TABLE OF CONTENTS
GOVERNOR'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTION GROUP
LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROLOGUE
INTRODUCTION
HOW FAR WE’VE COME; HOW FAR WE HAVE TO GO
BARRIERS TO PROGRESS
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR EVERY CITIZEN
In Our Homes. . .
In Our Communities . . .
In Our Workplaces . . .
In the Media . . .
COORDINATION AMONG SYSTEMS
FOR THE JUSTICE SYSTEM
FOR THE SOCIAL SERVICE SYSTEM
CONCLUSION
GOVERNOR'S DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACTION GROUP
CHAIR
The Honorable Helen Halpert
Presiding Judge
Seattle Municipal Court
MEMBERS
David Boerner
Associate Professor of Law,
Seattle University School of Law
Jeannie Bryant
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
Clark County
Regina LaBelle
President, Northwest Women’s Law Center
Carlos Olivares
Executive Director, Yakima Valley Farmworkers Clinic
Rebecca Roe
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender
Kathryn Shore
Department of Health
Governor’s Interagency Committee of State Employed Women
Nan Stoops
Associate Director,
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Dr. Sue Tomita
Haborview Medical Center
Dr. Carolyn M. West
Assistant Professor of Psychology,
University of Washington, Tacoma
Interdisciplinary Arts & Sciences
Sue Wilkes
Executive Director, Refugee Women’s Alliance
Colleen Wilson
Chief of Police, City of Monroe
STAFF
Pam Dekay
Phil Jordan
Jill Severn
Dick Van Wagenen
Cathy Wiggins
The Municipal Court of Seattle
Helen L. Halpert Judge
Public Safety Building, Room 1100
Seattle, WA
October 29, 1999
The Honorable Gary Locke
Legislative Building
Olympia, Washington 98504-0002
Re: Governor's Action Group on Domestic Violence Final Report
Dear Governor Locke:
I am pleased to transmit to you the report of the Domestic Violence Action
Group. Since you appointed us in June, we have met eight times, attended the
meetings of other groups working on related issues, and have held sub-committee
meetings to research and develop recommendations in specialized areas.
As you requested, we began with a thorough review of the Linda David case,
and our recommendations flow, in large measure, from your instruction to look
for ways to prevent others from suffering as she did. We are confident that
the implementation of our recommendations would dramatically reduce the likelihood
of such an incident occurring again.
There are three aspects of our research, and the recommendations that flow
from it, that we would like to emphasize. First, we concluded that the most
urgent need in this field is to focus more time and resources on preventing
domestic violence. Government plays a vital role in providing services
to victims and in prosecuting perpetrators. However, the government response
is often an after-incident response. A coordinated, community-wide effort
is needed to instill the values and norms of behavior that will prevent the
occurrence of future acts of domestic violence.
Second, we believe that it is essential that a state domestic violence coordinating
council be appointed by you in order to both implement the recommendations
of the Action Group and to continue to serve the coordinating function that
we informally have served over the past few months. Because the Action Group
members came from a variety of disciplines and from a number of different
communities, our discussions were particularly fruitful and wide-ranging.
We strongly believe that the citizens of our state would be well served by
the appointment of a coordinating council.
Finally, we found that within the realm of domestic violence, insufficient
attention has been focused on the needs of special populations. Women with
disabilities appear to be the group at highest risk for victimization--yet
this is a group of women who have received very little attention. Immigrant
women, the elderly, sexual minorities and women of color are also slipping
through the net of existing programs. Shelter resources, in general, are stretched
extremely thin. These resources are even scarcer for special populations.
Outside of urban areas, programs intended to meet the needs, of special populations
are virtually non-existent.
Each of us gained much from the experience of working with the other members
of the Group, and we hope that the lessons that we have learned can be of
service to the citizens of Washington in addressing this most serious problem.
On behalf of all of us, I wish to thank you for giving us the opportunity
to serve as members of the Governor's Action Group on Domestic Violence.
Very truly yours,
Executive Summary
In May, 1999, readers of the Seattle Times were shocked to read about
Linda David, who had been rescued on January 31, 1997 from a filthy boat where
her husband, Victor David, allegedly had held her captive and beat her for
ten years or more. During most of that time, Victor David was paid by the
state to take care of her, because she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis
and had chosen him as her caregiver.
