Category: Violence Against Women Act

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

VAWA Bill Fails to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States

VAWA Bill Fails to Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

March 16, 2021

Rep. Jackson Lee recently introduced her version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization. In her press release, Jackson Lee emphasized how her bill would support “victim services, prevention, training, education, enforcement, economic stability, and other programs.”

This is good, but the most important question is, How well does her bill support and defend the Constitution of the United States?

To answer this question, the Coalition to End Domestic Violence compared the Jackson Lee bill to the tenets outlined in Principles of Conservatism, published by the Heritage Foundation.[1] Seven of the Heritage Principles are directly relevant to the Violence Against Women Act. Key parts of each Principle are shown in bold, below.

Conclusion

Rep. Jackson Lee’s bill fails to address seven of the Heritage Principles. In terms of supporting and defending the Constitution, Rep. Jackson Lee’s VAWA bill rates an ‘F.’

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

PRINCIPLE 1

The federal government exists to preserve life, liberty and property, and it is instituted to protect the rights of individuals according to natural law. Among these rights are the sanctity of life; the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly; the right to bear arms; the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law; and to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor.

ANALYSIS: According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year there are 4.2 million male victims and 3.5 million female victims of domestic violence. But male victims are often excluded by VAWA programs.[2] For example, Title IX is called “Safety for Indian Women,” and Title XI is called “Improving Conditions for Women in Federal Custody,” revealing an unconscionable discriminatory intent.

CONCLUSION: Concern not addressed.

PRINCIPLE 2

The federal government’s powers are limited to those named in the Constitution and should be exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The government closest to the people serves the people best.” Powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution, are reserved to the states or to the people.

ANALYSIS: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to enact criminal statutes. Within the context of VAWA, this Principle could be addressed by means of instituting block grants to the states.

CONCLUSION: Concern not addressed.

PRINCIPLE 3

Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ personal and political predispositions.

ANALYSIS: VAWA funds judicial training programs that have been found to be biased in their content, thereby undermining the impartiality and fairness of judicial adjudications.

CONCLUSION: Concern not addressed.

PRINCIPLE 4

The family is the essential foundation of civil society, and traditional marriage serves as the cornerstone of the family.

ANALYSIS: VAWA has been documented to contribute to family break-down in a number of ways, e.g., by enabling false allegations.

CONCLUSION: Concern not addressed.

PRINCIPLE 5

Justice requires an efficient, fair, and effective criminal justice system—one that gives defendants adequate due process and requires an appropriate degree of criminal intent to merit punishment.

ANALYSIS: The Jackson Lee bill does not address the myriad of due process problems created by VAWA, e.g., widespread mandatory arrest policies and the issuance of restraining orders without proper due process.

The Jackson Lee bill would also promote guilt-presuming, junk-science criminal investigations known as “trauma-informed” (Section 206).[3]

CONCLUSION: Concern not addressed.

PRINCIPLE 6

America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.

ANALYSIS: VAWA allows a foreign national to receive priority treatment in obtaining employment approval and citizenship by claiming to be a victim of domestic violence — no evidence required.[4] This policy poses a security risk, since a terrorist could become intimately involved with an American citizen, and then bypass numerous security checks by playing the abuse card. The widespread problem of VAWA-induced marriage fraud was highlighted in a GAO report.[5]

CONCLUSION: Concern not addressed.

PRINCIPLE 7

The federal deficit and debt must not place unreasonable financial burdens on future generations.

ANALYSIS: The Jackson Lee bill would worsen government debt in two ways:

  1. Increase the VAWA authorization by an additional $280 million, representing a 50% increase over current levels.
  2. Expand the definition of “domestic violence” to include “verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse,” thereby placing far greater burdens on state crime victim assistance and compensation funds.

CONCLUSION: The Jackson Lee bill would dramatically increase federal and state government expenditures for domestic violence programs.

