore, governments and health organizations should focus on preventing old mistakes from happening. Taub (2020) observed the same path of imposing lockdowns without making sufficient provisions for domestic abuse victims. That approach must change in order to provide better care for the victims.

Overall, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the worldwide rise of domestic violence cases. Women and children suffered more, as usually happens with that type of abuse. Lockdowns provided a necessary experience of how to react in such situations. Protection of public safety should not come at the cost of forgetting about other spheres, like protection against domestic violence. Hopefully, events like the COVID-19 pandemic will not occur in the foreseeable future, and that experience will remain theoretical.

Anurudran, A., Yared, L., Comrie, C., Harrison, K., & Burke, T. (2020). Domestic violence amid COVID‐19. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics , 150 (2), 255-256. Web.

Boserup, B., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). Alarming trends in US domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine , 38 (12), 2753-2755. Web.

Bradbury‐Jones, C., & Isham, L. (2020). The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID‐19 on domestic violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 28 (13-14), 2047-2049. Web.

Kofman, Y. B., & Garfin, D. R. (2020). Home is not always a haven: The domestic violence crisis amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12 (1), 199-201. Web.

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. Web.

Mazza, M., Marano, G., Lai, C., Janiri, L., & Sani, G. (2020). Danger in danger: Interpersonal violence during COVID-19 quarantine. Psychiatry Research , 289 , 113046. Web.

Taub, A. (2020). A new Covid-19 crisis: Domestic abuse rises worldwide. The New York Times. Web.

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence, injuries and disability. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, October 19). Domestic Violence and COVID-19: Literature Review. https://ivypanda.com/essays/domestic-violence-and-covid-19-literature-review/

"Domestic Violence and COVID-19: Literature Review." IvyPanda , 19 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/domestic-violence-and-covid-19-literature-review/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Domestic Violence and COVID-19: Literature Review'. 19 October.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Domestic Violence and COVID-19: Literature Review." October 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/domestic-violence-and-covid-19-literature-review/.

1. IvyPanda . "Domestic Violence and COVID-19: Literature Review." October 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/domestic-violence-and-covid-19-literature-review/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Domestic Violence and COVID-19: Literature Review." October 19, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/domestic-violence-and-covid-19-literature-review/.

• Posttraumatic Stress Symptom Disease
• The IPV Growth During the Pandemic
• Intimate Partner Violence and Maternal Stress
• Intimate Partner Violence After COVID-19
• Intimate Partner Violence During Covid-19 Pandemic
• Crime Theories: Intimate Partner Violence in the US
• Resources for Survivors of Sexual Assault
• Intimate Partner Violence: Diagnosis and Management
• Intimate Partner Violence Problem Overview
• Lockdown Effects on Consumer Buying Power
• Gun Violence in the US: Repealing the Second Amendment
• Rachel Louise Snyder’s Research on Domestic Violence
• “Bullying in Schools”: The Aspects of Bullying
• Reducing Gun Violence in Atlanta, Georgia
• Sociology: Impact of Violence

• How We're Funded
• Staff Directory
• Board of Directors

Violence Against Women and Children During COVID-19—One Year On and 100 Papers In: A Fourth Research Round Up

Recommended.

More From the series

A year after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, we take stock of an increasingly diverse set of new studies linking violence against women and children (VAW/C) to COVID-19 and associated pandemic response measures. In this fourth round up, we focus exclusively on research in low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs) published since December 2020 to highlight dynamics in settings that previously had fewer studies. As in previous round ups (see the first , second and third covering a total of 74 studies), we only include studies that have sufficient information on indicator definition and analysis methods (though we maintain a full set of studies including more policy-oriented briefs and reports—in our evidence tracker). In total, we summarize 26 new studies from LICs and MICs, with the majority focused on identifying trends (15 studies), while others present analysis of risk factors or dynamics (an additional ten studies), and one represents an impact analysis of prevention programming.

What have we learned? Key takeaways for this roundup

More papers point to increases in violence. Of the 15 studies presenting findings on trends in VAW/C from pre-pandemic through various stages of the pandemic, 12 of these papers (or 80%) find exclusive evidence of increased violence—a higher proportion than previous round ups. Of the remaining studies in this round up, one paper finds mixed results, and two find no significant change in violence.

Lost income and employment, among other factors, increase the risk of violence occurring. Of the additional ten studies assessing risk factors, findings indicate that being married, unemployed (for either the respondent or spouse), reporting lost household income, food insecurity, and spousal substance abuse tendencies increase risk of VAW/C. Protective factors identified include higher education level for either the wife or husband and women’s employment.

As an ongoing issue, too few papers evaluate ‘what works’ to reduce the risk of violence or support survivors. Only one study in this round up provided evidence on intervention effects during COVID-19: a study from Bolivia showed a youth empowerment program decreased multiple types of violence experienced by adolescent girls. This study adds to only a handful of global studies able to inform VAW/C prevention policy and programming. More evidence is critically needed.

• Studies reflect findings across diverse settings and populations. In this round up, nine studies were from Asia (five from South Asia), eight from the Middle East, six from sub-Saharan Africa, one from Latin America, and two were cross-regional studies. Two studies focused on violence against healthcare workers and two studies focused on pregnant women specifically, all documenting high rates of violence during the pandemic.

An overview of new studies: Research questions, geographies, and methods

Similar to previous round ups, studies continue to focus on the research question of whether or not VAW/C is increasing or decreasing during COVID-19. Of the 15 studies included here, 12 find evidence of increased violence. This represents a higher proportion of studies supporting exclusive increases in violence than in previous round ups (80%, compared to 25% in the first round up, 56% in the second, and 50% in the third round up). Some of these increases are large, for example, studies in Jordan ( showing a quadrupling of self-reported violence against women ) and China ( showing a 278% increase in police calls for domestic violence ). Of the remaining three studies, one finds mixed results (in India ), and two find no significant change in violence ( Kenya and South Africa ).

One factor that could explain this difference is the type of data being used. Studies in the three previous round ups mostly relied on administrative data such as calls to emergency services or clinical data from hospital admissions. This focus on ‘reported’ data was likely partially due to data availability in the early stages of the pandemic, concentrated in high income countries, particularly the United States and across Europe.

In this round up, more studies use survey data, collected either online or via mobile phone (11 of the 15 included papers). However, most of these studies rely on small samples that cannot be generalized to larger populations, and many collect data at a single point in time asking respondents to recall experiences from before the pandemic (or use innovative indirect measures, including vignettes , as done in Indonesia). Survey data may capture a greater range of experiences, not only those which are most severe or where help-seeking occurs. While administrative data can be collected and reported on very quickly, many of the studies in this round up use survey data to provide a more comprehensive picture of violence occurring, extending beyond incidents captured in police reports or hotline calls.

Similar to our last round up, several efforts use ‘big data’—including cross country analysis of internet search data, or social media posts. For example, an analysis of 11 countries using Google search data suggests domestic violence increased more in places with stricter lockdowns, as measured by Google mobility data. In addition, an 8-country analysis of social media data in Asia unpacks dynamics in the public sphere, and shows online help-seeking increased (from 10 to 70%) across all but two countries.

Group A. Papers that measure impacts of COVID-19 or associated response measures on VAW/C

Table notes : ANCOVA = Analysis of covariance; ARIMA = Autoregressive integrated moving average; IPV = intimate partner violence.

More details on papers that measure impacts of COVID-19 or associated measures on VAW/C

Abuhammad 2020..

Using an online survey of 687 women, Abuhammad shows that the proportion experiencing violence quadrupled during the pandemic (from 10% to 40%), with parents (both mothers and fathers) being the most often reported perpetrators. Less than half of the women who had experienced violence reported it to the police, and perpetrators were arrested in only 3.5% of cases. The most significant predictors of experiencing violence during this period were a woman’s marital status and unemployment, highlighting the link between economic insecurity and violence [ Abu-Hammad 2020 ; International Journal of Clinical Practice .

Aolymat 2021

In a study of the impact of COVID-19 on domestic violence and reproductive health in Jordan, Aolymat finds that 20.5% of 200 women surveyed reported experiencing increased domestic abuse during the pandemic. The author hypothesizes that increased abuse is due to increased time spent at home with partners, reduced income, and reduced access to healthcare services as a result of the pandemic [ Aolymat 2021 ; American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene ].

Burniell and Facchini 2020

Using Google search data on domestic violence-related terms as a correlate for incidence of violence, Berniell and Facchini estimate that incidence of violence peaks at seven weeks into lockdown measures and remains statistically significant until ten weeks into lockdown. Relative to the week prior to lockdown, domestic violence searches increased by 31%. Though an increase was observed in every country in the sample, the effect in Latin American countries was only half that in high-income countries, a difference that the authors attribute to differential adherence to stay at home measures [ Burniell and Facchini 2020 ; CEDLAS Working Paper].

Dai et al. 2021

Using police service call data from the Hubei province of China, the site of one of the strictest lockdowns of the pandemic, Dai, Han, and Xia find that although overall calls to police decreased during the lockdown period, the average number of calls related to domestic violence nearly quadrupled during the lockdown period (an increase of 278% in adjusted models). While most other types of police calls returned to normal levels shortly after the lockdown ended, domestic violence calls remained elevated and took longer to return to pre-lockdown levels [ Dai et al. 2021 ; Policing ].

Fabbri et al. 2020

Fabbri et al. model the effects of lockdowns on violent discipline of children in three countries (Nigeria, Mongolia and Suriname) using data from (pre-pandemic) Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. They find models predict large increases (35% to 46%) in violent discipline scores under ‘high restriction’ scenarios and smaller increases (4% to 6%) under ‘low restriction’ scenarios [ Fabbri et al. 2020 ; Child Abuse and Neglect ].

Fereidooni et al. 2021

Using survey data of 2,116 adult partnered women in Iran, Fereidooni et al. show that prevalence of IPV during COVID-19 rose from pre-pandemic levels (from 54% to 65%) and that over a quarter of women reported first-time incidence of IPV during COVID-19. The authors find that women’s engagement in paid employment decreases the likelihood of exposure to IPV [ Fereidooni et al. 2021 ; SSRN Working Paper].

