Is It Safe for You? Evidence of Safety Planning in Chat and Text Crisis Hotline Transcripts

Background and Purpose: Local agencies providing services for intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault (SA) have increasingly included chat and text components within crisis hotlines, providing not only a crucial point of entry to services but in-the-moment safety planning and connection. While this mode of services is rapidly expanding, little is known about the actual interactions between hotline advocates and chat and text hotline service participants. Through a concurrent mixed-methods analysis of transcripts from 378 chat and text crisis hotline interactions at two community-based programs, the current study asks: “What are the service characteristics of chat and text crisis hotline interactions? and “What are service recipient expressed needs and advocate strategies related to safety?”

Methods: The study team partnered with local service agencies in two large metropolitan areas in the Southwest United States, who provided deidentified transcripts of 378 chat and text crisis hotline interactions over a two-year period. Transcripts were analyzed qualitatively via inductive content analysis. Quantitative data were extracted on each interaction including duration, modality (chat or text), type of violence addressed, needs expressed in session, referrals provided, and demographic indicators of the service user (where disclosed). Descriptive and bivariate analysis were used for quantitative data, with data integration procedures occurring at the point of analysis.

Results: Interactions were 30 minutes on average (SD 69.37), and participants waited an average of 3 minutes (SD 9.2) to be connected with an advocate after initiating a session. Most used a chat function (92%). Almost 80% of service users identified themselves as a survivor or victim of violence and 65% of sessions were focused on experiences of IPV, with others focused on SA, human trafficking and child abuse or neglect. Formal support people had longer chat sessions than others (F (1, 374) = 5.87, p<.001). Thematic analysis of transcripts reveal participant identified 1). safety needs related to past violence, including safety related mental health challenges and managing future trauma triggers; 2). safety needs for immediate risks, including safety while staying, support for dealing with an imminent threat, and active planning for leaving; and 3). safety needs for the future including initial planning and risk identification. Advocates use strategies including asking open ended questions to highlight potential vulnerabilities, identification of technology-based risks, sharing safety strategies from others, providing web-based safety planning tools, assessment of immediate safety and homicide risk, provision of psychoeducation about rights, referrals to internal and external resources, and providing emotional support and validation.

Conclusions and Implications: Survivors of violence and their support people are using chat and text crisis hotlines to access support when assessing and responding to a range of immediate and longer-term safety risks. Advocates use key skills to provide information, support, and access to a web of services, reducing current and future risk. On-going research is helping to understand how safety needs change over time. Research can support local programs implementing secondary and tertiary prevention for survivors.