The role of NGO administrative data in understanding the impact of COVID-19 on survivors of domestic abuse

Abstract

COVID-19 quickly changed the context of domestic abuse in England. Within weeks of the first COVID-19 related death, the country was in lockdown. A quick response was essential for understanding the needs of survivors. With limited time to establish new data collection mechanisms, the role of administrative data was central in shaping the response by the Women’s Aid Federation of England. This article explores the opportunities and challenges of using administrative data to understand and respond to the impact of COVID-19 on survivors of domestic abuse in England, using analysis by Women’s Aid of administrative data as a case study. The article discusses the challenges, such as the complexity of analysing a longitudinal administrative dataset, and the need for increased skills and capacity within the NGO research environment. We also reflect on ethical considerations in light of the context of frontline workers responding to the pandemic, the opportunities for collaboration with other sector partners and academics and the benefits of being able to undertake reactive analysis to inform policy. The article concludes that our access to administrative data bolstered our ability to respond expediently to the pandemic, and achieve the long-term benefits of the partnerships that we built during this time.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Administrative data offered Women’s Aid a timely and ethical approach to understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with minimal impact on survivors or the services that support them.</li><br /><li>The nature of administrative data creates unique challenges for researchers as well as opportunities for relevant, impactful research.</li><br /><li>More resources, collaboration and research are needed to understand administrative data sources held by NGOs.</li></ul>

Challenges of using specialist domestic and sexual violence and abuse service data to inform policy and practice on violence reduction in the UK

“…Large, multi-level administrative datasets enable researchers to develop and test increasingly complex conceptualisations of violence, its precursors and outcomes, and can be linked to data from other agencies (Hurren et al, 2017). However, the nature of administrative data presents challenges for researchers (Smith and Davidge, 2022;Yoshida et al, 2022).…”

“…The application process is often lengthy and burdensome, and even where access is granted, data relating to violence tends to be under-recorded or missing (Dheensa, 2020). Second, the variables most pertinent to monitoring service provision are not necessarily the best for research (Smith and Davidge, 2022) and data are commonly collected by frontline staff with competing pressures and priorities, meaning errors are inevitable (Bowstead, 2019). This has implications for the depth and scope of analysis possible.…”

“…Data surrounding recourse to public funds and intersecting inequalities is also recorded. Many specialist services measure wide-ranging survivor-led outcomes, beyond traditional, 'hard' outcomes (for example, access to housing), such as resilience, empowerment and wellbeing (Smith and Davidge, 2022).…”

“…The primary purpose of administrative data collected by service providers is to support their day-to-day work and meet contractual obligations to funders and commissioners (Wiley, 2020;Smith and Davidge, 2022). Specialist services have implemented monitoring and evaluation processes, case management systems and computerised case notes.…”

“…The existing academic literature drawing upon specialist services data is limited, often researching one type of service in one location only (Coy and Kelly, 2011); utilising older datasets (for example, Bowstead, 2020); drawing on additional data collected for research purposes (such as external evaluations or primary data for trials); containing little discussion about data collection processes and theoretical frameworks (Campbell, 2011a;Nichols, 2011); and predominantly from the USA, Canada and Australia. Few reflections on the logistics of using specialist services data for research have been published (for exceptions see Bowstead, 2019;Kendall, 2020;Smith and Davidge, 2022).…”