The Governor’s Domestic Violence Action Group was convened to examine this
case for lessons we can learn about how to prevent the prolonged suffering
that Linda David endured. While most of the media attention to the Linda David
case focused on blaming government agencies for lack of oversight, the Action
Group cast its net much wider, and examined the larger issues of domestic
violence and violence perpetrated by caregivers against people with disabilities
and the elderly.
The Group found that although there has been substantial progress in prosecuting
domestic violence cases, violence in the home is still an enormous problem.
Since 1990, 247 Washington women have been murdered by their partners or ex-partners.
Last year, there were 14,000 domestic violence convictions in Washington State.
Domestic violence is the leading cause for women’s visits to hospital emergency
rooms.
Violence perpetrated in the home by partners and caregivers against people
with disabilities and the elderly is a growing problem.The population of elderly
is expanding rapidly. More and more elders and people with disabilities are
choosing to live at home rather than go to nursing homes or other licensed
facilities. Their unique vulnerabilities to abuse cannot be dismissed.
Domestic violence and caregiver abuse share a common source: the perceived need
or right to have power and control over another human being.In the heterosexual
spousal model of domestic violence, the abuser’s dominance arises from the conviction
that men should have power and control over women. For those who abuse people
with disabilities and the frail elderly, the abuse arises from the equally barbaric
idea that the physically fit have the right to dominate and exploit the physically
or developmentally vulnerable.
Attitudes change slowly.There is still resistance to the idea of women’s
equality and to the idea that men do not have the right to control and dominate
their wives and girlfriends.This resistance has compromised the effective
implementation of laws against domestic violence. Similarly, there is resistance
to the idea that people with disabilities and the elderly have a right to
self-determination and control of their own lives, and that resistance has
slowed the development of systems that protect those rights.
But attitudes can and do change.In the last 25 years, we have seen dramatic
successes in campaigns to increase the use of seat belts; to decrease the
use of tobacco; and to reduce drunk driving. In each of these cases, attitudes
and behavior changed because there was a sustained commitment of both private
and public resources to make change happen. Citizens organized grassroots
efforts. Business, non-profit groups and media organizations pitched in. And
government was an active partner with them.
This is what it will take to eradicate domestic violence.Prosecution of the
guilty is not enough. We also must also focus on preventing violence
by changing attitudes towards women, people with disabilities, and elders.This
will be difficult, and it will take time. But it is possible to succeed –
if we pull together, and if each of us takes more responsibility for making
change happen in our homes, our neighborhoods, our schools and our workplaces.
The first twelve of the 41 recommendations arrived at by this Group address
the need for greater citizen engagement in preventing domestic violence by
creating a more egalitarian and non-violent culture. Eight recommendations
deal with the need for greater coordination among existing systems that deal
with domestic violence.The remaining recommendations address changes needed
in the justice and social service systems.
Taken together, these recommendations constitute a community-wide strategy
for preventing what happened to Linda David from happening to anyone else.
We hope that their full implementation will help to create a society in which
there is never another battered woman, never another abused elder, and never
another victim of caregiver violence.
In May, 1999, readers of the Seattle Times
were shocked to read about Linda David, who had been rescued on January 31,
1997 from a filthy boat where her husband, Victor David, allegedly had held
her captive and beaten her for ten years or more.At the time of her rescue,
Linda David was covered with filth, had fractures that had healed without medical
attention, and suffered from severe malnutrition. Authorities suspected her
husband of abuse, but more than two years after her rescue, when the Seattle Times first reported on this case,
he had still not been charged with any crime.
For more than ten years prior to her rescue, Linda David – who was diagnosed
with multiple sclerosis – had received federal Supplemental Social Security
Income and a state-funded stipend to pay for her personal care.She designated
her husband as her caregiver.This arrangement meant that Victor David was
paid by the state to take care of her.
Until 1996, state law allowed annual renewal of this arrangement by phone.But
in 1996, at the request of DSHS, the Legislature passed a measure that required
in-person reassessment for continuation of home care services. Caseworkers
then demanded to see Linda David. When Victor David refused to allow anyone
to see her, the benefits were cut off. Victor came to Olympia, and protested
to the Governor’s office and to the Department of Social and Health Services.
Ironically, it was Victor’s vehement protests that drew the attention of state
officials and led to Linda David’s rescue.
This disturbing and tragic story raised a host of questions.Why was a doctor’s
report suggesting that she was being beaten never heeded? Why didn’t DSHS
caseworkers call the police when they first suspected she was being abused?
