The Shriver Brief : Poverty Law Commentary & Insights : Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law : Affordable Housing, Healthcare Reform

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) with a strong bipartisan vote of 286-138. The bill will help improve VAWA programs that provide indispensable aid to survivors of sexual and domestic violence through shelters, legal aid, medical attention, and other resources. It will strengthen protection for all victims of violence, including Native American, immigrant, and LGBTQ victims. We urge you to thank your representative for voting for this important legislation or, if they did not vote for it, express your disappointment in their decision. You can see who voted for and against the bill here. You can find the representative for your district and their contact information here.

Violence against women continues to be a significant problem in our country. Nearly one in five women have been raped in their lifetime, and one in four women have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate partner. VAWA supports local domestic violence programs that offer emergency shelter, transitional housing, supportive counseling, advocacy, and other services to more than 67,000 victims every day. With help from advocates, referrals, and the information they need, survivors are less likely to experience re-victimization and more likely to fare better in short- and long-term recovery.

VAWA programs, invaluable to the people who need them the most, are also fiscally responsible. The bipartisan VAWA Reauthorization bill (S. 47) uses the federal dollars put towards resources for survivors of sexual and domestic violence in a cost-effective way. The bill consolidates thirteen existing programs into four to avoid duplicative services and lessen administrative costs. Helping women (or men--VAWA does not discriminate) to regain independence and self-sufficiency is extremely important for survivors and for society. As Vice President Biden states, “This is not a Democratic or Republican issue--it’s an issue of justice and compassion.”

We are glad representatives in the House avoided potentially harmful amendments that would have weakened the Violence Against Women Act, and we eagerly await President Obama’s signature to make the reauthorization official. We thank you for all your support and for contacting your representatives--every call makes a difference!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Domestic Violence Awareness month is an opportunity to learn about all forms of domestic violence—emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and, in its extreme, murder. A recent report from the Violence Policy Center, “When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2010 Homicide Data,” analyzes U.S. Department of Justice data on female homicides. The data reveal that most female homicides are committed by men who are or were in an intimate relationship with the victim. 

While both men and women are the victims and the perpetrators of domestic violence, violence against women is a pervasive problem. Women are more likely to be victims of violence at the hands of their intimate partners than men, and the perpetrators are usually men. In 2010, in the United States there were 1,800 females murdered by men in single victim/single offender incidents. Among these incidents 94 percent of victims knew the offender, and more than 65 percent of female homicide victims were the wives or intimate partners of their killers. In Illinois, in the period between July 2010 and June 2011, there were 43 domestic violence-related murders, 24 of which took place in Cook County. The majority of victims in these incidents were wives, girlfriends, ex-wives, and ex-girlfriends of their killers.

The report by the Violence Policy Center looks specifically at the number of black women who were murdered in 2010 (see page 9). The black female homicide rate is almost 2.5 times higher than the rate for white women. Ninety-four percent of black women killed by males in single victim/single offender incidents knew their killer, and 64 percent of those victims were wives, common-law wives, ex-wives, or girlfriends of the offender.

Among other marginalized groups, violence also appears in the LGBTQ community. A report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs reveals a sharp increase in the number of domestic violence-related homicides in the LGBTQ community. In 2010 there were 6 killed, and by 2011 the number rose to 19 (see page 17). Among these incidents 42.1 percent were LGBTQ people of color (see page 7).

Domestic violence is not only a crime, but a major public health issue. Ending it requires both community education to prevent violence as well as policies and programs that allow victims to receive the services they need and the justice they deserve. The federal reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which includes crucial protections for Native American and immigrant women as well as survivors in the LGBTQ community, continues to stall in Congress. The time is now for Congress to act—do your part to make sure that happens. And learn more about Domestic Violence Awareness month and how you can get involved in the remaining days of October.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a horribly ironic turn of events, Topeka, Kansas, has decriminalized domestic violence in the middle of October, a month devoted to raising awareness about preventing and ending it. October has been domestic violence awareness month for over twenty years, a period of time during which exceptional progress has been made. Once thought of as a private matter, an accepted norm among many couples, domestic violence is now recognized as a crime. Unfortunately, rates of domestic violence in the U.S. remain extremely high, and survivors continue to face barriers to seeking protection and getting justice. The recent developments in Topeka have created yet another barrier for survivors to exercise their legal rights as they became political fodder in budgetary debates. This only highlights the continued critical need for increased awareness of domestic violence and its harmful effects on individuals and entire communities.

