Domestic Violence Special Report

Continued Culture of Corruption at Domestic Abuse Shelters

Continued ‘Culture of Corruption’ at Domestic Abuse Shelters

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

March 27, 2024

Over the past 25 years, abuse shelter managers have engaged in numerous instances of fiscal mismanagement and embezzlement. The CEDV report, Accountability and Oversight of Federally-Funded
Domestic Violence Programs, documents 16 instances of fraud from 1998 to 2020.

Such fraudulent activities have continued to the present time, as revealed by these seven cases:

Bookkeeper for domestic violence shelter pleads guilty in $300,000 embezzlement scheme

March 26, 2024

A woman pleaded guilty Tuesday in Tulsa federal court to tax evasion and bank fraud linked to the embezzlement of nearly $300,000 from a now-closed Bartlesville domestic violence shelter.

Ex-CEO of Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence arrested

September 20, 2023

Tiffany Carr and others are accused of padding the books at the defunct taxpayer-funded organization to compensate themselves.

Nuns accuse domestic violence shelter boss of spending facility’s cash on pricey dinners, luxe shopping sprees

July 29, 2023

The former director of an embattled Hells Kitchen domestic violence shelter spent the facility’s cash on pricey dinners and luxe shopping sprees, according to court papers.

At least $60,000 has gone missing under Deborah Pollock’s watch, claim the Franciscan Sisters of Allegany, who opened the Dwelling Place in 1977 — but were hauled into court last week after they abruptly shuttered the facility.

Former Executive Director of Nonprofit Receiving Grant Funds Charged with Grand Theft and Falsification of Records

June 23, 2023

On June 22, 2023, the former Executive Director of a nonprofit organization called the Riverside County Coalition for Alternatives to Domestic Violence (ADV) that receives federal grant funds in Riverside, California, was charged following an amended criminal Complaint with three counts of grand theft and one count of falsification of records.

Bookkeeper theft prompts changes at Oasis Safe Haven

February 4, 2023

Lake Charles, LA (KPLC) – Oasis Safe Haven provides shelter for women who have been abused and need to get out of danger. It’s been a favorite for those wishing to donate to a worthy cause.  …

Boudreaux pleaded guilty to theft over $25,000, but investigators concluded the theft was closer to $200,000.

Former bookkeeper of federally funded domestic violence shelter sentenced to prison for misusing shelter funds on personal expenses

September 28, 2022

CINCINNATI – The former bookkeeper of My Sister’s House, a now-shuttered domestic violence shelter in Washington Court House, Ohio, was sentenced in U.S. District Court today to 12 months in prison for crimes related to stealing funds from the shelter.  [employee stole more than $50,000]

Non-Profit Ceo Sentenced to Two Years in Federal Prison After Pleading Guilty to Wire Fraud in Connection with the Misuse of Federal Funds Intended for the Treatment of Survivors of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault

October 26, 2021

GreenbeltMaryland – U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis sentenced Glenda Hodges, age 72, of Clinton, Maryland, yesterday to two years in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised release, after Hodges pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud, in connection with the misuse of federal funds, and other fraud related to non-profit and for-profit entities that Hodges operated, and additional fraud committed while Hodges was on pretrial release for the wire fraud charges.

Culture of Corruption

There’s nothing new about these actions. Domestic violence advocates have engaged in fraudulent behavior for years. In 1993, for example, they promoted a story that “domestic violence spikes on Super Bowl Sunday.” However, when scholars tried to find the source for this claim, they discovered the claim was simply made-up.


Feminism Gender Agenda

Financing a gender justice infrastructure

Financing a Gender Justice Infrastructure to Counter Anti-Gender Ideology and Anti-Rights Movements


March 25, 2024

On March 19, 2024 the Ford Foundation, along with Global Philanthropy Project and the Institute of Development Studies, sponsored a parallel event to the 68th session of UN Commission on  the Status of Women conference in New York City. Titled “Financing a Gender Justice Infrastructure to Counter Anti-Gender Ideology and Anti-Rights Movements,” the event consisted of six presentations.

During the presentations, presenters and participants repeatedly stated, “I am full of rage” and “I’m raging.” Summaries of these presentations are shown below.

Argentinian President Milei’s Anti-Feminism Speech

Presenter: Angelika Arutyunova-

Co-Founder, CEECCNA Collaborative Fund

President Milei’s speech against feminism stirred considerable controversy within feminist circles. Many feminists argue that Milei’s rhetoric undermines decades of progress in gender equality and women’s rights. They view feminism not as a threat but as a crucial movement advocating for the rights and empowerment of women and marginalized genders.