Guglielmi et al. 2020

In a study of the impact of COVID-19 on Rohingya and Bangladeshi adolescents (1,761 phone surveys and 30 qualitative interviews), Guglielmi et al. find that 8% of adolescents surveyed (boys and girls) reported an increase in gender-based violence during the pandemic, and that about a third of boys and a fifth of girls living in camps reported escalated police and military violence to enforce containment measures. Married girls were twice as likely as unmarried girls to report an increase in gender-based violence in the community [ Guglielmi et al. 2020 ; Journal of Migration and Health ].

Halim et al. 2020

Using a phone survey of 866 women in Indonesia and indirect measures (vignettes asking respondents to report on violence “in the community”), Halim et al. show respondents report increases due to COVID-19 of 83% (IPV), 68% (violence against children) and 65% (harassment). Food insecurity and women’s lack of access to jobs are significant correlates of reported increases [ Halim et al. 2020 ; World Bank Technical Brief].

Mahmood et al. 2021

Using online survey data of 346 married women, Mahmood et al. find a significant increase in spousal violence when comparing self-reported instances before and after the lockdown in Iraq. For any violence, the prevalence rate rose from 32% to 39%, and significant increases were also seen for emotional abuse, physical violence, humiliation, intimidation, hitting, hair and arm pulling, and forced sexual intercourse [ Mahmood et al. 2021 ; Journal of Interpersonal Violence ].

Pattojoshi et al. 2020

Using an online survey of 560 women, Pattojoshi et al. report a prevalence rate of spousal violence of 18.1%, of which verbal and emotional violence were the most common, followed by physical and sexual violence. About 5% of women reported experiencing violence for the first time since lockdown began, and of those who reported having experienced it before, 78% reported an increase since lockdown. The most commonly perceived reasons for violence were financial constraints, inability to socialize, and sharing responsibilities for childcare [ Pattojoshi et al. 2020 ; Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

Pinchoff et al. 2021

Using data collected from 2,009 households in informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, Pinchoff et al. document reported increases in violence against women inside and outside the home (45% and 24%, respectively). Women are 8 percentage points more likely to report increased risk of household violence (as compared to men), particularly in households with higher food insecurity [ Pinchoff et al. 2021 ; BMJ Global Health ].

UNFPA et al. 2021

Using social media and internet search data, the authors document the most searched for terms related to GBV across several Asian countries; Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines show a marked increase in GBV-related searches between early spring and mid-summer 2020. Online misogyny increased during lockdown in all countries examined, but online support for survivors and services also increased. Help-seeking online increased in most countries by between 10 and 70% [ UNFPA et al. 2021 ; Technical report].

Sharma and Khokhar 2021

In a sample of rural households in Kenya, Eggers et al. find an increase in violence against both women and children during the crisis period (of 4% and 13%, respectively), as compared to March 2020 early in the pandemic, though neither result is statistically significant [ Sharma and Khokhar 2021 ; Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness ].

Egger et al. 2021

In a sample of rural households in Kenya, Eggers et al. find an increase in violence against both women and children during the crisis period (of 4% and 13%, respectively), as compared to March 2020 early in the pandemic, though neither result is statistically significant [ Egger et al. 2021 ; Science Advances ].

Venter et al. 2020

Reviewing the patient register at a hospital emergency department in Johannesburg, South Africa from February to June 2019 and the same period in 2020, Venter et al. note that cases of trauma from interpersonal violence decreased by 25% year over year. However, results are not statistically significant, nor are they sex-disaggregated or disaggregated by type of violence [ Venter et al. 2020 ; South African Medical Journal ].

Papers exploring the experience, risk factors, and prevention of VAW/C during COVID-19

An additional eleven papers assess risk factors, report on experiences of violence, or examine prevention programming during the pandemic. Of studies documenting significant risk factors for increased violence, several of note were being married, being unemployed (for either the victim or perpetrator), having lost household income due to the pandemic, and the perpetrator’s substance abuse tendencies. Of particular note are studies coming from across a range of country contexts that point to heightened economic vulnerability—whether in the form of unemployment, reduced household income, or food insecurity—as tied to a greater risk of violence. As dynamics and lived experiences broaden beyond containment to include widespread economic crises, effects on VAW/C will also continue to evolve, likely in ways that outlast the direct health effects of COVID-19 and associated containment measures.

Few studies point to potential protective factors, but evidence from India and Ethiopia suggests that higher education (for both victim and perpetrator) decreases the risk of violence. Levels of IPV were twice as high for illiterate women in Ethiopia as they were for women who had completed secondary school, and in India rates of domestic violence were significantly lower if either the husband or wife had an advanced degree. Employment status may also be a protective factor, with studies in Jordan and Iran showing significantly lower rates of violence for women who are employed. This mirrors the risk factor of losing employment or income during the pandemic being associated with increased violence.

Two studies focused on violence against healthcare workers (in Iran and China ), and two studies focused on pregnant women specifically (in Iran and Ethiopia ), all documenting high rates of violence during the pandemic. Only one study included an evaluation of a prevention or harm-mitigation program, a youth empowerment program in Bolivia , finding a reduction in violence experienced by girls of nearly ten percentage points (or 46% relative to the control group), seven months after its completion.

Group B. VAW/C experiences, risk factors, and prevention during COVID-19

More details on papers exploring experiences of VAW/C during COVID-19

Ghanbari et al. 2020.

Using survey data from 112 emergency department nurses in Rasht, Iran, Ghanbari et al. find that 62.5% of nurses experienced verbal violence and 17.8% experienced physical violence at work during the first six months of the pandemic, mostly occurring during the evening and night shifts. Many nurses did not report abuse because they felt it would not be useful [ Ghanbari et al. 2020 ; Working paper].

Gulesci et al. 2021

Girl participants aged 15 to 18 in a youth empowerment program in Bolivia are 9.6 percentage points (46%) less likely to report experiencing violence relative to girls in a control group (driven by psychological and sexual violence), while boys saw no significant change, seven months after the intervention ended. The program included modules on personal empowerment, sexual and reproductive health, economic empowerment, technical skills training, and work insertion/business development and the authors hypothesize the decrease in experiences of violence may be due to an increase in earnings and bargaining power within the home [ Gulesci et al. 2021 ; World Bank].

Haddad et al. 2020

In a study of 369 Lebanese women on the drivers of pregnancy outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic, Haddad et al. find that experiences of psychological violence are negatively associated with women becoming pregnant during containment measures, but positively associated with unwanted pregnancies, though neither result was statistically significant [ Haddad et al. 2020 ; Working paper].

Hajj et al. 2021

Using survey data from 502 adults in Lebanon, Hajj et al. find that more men than women reported experiencing violence (8.4% vs. 3.8%), and that those who had experienced violence were more likely to experience increased stress and insomnia (note the latter results were not sex-disaggregated) [ Hajj et al. 2021 ; Working paper].

Krishnakumar & Verma 2021

Using 59 newspaper articles from across India, Krishnakumar and Verma identify alcohol withdrawal and unemployment to be main drivers of domestic violence during the lockdown period. They also note that lockdowns made women particularly vulnerable by isolating them from friends or family who might otherwise intervene or provide support [ Krishnakumar & Verma 2021 ; Asian Journal of Criminology ].

Mahapatro et al. 2021

Through 36 qualitative interviews, Mahapatro et al. find that access to services for domestic abuse survivors was severely limited during the lockdown period in India and that only emergency services could be provided by phone. Additionally, lockdowns prohibited women from accessing social networks, which they would normally rely on for support to cope with violence [ Mahapatro et al. 2021 ; Journal of Family Issues ].

Naghizadeh et al. 2021

Through in-person surveys at an obstetrics clinic in Tabriz, Iran, Neghizadeh et al. find high prevalence rates of domestic violence among pregnant women (35.2%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Broken down further, 32.8% of women surveyed had experienced emotional violence, 12.4% had experienced sexual violence, and 4.8% had experienced physical violence. The mean score on a scale of mental health was significantly lower for those women who had experienced violence during COVID-19 than those who had not. Additionally, reduced spousal income was positively associated with experiences of domestic violence during the pandemic [ Naghizadeh et al. 2021 ; BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth ].

Rockowitz et al. 2020

Using survivor intake forms from violence-related services, Rockowitz et al. find that children are more likely to be attacked during the daytime in private by a single family member or neighbor. Adults are equally likely to be attacked by a stranger or a person known to them and in public. [ Rockowitz et al. 2020 ; PsyArXiv Pre-print ].

Tadesse et al. 2020

In a random sample of married or cohabited women in Ethiopia, Tadesse et al. find an IPV prevalence rate of 22.4%, with the most significant determinants of having experienced violence were being illiterate or having an illiterate husband, having a substance user husband, and community tolerance of violence. Broken down further, 20% of respondents had experienced psychological violence, 13.8% had experienced sexual violence, and 11% had experienced physical violence during lockdown. [ Tadesse et al. 2020 ; Journal of Interpersonal Violence ].

Teshome et al. 2020

Through an in-person survey of pregnant women at a prenatal clinic in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Teshome et al. find that 7.1% of their sample had experienced IPV during the pandemic, with 72% of those reporting emotional violence, 49% reporting sexual violence, and 30% reporting physical violence. Less than 2% of participants were screened for IPV at the clinic. Spousal consumption of Khat or alcohol was associated with IPV incidence [ Teshome et al. 2020 ; International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics ].

Oguntayo et al. 2020

Using data collected via online survey in Nigeria among 356 adults in Lagos, Nigeria, Oguntayo and colleagues show correlations between IPV and both personality traits (neuroticism), as well as socio-contextual factors (poorer living conditions and less stable employment), though no differences by gender [ Oguntayo et al. 2020 ; International Journal of Behavioral Sciences].

Wang et al. 2020

Using an online survey of healthcare workers in China, Wang et al. find that 20.4% of those surveyed had experienced workplace violence during the COVID-19 outbreak. Female health care workers were significantly less likely to report having experienced workplace violence (than male healthcare workers), though both were equally likely to report mental health problems after experiencing workplace violence, using a propensity score matching approach [ Wang et al. 2020 ; Risk Management and Health Care Policy ].