Links:

[1] https://www.heritage.org/truenorth

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-domestic-violence-men/male-victims-of-domestic-violence-struggle-to-disclose-abuse-idUSKCN1UC2EF

[3]https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/

[4] http://www.immigrationfraud.com/news.html

[5] https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/701807.pdf

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

VAWA: Long-Standing and Widespread Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Violence Against Women Act: Long-Standing and Widespread Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

March 16, 2021

The Violence Against Women Act has long been riddled with waste, fraud, and financial abuse. These are a few of many examples:

  1. A summary of Department of Justice audits revealed that 34 out of 47 recipients of VAWA funds – 72.3% — were found to be “Generally Non-Compliant” by auditors from the U.S. Department of Justice.[1] A finding of “Generally Non-Compliant” reveals an agency failed to meet minimum standards across a broad range of indicators. The audits unearthed $14.7 million in Unallowable or Unsupported costs, an average of $313,180 per agency surveyed.
  2. In 2020, the State of Florida assumed control of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence, after Tiffany Carr, the former CEO of the Coalition, received more than $3.7 million in paid time off. Carr is currently at the center of a half-dozen lawsuits seeking repayment.[2]
  3. In 2019, the DOJ Office of Inspector General conducted an audit of the VAWA Technical Assistance programs, which revealed double-dipping and exorbitant payments to consultants:[3]

“we identified recipients paid a salary of approximately $55,000 from an OVW award who would then consult for a different recipient’s OVW award at the $650 per day rate. We also identified awards that were approved with $650 per day consultant rates for note takers, translators, or other services.”

  1. In 2018, a Prince George’s County, Maryland abuse shelter, the Family Crisis Center, was forced to close due to unsanitary conditions. The problem wasn’t lack of funding. The problem was financial mismanagement and lack of accountability. One shelter resident declared, “It was a living hell.” [4]
  2. Laura Ewing, a former employee of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, was sentenced to three years of probation for unlawfully writing 34 checks payable to herself.[5]
  3. In 2013, Sen. Chuck Grassley reported, “The Inspector General conducted a review of 22 VAWA grantees from 1998 to 2010. Of these 22, 21 were found to have some form of violation of grant requirements ranging from unauthorized and unallowable expenditures, to sloppy recordkeeping and failure to report in a timely manner.”[6]

When grant resources are misused, victims lose out and taxpayers are cheated.

Links:

[1] http://endtodv.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/VAWA-Audits-2013-2017.xlsx

[2] https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2020-11-12/court-battles-continue-over-tiffany-carr-florida-domestic-violence-agency

[3] https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/a1908.pdf

[4] https://wapo.st/2Jx23HL

[5] https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwi/pr/madison-woman-sentenced-embezzling-wisconsin-coalition-against-sexual-assault

[6] https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/consideration-violence-against-women-act

Categories
Domestic Violence False Allegations Violence Against Women Act

‘I think actually the prosecutions of women would skyrocket.’

‘I think actually the prosecutions of women would skyrocket.’

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

March 12, 2021

The recently introduced Violence Against Women Act bill includes this proposed redefinition of domestic violence (H.R. 1620, Section 2):

“The term ‘domestic violence’ means a pattern of behavior involving the use of physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse.”

So ask yourself, “In the past year, has my spouse or partner….”:

  • Called me a name such as “stupid” or “lazy”?
  • Given me the “silence treatment”?
  • Scolded me to not over-spend the checking account?

These three questions represent verbal, psychological, and economic abuse, respectively. When these questions have been posed to Congressional staffers, almost all have answered with a sheepish smile, “yes.”

VAWA’s proposed expansion of the definition of domestic violence would serve to classify almost every American as a “victim” of domestic violence. This would have major consequences throughout our society:

  1. Criminal Justice Services: Expansive definitions would result in a sharp increase in the number of calls to police for protection from a spouse or partner who is engaging in such actions — as well as more arrests and prosecutions. This would reduce criminal justice services for the victims of violent crimes.
  2. Victim Service Providers: Turning every American into a victim would create requests for many billions of dollars in financial assistance from victim service providers and other agencies. Persons experiencing such actions could suddenly quit their jobs, costing states billions in Unemployment benefits.[1]
  3. Fragile Families: Eight percent of Americans report being falsely accused of abuse.[2] Claims of verbal, psychological, or economic abuse often are so vague that accused persons have no viable defense against a false allegation. This would exacerbate partner conflict and worsen family instability.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, each year men are more likely than women to be the victims of psychological aggression:[3]

  • 20.8 million male victims
  • 17.0 million female victims

Which is why University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark commented about the criminalization of emotional abuse, “I think actually the prosecutions of women would skyrocket.”[4]

Verbal and psychological abuse is a real problem in our country. But turning this into a crime would wreak havoc on criminal justice services, victim service providers, and on fragile families.