Why did it take more than two years after her rescue for charges to be filed
against Victor David? Why didn’t Linda David’s family or neighbors check up
on her? Why didn’t anyone intervene on her behalf for such
a terribly long time?
While Washington state Governor Gary Locke wanted to know the answers to
these questions, his most urgent concern was to make sure that no one else
was enduring what Linda David had endured.His first action was to order the
immediate review of 5,000 more cases where the state pays individuals chosen
by people with disabilities to care for them.
The Governor’s longer-term goal is to prevent
what happened to Linda David from ever happening again.He wanted to examine
this case for lessons that can teach us how to make Washington a safer place
for women, and for people with disabilities and elders who rely on others
for their personal care. This is what the Governor’s Domestic Violence Action
Group has tried to do.
The Linda David case was our starting point, and we examined the record of what
happened to her very carefully.We had the full cooperation of every state and
local government agency that came into contact with Linda and Victor David.
Members of the Everett Police Department, the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s
Office, the state Department of Social and Health Services, and the state
Attorney General’s office met with us to help us understand why the system
took so long to rescue Linda David and to prosecute Victor David.
We also heard from a number of other experts.Some were members of our Action
Group; others were invited to supplement the Group’s knowledge. These speakers
discussed current programs that show promise in combating domestic violence
and overcoming the obstacles to progress within state and local government,
police departments, prosecutors’ offices, the courts, and the health care
community. Group members also attended and observed meetings of groups like
Seattle’s POET (Protecting Our Elders Together) network, and held discussions
on specific issues with the Northwest Women’s Law Center.
The Linda David case also raises issues that go beyond the traditional definition
of domestic violence: violence perpetrated by one intimate partner or family
member against another as part of a pattern of behavior that maintains the
perpetrator’s power and control over the victim.What happened to Linda David
was also a case of violence by a caregiver against a person who was particularly
vulnerable because of a disability. So we asked advocates for people with
disabilities and the elderly to talk with us about efforts to protect these
especially vulnerable populations from violent or abusive caregivers. We learned
that this issue needs more attention and will surely grow in importance, as
the number of people with disabilities and the elderly increases and as more
people choose to receive care in their homes rather than go to nursing homes
or other facilities.
We also listened to the concerns of refugee and immigrant women, for whom
cultural isolation and the language barrier can be overwhelming obstacles
to getting the help they need to escape from violence. And we learned about
the special issues affecting women in rural areas, people of color and same-sex
couples. For each of these groups, there is a special sense of isolation,
and therefore a greater difficulty in escaping from abusive relationships.
Finally, we also spent a lot of time talking about how our society as a whole
has dealt with domestic violence.We quickly came to the unanimous conclusion
that domestic violence is not a problem that government alone can solve.
It would have been easy to focus only on government’s role, because government
keeps records, and the actions or inaction of government agencies can therefore
be traced and analyzed.Certainly we all believe that government agencies and
the criminal justice system should be held accountable for doing their jobs.
But to focus on government alone would beg the larger questions that haunted
all of us: Why would any human being do what Victor David is alleged to have
done? What can ordinary citizens do to prevent this kind of abuse, and to
stop it when it does happen? How can we change our culture to reduce or eliminate
domestic violence, and violence against the elderly and the people with disabilities?
Do we expect more of government than it can deliver?
Asking these questions led us to trace the history of domestic violence, to
analyze its causes and motivations, and also to look ahead, and to think about
what actions we must take to create a society in which there is never another
battered woman, never another abused elder, and never another victim of caregiver
violence.
Until the late 19th century, American law did not prohibit men
from beating their wives.The only legal dispute about domestic violence was
how severely women could be beaten, and what weapons could legally be used.
The legality of wife-beating grew out of the expectation that women should
obey their husbands, and that men should dominate and control their wives.The
use of violence to enforce these expectations was unquestioned until the advent
of the women’s rights movement in the middle of the 19th century.
Advocates for women’s equality succeeded in changing the law. They did so
not only because they opposed violence, but because they opposed men’s dominance
over women. Then, as now, male violence against women was one of an array
of behaviors that enforced women’s second-class status and assured men’s power
and control in the family, in the workplace, and in public life.
But while wife-beating became illegal in most states over 100 years ago,
the effective enforcement of laws against domestic violence did not begin
until the more recent women’s rights movement lobbied for and won further
reforms in the late 1970s and 80s.In the century between, most women had nowhere
to turn when they were abused and no expectation that their plight would evoke
the sympathy or the moral outrage that domestic violence engenders today.
