US Congress: Keep Your Word to Abused Women

When Michelle arrived at the shelter in Portland, Oregon, staff members had to help her remove her earring because the side of her face was so swollen from the last beating by her abuser. Months earlier he had responded to the news of her pregnancy by pummeling her abdomen. Unable to find shelter, she had been living in her car while trying to escape the abuse. But that had not kept her safe. Her abuser had punched out her car windows. She used clear packaging tape to try to cover them. Then he assaulted her again. Late into her third trimester, beaten, bruised, and hypoglycemic from lack of food, she finally found shelter and a safe place to welcome her baby.

Finding shelter from violence should not be "like playing the lottery," as one survivor described it to Human Rights Watch. But for too many women it is. The manager of the Portland shelter that took Michelle in told Human Rights Watch that in a single month the staff had received 305 calls for help, but only had been able to admit four new residents. Statewide, the Oregon Department of Human Services reports that 19,996 requests for shelter from domestic and sexual violence could not be met in 2008, a 36 percent increase over the already staggering 14,739 unmet requests in 2007.

National numbers indicate that this is not an isolated problem. A National Network to End Domestic Violence survey of service providers found that, on a single day in 2008, 3,286 requests for emergency shelter and 1,586 requests for transitional housing went unmet.

The good news is that Congress has already made a commitment to do something about this. The bad news is that it hasn't put its money where its mouth is. While having previously recommended $175 million for emergency shelter in the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, Congress budgeted only $127.7 million for these services last year. Likewise, the much-lauded Violence Against Women Act (VAWA -- a flagship piece of legislation for Vice President Biden when he was a senator) has never been fully funded.

This could dramatically change on Friday. The House Appropriations Committee is set to decide how much money to provide for a number of critical domestic violence services, including emergency shelter. Members would do well to remember Michelle, and the millions of American women like her who are forced to flee violent relationships. They should remember the duty of protection the government owes them and the pledge of assistance it has made. And they should be aware of the repercussions if that pledge is not kept.

It is high time for Congress to deliver on the promise of Family Violence Prevention Services and Violence Against Women acts. There is never a good time to short-change domestic violence survivors, but now would be one of the worst. The economic crisis has dangerously widened an already alarming gap between the need for services and the resources to provide them. The result is that an increasing number of requests for help have gone unmet, jeopardizing the lives and safety of a disturbingly large number of women and families.

In considering Friday's appropriations, the committee should see through the thousands of line items to the millions of women in need of shelter. They represent not only an obligation, but an investment. With full funding for both pieces of legislation, domestic violence programs and survivors can work to build healthy futures for women and their families, a legacy that will benefit generations to come. Michelle, now settled in a long-term affordable housing program, is raising her daughter in safety and is going to college and making straight A's. It is a future that should be within reach for all survivors and one well worth funding fully.

Comments

[anitaj]

Domestic violence is a reality in far too many American families. The availability of shelter and social services is vital for victims to get out of these destructive relationships. A safe place to re-evaluate and re-organize is key to the ability of these individuals to build solid, violence-free lives.

Economic hardship can exacerbate underlying difficulties in relationships. As we are in the middle of a significant economic downturn, it makes sense that the need for domestic violence shelters is currently high.

Domestic violence victim services organizations at which I have volunteered in the past have provided shelter to men and parents with teenage sons. These organizations are dedicated to enabling individuals to lead safe, violence-free lives, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, religion, social status, financial resources, etc.

Domestic violence costs the US economy billions of dollars each year. Enabling victims of domestic violence to start over and learn how to build healthy relationships is a good long-term investment in our society.

[EricWI]

I hope that the services funded includes services for men and children. The face of domestic violence (DV) presented by Ms. Rhoad is only part of the story.

A clear indication of the full scope and origin of intimate adult DV is discussed in the Psychiatric News, August 3, 2007, article "Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence" (http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a). It uses Center for Disease Control data and reports that:
- 24% of young heterosexual adults report violence in their relationship,
- 12% were reciprocally violent (both male and female perpetrators),
- 8.5% had sole female perpetrators, and
- 3.5% had sole male perpetrators.
Dozens of other studies find similar results.

Concerning children victims of abuse, US Department of Health and Human Services statistics (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/figure3_5.htm) indicate that:
- 40% of the perpetrators are mothers only,
- 18% are fathers only, and
- 18% are mothers and fathers together.
Clearly mothers are a common perpetrator of abuse. Services need to be provided for violent mothers and shelters are needed for the men and child victims.

Most DV legislation does not account the full range of domestic violence and thus will fail. Ms. Rhoad, I hope you will use your position to work toward a more comprehensive DV response which includes the many men and children whose cry for help is not even noted as an "unmet request", because they have nowhere to call.

[Roland3337]

VAWA is one of the worst lies that have been foisted on the American taxpayer by feminist ideologues. The whole premise that DV is a crime against women by men, is simply not true. Perpetuating this lie and throwing more money at it does nothing to solve the problem. Not only are male victims not being served (of which there are far more than anyone would ever believe), neither are women.

According to Murray Strauss, speaking at the conference, “From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention’’ reminded attendees of findings from literally hundreds of studies that corroborated that women assault their partners about as often as men. Moreover, they do not act only in self-defense but are as likely as men to hit first, and with similar motives: anger, insecurity, controlling one’s partner.

If Obama is serious about doing something about this problem, then he needs to keep his promise of “ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda.’’ Presumably, even a feminist one.

[PorkyDomesticus]

"the millions of women in need of shelter"

Probably more like thousands than millions. Also, some people turned away are turned away because they are male, many are women who want to bring teen sons with them-boys are evil so a huge number of shelters wont allow them in- and who then refuse shelter because they don't want to leave their sons alone at home with violent fathers. Not pointing out why people are turned away is a good way to make it seem as if there aren't enough places available.

Funding is already ample, some would say excessive, but it's never enough for the gravy train is it?

[LisaJoelle]

As an employee of an emergency domestic violence shelter in Oregon, I'd just like to note that we do, in fact, accept teenage boys up to the age of 17 with their parents. To date, the meager state and federal funding for this issue has been nowhere near excessive or even anywhere in the range of reasonable.