[1]https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2020/04/16/revised_violence_against_women_act_could_cost_states_billions_in_unemployment_benefits_489245.html

[2] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/survey-over-20-million-have-been-falsely-accused-of-abuse/

[3] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf  Tables 5.2 and 5.5.

[4] Presentation at the University of Maryland School of Social Work, Baltimore, Maryland. October 2, 2015.

Categories
Press Release Victims Violence Violence Against Women Act

Press Release: Anti-Violence Bill Loses Focus on Victims, Many Claim

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Anti-Violence Bill Loses Focus on Victims, Many Claim

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — A growing number of groups, including Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, are criticizing the proposed reauthorization bill of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for losing sight of the law’s original intended purpose: to help victims of domestic violence. These concerns were highlighted during the recent February 2 meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Concerned Women for America, the largest women’s organization in the country, noted in a February 1 group letter that the Leahy-Crapo bill will “actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims.”

Victim-advocacy group Survivors in Action decries what it calls the “DV run-around” in which victims are shunted from hotlines to shelters to social service agencies, never receiving the services they need.

Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, deplored the fact that VAWA bill S. 1925 “creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing the focus on helping victims.” (1)

Even Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy acknowledged criticism that the VAWA bill is “trying to protect too many victims.” Following debate, Sen. Leahy’s proposed bill was approved by a slim 10-8 margin and was forwarded to the full Senate for consideration.

Vague and over-broad definitions of abuse found in the current law undermine key Constitutional protections for the accused, as well: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/SAVE-Assault-Civil-Rights.pdf

“If we want to stop the cycle of violence and help real victims, the Violence Against Women Act must rein in sweeping definitions, improve accountability, and recognize that women are as likely as men to be physically abusive with their partners,” explains SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is proposing consideration of the Partner Violence Reduction Act (2), which accords priority to persons with evidence of physical violence.

Congressman Ted Poe, co-chair of the Victim’s Rights Caucus, has suggested changing the name of VAWA to the Domestic Violence Act, in order to recognize that partner abuse affects members of both sexes (3).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner abuse: www.saveservices.org

(1) http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/statement-by-sen-chuck-grassley-about-vawa
(2) http://www.saveservices.org/pvra
(3) http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/jul/21/picket-vawa-supporter-capitol-hill-looks-have-law-/

Categories
Domestic Violence Uncategorized Violence Against Women Act

Coronavirus-Abuse Hoax Unravels Across the Globe

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@EndToDV.org

Coronavirus-Abuse Hoax Unravels Across the Globe

WASHINGTON / June 11, 2020 – The Coalition to End Domestic Violence today reports that the oft-repeated claim that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a global “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence has been refuted by police reports gathered from countries around the world.

On April 5, United Nations chief Antonio Guterres issued a Tweet declaring, “Many women under lockdown for #COVID19 face violence where they should be safest: in their own homes….I urge all governments to put women’s safety first as they respond to the pandemic.” (1) The following day, UN Women director Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka issued a statement warning, “We see a shadow pandemic growing, of violence against women.” (2)

But police reports received from 10 countries across the globe, listed below in alphabetical order, reach a different conclusion:

