Are Domestic Violence Programs Still Meeting the Needs of Survivors?

 Domestic violence programs have a rich and inspiring history of selfless volunteers sacrificing time, resources and money to help battered women find safety and support. Early on, some women just opened their homes to victims The first shelter for women in the United States was started  in California in 1964. In the seventies and eighties, shelters were funded by feminist groups and newly formed foundations but the government, the police, and the media outlets still paid very little attention to interpersonal violence.

  Out of this grassroots era of advocacy there have evolved structured organizations sanctioned by national and state associations. Laws have changed to incorporate rights and services to crime victims, further validating the professionalization of domestic violence agencies. There are ethical standards in place and accepted best practices. Government funding sources require reporting of demographics, outcomes and fiscal compliance. A great deal of energy is put into compliance with many different grantors, coalitions and commissions. Less and less energy is directed to survivor’s daily needs and practical, ground level victim advocacy.

 

This concern has been addressed by others:

 From Disloyal to Feminism: Abuse of Survivors within the Domestic Violence

Shelter System

by Emi Koyama

  “…Only a short time after the Feminists had fallen asleep, mainstream

professionalism infiltrated battered women’s programs, bringing forth a new and

unpleasant hierarchy within the movement, a hierarchy that undermined the

Feminists' effort to eradicate the root causes of domestic violence. Shared power

among employees was quickly discarded and ethical practices that included the

voices of battered women, basic training on the dynamics of domestic violence, and

the power of shared experience among women was frowned upon… Unqualified

executive directors were brought in from the mainstream to tell shelter staff and

court advocates that they were not as important to the program as the licensed

professionals… Battered women seeking refuge were held captive by the never-ending

shelter rules that were put into place by the mainstream professionals who thumbed

their noses at the original founders. Many safe houses now seemed more like prisons,

or ‘social’ bed and breakfasts, that prevented the disabled and women of all races,

ages, classes, and religions and ethnic groups from entering. Victims were referred to

as ‘crazy’ and whips were cracked upon the backs of advocates or victims who dared

question the professional task master’s authority… Shelter programs were no longer a

safe place for all battered women.” (Gaddis 2001, p. 16)

 

Nancy J. Meyer of the Washington, D.C. Coalition Against

Domestic Violence defines “de-politicization” as “a reframing process that directs

attention away from (and recreates knowledge about) sexism, male dominance,

patriarchy, and female subjugation.” “There is nothing inherently wrong with trying

to improve the conditions in which battered women live,” Meyer argues, “but when

putative efforts to just 'make it better' become the end goal, the political vision and

motivation to address the real exegesis of male violence becomes sublimated… The

political disappears and domestic violence becomes a naturalized part of what

appears to be an unchanging or unchangeable social landscape.” (Meyer 2001, p. 23).

 While there will always be unwarranted and completely off-base criticism from groups such as “father’s rights” or right wing factions there is a growing and very vocal community of survivors who feel re-victimized or at least dissatisfied by the domestic violence services they attempted to access. Some are local individuals and some are organized via the internet, some are forming organizations and movements of their own.

The reasons are varied from blatant mistreatment to the lack of resources to accommodate family pets. As becomes true in many institutions, the lowest paid, entry level personnel spend the most time doing the real work…in this case one-on-one interaction with survivors and their children. There is often an elitism among the credentialed administrators hindering free flow of information and support of the staff on the ground. This results in rapid staff turnover and advocates who do not feel empowered or appreciated .

The current economic climate exacerbates the problem.  Resources have diminished. There are less training opportunities. New technology for both staff and survivors is critical but costly. Battered women have less need for temporary shelter due to improvements in the court system in the area of personal protection orders, domestic violence arrest policies and pretrial release conditions but greater need for support services. Survivors are now more desperate for real economic assistance, something that is not possible in the current structure of most programs and funding sources.

STUDY

The time has come for domestic violence programs to assess which services are effective advocacy and which are simply based on time-worn  tradition rather than current needs of women and children. Domestic violence agencies still save lives every day. There will always be a primary need for a safe haven. The majority of advocates are selfless and hardworking and in it for all the right reasons but are confined to the policies of their agencies. A successful program will continually evaluate, update and re-evaluate to ensure the best quality services and safety of those who come to them for help.