In Washington, the Domestic Violence Act of 1979 first made it clear that
assault in the home was a crime equal in seriousness to assault anywhere else.The
1979 act:
- States clearly that domestic violence is a crime, and that enforcing the
law and protecting the victim are of paramount importance; Requires police
training that stresses the criminality of domestic violence and the importance
of enforcing laws against it;
- Requires police to keep complete reports on domestic violence calls and
forward the information to the prosecutor;
- Requires police and prosecutors to keep statistics on domestic violence;
- Prohibits courts from dismissing domestic violence cases because a divorce
is pending, or from requiring victims to file for divorce before starting
a criminal case against a batterer;
- Requires prosecutors to notify victims within five days whether charges
will be filed, and to keep them informed of court actions;
- Authorizes no-contact orders pending trial.
This law was a groundbreaking testament to changes in social attitudes, not
just about domestic violence but also about women’s right to equality within
the family and society.And unlike previous legal reforms against domestic
violence, this law did not sit on a shelf and gather dust.
It was followed in 1984 by the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, which strengthened
both criminal and civil remedies for victims.It outlined specific procedures
for issuance of protection orders for victims, and called for mandatory
arrest of suspected abusers. In 1985, this act was amended to clarify that
police must arrest only the primary aggressor
in domestic violence cases.
Beginning in 1980, Washington state government also began to fund shelters
for women who needed to escape from domestic violence.The state also funded
a domestic violence hotline and a state coalition of advocates for domestic
violence victims and survivors. Taken together, Washington’s tough laws and
network of shelters made our state a national leader in the prosecution of
domestic violence and the protection of its victims.
But these reforms, important as they have been to thousands of women and
their children, have still not afforded adequate protection to all who need
it, nor have they held all abusers accountable for their crimes.There are
still not nearly enough shelter beds to serve all the women who need them.
Refugees, immigrants, women of color, and older women are less likely to use
the law or the shelter network because of language and cultural barriers.
And shelters are often inaccessible for women with disabilities and women
in rural areas.
There is an even larger limitation in the scope and purpose of today’s system
for dealing with domestic violence.This system was created to cope with male
violence against women, which, though it is the predominant form of domestic
violence, is clearly not the only form of victimization of people in their
homes.
Domestic violence and caregiver abuse against people with disabilities and
the frail elderly are against the law.But these types of victimization have
been less discussed, less understood, and less the subject of advocacy and
reform than the violence in the rest of the population.
In the late 19th century, it was not uncommon for people with
disabilities or mental illnesses to be literally locked in the family attic,
and hidden from view.Family members with such conditions had come to be regarded
as a source of shame or embarrassment.
In more recent times, violence and other forms of abuse of people with disabilities
and the elderly were regarded as a natural result of the stress of caring for
them.Sympathy was more likely to be accorded to the caregiver/aggressor than
to the victim.
Until 1970, there was no organized movement of people with disabilities to
advocate for change in this state of affairs.In the last 30 years, advocates
for people with disabilities have had an uphill battle to dismantle the barriers
of prejudice and misconception that prevent people with disabilities from
participating more fully in the lives of their families, their communities,
and their country. In fact, it wasn’t until the 1999 legislative session that
the Adult Protective Service of DSHS was mandated to investigate complaints
of abuse of all disabled adults who are under 60 years old and receiving state-funded
care. Prior to this legislation, the mandate of APS was to investigate suspected
abuse of the elderly, and adults with developmental disabilities, but not
adults with physical disabilities.
Yet recent research shows that women with disabilities are at much greater
risk of abuse by their male partners.And regardless of gender, people with
disabilities and elders who must rely on others for help with the tasks of
daily living are also vulnerable to abuse and financial exploitation by both
family members and caregivers.
The vast majority of people with disabilities and the elderly would much
rather stay in their own homes and communities than live in a nursing home.In
the past few years, there has been a significant movement towards accommodating
this desire. More home-based services are now available; more group homes
have been established, and more adult day care programs have been started.
Nearly all of these services are provided by private contractors rather than
government employees. In many cases, the person with a disability or the frail
elder can choose his or her caregiver.
These new arrangements can be liberating and empowering. But people with
disabilities and the frail elderly may not have the training they need to
effectively supervise the people they hire to care for them. Greater choice
in care arrangements can also create the need for new ways to monitor the
quality of care.