  1. Albania: In March 2020, the number of domestic violence reports decreased by 141, as compared to the same month in the previous year (3). Likewise, Judge Durim Hasa reported a decrease in domestic violence cases in his district (4).
  2. Australia: In New South Wales, domestic violence assaults decreased from 2,434 in April, 2019 to 2,145 in April, 2020, representing a 12% drop. Bureau executive director Jackie Fitzgerald said there was no evidence that social isolation measures have led to an increase in domestic violence (5). In Queensland, “Reports of domestic violence breaches dropped 5.6% between March 6 and 27, while court applications related to such matters fell 20% in that time.” (6)
  3. Austria: The incidence of domestic violence has not risen, and many places have seen a reduction, according to reports from dozens of police departments across the country (7).
  4. Canada: The Ottawa Police Service reported that calls requesting an officer’s intervention in domestic disputes were down more than 23% from March 16 to April 30, compared to the same period in 2019. (8) In Toronto, police report a “small drop” in domestic violence numbers since social distancing measures went into effect (9). Police in Vancouver have not seen any increase in domestic violence statistics (10).
  5. India: Earlier this week, Smriti Irani, Minister for Women and Child Development, was asked whether the lockdown has increased domestic violence against women. Her response, “It is false.” (11)
  6. Netherlands: A March newspaper account reported the National Police noted a 12% domestic violence decline, compared to the same week in 2019. (12)
  7. Russia: The number of domestic violence crimes fell by 13% during the lockdown, compared to the same month in 2019. (13)
  8. Spain: During the first two weeks of April, “there has been a sharp drop in complaints being made to the police.” (14)
  9. Tasmania: According to police Acting Commander Stuart Wilkinson, “we’re not seeing an increase at all.” (15)
  10. United States: Among reports gathered from 33 police departments across the country, 11 noted a decline and 19 saw steady numbers of domestic violence cases. Only three offices indicated an increase of 10% or more in domestic violence cases (16).

Many countries have reported increases in calls to domestic violence hotlines. But commentator Wendy McElroy explains why police reports are more accurate than hotlines in tracking trends: “People access [domestic violence] hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports.” (17)

While it is possible that domestic violence has increased in some areas, the United Nations’ startling prediction of a new “pandemic” of violence against women around the world has been shown to be false. And extensive global research shows men and women engage in domestic violence at equal rates (18).

In India, Smriti Irani expressed dismay over the domestic violence “scaremongering” at the hands of certain non-governmental organizations (11). In Austria, one group charged feminist-oriented domestic violence groups with using the coronavirus issue to make “untrue statements,” thereby ignoring male victims of violence (7). In Australia, Corrine Barraclough noted, “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.” (19)

Links:

  1. https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1061052
  2. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/4/statement-ed-phumzile-violence-against-women-during-pandemic
  3. https://albania.unwomen.org/en/news-and-events/stories/2020/04/unpacking-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-women-and-girls-in-albania
  4. https://exit.al/en/2020/04/14/albanian-judge-claims-coronavirus-has-led-to-decrease-in-domestic-violence/
  5. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/latest-news/nsw-domestic-violence-down-12-amid-virus/news-story/2694583a900379242f4510691f66e410
  6. https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/coronavirus-australia-queensland-police-concerned-about-fewer-domestic-violence-complaints-c-951819
  7. http://www.vaeter-ohne-rechte.at/frauenorganisationen-fuerchten-um-geld/ (Click on top tab to view English translation)
  8. https://globalnews.ca/news/6911856/ottawa-domestic-abuse-calls-coronavirus-pandemic/
  9. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2020/04/08/domestic-violence-calls-surge-during-coronavirus-pandemic/
  10. https://globalnews.ca/news/6789403/domestic-violence-coronavirus/
  11. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/union-minister-smiriti-irani-debunks-claims-of-lockdown-leading-to-increase-in-domestic-violence/articleshow/76256622.cms?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=TOIMobile
  12. https://www.bnnvara.nl/zembla/artikelen/meer-hulpvragen-huiselijk-geweld-via-online-chatdiensten
  13. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/05/russia-domestic-violence-cases-more-than-double-under-lockdown
  14. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/28/three-women-killed-in-spain-as-coronavirus-lockdown-sees-rise-in-domestic-violence
  15. https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/6718508/no-spike-in-domestic-violence-most-coasters-following-isolation-rules-police/?src=rss
  16. http://endtodv.org/pr/anatomy-of-a-hoax-the-great-coronavirus-abuse-myth-of-2020/
  17. https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/do-activists-want-domestic-violence-to-increase-during-the-pandemic/
  18. http://www.saveservices.org/dvlp/policy-briefings/partner-abuse-worldwide/
  19. https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=corrine%20barraclough&epa=SEARCH_BOX
Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Do Activists Want Domestic Violence To Increase During the Pandemic?

Do Activists Want Domestic Violence To Increase During the Pandemic?