Milei’s stance is seen as reflective of deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes that seek to maintain traditional power structures and perpetuate gender-based discrimination. Feminists emphasize the importance of challenging such rhetoric and continuing to push for policies and social norms that promote gender equality and justice.

President Nayib Bukele’s Banishment of Gender Ideology

Presenter: Angelika Arutyunova

Co-Founder, CEECCNA Collaborative Fund

El Salvador president Bukele’s efforts to banish gender ideology in his country have sparked significant concern among feminists and LGBTQ+ rights advocates. They argue that Bukele’s actions not only erase the identities and experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals, but also perpetuate harmful stereotypes and discrimination. Feminists believe that gender ideology serves as a framework for understanding and addressing the complexities of gender, including issues of discrimination, violence, and social inequality.

By dismissing gender ideology, Bukele’s government risks exacerbating existing disparities and marginalizing already vulnerable communities. Feminists advocate for policies that recognize and affirm diverse gender identities and experiences, promoting inclusivity and equality for all individuals.

Collaboration between Feminists and Transsexuals

Presenter: Chivuli Ukwimi – Feminists and Transexuals Union

Deputy Director, International Trans Fund (ITF)

The discussion on collaboration between feminists and transsexuals underscored the importance of solidarity and mutual support within the broader gender justice movement. Feminists recognize the intersecting oppressions faced by transgender and gender non-conforming individuals and emphasize the need for inclusive activism that addresses the diverse needs and experiences of all gender minorities. Building alliances between feminists and transsexuals involves advocating for policies and initiatives that advance the rights and well-being of transgender individuals, including access to healthcare, legal recognition, and protection from discrimination.

Feminists aim to create spaces that are welcoming and affirming of all gender identities, fostering a sense of belonging and collective resistance against gender-based oppression.

Study on Anti-Gender Campaigns in Burkina Faso, Ghana, and Senegal

Presenter: Caroline Kouassiaman 

Executive Director – Initiative Sankofa d’Afrique de l’Ouest (ISDAO)

The presenter’s study sheds light on the detrimental impact of anti-gender campaigns in West Africa, highlighting the challenges faced by gender activists in combating misinformation and promoting gender equality. Feminists view these campaigns as a deliberate attempt to undermine progress towards gender justice by spreading fear and misinformation and reinforcing traditional gender norms. They emphasize the importance of countering such narratives with evidence-based education and advocacy efforts that challenge stereotypes and promote gender equality as a fundamental human right.

Feminists work to amplify the voices of local activists and communities affected by anti-gender campaigns, supporting grassroots initiatives that empower individuals to challenge harmful ideologies and advocate for gender-inclusive policies and practices.

Role of Technology in Gender Activism

Presenter: Jac sm Kee

Co-funder and Cartographer, Numun Fund

The discussion on the role of technology highlighted both its potential as a tool for advancing gender equality and its pitfalls, including issues of harassment and the spread of misinformation. Feminists recognize the power of technology in amplifying marginalized voices, organizing grassroots movements, and raising awareness about gender-based issues. However, they also acknowledge the need to address digital harassment and online abuse, which disproportionately target women and gender minorities.

Feminists advocate for platforms and policies that promote online safety and combat cyberbullying, recognizing the interconnectedness of digital and offline forms of violence against women. They work to harness the transformative potential of technology while challenging its negative impacts on gender equality and women’s rights.

Considerations on Funding for UN Women and Advocacy Groups

Presenters: All above persons

The discussion surrounding potential cuts in funding for UN Women and related advocacy groups reflects broader shifts in philanthropic priorities and funding allocations. Feminists expressed concern about the implications of reduced funding for gender equality initiatives, particularly at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing gender disparities and heightened the need for targeted interventions. They emphasized the importance of sustained investment in organizations that work to advance gender equality, including UN Women, grassroots women’s groups, and feminist-led initiatives.

Feminists advocate for donor strategies that prioritize long-term sustainability, flexibility, and responsiveness to the evolving needs of women and gender minorities worldwide, ensuring that resources are directed towards effective, rights-based approaches to achieving gender justice.

During the two-hour event, there were no questions posed, only expressions of support for the topics under discussion and the prevailing atmosphere of anger.