There can be no doubt that people with disabilities and the elderly have
a right to choose how and where they will live and who will care for them.But
there can also be no doubt that society has the same obligation to them that
it does to victims of domestic violence – and that is the obligation to vigorously
prosecute abusers, to afford these citizens full and equal protection of the
law, and to find effective ways to prevent violence and reduce risk and vulnerability.
For people with disabilities and the elderly, the issues of abuse are both
different and the same as they are for victims of domestic violence.The issues
are power and control. In the heterosexual spousal model of domestic violence,
the abuser’s dominance arises from the conviction that men should have power
and control over women.
For those who abuse people with disabilities and the frail elderly, the abuse
arises from the equally barbaric idea that the physically fit have the right
to dominate and exploit the physically or developmentally vulnerable.
If the Linda David case taught us anything, it is that the dramatic progress
we have made still has not been enough – not nearly enough – to protect women,
people with disabilities, and the elderly from the private hell of violence
in the home.
Linda David’s case is not the only one that demonstrates this sad fact.Since
1990, 247 Washington women have been murdered by a current or former intimate
partner. Last year, 14,000 people were convicted of domestic violence in Washington
state. Nationally, the most conservative estimate is that one million women
a year suffer violence by an intimate partner. Others estimate that 3.9 million
women are victimized. Battering tends to be part of a pattern, not a one-time
occurrence. During the six months following an episode of domestic violence,
32% of women report being victimized again.
Domestic violence is the leading cause of visits to hospital emergency rooms
by women.More than half of all homeless women and their children are fleeing
domestic violence, and shelters for battered women cannot accommodate nine
out of ten women who come to them. Every year, 3.3 million children witness
violence against their mothers, and between 40% and 60% of the men who abuse
women also abuse their children.
There is no profile of who is likely to be battered; women of all races and
cultures and all walks of life are at risk.Women with disabilities, however,
may be at greatest risk. The FBI reports that in the population as a whole,
one out of four women will, at some time in her life, be the victim of ongoing
domestic abuse. A Colorado Department of Health study found that 85% of women
with disabilities were victims of abuse.
The obstacles to escaping from an abusive relationship are still enormous.Women
are at the greatest risk of serious assault or murder when they leave or attempt
to leave an abuser. One study found that women attempt to leave batterers
an average of seven times before succeeding. Success may require a safe place
to hide from the abuser, temporary income support, help to find a job, child
care, counseling, and legal assistance to resolve issues such as separation,
divorce, and child visitation and support. For women who also face the barriers
of language, culture, rural isolation, or disability, the prospect of leaving
is especially daunting.
Attitudes change slowly.There is still resistance to the idea of women’s
equality and to the idea that men do not have the right to control and dominate
their wives and girlfriends. This resistance has compromised the effective
implementation of laws against domestic violence. Similarly, there is resistance
to the idea that people with disabilities and the elderly have a right to
self-determination and control of their own lives. That resistance has slowed
the development of systems that protect those rights.
We can do better.We can make progress faster. We can all work harder to create
more responsive criminal justice and social service systems. We can do more
to educate ourselves and the public about the nature of domestic violence
and its causes. And we can all be more forceful advocates for equality, inclusion,
and non-violence.
After close examination of the Linda David case and intensive study of similar
issues affecting special populations, the frail elderly and people with disabilities,
we identified the following barriers to further progress in combating domestic
violence:
- Insufficient focus on preventing domestic violence;
- Inadequate public awareness of ways individual citizens can combat domestic
violence;
- Lack of sufficient shelter beds for all women, and lack of access to shelter
beds and the criminal justice system for those who are low income, refugees
or immigrants, women of color, people with disabilities, the elderly, and
sexual minorities.
- Lack of adequate training of people who may come into contact with domestic
violence victims – including 911 operators, government employees, law enforcement
officers, attorneys, medical practitioners and social workers.
- Lack of coordination and communication among different parts of the system,
and the lack of a common language among the criminal justice system, social
services, advocates for victims of domestic violence and, advocates for
people with disabilities and senior citizens.
- Failure to recognize that we can never establish flawless systems, and
that what we really need is a universal, individual commitment to
go the extra mile to prevent abuse, and to stop it immediately when
it happens.
Our recommendations are designed to dismantle these barriers.These recommendations
are addressed not only to state and local governments, but also to advocacy
groups, employers, the media, and citizens, because stopping
domestic violence is everybody’s business.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Everyone has something to contribute to the struggle to end domestic violence.