Do Activists Want Domestic Violence To Increase During the Pandemic?

by  | Jun 8, 2020

Coronavirus News On Screen 3970332

A contradiction is grabbing the narrative on domestic violence (DV) during the coronavirus lockdown: a decline in police reports on DV means the rate is increasing and more government is needed. A cynic might wonder if DV experts want to stoke the panic that drives funding and legislation. DV is too important, however, to allow either cynicism or opportunism to dominate the discussion. Reality should fill this role.

DV may tend to increase during times of stress, but this cannot be assumed. A May 8 headline in The Atlantic ventures, “The Worst Situation Imaginable for Family Violence. All over the United States, adults and children have been quarantined for weeks with people who hurt them.” Assuming that “the worst situation imaginable” is upon us quickly transforms into statements of ‘fact,’ such as the claim of increasing DV. Even so, the headline is more realistic than most others because it refers to “adult” survivors, which gives a nod to the many men who are abused. A 2015 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control found that more men than women had been physically attacked by an intimate partner: 4.2 million male victims, and 3.5 million female victims. There is a burning need for media to deal with what is real about DV.

The data on current and changing rates often rely on two sources: hotlines and police reports. The latter is far more accurate, for several reasons. People access DV hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports. When police statistics are available, they should be preferred to anecdotal accounts by advocates.

Yet media often uses more political and less reliable reports over crime ones, perhaps because they are more attention grabbing. An article in the Marshall Project is an example; “Is Domestic Violence Rising During the Coronavirus Shutdown? Here’s What the Data Shows.” It notes that police reports in three cities, including Chicago, DV appear to have declined during COVID-19. After mentioning the drop, the article states, “but police and experts say that may be a problem…News outlets across the country have written about advocates’ concerns that crime statistics are masking an uncounted rise in domestic violence.”

It is always valid to question discrepancies in information from different sources, but news stories should not work to dismiss hard evidence that casts doubt on whether there is a DV crisis. They should not turn hard data of a decline in DV into an alarm bell about an increase.

An ABC headline declares, “Fewer domestic violence calls during COVID-19 outbreak has California officials concerned.” A Los Angeles Police Chief warns “that’s going in the wrong direction with what we believe is actually happening” without adding evidence of why the direction is “wrong.”  A City Attorney declares, “I am very alarmed by what appears to be a dramatic decrease in reported crimes involving our most vulnerable.” Both men presume that trapped victims are unable to reach out even though email, texting, and cell phones make communication easier than ever before.

The Denver Channel states, “In March, Denver Police reports show a decrease in calls for domestic violence compared to last year during the same month but in Aurora, Gateway Domestic Violence Services saw an increase in calls from March 19-25, 2020 compared to the previous week.” Why would it be easier for a victim to call Gateway than a police line? People know 911; how many have memorized the Gateway number? The report merely highlights conflicting accounts, both of which may be accurate.

The Chicago Tribune weighs in with an article entitled, “Why a drop in domestic violence reports might not be a good sign.” NewportRI runs the headline “Newport County hasn’t seen uptick in reported domestic violence incidents during coronavirus pandemic,” and it follows with the statement “but it’s important to note the data doesn’t tell the whole story.” The Iowa Capital Dispatch declares, “The Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence has not seen a huge growth in calls to its statewide hotline, according to spokeswoman Lindsay Pingel. But it is anticipating an increase.”

News stories are becoming opinion and advocacy pieces. Typically, they present a truly wrenching story of DV; police and other statistics are mentioned; even data that shows a decrease, however, is construed as proof of an increase and is used to call for more government support, more intervention. Sometimes unsubstantiated “data” is thrown into the mix. On April 5, for example, the New Mexico Political Report asserted: “Last week, domestic violence incidents in Bernalillo County reportedly jumped 78 percent.” When the EndtoDV organization attempted to verify this alarming statistic, County Undersheriff Larry Koren could not “confirm anything resembling these numbers.”

No one knows the real rate of DV under COVID-19, and some indications point to a definite rise. Rates of DV naturally fluctuate over time and geography, however, with peaks generally occurring in Spring when the preceding figures were collected.

As a woman who has experienced severe DV, it is difficult not to react viscerally and urgently to cries for help. But people need to pause and assess whether the call is justified before rushing toward solutions that impact the lives of others; false solutions harm real victims and those accused, as well as their families. The first priority must be a respect for evidence over assumptions, for truth over advocacy. All approaches to this sensitive, explosive issue must start with what is real.