Department of Education Gender Agenda Gender Identity Press Release Title IX

As Donald Trump Calls for Abolition of Dept. of Education, Transgender Advocates Face Major Setbacks


Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335


As Donald Trump Calls for Abolition of Dept. of Education, Transgender Advocates Face Major Setbacks

WASHINGTON / March 20, 2024 – In his recent address to the National Religious Broadcasters’ International Christian Media convention, presumptive Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced his intention to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. “We’re going to end the so-called Department of Education. We might have one desk, one person, just to make sure everyone is speaking English,” Trump announced during his keynote speech (1).

Much of the controversy stems from the Department of Education’s plan to issue a new policy that redefines sex to include “gender identity.” Such a change would give a boost to controversial initiatives to allow children to change their gender without parental permission (2).

Transgender advocates have seen a series of major setbacks in the past three weeks:

  1. Indiana Ban: On February 27, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision to allow Indiana’s SB 480 to go into effect. The law prohibits physicians from providing “Gender Affirming Medical Care” for minors (3).
  2. WPATH Files: On March 4, leaked files from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health (WPATH) revealed that the organization removed minimum-age requirements for children to start puberty blockers or undergoing sexual-modification surgeries, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along (4).
  3. Health Plan Coverage: On March 4, a federal judge in North Dakota ruled that the Christian Employers Alliance could not be mandated to offer health insurance coverage for gender transition treatments (5).
  4. Suicide Attempts: On March 11, a California study revealed that men who undergo a vaginoplasty procedure to become a transgender female experience an attempted suicide rate that is double their pre-procedure suicide attempt rate (6).
  5. NCAA Lawsuit: On March 14, the Independent Council on Women’s Sports filed a highly publicized lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletics Association for allowing transgender athletes to compete against women and use female locker rooms (7).

To date, 22 states have banned gender transition treatments for minors (8): AL, AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, LA, MS, MT, NE, NC, ND, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, and WV.

In support of these developments, SAVE is inviting candidates for political office to sign the “Candidate Pledge to Protect Schools, Children, and Families from the Federal Title IX Plan.” The Pledge states,

When elected to office, I pledge to work to assure that:

  1. Schools and other organizations shall utilize the traditional binary definition of “sex.”
  2. Schools shall obtain prior consent from parents for any use of gender pronouns, or gender-dysphoria counseling or treatments.
  3. Parents shall have the right to examine and opt their children out of any school curricula dealing with sexuality and gender identity.
  4. Schools shall only allow biological females to participate in women’s sports, enter women’s locker rooms, and use women’s bathrooms.
  5. Schools shall adhere to Constitutional due process procedures to protect falsely accused males from Title IX complaints.
  6. Schools and other institutions shall fully uphold Constitutional free speech guarantees.

The Candidate Pledge can be viewed online (9).  To date, 68 lawmakers from 20 states have signed the statement (10). Candidates can indicate their support for the Pledge by sending a confirmatory email to:


Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Department of Education Legal Office for Civil Rights Press Release Scholarships Sex Stereotyping Sexual Assault Title IX

DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men


Rebecca Hain: 513-479-3335


DEI Programs Must be Eliminated to Reverse Declining Numbers of College Men

WASHINGTON / March 11, 2024 – A shocking new report was issued last week that documents 12 areas in which globally, men and boys are lagging behind women (1). These areas include education, health, homelessness, unfair treatment by the legal system, and more. In American colleges, for example, men now comprise only 42% of all undergraduate students (2).

Observers implicate a climate of anti-male hostility at college campuses (3), which can be traced to several developments in recent decades:

  1. In 1979, the Department of Education issued a new Title IX policy on women’s sports that served to eliminate many male sports teams (4).
  2. In 2011, the Obama Administration’s Dear Colleague Letter served to stereotype men as sexual predators (5). (Ironically, the Centers for Disease Control reports that men are victims of sexual assault by females nearly as often as women who are victims of rape (6)).
  3. A growing number of women’s studies programs that promote Marxist-inspired theories of “patriarchal oppression” (7).
  4. Hundreds of universities sponsor female-only scholarships and leadership programs (8).

Adding to the onslaught, colleges began to develop “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) programs in the latter part of the 2010s that granted preferences to Blacks and women. Among the 10 most highly paid DEI administrators at Ohio State University, for example, nine were female (9).

Viewing DEI programs as a “mortal threat to the American way of life” (10), nine states already have enacted laws to rein in DEI programs: Florida, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah (11). These laws seek to prohibit colleges from having DEI offices or staff, ban mandatory diversity training, forbid the use of diversity statements in hiring and promotions, and bar colleges from considering race, sex, or national origin in admissions or employment (12).