Evidence gaps one year on: A need to focus on prevention and mitigation

While the number of papers examining trends and risk factors for VAW/C during the pandemic continues to grow, after ‘rounding up’ 100 papers, the major gap continues to be evidence on prevention and mitigation. As many countries shift their focus towards recovery, a new set of questions and challenges are emerging. What types of policies and programs are effective during the pandemic and the recovery to mitigate and prevent diverse forms of VAW/C—including for specific populations (e.g., adolescent girls; healthcare workers)? How cost effective are these efforts, given programming tradeoffs? Are there important lessons for longer-term programming efforts that go beyond current experiences, to inform how to mitigate intergenerational and long-term effects? This necessitates a focus not only on more complex data collection and analysis building on new or existing impact evaluations, but also offers a role for rigorous qualitative work. Only two of the 26 papers reviewed in this round up collected and analyzed qualitative data, a methodology which can help narrate the lived experiences of women and children reached by interventions.

What do we know so far from intervention studies? A total of five papers have assessed the effectiveness of response efforts thus far: a helpline campaign in Italy , stimulus payments and differential firearm policies in the United States, alcohol consumption policies in Mexico , and a youth empowerment program in Bolivia . The findings are mixed. A ban on alcohol was found to have no impact on the number of calls to seek domestic violence services during lockdown, while the awareness campaign in Italy was associated with an increase in calls to a domestic violence helpline. Both of these studies point to changes in help-seeking rather than changes in the prevalence in VAW/C experience itself. In the United States, daily domestic violence calls decreased significantly after stimulus payments were made, but remained high in areas with higher concentrations of Hispanics and noncitizens (who may face higher barriers to accessing the welfare system). More stringent gun laws also seemed to mitigate the increase in domestic violence seen in the United States, however this finding may not translate to other settings with lower numbers of firearms or existing firearm restrictions. The Bolivia study is the first experimental evaluation of a targeted intervention during COVID-19, and with promising impacts for adolescent girls specifically.

While results are likely to differ across settings, future research efforts and funding should focus on response— across a promising range of programming , while prioritizing the safety of study participants—rather than continue to question if levels and risk factors have increased. Studies examining risk and protective factors provide a starting point that can help researchers prioritize interventions to evaluate going forward. Given the number of studies pointing to economic insecurity’s ties to risk of violence, researchers can consider prioritizing the evaluation of policies and programs aimed at supplementing household income and food consumption, including through the provision of cash and in-kind transfers and employment opportunities. Additionally, with many studies identifying alcohol consumption, substance use and mental health as linked to experiences of violence, more work should be done to determine the best policies to mitigate these risks.

The authors thank David Evans for helpful comments.

Rights & Permissions

You may use and disseminate CGD’s publications under these conditions.

More Reading

Ideas to action: independent research for global prosperity

© 2024 Center for Global Development | Privacy Notice and Cookie Policy

Sign up to get weekly development updates:

Angelina Jolie calls for the spike in domestic abuse during the coronavirus pandemic to be a transition moment

• Angelina Jolie wrote an essay for Time highlighting the problem of domestic violence during lockdown.
• She cited figures from a recent UN Secretary General report on COVID-19 that showed how harm towards women and girls, extreme poverty, genital mutilation, and child marriages have been on the rise.
• Jolie said that while the coronavirus pandemic is not entirely to blame for these figures, it is "the latest excuse" for not making progress.
• She also said it would not be enough to "return to the status quo before the pandemic," and there needs to be more support and services available for survivors of trauma and violence.
• "Not to use our influence to defend and promote women's rights at a time when they are threatened would betray the fundamental principles of our democracy," Jolie said.
• Visit Insider's homepage for more stories .

Angelina Jolie  has penned an essay for Time  about how domestic violence cases against women have spiked since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

Jolie cited a recent UN Secretary-General  report on COVID-19  that showed an additional 15 million women and girls had endured harm during global lockdowns every three months, "and a further 47 million women forced into extreme poverty."

The report also predicts two million more global cases of female genital mutilation by 2030, and 13 million more child marriages.

"The prospect of 'decades' of progress in women's rights being undone by the pandemic is intolerable and ought to be unthinkable," Jolie wrote. "It is over half a century since the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights promised equal rights for all women, yet basic rights, protections, and freedoms are still non-existent in some countries. In others, they are built on such fragile foundations that it seems the pandemic might sweep them away."

Insider's Sarah Al-Arshani reported that a study published in the journal Radiology in August found "the proportion of physical abuse compared to verbal or emotional abuse was 80% higher in 2020 than in the past three years combined" and that injuries sustained were "far more severe."

Early on in the pandemic, domestic violence cases were on the rise worldwide, with some police departments seeing " double-digit percentage jumps " in the number of calls received.

Related stories

Psychologist Perpetual Neo,  who works with women recovering from abusive relationships , told Insider this is partly because it is a time where toxic dynamics  might reveal themselves more clearly . Victims are trapped behind those doors for longer than ever before, in close quarters.

Jolie explained that while the coronavirus pandemic is not entirely to blame for these figures, it is "the latest excuse" for not making progress. She said even before lockdowns began, around one in every three women are likely to be "beaten, raped or otherwise abused during her lifetime."

She said we live in an era of artificial intelligence and quantum computing. However, the world is still backward in terms of basic rights for women, including access to education, voting, control over their bodies, and equal pay.

She also noted how little funding sexual and gender-based violence programs receive .

"Continued suppression or reversal of women's rights would lead to a more insecure and divided world, with greater numbers of refugees and increased conflict," Jolie wrote. "It is as much a threat to our interests as it is an affront to our values. Women shouldn't be the main voices in this fight. Men must take a stand."

She said this is not a "partisan issue," and it is not enough to "return to the status quo before the pandemic."

Instead, she called for more support and services for survivors and children exposed to trauma and violence, and "a system that provides accountability." This promise would have to stretch to countries such as Afghanistan, she said, where the US has "knowingly taken part in a diplomatic process that side-lined Afghan women."

"Not to use our influence to defend and promote women's rights at a time when they are threatened would betray the fundamental principles of our democracy," Jolie said. "It would also send a message to young girls everywhere — already conscious of growing up in an unequal, unjust world — that even though we could see their horizons narrowing during this pandemic, we didn't care enough to try to stop it."

• COVID-19 lockdowns generated a crisis within a crisis for the victims of domestic violence, new study finds
• Being in lockdown with someone can reveal toxic, abusive behaviors — here's how to stay safe
• People in toxic relationships often don't realize they are being abused — here's how better government messaging can help break through
• Domestic violence victims are using a safe word at pharmacies to seek help during lockdown

Anyone affected by abuse and in need of support can contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233). Advocates are available 24/7 and can also be reached via live chat on thehotline.org or by texting "START" to 88788 or " LOVEIS " to 22522.

Watch: Can the novel coronavirus be stopped?

• Main content

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Trainee FGM ‘cutter’ who fled the Gambia fights renewed risk to girls

Maimouna Jawo launches online campaign from UK after Gambian move to rescind female circumcision ban

A woman who stood up against her community and refused to be a female genital mutilation “cutter” is launching a campaign to protect tens of thousands of girls who are at renewed risk of female circumcision in her home country, the Gambia.

Maimouna Jawo, 50, who was herself subjected to FGM, has recently been granted leave to remain in the UK by the Home Office after more than a decade of waiting.

From her attic room in Hounslow she is launching a campaign on Facebook in Mandinka, the most commonly spoken language in her country, to reach a new generation of girls and raise the alarm about the dangers of FGM.

She is also keen to reach their mothers and fathers and says that many Gambian men enthusiastically back the practice. The UN Population Fund and Unicef are jointly leading a global programme to speed up the elimination of FGM, to which an estimated 230 million girls and women worldwide have been subjected.

The severe damage mutilating female genitals causes to psychological and physical health has been widely documented.

While an asylum seeker in the UK, Jawo appeared in a BBC documentary , made more than a decade ago by the Sue Lloyd Roberts, in which the late journalist remonstrated with an imam in the Gambia about false claims he made about women’s clitorises.

Laws were passed in the Gambia in 2015 outlawing FGM, at least in part thanks to the documentary and Jawo’s brave decision as a victim and someone who refused to become a cutter, to speak out on camera.

Jawo comes from generations of cutters and was told from the age of 12 that it was her destiny to continue the work carried out by her grandmother and her mother. She began her training at the age of 15, and was expected to miss school when she was needed to hold down girls while the adult cutters carried out FGM.

Although the passing of the laws did not eliminate the practice, it was a step in the right direction. In the Gambia, an estimated 73% of women aged 15-49 have been subjected to FGM.

But as Jawo sends a social media SOS to those at risk in her home country, the Gambian government is considering overturning the FGM ban .

It was when Jawo was forced to assist the cutter of her own five-year-old daughter that she silently vowed she would never carry out FGM, even if refusing put her life at risk.

“My daughter was screaming for mum while she was being cut but it was mum who was holding her legs down,” said Jawo.

She fled to the UK and claimed asylum. When her asylum appeal was heard recently the BBC documentary featuring Jawo was screened in court.

“I have been fighting against FGM for so long and now there is a chance the FGM ban in my country could be overturned I feel like my fight is going back to the beginning,” she said.

Jawo is working covertly with a group of women in some of the villages in the Gambia to raise awareness about the dangers of FGM and the damage it can cause, and hopes to build a powerful force on the ground to stand up and say no to the practice.

“Now that I have my refugee status in the UK it’s very important for me to get up and do something about what I happening with FGM in my country. What is happening now in Gambia is very scary. Whatever the government does about FGM I will stand where I stood yesterday and where I stand today and where I will always stand on this. My message continues to be: ‘say no to FGM’.”

• Female genital mutilation (FGM)
• Australian immigration and asylum

More on this story

Move to overturn FGM ban in the Gambia postponed

Woman who handed over British girl, 3, for FGM in Kenya given seven years

Woman convicted of taking British girl, three, for female genital mutilation in Kenya

Number of new FGM cases referred to NHS in England down by a quarter

Huge FGM rise recorded in Somalia during coronavirus lockdown

Sudan to outlaw female genital mutilation

'Calamitous': domestic violence set to soar by 20% during global lockdown

True numbers of FGM victims could be far higher as countries fail to record cases

We won’t eradicate FGM if we keep misunderstanding its history

FGM doctor arrested in Egypt after girl, 12, bleeds to death

Most viewed.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychiatry

Changes in Prevalence and Severity of Domestic Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review

Freya thiel.