About Wendy McElroy
Wendy McElroy is an individualist anarchist and individualist feminist who has written or edited over a dozen books, scripted dozens of produced documentaries, worked as a writer for FOX News for 5 years and published in periodicals ranging from Penthouse to The Hill.
Categories
Immigration Violence Against Women Act

The Radical Agenda Being Pursued Under the Violence Against Women Act

Letter of Solidarity from the Immigrant Justice Movement

JUNE 4TH, 2020

The Tahirih Justice Center joined more than 400 immigrant justice organizations and ally groups to express our solidarity with Black communities. Read the full text of the letter below:

 

Breonna Taylor. Ahmaud Arbery. Tony McDade. George Floyd. Yassin Mohamed. Finan Berhe. Across the country, people of conscience are saying ‘Black Lives Matter!’ ‘Enough is Enough!’ in our grief and rage. From Emmett Till to Trayvon Martin to Rodney King, Latasha Harlins to Sandra Bland, we bear witness to the injustice, to the pain and rage of our Black brothers and sisters. For too long, we have lived within a system that perpetuates institutional and direct violence against Black people. We reject this anti-Black violence and demand justice.

White supremacist institutions and the historical criminalization and over-policing of Black communities have led to heavily militarized police forces and a system that uses prison beds as a form of punishment and social control but denies people an opportunity, a job, an education, healthcare, or equal access to thrive. These are the same systems that enable the for-profit incarceration of humans, and trigger discrimination against Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Asian American and Pacific Islander communities.

Historically we have repeatedly seen massive transfers of wealth from communities of color to corporations. In the midst of a global health pandemic, this racialized inequality has only increased – corporations have been given billions of dollars while millions of Americans are not able to have their basic health care and economic needs met. Communities of color are left struggling to pay for food and rent, and in the case of many immigrants, excluded from federal relief packages altogether.

When asked to do more for Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities, state and local governments claim budget shortfalls. Yet they either maintain or increase inflated and unnecessary police budgets. We know that support systems, services, quality housing, and dignified jobs are what keeps our communities safe, not law enforcement. The recent violence directed at protestors has shown that the police state values property over the lives of people they’ve sworn to serve.

In order for resources to be brought back to communities, governments at all levels must divest from harmful institutions such as the prison industrial complex, surveillance, and policing. We call on governments to instead invest these funds in basic needs like quality housing and education, financial and economic support, climate justice, healthcare for all, and mental health support.

As immigrant justice organizations and ally organizations, we commit to:

  • Standing in solidarity with Black communities to demand justice by advocating for their recommendations and solutions.
  • Working to dismantle white supremacy, white nationalism, and the anti-Blackness that permeates our society, including within the immigrant justice movement.
  • Joining the calls to dismantle the police state by defunding and decreasing police budgets.
  • Demanding governments invest in communities by increasing funding for housing, education, healthcare, and other supports.
  • Demanding a COVID-19 recovery and reconstruction that benefits communities, not corporations.
  • Denouncing the use of criminalization and militarization as a response to people’s pain and people demanding more change.
  • Rejecting the “national security” frame and redefining “public safety” so that it truly means communities — including Black communities — are free to live without fear of being killed.

Just as COVID-19 has taught us that we are interconnected, our collective well-being depends on all of us being healthy and safe, not criminalized and dehumanized. We grieve with our Black neighbors and are committed to building a country where Black Lives Matter.

Click here to for the full list Immigrant Justice Organizations and Ally Organizations who signed on.

Source: https://www.tahirih.org/news/letter-of-solidarity/

Categories
Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Victims Violence Against Women Act

HEROES Coronavirus Bill is Chock-Full of Domestic Violence Provisions

The coronavirus relief bill, the HEROES Act, HR 6800, was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill proposes $3 trillion (with a ‘T’) in new federal expenditures.

There is little evidence that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence cases. Nonetheless, the HEROES Act bill contains numerous domestic violence and sexual assault provisions that would increase spending by $170 million. Many of the provisions are budget-focused, while others would mandate policy changes in existing programs.