These efforts were given a boost last June by the Supreme Court decision against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, in which the SCOTUS ruled that considering a student’s race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (13).

In theory, DEI programs and Title IX have opposite goals. While DEI seeks to afford preferences to women, Title IX seeks to end sex discrimination against men.

But in practice, the DEI mindset has infiltrated many Title IX offices. For example, the Association of Title IX Administrators, known as ATIXA, sponsored a conference on “True Equity at the Intersection of Title IX and DEI” (14). In its list of groups affected by “Inequitable Practices,” the program lists Students of Color, LGBTQIA+, and Women. But the fact that beleaguered men are facing an increasingly hostile environment somehow escaped the notice of ATIXA.

As a result, we are seeing cases like the Title IX investigator at the University of Maryland who endorsed a sexist Facebook quote by William Golding that said, “I think women are foolish to pretend they are equal to men, they are far superior and always have been” (15).

If lawmakers want to assure the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not relegated to the dustbin of history, they need to move swiftly to ban Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs at colleges in their state.


Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Due Process Legal Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Title IX

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

The Due Process Provisions of the 2020 Title IX Regulations Were Successful. We Should Fight to Keep Them.

Jonathan Taylor, Founder, Title IX for All

March 1, 2024

The Title IX regulations that went into effect in August of 2020 were critically necessary. Before their implementation, schools too often punished and expelled students accused of misconduct (sexual harassment, assault, stalking, and so forth) in what were little more than sham proceedings. Wrongly punished students found their education prospects shattered, their careers derailed, and their reputations destroyed. Some students were punished despite not being found responsible for any misconduct. Some even committed suicide.

Among other provisions, the 2020 regulations required schools to provide accused students with meaningful notice of the accusation, meaningful access to evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the evidence. Those critical protections are now threatened by a regulatory rewrite spearheaded by the Biden administration.

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget is currently accepting meetings from the public regarding this rewrite. Advocates and concerned citizens should consider this an opportunity to make their voices heard and to push back on attempts by the Biden administration to roll back due process. To do this, it may help to draw attention to indicators that the regulations have been successful. Below are several arguments that the due process protections have been successful and should remain.

1. Trends in Lawsuits by Accused Students Reflect the Need for Due Process

The graph above shows the trend in annual filings of lawsuits by students accused of Title IX violations in state and federal courts since 2011.[1] This trend is highly consistent with changes to Title IX guidance and regulation. Simply put, the fewer the rights afforded accused students and the weaker the emphasis on due process by the current presidential administration, the more lawsuits by accused students we see. The reverse is also true.

In 2011, the Department of Education issued guidance (the “Dear Colleague” letter) for schools to investigate Title IX complaints more rigorously. The Department also threatened to revoke funding from schools that failed to comply and initiated highly visible investigations that named and shamed many of them. Afraid of lawsuits, federal investigations, and bad press, schools rushed to comply – and soon overcorrected. As you can see in the graph, that overcorrection was the genesis of the litigation movement for accused students. Lawsuits trickled in at first, gained a foothold in 2014 and 2015, and then spiked, reaching their peak in 2017 and 2018.

In September 2017, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos rescinded the Department of Education’s 2011 guidance letter and announced an imminent rulemaking process to further flesh out schools’ liabilities and the balance of rights between complainants and respondents in school grievance procedures. The Department issued a draft of the new regulations in November 2018 and published the final rule in May 2020. The rule went into effect on August 14, 2020.

DeVos’ rescinding the Dear Colleague letter and announcing a new rulemaking procedure made it clear that the era of federal complicity (if not encouragement) for schools to systematically railroad accused students was over. Consistent with this new era of due process, annual filings of lawsuits have declined by twenty or more since 2018. By 2023, lawsuits had declined by sixty percent from their peak: from 126 in 2018 to around 50 in 2013. This indicates that the regulations are having the intended effect: despite troublesome hotspots remaining, schools have, in many cases, made efforts to comply.

The decline stopped in 2022, however. That is no accident; it occurred a year after the Biden administration announced a plan to undo much of the due process protections afforded by the 2020 regulations. While 2024 has just begun, at least seven lawsuits have been filed by accused students as of mid-February. If recent trends continue, we will likely see at least as many lawsuits in 2024 as we did in 2023 – and likely more.

2. The 2020 Regulations Have Consistently Withstood Legal Challenges

Five legal challenges have been made against the regulations in federal court. All have failed to overturn them. While two failed simply because the plaintiffs lacked standing, others failed on the merits of their claims. The five lawsuits are:

  1. Victim Rights Law Center v. DeVos

This lawsuit failed to overturn the 2020 regulations by arguing it was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and discriminates against women. It was, however, successful in overturning a narrow provision[2] that required schools to not rely on statements that were not subject to cross-examination when making their determinations.