1 Institute and Policlinic of Occupational and Social Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Faculty of Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

2 Institute for Systems Medicine (ISM) and Faculty of Medicine, MSH Medical School Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Verena C. S. Büechl

Franciska rehberg, amera mojahed, judith k. daniels.

3 Department of Clinical Psychology and Experimental Psychopathology, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

4 Psychologische Hochschule Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Julia Schellong

5 Department of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Susan Garthus-Niegel

6 Department of Child Health and Development, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

Associated Data

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

To contain the spread of COVID-19, governmental measures were implemented in many countries. Initial evidence suggests that women and men experience increased anger and aggression during COVID-19 lockdowns. Not surprisingly, media reports and initial empirical evidence highlight an increased risk for domestic violence (DV) during the pandemic. Nonetheless, a systematic review of studies utilizing participants' reports of potential changes in DV prevalence and severity during the pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic times is needed.

To examine empirical, peer-reviewed studies, pertaining to the potential change in prevalence and severity of different types of DV during the COVID-19 pandemic, as reported by study participants.

Data Sources

Electronic EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL searches were conducted for the period between 2020 and January 5, 2022. References of eligible studies were integrated by using a snowballing technique.

Study Selection

A total of 22 primary, empirical, peer-reviewed studies published in English or German were included.

Of the 22 studies, 19 were cross-sectional whereas 3 included both pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments. Data synthesis indicates that severity of all types of DV as well as the prevalence of psychological/emotional and sexual DV increased for a significant number of victims in the general population during the pandemic. Evidence for changes in prevalence regarding economic/financial, physical, and overall DV remains inconclusive. There was considerable between-study variation in reported prevalence depending on region, sample size, assessment time, and measure.

Conclusions

Data synthesis partly supports the previously documented increase in DV. Governmental measures should consider the availability of easily accessible, anonymous resources. Awareness and knowledge regarding DV need to be distributed to improve resources and clinical interventions.

Introduction

In order to contain the global spread of COVID-19, measures such as social isolation/distancing, quarantine, and stay-at-home orders have been implemented in many countries ( 1 , 2 ). Although effective in decelerating the spread of COVID-19 ( 3 , 4 ), these measures also have major social consequences, which may have a substantial impact on mental health, wellbeing, and life satisfaction ( 5 , 6 ). Empirical research pertaining to mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic indicates increased levels of anxiety, depression, insomnia, and psychological distress ( 7 ). Feelings of loneliness resulting from measures such as social isolation or stay-at-home orders, may not only lead to an increase in depressive symptoms ( 8 ), but may also impair self-regulation abilities ( 9 ), which can lead to dysfunctional behavioral patterns, such as alcohol and drug abuse ( 10 , 11 ), as well as violent behavior ( 12 ). Initial evidence suggests that during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Germany, both women and men experienced increased anger and aggression and tended to direct their anger at others ( 13 ). Over the course of the pandemic, media reports have highlighted an alarming increase in rates of domestic violence among intimate partners and against children during lockdown periods ( 14 – 16 ) and web searches related to support for domestic abuse have expanded since the beginning of the pandemic ( 17 ).

Domestic violence (DV) is defined as “a pattern of behavior that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner in a relationship, a child, another relative or any other household member” ( 18 ). DV may affect anyone, regardless of age, gender, ethnic or socioeconomic background, religious or sexual orientation, or type of relationship ( 18 , 19 ). To this end, DV can also include intimate partner violence (IPV). According to the World Health Organization (WHO), IPV pertains to “any act or behavior within a present or former intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological, or sexual harm” ( 20 ). Among others, these behaviors may include (a) psychological/emotional or verbal violence (e.g., insulting, threatening, humiliating), (b) sexual violence (e.g., forced sexual intercourse), (c) physical violence (e.g., beating, kicking), (d) economic/financial violence ( 20 , 21 ).

Reports on DV or IPV have largely focused on violence committed against women. To this end, it has been documented that globally one in three women will experience physical or sexual violence committed by an intimate partner during her life ( 20 ), making IPV the most common form of violence against women. Nonetheless, public, empirical, and clinical attention toward DV or IPV against men has grown. Similar to violence against women, it is estimated that one in four men will experience physical violence by an intimate partner during his life ( 22 – 25 ). As described above, governmental restrictions to slow down the spread of COVID-19, such as social isolation, have been linked to increased anger and aggression ( 13 ), which may in turn increase the risk for DV victimization and/or perpetration. Finally, a recent review documents that both social and geographic isolation represent crucial risk factors for IPV ( 1 ).

Despite the positive effects of governmental restrictions on containment of the virus, these measures also deteriorated conditions for victims of DV, finding them trapped at home with their perpetrators and minimizing their access to social support systems like friends and family outside the abusive relationship ( 15 , 26 ). Further, stay-at-home orders and lockdowns might make it easier for perpetrators to socially isolate and surveil their victim, which may be used to control intimate partners or family members ( 26 ). Thus, during the pandemic, the risk of DV may have increased because of domestic confinement with possible perpetrators, while at the same time access to private and public help resources such as protection services has been limited ( 2 , 15 , 26 ). Regional and societal factors may further impact victims' and perpetrators' access to help resources. For instance, in many settings around the world, patriarchal views of the family, social norms, or geographical distance from professional and private support resources may offer potential explanations for the increased risk of IPV ( 1 , 27 – 29 ).

Although worldwide media reports suggest increasing rates of DV over the course of the pandemic ( 14 – 16 ) and initial empirical evidence highlights that social and geographical isolation may augment DV ( 1 ), empirical studies pertaining to a potential increase in DV cases or severity during the pandemic had to be designed, conducted, and had to undergo rigorous peer-review processes before publication. Since the global onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the amount of empirical, peer-reviewed studies has grown.

To date, several reviews focusing on a change in DV prevalence are available. First, an initial systematic review of 32 studies published until July 2020 documented evidence for an increase in DV cases, specifically during the first week of COVID-19 lockdowns in various countries. Nonetheless, this review was conducted in the early stages of the pandemic—thus, the majority of included studies reported on police or helpline reports to assess DV prevalence and not all included reports and studies had been peer-reviewed ( 30 ). Second, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 studies published until January 2021 focused exclusively on administrative/official data (e.g., police records), documenting an increase in DV following stay-at-home orders or lockdown, with the majority of studies stemming from the U.S. ( 31 ). Third, a systematic review focused solely on IPV, including 19 studies, eight of which focused on reports by victims and 11 on reports by help professionals (i.e., police officers, DV resource center staff, healthcare providers). Results outlined an increase in the episodes of IPV as reported by victims (i.e., cross-sectional studies) and help professionals ( 32 ). Fourth, a systematic review focusing on IPV as well as sexual functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic included 11 cross-sectional studies published until the end of 2020, 5 of which reported on IPV. The authors showed that IPV against women increased during the COVID-19 pandemic ( 33 ). Taken together, all prior reviews suggest an increase in DV during the pandemic. It should however be noted that prior reviews were limited by the timing of literature and it can be assumed that additional literature has been published since. Further, initial research primarily focused on administrative/official reports to assess a potential change in DV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, initial studies focusing on administrative/official reports may reflect changes in help-seeking behavior rather than changes in prevalence, highlighting the importance for empirical studies assessing participants.

We therefore set forth to examine empirical, peer-reviewed studies reporting on original participant data regarding a change in the prevalence and/or severity of DV over the course of the pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic times. Given the acute nature of the topic and the time needed to plan, conduct, and publish relevant data, we expected the majority of studies to have employed cross-sectional designs. Nonetheless, we also expected initial evidence from longitudinal studies or those with repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments to be available by the time of the current literature search.

Materials and Methods

Search strategy.

In order to examine the research question of whether there was a change in DV prevalence and/or severity during the COVID-19 pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic times, we followed the PRSIMA ( 34 ) approach: Electronic EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL searches were conducted from 2020 to January 5, 2022 to identify research articles for inclusion in this review. Separate searches for each primary database combined terms relating to DV and the COVID-19 pandemic, applying the Boolean operators (AND) and (OR), accordingly. For MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL searches, we used the search string “TI (domestic OR intimate OR interpersonal OR partner OR marital OR couple OR relationship) AND TI (violence or abuse) AND TI (covid * OR pandemic OR corona)”. For EMBASE, the string was adapted to “((domestic OR interpersonal OR intimate OR partner OR marital OR couple OR relationship) AND (violence OR abuse) AND (covid OR pandemic OR corona)).ti.”. Additionally, references of eligible studies were integrated by using a snowballing technique.

Eligibility Criteria

For inclusion in this review, we considered primary, peer-reviewed, empirical studies pertaining to a potential change in DV prevalence and/or severity during the COVID-19 pandemic as reported by participants, published in English or German. Studies examining participant-reported violence in a domestic context during the pandemic, including different age groups, genders, and any form of intimate relationship (e.g., intimate partner, relationship, marital or couple violence, violence against children in the household) were incorporated. Thus, studies utilizing official records (e.g., police, helpline, or hospital records) without participant assessment were excluded in order to focus specifically on the potential change in DV prevalence rather than a change in help-seeking behavior. Empirical quantitative studies, such as cross-sectional, longitudinal, and clinical studies, published in peer-reviewed journals were included. Qualitative studies, conference abstracts, case studies, and dissertations/theses with a peer-reviewed published version were excluded.

Data Collection Process

All studies identified through the database searches were imported into the systematic review tool Rayyan QRCI ( 35 ). Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers (VCSB and FR). Studies which did not meet eligibility criteria were excluded. In case of any uncertainties, a third reviewer (FT) was consulted. Subsequently, full texts were reviewed by the same reviewers as above (VCSB and FR) and screened for final inclusion in the current review. Again, a third reviewer (FT) was consulted in case of insecurities. Included studies were then retained for data extraction.