These provisions are listed below.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Office On Violence Against Women

Violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

For an additional amount for “Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs”, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which—

(1) $30,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against women, as authorized by part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts of 1968;

(2) $15,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault, as authorized by section 40299 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322; “1994 Act”);

(3) $15,000,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance, as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;

(4) $10,000,000 is for rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act;

(5) $10,000,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as authorized by section 1201 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–386; “2000 Act”);

(6) $4,000,000 is for grants to assist tribal governments in exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, as authorized by section 904 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013; and

(7) $16,000,000 is for grants to support families in the justice system, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act:

Indian Health Service

(4) $20,000,000 shall be used to address the needs of domestic violence victims and homeless individuals and families;

Children and Families Services Programs

(1) $50,000,000 for Family Violence Prevention and Services grants as authorized by section 303(a) and 303(b) of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act with such funds available to grantees without regard to matching requirements under section 306(c)(4) of such Act, of which $2,000,000 shall be for the National Domestic Violence Hotline:

Community Planning And Development

That funds made available under this heading in this Act and under this heading in title XII of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) may be used for eligible activities the Secretary determines to be critical in order to assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking or to assist homeless youth, age 24 and under:

Public And Indian Housing

$1,000,000,000 shall be used for incremental rental voucher assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for use by individuals and families who are—homeless, as defined under section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a)); at risk of homelessness, as defined under section 401(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(1)); or fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking:

SEC. 40306. GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME WOMEN AND SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN OBTAINING QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS.

(a) Authorization Of Grant Awards.—The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Director of the Women’s Bureau and in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to enable such entities to assist low-income women and survivors of domestic violence in obtaining qualified domestic relations orders and ensuring that those women actually obtain the benefits to which they are entitled through those orders.

(b) Definition Of Eligible Entity.—In this section, the term “eligible entity” means a community-based organization with proven experience and expertise in serving women and the financial and retirement needs of women.

(c) Application.—An eligible entity that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.

(d) Minimum Grant Amount.—The Secretary of Labor shall award grants under this section in amounts of not less than $250,000.

(e) Use Of Funds.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to develop programs to offer help to low-income women or survivors of domestic violence who need assistance in preparing, obtaining, and effectuating a qualified domestic relations order.

EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE VOUCHER PROGRAM

DATORY PREFERENCES.—Each public housing agency administering assistance under this section shall provide preference for such assistance to eligible families that are—

(i) homeless (as such term is defined in section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a));

(ii) at risk of homelessness (as such term is defined in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360); or

(iii) fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

TITLE I—PROVISIONS RELATING TO STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS

(5) ESSENTIAL WORK.—The term “essential work” means any work that—

(A) is performed during the period that begins on January 27, 2020 and ends 60 days after the last day of the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency;

(B) is not performed while teleworking from a residence;

(C) involves—

(i) regular in-person interactions with—

(I) patients;

(II) the public; or

(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; or

(ii) regular physical handling of items that were handled by, or are to be handled by—

(I) patients;

(II) the public; or

(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; and

(D) is in any of the following areas:

(i) First responder work, in the public sector or private sector, including services in response to emergencies that have the potential to cause death or serious bodily injury, such as police, fire, emergency medical, protective, child maltreatment, domestic violence, and correctional services (including activities carried out by employees in fire protection activities, as defined in section 3(y) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(y)) and activities of law enforcement officers, as defined in section 1204(6) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(6)).

(xi) Social services work, including social work, case management, social and human services, child welfare, family services, shelter and services for people who have experienced intimate partner violence or sexual assault, services for individuals who are homeless, child services, community food and housing services, and other emergency social services.

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Open Letter to Sen. Joni Ernst Regarding Her VAWA-Coronavirus Letter

Dear Senator Ernst:

I recently donated $50 toward your re-election campaign, so I was especially disappointed that you co-signed the letter demanding that coronavirus bills provide funding for Violence Against Women Act programs: https://www.ernst.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/e899e13a-b415-45b9-a099-bb36394d7a52/76B673E37BDB48B336800CA110FDC429.final-letter-on-domestic-violence-programs-at-doj.pdf

 

VAWA is a biased and unproductive program that Joe Biden pushed through while specifically excluding testimony from researchers. After all, the scientific research has consistently found for over 40 years that women initiate domestic violence as often as men — https://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm — (and that children are as harmed watching mom hit dad as they are watching dad hit mom)! Senator Ernst, I am referring to thousands of scientific studies!