Each of us has the power to be an agent for change in our family, our school,
our neighborhood, our workplace and our culture. And whether we intend to be
or not, each of us is a role model for the children around us. If every citizen
used these powers constructively, it would make an enormous difference in our
ability to prevent domestic violence
and to stop it quickly when it does happen.
Moreover, it is individual citizens – and the organizations they belong to –
that can make the biggest difference in preventing
domestic violence. Most of the government agencies that deal with this issue
are responsible for intervening when violence has already occurred. Our courts
and social service agencies are overwhelmed by these tasks, and there is never
enough funding to serve all victims. If action is not taken to reduce and prevent
the incidence of domestic violence, there never will be enough.
Government agencies cannot make our culture less violent, or improve our values,
or teach our children to respect each other and themselves. Only citizens can
do these things. And nothing makes a bigger difference than citizens who do.
One of the prime indicators of future domestic violence for individuals is whether
their family of origin had a history of domestic violence. To change the culture
of violence, we must work to decrease the incidence of family violence and make
violence-free families the norm. While the societal problems of domestic violence
are deeply rooted in balance of power issues, there are ways in which we can
decrease the incidence of violence in families.
- Every family should create norms that clearly discourage violent behaviors,
including paying attention to language, physical aggression, oppressive
joking, taunting and fighting.
- Every adult should make a conscious effort to be a positive role model
for children and young people, and to recognize that young people learn
more from what we do than from what we say.
Over the past few decades, too many of us have gone too far in our quest
for privacy. Fences have gotten taller, and neighbors have become strangers.
Now we need to restore the networks of friendship and mutual concern that
led neighbors to watch out for each others’ children and bring casseroles
when someone was ill. These are the networks that can help prevent isolation
and victimization.
We can make a difference by participating in activities in our neighborhoods
and communities to prevent violence. Most incidents of domestic violence go
unreported. In cases where domestic violence is reported, families, neighbors
and co-workers are usually the first point of contact.
- As citizens, we should educate ourselves about domestic violence, and
if we are aware of domestic violence, support the victim by offering to
call the police and letting her know about services available to her.
- “Block by block” violence prevention campaigns should be mounted by
local community groups.
In our workplaces and professions, we can also make a positive difference
in preventing violence and abuse. We can all work to make sure that employee
newsletters and bulletin boards include anti-violence messages and information
about resources for victims. And most of us can think of ways that our workplace
or our profession can contribute some special expertise to solving this problem.
For instance, legal assistance for domestic violence victims is in short supply,
and is greatly needed. Women who are leaving abusive relationships often also
need help with child care, housing, clothing, transportation, and finding
a job. And most of all, they need friends.
We can also intervene to stop domestic violence when it happens. Victims
of domestic violence come into contact with many people in the course of the
day through their workplace, place of worship, union, health care provider,
beautician, etc. These points of contact provide prime opportunities for helping
victims change their lives.
- All of us – employers, clergy, health care professionals, union members,
leaders of professional associations, educators, and workers in other fields
– should make preventing domestic violence part of our work and become informed
about how to help victims access the services they need to change their
lives.
- Attorneys and paralegals should assist victims of domestic violence—including
refugees immigrants, people with disabilities, sexual minorities and women
of color – by participating in community-based legal clinics and free legal
service programs that serve both their civil and criminal justice needs.Law
schools should include representation of domestic violence victims in their
clinical programs.
Employers have special opportunities to prevent domestic violence and help its
victims. Employers also have a special motivation to do so: domestic violence
often spills into the workplace, endangering everyone. Domestic violence is
also the cause of more absenteeism and lost productivity than is ever measured.
Most important, however, the workplace is often the best and most logical
place for victims to look for help. All victims should be able to find it.
- Employers should create safe and supportive workplaces for staff who
have experienced domestic violence.
- Workshops to educate employees about domestic violence and how to
help co-workers.
- Use of local program volunteers and survivors to provide information
to employees.
- Practical information for employees, such as questions to ask when
attorney shopping, information about court facilitators, copies of safety
plan and protection order forms.
- Identification of an individual in the workplace who is experienced
in working with employees who have domestic violence issues.
- Employers should send consistent messages to workers that help prevent
violence – for example, messages about the importance of equality between
women and men, and respect for the unique value of every individual.
In the Media . . .
The media is a powerful force for change. Providing information on identifying
domestic violence and community resources that are available for domestic
violence victims can literally save lives. Public service announcements like
the Mariners Care anti-violence campaign can make a difference.