Risk of Bias (Quality) Assessment

Studies identified for inclusion in the current review were assessed for risk of bias using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies ( 36 ). It includes nine appraisal criteria pertaining to the appropriateness of a study's (1) target population (i.e., sample frame addresses target population), (2) recruitment method (i.e., appropriate to recruit representative sample), (3) sample size (i.e., power calculation provided), (4) description of subjects and setting (i.e., sufficient detail on sample and setting), (5) data analyses (i.e., sufficient coverage of all subgroup samples), (6) measurement validity (i.e., validated measure used to assess DV), (7) measurement reliability (i.e., DV measured in same way for all participants), (8) statistical analyses (i.e., significance test for change in DV prevalence/severity), and (9) response rate. The full checklist and a detailed description of appraisal criteria are available at https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools . After a pilot trial on one included study to ensure feasibility of the JBI checklist for the current purpose, each study was assessed for risk of bias by two independent reviewers (FT and VCSB/FR). Initial inter-rater agreement was high (93%) and disagreements were discussed to reach consensus. Of the nine checklist criteria, appropriateness of the sample size as well as measurement validity and reliability were considered particularly relevant for the current review and thus defined as major domains. Overall, we considered a study to present low risk of bias if at least five of the JBI checklist criteria were fulfilled, including at least one of the three major domains.

Data Synthesis

Results were synthesized narratively and in tabular form. Studies on DV prevalence can be expected to exhibit high heterogeneity pertaining to target population as well as conceptualization and assessment of violence. We therefore did not conduct any quantitative analyses for this review. Data from identified studies were tabulated in a data extraction form developed by FT and VCSB. With the help of AM, data pertaining to author and year of publication, country, setting (e.g., clinical or population-based) and study period (i.e., time point of COVID-19 pandemic), study design, sample size and characteristics (e.g., final sample, target population, age, gender), measure used to assess DV (e.g., validated measure, self-generated questions), direction of DV (i.e., victimization, perpetration), DV prevalence estimates, and type of DV (i.e., psychological/emotional or verbal, sexual, physical, economic/financial) were extracted. Further, results from risk of bias assessments were visualized and synthesized in tabular form.

Description of Studies

Electronic EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL searches revealed a total of 521 studies. After exclusion of duplicates, titles and abstracts of 262 studies were screened. Based on title/abstract screening, 171 studies were discarded. The remaining 91 studies were retained for full-text screening. Based on full-text screening, 69 studies were excluded because they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria outlined above. Hence, the screening process resulted in the identification and inclusion of 22 studies ( 13 , 37 – 57 ). An overview of the study selection process is provided in Figure 1 .

Study selection process.

Characteristics of Included Studies

All 22 studies were written in English and published between October 2020 and December 2021, with n = 3 published in 2020 and n = 19 published in 2021. The studies originated from various countries, with the majority coming from the U.S. ( n = 4), followed by India ( n = 3), Germany ( n = 2), and Bangladesh ( n = 2). Further studies in this review were conducted in Austria, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Nigeria, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and Tunisia. Ten studies included only females ( 37 , 41 – 43 , 46 – 49 , 51 , 54 ), 10 further studies included both female and male participants ( 13 , 39 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 55 – 57 ), and two studies assessed DV in males only ( 38 , 40 ). Without exception, all studies reported on DV against adults, with only one study further reporting on violence against children ( 55 ). Most studies were cross-sectional ( n = 19) ( 13 , 37 – 54 ), while only few longitudinal studies or studies with repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments were identified ( n = 3) ( 55 – 57 ) (see Table 1 ).

Study characteristics.

IPV, Intimate Partner Violence; DV, Domestic Violence; NR, Not Reported .

The majority of the n = 19 cross-sectional studies assessed different types of DV. To this end, 12 studies reported on changes in psychological/emotional or verbal DV ( 13 , 37 – 40 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 – 50 , 53 ), 11 on sexual DV ( 13 , 37 – 39 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 – 50 , 53 ), 12 reported on physical DV ( 13 , 37 – 39 , 42 , 45 , 46 , 48 – 50 , 52 , 53 ), and 4 included economic/financial DV ( 39 , 49 , 50 , 53 ). One study did not provide a differentiation of DV type ( 54 ). All cross-sectional studies included participant report on DV victimization, whereas two studies further included assessment of DV perpetration ( 38 , 40 ). Most cross-sectional studies investigated DV in the general population ( n = 14) ( 13 , 39 , 41 – 43 , 45 , 47 – 54 ), while some studies focused on specific samples ( n = 5) ( 37 , 38 , 40 , 44 , 46 ). Assessment of DV was heterogeneous regarding the methodological approach—five studies used validated questionnaires [i.e., (Extended-) Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream Scale [(E-)HITS]; Composite Abuse Scale Revised Short Form (CASR-SF); Domestic Violence Questionnaire (DVQ); Gay and Bisexual Men Intimate Partner Violence scale (IPV-GBM)] ( 38 , 40 , 44 , 45 , 54 ), nine studies relied on self-generated questions ( 13 , 39 , 41 – 43 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 53 ), five studies used scales from the “ WHO Multi-Country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence Against Women ” ( 37 , 47 ), the “ World Health Organization's Domestic Violence Questionnaire Screening Tool” ( 46 ), or DV self-generated questionnaires based on questionnaires developed by the WHO ( 48 , 51 ). Further, the majority utilized online surveys ( n = 14) ( 13 , 38 – 43 , 45 – 47 , 49 – 51 , 53 ), whereas some studies conducted in-person ( n = 2) ( 37 , 54 ) or telephone interviews ( n = 3) ( 44 , 48 , 52 ).

Compared to the numerous cross-sectional studies, studies with repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments were still scarce at the time of literature search for the current review. Three empirical, peer-reviewed studies were identified. Of these, two employed longitudinal designs ( 56 , 57 ) and one compared two representative population surveys from 2016 to 2021 ( 55 ). Two studies utilized samples from the general population in Germany and Switzerland ( 55 , 56 ), with one solely focusing on perpetration of physical DV but not victimization ( 56 ), and the other focusing on victimization and perpetration of physical IPV and perpetration of physical and psychological/emotional violence against children in the household ( 55 ). The third study was conducted in the U.S. and focused specifically on DV survivors in precarious or unstable housing conditions ( 57 ). While two studies conducted in-person interviews at all measurement points ( 55 , 57 ), one study supplemented pre-pandemic interviews with data collected via online surveys during the pandemic ( 56 ).

Quality of Included Studies

Of the 22 studies, half were rated as having high risk of bias ( 13 , 37 , 39 , 41 – 43 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 53 , 55 ) and half were rated as having low risk of bias ( 38 , 40 , 44 , 46 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 57 ). The distribution of ratings on each of the nine JBI checklist criteria ( 36 ) can be found in Figure 2 . Participant recruitment was rated as holding high risk of bias for 13 of the included studies. This risk of bias mostly pertained to potential selection bias given recruitment for online surveys using snowballing sampling and/or survey distribution via various (social) media sites. Sample size was rated as holding low risk of bias only if a power analysis was provided by the original authors and an appropriate sample size was reached. More than half of the included studies ( n = 12) did not report a power calculation and were consequently rated as “unclear”. Measurement validity was assessed based on the utilization of a generally validated DV measure, without guaranteeing the instrument's validation for use in specific populations or validation of specific translated or adapted versions. Consequently, risk of bias pertaining to measurement validity was rated as low for 11 of the included studies. Although some of the included cross-sectional studies utilizing online surveys reported how many individuals accessed their survey in comparison to the number of completed surveys, an actual response rate cannot be provided—for these studies, the response rate criterion was thus not applicable. Further, because some studies only reported a change in DV prevalence and/or severity in a descriptive manner and did not provide tests of statistical significance for change estimates, 10 of the included studies were rated as holding high risk regarding the statistical analysis criterion. Risk of bias assessment by JBI checklist items for each included study can be found in Supplementary Table S1 .

Risk of bias of included studies with percentages of ratings on JBI checklist.

Domestic Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Victimization of violence.

Without exception, all cross-sectional as well as two of the three studies with longitudinal/repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments reported on changes in DV in the context of victimization (for reports pertaining to DV perpetration, please refer to Section Perpetration of Violence). In the following, we will report results pertaining to changes in each type of DV (i.e., psychological/emotional or verbal, sexual, physical, economic/financial) and changes in overall DV. In each section, we will first present results from studies with longitudinal/repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments, followed by results from cross-sectional studies. For cross-sectional studies, we will first focus on the change in prevalence and the change in severity in samples from the general population, followed by studies utilizing specific samples. As outlined in the introduction, some studies investigated IPV, which we here conceptualize as a specific type of DV ( n = 14). We will therefore refer to either IPV or DV depending on the particular focus of the original study.

Psychological/Emotional or Verbal Violence

Prevalence of current psychological/emotional or verbal violence varied widely across studies, depending on region, sample size, assessment time, and assessment measure. Only one longitudinal study investigated psychological/emotional violence. Chiaramonte et al. ( 57 ) used data from an ongoing longitudinal study in the U.S. to examine the impact of the COVID-19 stay-at-home order (March 15, 2020) on DV survivors who had sought service from DV agencies and were currently in precarious or unstable housing conditions. Five in-person interviews were conducted every 6 months over a 2-year period, assessing psychological/emotional violence via the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS). In this specific sample of DV survivors, there was a significant decrease in psychological/emotional DV in the 24 months prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—thus, since seeking help from a DV agency. No significant changes were found after the onset of the pandemic ( 57 ).

Among the n = 10 cross-sectional studies reporting on psychological/emotional DV, n = 6 studies reported a specific change in psychological/emotional DV prevalence or severity compared to pre-pandemic levels in samples from the general population ( 39 , 42 , 45 , 48 – 50 ), with three studies documenting an increase in overall prevalence and one study documenting a decrease. Two studies reported a significant increase in psychological/emotional DV between 5 and 6% during or after the first lockdown in samples of 346 married women in the Kurdistan region of Iraq ( 42 ) and 490 Arab women from 14 different countries (see Table 1 ) ( 49 ). An additional study reported an increase of 3% in a sample of 136 Bangladeshi females and males, but did not report a significance test for this potential increase ( 50 ). In contrast, Ojeahere et al. reported a decrease of 7% in a Nigerian sample of 474 female and male participants during the first lockdown using self-generated questions in an online survey ( 39 ). All four studies utilized self-generated questions to assess DV via online surveys ( 39 , 42 , 49 , 50 ).