2. The Women’s Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education

This case was initially dismissed for lack of standing. WSU – a feminist student association – argued the 2020 regulations would “frustrate its mission” to assist complainants. The court held otherwise: that such a group “may not establish injury by engaging in activities that it would normally pursue as part of its organizational mission. WSU appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit which then stayed the case pending the completion of the Biden administration’s rulemaking process.

3. State of New York v. U.S. Department of Education

Brought by the New York Attorney General’s office, this lawsuit sought an injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect. It failed on every factor upon which injunctive relief is decided: the likelihood they would succeed on the merits of their claims, whether they or students would suffer irreparable harm, the balance of equities (“harms”) between the parties if the injunction did or did not go into effect, and the public interest. The State of New York then withdrew the lawsuit.

4. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DeVos

A coalition of state Attorneys General brought this lawsuit to postpone the effective date of the rule, declare it unlawful, vacate it, or enjoin the Department of Education from applying and enforcing it. The motion to postpone the rule failed. The rest of the proceedings have been stayed.

5. Know Your IX et al v. DeVos

Similar to the WSU case, Know Your IX and similar organizations argued that the 2020 rule “frustrates its mission” to assist and advocate for complainants in Title IX proceedings. Judge Bennett disagreed and dismissed the case.

3. Schools Have Continuously Exhibited a Desire to Deny Due Process

The due process protections provided by the 2020 Title IX rule had one “clever workaround” for schools: they did not apply to allegations of misconduct occurring off-campus and outside an educational program or activity.[3] Schools could, however, still investigate and punish students under a “non-Title IX” policy that lacked those protections.

Advocates for complainants believed that schools would use this as an excuse to forgo investigating such alleged misconduct at all since there was now no federal requirement to do so. The reality, however, is that Title IX bureaucracy tends to be staffed by what some have called the “sex police”: bureaucrats who regard it as their mission to root out any kind of potentially offensive behavior and continuously seek reasons to expand their reach rather than retract it. Lawsuits by accused students have shown this is the case. Starting in 2021, they brought a new batch of lawsuits arguing schools were erroneously applying “non-Title IX” policies[4] as an excuse to railroad them out of campus.

The Biden administration seeks to expand the requirements of Title IX so that schools must investigate off-campus activity but without the due process protections that would curb some of the worst impulses of the sex police.

4. The 2020 Regulations Have Forced Their Opponents to Inadvertently Defend Them

Opponents of due process often argue that such protections would make school grievance procedures “too quasi-judicial” or “too court-like.” This argument is not sincere, as such groups have demanded that courts and schools recognize and treat grievance procedures as quasi-judicial and court-like when it benefits accusers.

While many examples of this exist, perhaps the most blatant recent example comes from the lawsuit Khan v. Yale in which an accused student also sued his accuser Jane Doe for defamation. Jane Doe argued that even if her statements against Khan were deliberately false and malicious, she was nonetheless entitled to immunity from a defamation lawsuit because her statements were made in the context of a quasi-judicial proceeding. In 2022, fifteen powerful advocacy groups filed an amicus brief supporting Doe’s argument – including those who opposed the 2020 regulations for being too quasi-judicial.

But as Connecticut Supreme Court held, Yale’s investigation and punishment of Khan occurred before the 2020 regulations went into effect and hence lacked virtually all the key safeguards that would establish the proceedings as quasi-judicial and entitle Jane Doe to immunity.

Other Arguments and Conclusion

Although there are numerous indicators that the 2020 regulations have been successful, these are four particularly noteworthy ones. Other potential supporting arguments could be that:

  1. Litigation costs for universities will skyrocket if accused students are again routinely railroaded off campus, and that
  2. The due process protections of the 2020 regulations have disincentivized false reporting and sham proceedings, which in turn bolsters the integrity of Title IX grievance procedures and allows school resources to be distributed more effectively.

Advocacy opportunities are often time sensitive; once they are gone, they are gone. This advocacy window is still open. Please go to the Office for Management and Budget website and register a meeting to make your voice heard.


[1] See the Title IX Lawsuits Database for a full listing of these lawsuits.

[2] Section 106.45(b)(6)(i)

[3] Section 106.45(b)(3)(i)

[4] Examples include Doe v. Rutgers and Doe I v. SUNY-Buffalo.