Media messages also can help create powerful social changes by educating
the public. Media messages have helped to dramatically reduce smoking, to
increase the use of seatbelts, and to alert people to the importance of turning
down the thermostats on their hot water heaters to avoid scalding children.
On all these issues, attitudes and behaviors have changed dramatically, in
large part due to consistent, repeated media messages that encouraged change.
The media can make an even bigger difference by making it clear that domestic
violence is totally unacceptable.
- Community leaders should appear in public service announcements on
television and radio, and outdoor advertising campaigns, delivering strong
domestic violence prevention messages.
- Programming and reporting should be thoughtful, responsible, and promote
healthy, equal relationships between people and respect for the unique value
of every human being.
- More public education is needed, by both the mainstream media and community-based
media, on the ways domestic violence occurs is experienced by ethnic minorities,
the elderly, disabled adults, immigrants/refugees, and same-sex couples.
- A media summit should be convened jointly by major media organizations
and anti-domestic violence activists, to educate media about domestic violence
so that their stories more accurately reflect its reality, and to educate
activists on how to work more effectively with media.
Dealing with domestic violence often requires coordination among different
service systems and organizations that do not ordinarily work together. But
all too often, the criminal justice system, social service agencies, advocates
for people with disabilities, the elderly, and domestic violence victims do
not understand each other. The result is that people do not get the services
they need, when they need them. This problem is especially common when a domestic
violence victim is elderly or is a person with a disability.
People working in these separate functions need to understand each others’
roles, responsibilities, capabilities, and limitations. Formal training and
interagency protocols can help promote understanding and effective cooperation,
but there is no substitute for personal contact and the development of relationships
and networks over time among professionals.
Since the early 1980s, a group of King County professionals who work with abused
and neglected senior citizens have sustained such a network. Now known as Protecting
Our Elders Together (POET), this group includes representatives of the Seattle
Police Department, Seattle and King County prosecutors, Aging and Disability
Services, Harborview Medical Center’s Social Work Department, domestic violence
advocates, Adult Protective Services, and other agencies that deal regularly
with seniors who have been abused, neglected, or exploited. Participants discuss
recent cases that presented unusual challenges, share information from conferences
and training they have attended, and learn more about each others’ functions
and problems.
POET is an informal group that probably has counterparts in many other areas
of the state. It is effective because of continuity of membership, regular attendance,
and effective participation in meetings. Participants’ employing agencies understand
the importance of this interchange and make time available for it. The understanding
and relationships developed in POET make its participants more effective, both
individually and when they collaborate, in serving the elderly. POET’s focus
is on senior citizens and on a wide range of issues besides domestic violence.
But it is a powerful model for professionals working with the disabled and other
special populations affected by domestic violence.
- Law enforcement and social service agencies and other organizations
dealing with domestic violence in each community should create informal
methods of regular interchange, similar to POET, to exchange information
and ideas, learn about each other’s work, and develop better ways to work
together. Employing agencies should provide time for these meetings and
recognize their value.
In 1987, the Legislature required DSHS to create Child Protection Teams
(RCW 74.14B.030). Chosen by DSHS regional administrators, these teams include
law enforcement officers, physicians, mental health and substance abuse counselors,
and other professionals who deal with abused and neglected children. They
meet when needed to discuss cases that present unusual difficulty and risk.
This process improves decision-making and helps Child Protective Services
professionals make difficult choices about when and whether to remove children
from their homes.
Adult Protective Services staff sometimes face equally difficult decisions
about whether it is safe to allow an elderly or disabled client to remain
in or return to their home and when to seek court-ordered guardianship. The
Child Protection Team model could be adapted for use by APS, assuring the
availability of trained professionals independent of DSHS in cases where consulting
with them could produce better-informed decisions.
- Adult Protective Services administrators should appoint an Adult Protection
Team in each region, including law enforcement officers, health care and
social service professionals, domestic violence specialists, and others
as appropriate, for consultation when needed in cases involving possible
guardianship petitions, denial of access to clients, and allegations of
abuse or neglect from multiple sources.
One of the critical links among agencies and professionals dealing with
domestic violence is the 911 emergency response system. Not only does this
system dispatch police officers to domestic violence emergencies, it also
receives calls asking police to “check the welfare” of individuals who may
be in distress and to accompany social service workers when necessary to keep
the peace during an investigation or intervention to help a client.