Regarding a change in severity, two cross-sectional studies specifically reported on changes in psychological/emotional violence among those experiencing DV in samples from the general population ( 45 , 48 ). To this end, Hamadani et al. differentially examined insults, humiliation, and intimidation as specific types of psychological/emotional IPV via telephone interviews in a sample of 2,174 mothers in Bangladesh, recruited from a study in which their children were enrolled. Of those reporting IPV, 68, 66, and 69% reported insults, humiliation, and intimidation to have increased during the first lockdown, respectively ( 48 ). Additionally, Jetelina et al. found that among those reporting psychological/emotional IPV in an online survey of 1,730 female and male participants in the U.S., 20% reported violence to have worsened since the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas 36% reported violence to have improved, and 44% reported violence to not have changed ( 45 ).

Further, n = 4 cross-sectional studies focused on specific populations, namely currently pregnant women in Ethiopia ( 37 ) and Jordan ( 46 ), as well as gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the U.S. ( 38 , 40 ). Regarding psychological/emotional DV among pregnant women, Abujilban et al. reported a 15% decrease during the first lockdown in an Jordanian sample of 215 pregnant women when using the World Health Organization's Domestic Violence Questionnaire Screening Tool (DVQST) in an online survey ( 46 ). Conversely, using in-person interviews, Teshome et al. documented that among those reporting IPV within the last year (i.e., 2020) in their sample of 464 pregnant Ethiopian women, half the women reported psychological/emotional violence to have increased after the COVID-19 outbreak ( 37 ). Regarding psychological/emotional DV among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the U.S., using the Gay, and Bisexual Men Intimate Partner Violence Scale in an online survey, Walsh et al. documented that out of those reporting psychological/emotional IPV, 11% reported experiencing new or more frequent psychological/emotional IPV during the pandemic ( 40 ). Further, Stephenson et al. report that 1% of the 516 men in their sample indicated having experienced psychological/emotional violence for the first time during the first lockdown ( 38 ).

In addition, n = 4 cross-sectional studies reported a specific change in verbal DV prevalence to pre-pandemic levels in the general population ( 13 , 45 , 49 , 53 ). To this end, two studies indicated verbal DV among 3,545 females and males in Germany ( 13 ) and 94 females and males in India ( 53 ) who reported experiencing IPV or DV to have increased by 57–78% during the first lockdown. Both studies relied on self-generated questions to assess verbal IPV/DV in online surveys ( 13 , 53 ). Jetelina et al., however, documented that among those reporting verbal IPV in an online survey of 1,730 female and male participants in the U.S., 17% reported violence to have worsened since the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas 31% reported violence to have improved, and 54% reported violence to not have changed ( 45 ). In contrast, El-Nimr et al. found no significant change in verbal IPV during the first lockdown in a sample of 490 Arab women ( 49 ). No studies with longitudinal/repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments of verbal violence were identified.

Taken together, included studies suggest an increase in cases and severity of psychological/emotional DV in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. The limited number of studies focusing on specific samples point toward unchanged or even decreased psychological/emotional DV cases, whereas severity of DV may have increased for a significant proportion of victims. Studies pertaining to verbal DV were limited to reports on severity, suggesting verbal DV to have worsened for many victims since the COVID-19 outbreak.

Sexual Violence

Only one longitudinal study investigated sexual violence. Chiaramonte et al. ( 57 ) used data from an ongoing longitudinal study in the U.S. to examine the impact of the COVID-19 stay-at-home order (March 15, 2020) on DV survivors who had sought service from DV agencies and were currently in precarious or unstable housing conditions (see above). In this specific sample of DV survivors, there was a significant decrease in sexual DV in the 24 months prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—thus, since seeking help from a DV agency. No significant changes were found after the onset of the pandemic ( 57 ).

Among the n = 11 cross-sectional studies reporting on sexual DV, n = 8 studies reported a specific change in sexual DV prevalence or severity to pre-pandemic levels in samples from the general population ( 13 , 39 , 42 , 45 , 48 – 50 , 53 ), of which three indicated an increase and one a decrease in overall prevalence. Two studies reported significant overall increases of sexual DV by 3–5% during the first lockdown in samples of Arab women ( 49 ) and women in the Kurdistan region of Iraq ( 42 ). An additional study reported an increase of 1% in a sample of 136 Bangladeshi females and males, but did not report a significance test for this potential increase ( 50 ). In contrast, Ojeahere et al. documented a decrease of 2% in a sample of 474 females and males during the lockdown in Nigeria ( 39 ). All four studies utilized self-generated questions to assess sexual DV via online surveys ( 39 , 42 , 49 , 50 ).

Regarding a change in severity, four studies specifically reported on changes in sexual violence during the first lockdown among those experiencing DV ( 13 , 45 , 48 , 53 ). In a sample of 3,545 females and males in Germany, 3% of the women reported sexual violence to have worsened ( 13 ). Similarly, in a sample of 94 Indian females and males, 14% of those experiencing DV reported an increase of sexual violence ( 53 ). Hamadani et al. reported that out of those experiencing IPV in a sample of 2,174 mothers in Bangladesh, 51% reported sexual violence to have increased ( 48 ). Even more specifically, Jetelina et al. documented that among those experiencing sexual IPV in a sample of 1,730 females and males in the U.S., 28% reported violence to have worsened since the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas 26% reported violence to have improved, and 47% reported violence to not have changed ( 45 ).

The remaining n = 3 cross-sectional studies focused on specific populations, namely currently pregnant women in Ethiopia ( 37 ) and Jordan ( 46 ), and GBMSM in the U.S. ( 38 ). Regarding sexual DV among pregnant women, Abujilban et al. reported a 4% decrease during the first lockdown in a Jordanian sample of 215 pregnant women when using the World Health Organization's Domestic Violence Questionnaire Screening Tool (DVQST) in an online survey ( 46 ). Nonetheless, using in-person interviews, Teshome et al. documented that among those reporting IPV within the last year (i.e., 2020) in their sample of 464 pregnant Ethiopian women, 25% reported sexual violence to have increased after the COVID-19 outbreak ( 37 ). In the sample of GBMSM men in the U.S., Stephenson et al. documented that 2% indicated having experienced sexual violence for the first time during lockdown ( 38 ).

Overall, included studies suggest an increase in cases and severity of sexual DV in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similar to studies on psychological/emotional violence, the limited number of studies focusing on specific samples point toward unchanged or even decreased sexual DV cases, whereas severity of sexual DV may have increased for a significant proportion of victims.

Physical Violence

Two studies with longitudinal/repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments reported on changes in physical violence. First, Kliem et al. ( 55 ) utilized data from in-person interviews between January and March 2016 (i.e., pre-pandemic) and February and March 2021 (i.e., during-pandemic) in representative samples of 1,317 (2016) and 1,005 (2021) participants from the general German population. At both time points, participants reported on physical IPV within the past 12 months. No significant difference between 12-month prevalence from 2016 vs. 2021 were found regarding physical IPV, with the 12-month prevalence remaining stable at around 9% for women and 7–9% for men ( 55 ). Second, Chiaramonte et al. ( 57 ) used data from an ongoing longitudinal study in the U.S. to examine the impact of the COVID-19 stay-at-home order (March 15, 2020) on DV survivors (see above). In this specific sample of DV survivors, there was a significant decrease in physical DV in the 24 months prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—thus, since seeking help from a DV agency. No significant changes were found after the onset of the pandemic ( 57 ).

Among the n = 12 cross-sectional studies reporting on physical DV, n = 9 studies reported a specific change in physical DV prevalence to pre-pandemic levels in samples from the general population ( 13 , 39 , 42 , 45 , 48 – 50 , 52 , 53 ), with three studies documenting an increase in overall prevalence and two studies documenting a decrease. Three studies reported significant overall increases of physical DV by 5–8% during the first lockdown in samples of 490 Arab women ( 49 ), 346 women in the Kurdistan region of Iraq ( 42 ), and 1,992 young Peruvian female and male adults ( 52 ). Two studies utilized self-generated questions to assess physical DV via online surveys ( 42 , 49 ), whereas one study conducted phone interviews ( 52 ). In contrast, using self-generated questions in an online survey, Ojeahere et al. documented a slight decrease of 2% in a sample of 474 females and males during the lockdown in Nigeria ( 39 ). Further, Rashid Soron et al. reported a decrease of 8% in a sample of 136 Bangladeshi females and males, but did not report a significance test for this potential decrease ( 50 ).

Regarding a change in severity, four studies specifically reported on changes in physical violence among those experiencing DV ( 13 , 45 , 48 , 53 ). Among those reporting DV in a sample of 3,545 females and males in Germany, severity of physical DV increased by almost 15% in females and 21% in males during the first lockdown ( 13 ). Similarly, in a sample of 94 Indian females and males, 29% of those experiencing DV reported physical violence to have increased during the first lockdown ( 53 ). Hamadani et al. reported higher numbers, documenting that out of those experiencing IPV in a sample of 2,174 mothers in Bangladesh, 56% reported physical violence to have increased during the lockdown using self-generated questions in a phone-based survey ( 48 ). Even more specifically, Jetelina et al. documented that among those experiencing physical IPV in a sample of 1,730 females and males in the U.S., 27% reported violence to have worsened since the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas 50% reported violence to have improved, and 23% reported violence to not have changed ( 45 ).

The remaining n = 3 cross-sectional studies focused on specific populations, namely currently pregnant women in Ethiopia ( 37 ) and Jordan ( 46 ), and GBMSM in the U.S. ( 38 ). Regarding currently pregnant women, Abujilban et al. reported a 49% decrease during the first lockdown in an Jordanian sample of 215 pregnant women when using the World Health Organization's Domestic Violence Questionnaire Screening Tool (DVQST) in an online survey ( 46 ). Nonetheless, using in-person interviews, Teshome et al. documented that among those reporting IPV within the last year (i.e., 2020) in their sample of 464 pregnant Ethiopian women, 25% reported physical violence to have increased since the COVID-19 outbreak ( 37 ). In the sample of GBMSM in the U.S., Stephenson et al. documented that 1% indicated having experienced physical violence for the first time during the lockdown ( 38 ).

Taken together, regarding changes in cases of physical DV in the general population, three cross-sectional studies reported increases, whereas two studies reported decreases during the pandemic. The two studies with longitudinal/repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments reported no change in cases of physical DV in the general population and among DV survivors. It should however be noted that all studies originated in different countries, making direct comparison difficult. Regarding changes in severity of physical DV, included studies highlight that during the pandemic, physical violence worsened for a significant number of victims. Again, the limited number of studies focusing on specific samples point toward an unchanged or even decreased number of physical DV cases, whereas severity of DV may have increased for a significant proportion of victims.

