Technology-Facilitated Abuse: Experiences and Service Preferences of Survivors and Community-Based Advocates

Background and Purpose: Technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) refers to the use of digital technologies (e.g., phones, laptops, smart home devices) to stalk, harass, threaten, or coercively control another person. Research indicates that TFA is increasingly common within intimate relationships and difficult to combat due to the constantly evolving nature of technology and its deep integration in our day to day lives. In response, the National Network to End Domestic Violence has developed resources for education on potential vulnerabilities and safety tips for addressing TFA; however, little empirical research has explored whether/how information and safety planning regarding TFA is occurring on the local level in community-based violence agencies. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to explore the experiences and service preferences of survivors and community-based advocates related to TFA.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews (n = 24) were conducted with TFA survivors (n = 17), and advocates (n = 7) recruited from 6 community-based violence agencies in a Southern state. All participants were women ranging in age from 21-60 years old (M = 35). Eight participants identified as White/Caucasian, 8 as African American/Black, 4 as Hispanic/Latina, and 3 as multiracial (one participant did not provide demographics). All interviews were conducted and transcribed via Teams. Interview transcripts were analyzed in Atlas.ti using qualitative content analysis. Participants received a $50 gift card following their interviews.

Results: Survivors and advocates report TFA as pervasive within broader dynamics of intimate partner violence and frame it as a significant threat to survivors’ physical safety, financial stability, and psychological well-being. Despite its commonality, participants reported that the community-based violence agencies in our sample do not systematically assess for TFA. Within most agencies, the only explicit safety strategy recommended for TFA was instructing clients to turn off their phone’s location tracking. Advocates reported feeling undereducated on how to help survivors develop tech-related safety plans. Nearly all survivors engaged in safety strategies to combat TFA which they identified through their own research on the topic (e.g., talking to friends, Googling); however, they reported feeling uncertain about what resources are trustworthy for addressing complex cybersecurity concerns. Participants were generally eager for their agencies to learn more about TFA and were receptive to a proposed service model (Technology Abuse Clinics) which incorporate cybersecurity experts into the process of safety planning.

Conclusions and Implications: While research and education efforts on TFA are growing at the national level, the current study suggests that there is an implementation gap with many violence agencies at the local level. This has resulted in advocates feeling unprepared to meet the contemporary needs of clients, and survivors experiencing lower levels of safety. These findings highlight the importance of universal assessment and safety planning for TFA within community-based agencies, and the need for creative interdisciplinary collaborations between experts in IPV and digital technologies. Technology Abuse Clinics, a model originated by Cornell which brings together advocates and cybersecurity experts to provide services for clients experiencing TFA, should be explored in more regions across the country.