Domestic violence affects women of every racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomic background. One in four women experiences domestic violence in the United States, and more than three women on average are killed each day by an intimate partner. These women suffered in silence with few legal protections before the 1980s, when states began to criminalize domestic violence and establish protective orders. It wasn’t until 1994, however, that domestic violence was finally recognized as a federal crime. The passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) legally defined and federally criminalized domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. On October 11, however, Topeka, Kansas, took a huge step backwards when its city council voted to nullify their authority to prosecute misdemeanor cases of domestic violence. The whole mess began in September when, in response to budget shortfalls, the district attorney (DA) for the county in which Topeka is located announced that he would no longer be prosecuting misdemeanors and the duty would instead fall on the city. Topeka’s city council was angered by the increased responsibility without increased funding, and for five weeks the city and the county engaged in a standoff over who would be forced to provide legal protections for domestic violence victims. Then on October 11, Topeka decriminalized misdemeanor cases of domestic violence, the most common misdemeanor prosecutions in Topeka. The city hoped this would force the DA to begin prosecuting misdemeanors again, and it was right. Facing pressure from all sides, the DA announced that his office would begin prosecuting domestic violence cases again, but the city council has yet to repeal the ordinance decriminalizing domestic violence.

Both the DA and the Topeka City Council have assured the public that they take domestic violence very seriously, but their actions tell a different story. Budgets are reflections of a society’s values, and funding decisions are essentially priority decisions. The fact that Topeka was willing to risk the safety of survivors and their children to make a political point sends a message to the community that domestic violence is a low priority. In fact, domestic violence is such a low priority that the city and the county are unwilling to pay for its prosecution unless they are absolutely forced into it. Not only did Topeka’s decision diminish the importance of domestic violence and trivialize survivors’ experiences, it also placed real women in danger for the five weeks during which domestic violence was not a criminal offense. At least 30 domestic violence cases required action during those weeks. Instead, the perpetrators were released from prison with the understanding that what they did was not a crime.

Using survivors as pawns in political power struggles minimizes domestic violence and creates additional obstacles for survivors to gain the protections and services they need. Raising awareness of the prevalence of domestic violence and the effects it has on individuals and communities can help combat misunderstanding and ensure that prevention and survivor safety are top priorities. Awareness-raising campaigns exist around the country, educating people on the dynamics of domestic violence, prevention techniques, and the availability of resources for survivors.

The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence has released a series of press statements detailing Topeka’s decision to decriminalize domestic violence. They are watching the situation carefully, and are poised to intervene if the DA again halts the prosecution of domestic violence. Visit their website to learn how to get involved. You can also help raise awareness simply by talking with your friends, family, and members of your community about domestic violence.

For more information on domestic violence, visit www.futureswithoutviolence.org or http://www.nnedv.org/. If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence, call the national domestic violence hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (1-800-799-7233) or log on to www.thehotline.org.

This blog post was coauthored by Hannah Green.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The summer was a season of triumphs for women around the world, whose fundamental human rights were upheld, sometimes for the first time, by the international human rights community. In July, the United Nations (UN) released Progress of the World’s Women: In Pursuit of Justice, a report that focused on the legal barriers women and girls face around the world and how advocates are working to break down these barriers. In early August, the UN ruled on its first maternal death case, establishing that governments have an obligation to guarantee all women access to adequate and timely maternal health care. Then, in mid August, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled on its first ever case brought by a domestic violence survivor against the United States. The decision established that governments have an obligation to enforce protective orders and that the failure to do so is a human rights violation. The progress around the world only highlights the work that must be done here in the United States to ensure that all women have equal rights and protections under the law and in practice, including the important right to the enforcement of protective orders.