Economic/Financial Violence

Only one longitudinal study investigated economic violence. Chiaramonte et al. ( 57 ) used data from an ongoing longitudinal study in the U.S. (see above), assessing economic violence via The Revised Scale of Economic Abuse (SEA2). In this specific sample of DV survivors, there was a significant decrease in economic DV in the 24 months prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—thus, since seeking help from a DV agency. No significant changes were found after the onset of the pandemic ( 57 ).

Without exception, all n = 4 cross-sectional studies reporting a specific change in economic/financial DV prevalence to pre-pandemic levels utilized samples from the general population ( 39 , 49 , 50 , 53 ). Rashid Soron et al. reported a 10% increase during the first lockdown in a sample of 136 Bangladeshi females and males using self-generated questions in an online survey, although no significance test was performed for this potential increase ( 50 ). In contrast, also utilizing self-generated questions in online surveys, the two remaining studies did not find any significant change in economic/financial DV during the lockdown in samples of 474 females and males in Nigeria ( 39 ) and 490 Arab women ( 49 ). Nonetheless, of those experiencing DV in a sample of 94 females and males, 29% reported economic violence to have increased during the first lockdown in India ( 53 ).

Overall, three of the four cross-sectional studies as well as the only longitudinal study identified for this review reported no change in economic/financial DV cases during the COVID-19 pandemic in the general population. Nonetheless, for many of those experiencing DV, severity of economic/financial violence may have increased.

Changes in Overall Violence

A total of n = 14 cross-sectional studies documented changes in overall DV, i.e., regardless of DV type, either through participants' retrospective reports for a time point prior to the pandemic ( 38 – 43 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 53 , 54 ) or through comparison of cross-sectional data to data collected as part of a prior study ( 44 ). Of these, n = 10 studies utilized samples from the general population. Four studies reported significant increases in overall DV of 7–33% during the first lockdown in samples of 490 Arab women ( 49 ), 346 women in the Kurdistan region of Iraq ( 42 ), 751 Tunisian ( 41 ), and 560 Indian women ( 43 ). All four studies utilized self-generated questions to assess DV via online surveys and exclusively focused on violence against women. In contrast, three studies documented decreases in overall DV. To this end, Ojeahere et al. reported a 7% decrease of any type of DV during the first lockdown as compared to pre-lockdown times in a Nigerian sample of 474 females and males using self-generated questions in an online survey ( 39 ). Similarly, Alharbi et al. documented an overall 9% decrease of IPV during the first lockdown in a Saudi Arabian sample of 1,901 married women using the WHO multi-country instrument in an online survey ( 47 ). Although utilizing mean IPV scores rather than prevalence rates, Plášilová et al. found a small, significant decrease in mean IPV incidence from 3 months prior to the pandemic to measurement time points during the first and second COVID-19 waves in a sample of 429 women in the Czech Republic ( 51 ).

Regarding a change in severity, n = 4 cross-sectional studies documented changes in those with DV experiences specifically. To this end, Pattojoshi et al. reported that among the 560 women in their sample who experienced IPV before the first lockdown in India, 78% reported an increase in violence since the beginning of the lockdown ( 43 ). Similarly, in a sample of 94 females and males, Sharma and Khokhar documented that of those experiencing DV during the lockdown in India, 86% reported increased violence as compared to the time before the pandemic ( 53 ). Slightly lower increases were reported by Indu et al. who found that among those having experienced DV perpetrated by their husbands within the previous 12 months in a sample of 209 Indian women, 6% indicated violence to have worsened during the lockdown and 11% reported violence to have begun during the pandemic ( 54 ). Even more specifically, Jetelina et al. documented that among those experiencing IPV in a sample of 1,730 females and males in the U.S., 17% reported violence to have worsened since the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas 30% reported violence to have improved, and 54% reported violence to not have changed ( 45 ). Further, Alharbi et al. found that among those indicating ever having experienced IPV in a sample of 1,901 married women in Saudi Arabia, 40% reported violence to have increased since the COVID-19 outbreak, whereas 13% reported a decrease, 43% reported no change, and 4% reported violence to have stopped ( 47 ).

Four cross-sectional studies focused on specific populations, namely currently pregnant women in Ethiopia ( 37 ), GBMSM in the U.S. ( 38 , 40 ), and participants with a history of DV in Austria ( 44 ). Using in-person interviews, Teshome et al. documented that out of those reporting IPV within the last year (i.e., 2020) in their sample of 464 pregnant Ethiopian women, 18% reported experiencing increased violence ( 37 ). Two studies investigated IPV in U.S. samples of 516 ( 38 ) and 214 ( 40 ) GBMSM. Stephenson et al. reported that among self-reported victims of IPV, 5% indicated having experienced IPV for the first time during the first lockdown ( 38 ). Walsh et al. documented that among self-reported victims of IPV, 47% reported experiencing new or more frequent IPV since the COVID-19 outbreak ( 40 ). Finally, Lampe et al. ( 44 ) compared DV during the lockdown in Austria in a sample of female and male participants with ( n = 34) or without ( n = 33) prior DV experiences. Those with prior DV experiences reported more DV than those without prior DV experiences. Importantly, while DV remained stable compared to pre-lockdown values for those without prior DV experiences, it decreased in the group with prior DV experiences. Nonetheless, DV during the lockdown remained significantly higher in the group with prior DV experiences ( 44 ). No studies with repeated longitudinal/pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments of overall violence were identified.

Taken together, evidence pertaining to changes in overall DV cases remains inconclusive with four cross-sectional studies reporting increases and three cross-sectional studies reporting decreases. Regarding changes in DV severity however, across different samples from the general population in various countries, 6–86% of those experiencing DV reported violence to have worsened during the first lockdown in their respective country or since the COVID-19 outbreak. Again, the limited number of studies focusing on specific samples does not allow for conclusions regarding changes in the number of overall DV cases, while severity of DV may have increased for a significant proportion of victims.

Perpetration of Violence

Besides the focus on victims of DV, n = 2 studies with longitudinal/repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments reported on DV perpetration. First, Steinhoff et al. ( 56 ) used interview data from a Swiss longitudinal study to compare DV perpetration in a representative sample of 786 young adults. To this end, pre-pandemic in-person interview reports from 2018 and four during-pandemic online survey measurements between spring and fall 2020 were included. The risk of DV perpetration doubled over the early course of the pandemic from 5% in April 2020 to 10% in May 2020 for men, but no change was observed for women ( 56 ). Second, Kliem et al. ( 55 ) utilized data from in-person interviews between January and March 2016 (i.e., pre-pandemic) and February and March 2021 (i.e., during-pandemic) in representative samples of 1,317 (2016) and 1,005 (2021) participants from the general German population. At both time points, participants reported on physical IPV perpetration and physical or psychological violence against the youngest child in the household within the past 12 months. No significant difference in the 12-month prevalence from 2016 vs. 2021 were found regarding IPV perpetration or for physical or psychological violence directed against children. IPV 12-month prevalence remained stable with around 6% of women and 6–9% of men reporting IPV perpetration in 2016 and 2021. Similarly, DV directed against children over the past 12 months remained stable with 16–20% of women and 18–22% of men indicating having been physically violent and 7–10% of women and 9–11% of men indicating psychological violence against a child in 2016 and 2021 ( 55 ).

Further, n = 2 cross-sectional studies examined rates in DV perpetration during the pandemic, both utilizing U.S. samples of GBMSM ( 38 , 40 ). In their sample of 516 men, Stephenson et al. ( 38 ), 6% of participants reported having perpetrated any type of IPV, with emotional IPV being the most common type. Only 1% of men indicated first-time perpetration during the lockdown ( 38 ). Reports of perpetration were slightly higher in Walsh et al.'s ( 40 ) sample of 214 men, recruited from two previous male couples/HIV-related studies. Overall, 15% reported IPV perpetration, with 7% reporting perpetration but not victimization and 8% reporting both perpetration and victimization. Among the self-reported perpetrators, around a third indicated their behavior to have increased since the COVID-19 outbreak. Interestingly, however, Walsh et al. further documented that among couples within the sample, reports of perpetration and victimization were not always congruent ( 40 ).

Overall, the limited number of included studies reporting on DV perpetration does not allow for definite conclusions. Nonetheless, across studies, self-reported perpetration seems to have remained unchanged as compared to pre-pandemic times. The single study documenting perpetration across the pandemic however, indicates that for men, risk of DV perpetration may have increased over time since the COVID-19 outbreak. This finding highlights the need for data from multiple measurement points over the course of the pandemic rather than solely comparing pre-pandemic levels to during-pandemic levels.

The aim of our review was to examine the change in prevalence of domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic in empirical, peer-reviewed studies. We opted to only include self-report studies to approximate prevalence rates not biased by help seeking behavior, which in itself might have been altered by the pandemic. Overall, 22 studies were included-−19 were cross-sectional whereas 3 included both pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments. Of the 22 studies, 17 utilized samples from the general population, while 5 included samples from specific populations [i.e., DV survivors; pregnant women; gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM)].

Taken together, these studies suggest (1) an increase in cases and severity of psychological/emotional and sexual DV in the general population, (2) no change in number of economic/financial DV cases in the general population, and (3) an increase in severity of DV of any type for a significant number of victims during the pandemic. Evidence for changes in prevalence regarding verbal DV remains inconclusive because of the limited number of studies reporting on verbal DV. Further, despite a larger number of available studies, evidence for changes in prevalence regarding physical and overall DV remains inconclusive.