 

On the other hand, the statistics being bandied about to push this windfall to the domestic violence industry (much of whose corruption and ineffectiveness has been revealed in government audits) are not based on scientific research.

 

The dirty little secret of the domestic violence industry is that domestic violence within lesbian couples is as high as within heterosexual couples. But, for financial gain and because there is no man to blame, this research is not very well known. Indeed, one woman came to me for help because her female abuser was a high official in her local shelter.

 

This industry is exploiting the coronavirus for another windfall by cherry-picking areas where domestic violence is increasing (while omitting the greater number of jurisdictions where the level has either decreased or remained the same. By “another windfall” I am referring to their practice of piggybacking on events and conning well-intentioned agencies and corporations out of millions of dollars — for example their hoax about Super Bowl Sunday being the most dangerous day for American women, a hoax that was exposed by the Washington Post only after they had shaken down the NFL for millions of dollars.

 

Please, see some alternative sources of information such as:

http://endtodv.org/pr/hoax-alarming-claims-of-domestic-violence-spike-cannot-be-verified/ and

http://endtodv.org/pr/tone-deaf-senators-urge-413-million-for-partner-abuse-programs-imperiling-prompt-passage-of-coronavirus-bill/

 

Sincerely,

Fredric Hayward

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: 10 Facts Reveal this Law Has Lost its Bearings

There is a growing sense among Republicans and Democrats alike that the various bills to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act – H.R. 1585, S. 2843, and S. 2920 – have lost their focus and ignored important scientific findings, thereby shortchanging the victims of domestic violence.

These are the 10 reasons for the concerns:

  1. Does not address root causes: It is generally recognized that substance abuse, marital conflict, and mental health problems are the reasons for domestic violence.[1] But VAWA doesn’t say a word about these causes.
  2. No evidence of effectiveness: Persons agree there is no evidence that VAWA-funded programs have reduced the rates of domestic violence.[2] According to DOJ’s Angela Moore Parmley, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence.”
  3. Congressional findings: Effective legislation rests on good data and timely research. But none of the three VAWA bills contain any Congressional findings. Are we supposed to just accept the recommended changes on faith?
  4. More funding for a dwindling problem: Domestic violence rates have fallen by half in recent years. In 2011, the CDC reported annual rates of 6.5% for male victims and 6.3% for female victims.[3] Seven years later, the CDC reported these numbers: 3.8% for male victims and 2.9% for female victims (4). Despite these improvements, all three Congressional bills propose funding increases.
  5. Neglect of male victims: Male victims of domestic violence now outnumber female victims, according to the CDC.[4] But none of the bills being considered in Congress reveal an awareness of this fact.
  6. Immigration injustice: The current VAWA law allows a foreign national to claim he or she is a victim of domestic violence. But VAWA does not grant the American citizen legal standing to refute the accusation.
  7. Too much, or too little criminal justice intervention: There is no agreement whether to ratchet up, or ratchet down the role of the criminal justice system in addressing domestic violence.
  8. Rampant waste, fraud, and financial abuse: Department of Justice audits found that 34 out of 47 recipients of VAWA funds – 72.3% — were found to be “Generally Non-Compliant.”[5] Which means money intended to help victims is being siphoned away. But none of the three VAWA bills address this problem.
  9. Constitutional protections: VAWA has been found to be contributing to numerous Constitutional violations.[6] Why is this chronic problem being ignored?
  10. Every person a victim: All 3 VAWA bills contain this language: “A pattern of behavior including the use or attempted use of…verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse.” Which means essentially every American could claim to be a victim of domestic violence. Is that what’s intended?

Maybe it’s time for a Fresh Start?

 

Citations:

[1]https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

[2] http://endtodv.org/fresh-start/lack-of-effectiveness/

[3]http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

[4] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf , Tables 9 and 11.

[5] http://endtodv.org/pr-violence-against-women-act-7-out-of-10-grant-recipients-flunk-audits/

[6] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/SAVE-Assault-Civil-Rights.pdf