Domestic Violence in the United States

The number of women in the U.S. who experience domestic violence is vast—it is truly a ubiquitous experience, affecting women of all ages, races, ethnicities, and sexual preferences. Indeed one in four women reports experiencing violence from a current or former partner or spouse. These women suffered in silence with little recognition from the legal world before the 1980s, when states began to criminalize domestic violence and establish protective orders. Finally, in 1994, the federal Violence Against Woman Act (VAWA) defined and federally criminalized domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Its passage signaled the United States’ refusal to continue silently to tolerate these crimes. Despite this progress, ignorance and prejudice continue to surround domestic violence survivors who face many barriers to justice and protection. Police can be slow to respond, believing domestic violence to be solely a private matter, and survivors’ credibility is often questioned in court. State and federal domestic violence acts have given women the opportunity to pursue legal protections, but without enforcement, legal protections in and of themselves are meaningless.

Jessica Lenahan’s Story

On June 23, 1999, Jessica Lenahan’s three children were discovered dead in the back seat of their father’s truck after he engaged the police in a shoot out that also resulted in his death. Ms. Lenahan’s estranged husband had abducted their children from outside her home, violating the restraining order she had obtained against him after he emotionally and physically abused her. Despite Ms. Lenahan’s many calls to the police station informing them of the restraining order and her husband’s actions, the police failed to even search for the children. Ms. Lenahan (formerly Ms. Gonzales) sued the township, claiming that her due process rights had been violated when the police failed to enforce her restraining order. Her case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Township. The 2005 decision in Town of Castle Rock v. Jessica Gonzales established that survivors do not have a constitutional right to police enforcement of a restraining order because they do not have property rights to the order itself. In other words, the court determined that Ms. Lenahan did not have a right to due process, and thus did not look at whether or not due process was carried out. The decision, however, threatens the safety of domestic and sexual violence survivors around the country, who now have no legal recourse if their protective orders are not enforced.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

With legal options in the United States exhausted, Ms. Lenahan took her case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Established in 1959, IACHR is tasked with promoting and protecting human rights in the Americas by upholding the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. International human rights law guarantees certain substantive positive rights that the U.S. Constitution does not, rendering the property right concerns that were the focal point of the U.S. Supreme Court case moot. Thus, Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A., centered on the claim that the United States violated Ms. Lenahan and her children’s human rights to life, equal protection before the law, and the right to protection of the law from abusive attacks. In its decision in favor of Ms. Lenahan, IACHR established that governments do have an obligation to enforce protective orders and that the U.S. had violated Ms. Lenahan’s human rights in failing to enforce her restraining order.

Applying a Human Rights Framework Domestically

Included in IACHR’s decision were a number of recommendations for the United States to more adequately address domestic violence. These recommendations, echoed by the recently released report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women (Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against Women, its causes and consequences, Ms. Rashida Manjoo - Addendum - Mission to the United States of America, click “E”, page 27), include the creation of meaningful standards for the enforcement of protective orders. As a member of the Organization of American States (OAS), the United States is obligated to comply with the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and IACHR rulings, but it shouldn’t have to be forced into protecting women from violence. Instead, the United States should lead rather than follow in the fight to end domestic violence. 

For more information on using a human rights framework domestically, read the September-October 2011 special issue of the Clearinghouse Review, “Human Rights: A New (and Old) Way to Secure Justice.”

This blog was coauthored by Hannah Green.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Congress and several states take actions to stop evictions of victims of violence

For women and children in this country, domestic violence is one of the leading causes of homelessness. Survivors of domestic violence (of which 90 to 95% are women), dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking living in rental housing are particularly vulnerable to homelessness because they are often threatened with eviction after an incident of violence. These evictions are frequently born out of property owners’ stereotypes about survivors of violence as individuals accountable for the acts of their abusers. Indeed, up until a few years ago, when victims of violence who lived in federally assisted low-income housing called the police to report intruders, being shot, or otherwise terrorized by their abusers, they would immediately receive an eviction notice.