As mentioned above, only five of the 22 included studies focused on samples from specific populations, namely DV survivors, pregnant women, and GBMSM. Although it should be assumed that individuals from these three groups would be included in representative samples from the general population, several considerations should be noted. First, although valuable information pertaining to a change in DV severity may be drawn from studies utilizing samples of DV survivors, given the fact that prior DV experience is a risk factor for future DV experiences, a potential change in DV prevalence from pre-pandemic to pandemic times in these samples may not be generalizable to the general nor other populations. Second, we here treated studies on pregnant women as a specific sample because of the additional stress pregnancy and the transition to parenthood may represent for the entire family. To this end, pregnancy-specific factors, such as becoming a first-time parent and the pregnancy being unwanted have been found to put pregnant women at an increased risk for DV victimization ( 58 ). Further, violence during pregnancy may have severe adverse consequences for both, the mother and the unborn child. For instance, while physical violence against the pregnant woman may also lead to injuries of the unborn child, implications of maternal mental health complications during pregnancy, potentially resulting from violence victimization, may bear further adverse implications for pregnancy and birth outcomes, as well as child development ( 59 – 63 ). Third, we also treated studies on GBMSM as a specific sample because prior research indicates higher risk for IPV and/or DV among GBMSM than among heterosexual men ( 64 – 66 ). In addition, it has been suggested that sexual minorities may be disproportionately affected by pandemic-related stressors relating to employment, finances, and (mental) health ( 40 ). For these reasons, it is noteworthy that only a very limited number of studies on specific (at-risk) groups was available for inclusion in this review. Examinations of other at-risk groups, such as sexual minorities apart from GBMSM and investigations of at-risk samples in different countries is currently still lacking. Thus, changes in DV prevalence and severity in specific (at-risk) groups requires additional scientific attention.

Similarly, it should be highlighted that the majority of included studies reporting on samples from the general population focused on violence against women, with 10 studies exclusively assessing females. Although 10 further studies included both, females and males, there is currently a lack of studies reporting on male victimization. This lack however does not only pertain to DV during the pandemic, but can be pointed out as a gap in the current literature pertaining to DV in general. Additionally, only one of the included studies reported on DV against children. On the one hand, this may be attributable to the current inclusion criterion of solely incorporating studies which presented participant reports. For instance, studies utilizing official/administrative data indicate that DV against children may oftentimes be reported by third parties and that opportunities for third-party observations and report are limited by governmental measures such as social distancing, school closures, and lockdown ( 67 , 68 ). On the other hand, this may be at least partially explained by the current focus on DV victimization. Only few studies in this review included participant reports regarding DV perpetration. Although not surprising given the topic's sensitive nature and potential biases in self-reports, such as social desirability, examining victimization and perpetration in isolation may not reflect the true complexity and oftentimes bidirectionality of DV, where many individuals may, at least temporarily, be victim and perpetrator rather than one of the two exclusively ( 69 , 70 ). Nevertheless, a clear picture of DV perpetration and its risk factors is crucial for the development and implementation of resources and (preventive) interventions as well as de-stigmatization of help seeking among perpetrators.

As noted above, at the time of the literature search for this review, only three studies with longitudinal/repeated pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments were identified. Of these, two utilized samples from the general population in Germany and Switzerland ( 55 , 56 ), with one solely focusing on perpetration of physical DV but not victimization ( 56 ), and the other focusing on victimization and perpetration of physical IPV and perpetration of psychological/emotional and physical violence against children in the household ( 55 ). The third study focused specifically on U.S. DV survivors in precarious or unstable housing conditions ( 57 ). Without question, more time is required for studies utilizing repeated assessments over time to be conducted and for results to be published. Nonetheless, studies identified for this review highlight a need for data pertaining to prevalence and severity of different types of DV from multiple timepoints prior to the COVID-19 outbreak and over the course of the pandemic with multiple measurements during the pandemic. Repeated assessments over the course of the pandemic are further warranted given different pandemic phases and waves, which in turn may be characterized by differential stressors ( 71 , 72 ). For instance, the COVID-19 outbreak and immediate governmental measures represented an entirely new and unknown situation for most of the global population, characterized by uncertainty and an immediate increase in stress related to employment and finances for many. Although this initial uncertainty may by now have decreased, long-term adjustment to the pandemic and the ever-changing implications for day-to-day life may vary considerably among individuals given their specific experiences and living conditions. Thus, repeated assessments of DV over the course of the pandemic may offer the opportunity to distinguish between the pandemic's initial stress, potentially resulting in emotional turmoil, in turn increasing the risk for interpersonal aggression, vs. long-term stress, potentially resulting in emotional depletion/depression in turn also increasing the risk for interpersonal aggression ( 71 , 72 ).

In light of the fast, global spread of COVID-19 and the time needed to design, authorize, and conduct empirical studies, it is not surprising that the majority of studies identified for this review were cross-sectional and utilized online surveys to assess DV. We noted a large between-study heterogeneity regarding study country of origin, sample size, participant inclusion criteria, and/or measure used to assess DV. Taking this into account, results of individual studies should thus be interpreted with caution and may not be generalizable to different regions or samples and are limited regarding the validity of reported changes over time. In addition, few studies reported on self-reported DV perpetration, suggesting that perpetration seems to have remained unchanged as compared to pre-pandemic times.

Putting our results into the context of previous reports using official/administrative data highlights an additional concern. Although studies included in the current review focusing on self-reported DV suggest increased DV experience for a significant amount of people around the world, prior studies utilizing police and helpline call data and formal police reports are not fully congruent with this increase. To this end, several studies have documented decreases in formal DV-related police reports, whereas sharp increases in numbers of DV-related emergency calls to the police and helplines have been documented ( 73 – 81 ). Importantly, the reported reduction in formal police reports may not reflect a decrease in DV prevalence but rather a decrease in reporting DV incidences. Being constrained to the domestic setting and isolation from other social or work contexts due to stay-at home orders or lockdowns may be linked to reduced or altered help-seeking behaviors. Prior research suggests a shift in help-seeking behavior where victims may seek help in acute emergency situations but may not follow through with formal police reporting during stay-at-home orders and lockdown ( 2 ). Nonetheless, social isolation may make reporting of DV more difficult given that the perpetrator cannot be separated. Thus, many victims may only have limited or no access to help resources and may further be limited in their ability to participate in research studies and/or to complete online surveys in a safe, unhindered environment. Because this may not be conveyed in crime statistics, empirical studies regarding DV-related help-seeking behavior and potential changes resulting from governmental measures in response to the spread of COVID-19 are needed in order to improve assistance for victims.

The aforementioned changes in help-seeking behavior and restricted or limited resource availability are of particular importance because of the detrimental side effects of DV victimization. For instance, Iob et al. document that half of those experiencing psychological or physical DV reported thoughts pertaining to suicide and self-harm. Alarmingly, during the first U.K. lockdown, a quarter of those experiencing psychological/emotional or physical DV indicated having harmed themselves during the past week ( 82 ). Besides the previously documented increase in DV-related homicide during the COVID-19 pandemic ( 83 – 85 ), victims may thus further be at high risk for self-harm and/or suicide, highlighting the crucial need for easily accessible DV resources and (preventive) interventions for both, victims and perpetrators.

Strengths and Limitations

Several strengths and limitations of the included literature should be acknowledged. It is crucial to highlight the important contributions of the studies included in this review, given the initial reliance on official/administrative records to assess the potential change in DV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies included in this review utilized participant reports and may thus more accurately reflect changes in DV prevalence and severity rather than changes in help-seeking behavior. Limitations of included studies pertain to the reliance on cross-sectional designs (viz. introducing potential biases given retrospective self-report) and online surveys (viz. introducing self-selection bias within the sample). Although noted as a limitation in the majority of studies, generalizability of individual results may be limited given concerns regarding sample representativeness of the intended target population. Further, not all studies utilized measures to assess DV which had previously been validated in the language used or for the population investigated. Additionally, the majority of studies focused on DV victimization and only few studies investigated both, victimization and perpetration. Nonetheless, the cultural diversity represented within the identified studies is remarkable, particularly given the timely nature of the topic.

Strengths of the current review are the systematic search for and identification of relevant literature, the systematic processes of data extraction and quality assessment, as well as its focus on participant-reported changes in specific types of DV prevalence and severity estimates and its bi-directionality (i.e., victimization vs. perpetration). Several limitations should be noted. First, given the expectation that studies on DV prevalence tend to exhibit high heterogeneity regarding target population and conceptualization and assessment of violence, we synthesized extracted data narratively and did not conduct any quantitative analyses of reported changes in DV prevalence or severity. Thus, we do not present pooled estimates and our assumption that the considerable variation of changes in prevalence and severity estimates observed may be attributable to between-study variation was not tested. Second, the current review was not pre-registered and no formal protocol was put into writing. Third, although we conducted this systematic review in line with PRISMA guidelines and utilized the JBI checklist for risk of bias assessment, we did not conduct certainty assessments. Fourth, quality assessment presented herein was limited by methodological limitations and lacking information in the original articles. Our risk of bias assessment resulted in the appraisal of half the included studies as presenting high risk. It should therefore be noted that our review may be affected by publication and/or reporting biases.

In this review, we focused our attention on changes in prevalence and severity of different types of DV during the COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, we examined empirical studies utilizing self-reported participant data, published in peer-reviewed journals. Given the considerable between-study heterogeneity pertaining to region, sample size and characteristics, assessment time, and assessment measure, results of individual studies may not be directly comparable and should be interpreted with caution because of limited generalizability. Overall, our data synthesis of 22 studies indicates increases in cases of psychological/emotional and sexual DV as well as increases in severity of DV of any type for a significant number of victims during the pandemic in the general population. Our findings thus partially support the previously documented increase in DV during stay-at-home orders and lockdown. Nonetheless, evidence for changes in prevalence regarding economic/financial, physical, and overall DV remains inconclusive. Prior research suggests that many victims may only have limited or no access to help resources and that social isolation may make reporting of DV more difficult given that the perpetrator cannot be separated. This highlights an important public and clinical concern, indicating a potential change in help-seeking behavior among victims of DV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restricted or limited access to help resources and social isolation from friends, family, or co-workers resulting from governmental measures to contain the spread of the virus likely impacts millions of individuals at risk for DV around the world. Governmental measures should thus take into account the availability of easily accessible, anonymous help resources for DV victims and perpetrators, in particular during times of social isolation, stay-at-home orders, and lockdown. Finally, DV awareness and knowledge needs to be distributed in order to improve formal and informal resources as well as (preventive) interventions for both, victims and perpetrators.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

FT, VB, and SG-N designed and conceptualized the present study. FT, VB, and FR conducted manuscript screening, data extraction, and risk of bias (quality) assessment. AM aided in data extraction. FT and VB wrote the first draft of the manuscript. SG-N supervised data extraction and drafting of the manuscript. FT, VB, FR, AM, JD, JS, and SG-N contributed to the analysis and interpretation. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

The authors received funds for open access publication fees by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.874183/full#supplementary-material