In 2005, Congress adopted federal protections against evictions and denial of housing for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. The 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act prohibits evictions and admission denials of victims of violence who live certain types of federally supported low-income housing. The 2011 VAWA reauthorization should improve upon VAWA 2005 and expand it to cover other types of federal supported low-income housing. Any reauthorization must also extend those protections to survivors of sexual assault. 

On April 27, the Illinois Legislature passed H.B. 5523 and joined several other states, including Indiana, Colorado, Arkansas, Delaware, Texas and Virginia in protecting victims of violence from evictions based upon incidents of violence and/or their status as a victim of violence. Maryland has recently passed a similar bill. The governors of those states should sign the bills immediately.

However, property owners are not the only ones threatening survivors’ housing. A growing number of municipalities have adopted aggressive property nuisance codes or “crime-free” rental housing ordinances that obligate owners, under threat of losing their license to operate rental property, to evict all tenants when there is a crime or multiple police calls for assistance. To limit a survivor’s access to police assistance under threat of homelessness or to blame them for the crime committed against them likely violates their rights under the U.S. Constitution and Federal Fair Housing Act. While we support the idea of improving the quality and safety of rental housing, municipal actions cannot interfere with a survivor’s safety or hold them accountable for a perpetrator’s actions. Municipalities should amend these ordinances to eliminate these harmful and likely illegal provisions.   

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The effects of domestic and sexual violence are not checked at the door when a survivor of violence enters her place of employment. Oftentimes individuals who experience domestic or sexual violence report missing work due to the violence in their lives, enduring harassment by the abuser at work, suffering health problems that affect job performance, or losing employment due to the violence. A study by the U.S. Department of Justice found that, during a 12-month period, more than half of stalking victims lost five or more days of work, and about 130,000 stalking victims reported that they were fired or asked to leave their jobs because of the stalking. Yet, according to a survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over 70 percent of U.S. workplaces have no formal program or policy that tackles workplace violence.

It’s time for the federal government to act, following Illinois’ example, where late last month the Illinois General Assembly passed an important piece of legislation that is a notable victory for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, their families, and advocates. The Illinois Senate voted unanimously to concur with House Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 on Senate Bill 1770, an amendment to the Victims’ Economic Security and Safety Act (VESSA). Originally enacted in 2003 with then–State Senator Barack Obama as principal sponsor, VESSA provides unpaid, job-guaranteed leave and nondiscrimination protections for eligible employees who are survivors of domestic or sexual violence or who have a family or household member who is a survivor of domestic or sexual violence.

Since its enactment in 2003, VESSA has provided significant benefits and workplace protections for Illinois employees. VESSA allows a covered employee to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid time off from work to deal with the violence in her lives without losing her job during a 12-month period. VESSA also prohibits an employer from discriminating, harassing, or retaliating against an employee who is exercising her rights under this law.

Once signed into law, the amendment will expand VESSA to cover more employees in the private sector by decreasing the private employer threshold number of employees from 50 or more to 15 or more. The amendment adds language providing that an employee who works for an employer with at least 15 but not more than 49 employees may take up to 8 work weeks (rather than 12) of unpaid, job-guaranteed leave to deal with domestic or sexual violence during a 12-month period.

VESSA has proven to be a lifeline for employees coping with domestic or sexual violence. While VESSA allows for several weeks of leave, most employees who take leave take significantly less. And, of the 107 complaints that have been filed since enactment, most VESSA claims notably allege discrimination by the employer.

With the recession being a perpetual reminder of the crucial nature of job preservation and economic stability, the passage of S.B. 1770 is a surefire victory that will help more survivors of domestic and sexual violence maintain their employment and economic stability as they strive to remain safe and ultimately escape a violent situation. Action on the federal level is more pressing than ever.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link