The Action Group is concerned that 911 operators may not fully communicate
the content and nature of these kinds of calls to the officers dispatched
to respond. This may result in confusion over the purpose of the call and
officers’ role at the scene.
- Protocols should be developed and training provided for 911 communication
centers, regarding proper handling of requests for police escort by human
service professionals. Operators should thoroughly screen such calls for
factors affecting victim safety and/or the potential for violence. They
should treat calls from domestic violence programs, Child Protective Services,
and Adult Protective Services the same way as calls from domestic violence
victims or witnesses. They should be trained in the connections between
domestic violence and requests such as “civil standby” or “check the welfare,”
particularly when initiated by professionals investigating reports of abuse
or neglect.
During its brief existence, this Action Group has served as a clearinghouse
for concerns about domestic violence. The Group was able to clarify the capabilities
of the State Patrol’s computer system for tracking protection orders and to
facilitate discussions concerning how the needs of domestic violence victims
in the WorkFirst program could be better met. The Group has also served as
an information exchange about existing programs in some parts of the state
that can be adapted elsewhere.
A multi-disciplinary approach to domestic violence is not a new idea. There
have been two recent statewide, multi-disciplinary Domestic Violence Summits,
and the Supreme Court’s Gender and Justice Commission produced a major report
in 1991. With funding from the federal Violence Against Women Act, the Washington
State Coalition Against Domestic Violence has created a multi-disciplinary fatality
review program that brings together law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, local
victim advocates, health professionals and others to review and analyze domestic
violence cases that end in murder. Local summits in several counties have produced
concrete results as well as improved understanding. Many communities have formed
task forces or coalitions against domestic violence to bring together professionals,
advocates, and citizens to act on this issue. A similar initiative at the state
level could act as a catalyst for change throughout Washington.
- The Governor should appoint a Domestic Violence Advisory Council, drawing
membership from organizations and agencies that deal with domestic violence
as well as concerned citizens. The Council should advise the Governor, monitor
government agencies, serve as an information clearinghouse, seek to improve
coordination and communication among organizations and individuals dealing
with domestic violence, encourage implementation of the recommendations
in this report, and propose further policy changes as appropriate.
- The use of the fatality review process should be made permanent on
a statewide basis.
People with disabilities are especially vulnerable to domestic violence.
They may be more dependent on a spouse or other caregiver, less able to communicate
with police or social service workers, or less mobile. Traditional shelter
and advocacy programs are often not accessible or equipped to serve them.
Too little is known about the nature and frequency of victimization of citizens
with disabilities or about the strategies that could be deployed to prevent
their victimization.
- More information should be gathered on domestic violence against people
with disabilities, and people with disabilities should be included in community
coalitions and other groups seeking more effective responses to domestic
violence.
- A training curriculum should be developed to help domestic violence
programs better serve people with disabilities.
Many victims of domestic violence try to conceal their victimization, and
they may not be direct in their pleas for help. One woman, for instance, took
the family dog to the animal shelter to protect it from being beaten by her
husband. A discerning animal shelter staff member recognized that if the dog
was in danger, the wife probably was, too. She talked with the woman privately,
and provided her with information on local shelter services.
But most people who come into contact with domestic violence victims do not
have the training to recognize and help them.
- Every public agency and non-profit organization whose personnel deal
with the public should work with domestic violence programs and other experts
to develop a curriculum and training materials on domestic violence. Staff
who have contact with the public should receive basic information on how
to recognize signs of domestic violence and how to respond. Staff who are
responsible for the care of potential victims (such as Adult Protective
Services and Child Protective Services social workers) should have more
extensive training on how to interview potential victims and what community
resources may be available to protect them.
The criminal justice system’s response to domestic violence typically begins
when police are called to the scene of an assault or disturbance, usually in
a home or other private property where there are no impartial witnesses. Officers
must often evaluate conflicting accounts of what happened. They sometimes find
victims reluctant to prosecute their abusers. They must determine what actions
to take to protect victims, hold abusers accountable, and assure that prosecutors
and courts have the information they need to handle each case properly. In cases
where the victim is elderly or disabled, the challenges may be even more difficult.
State laws and policies clearly support protecting victims and holding batterers
accountable, but implementing those policies in specific cases requires training
and experience. The state’s Basic Law Enforcement Academy, which all officers
must complete when they are hired, provides training in handling domestic violence
cases. This training is being improved as part of an increase in Academy hours
recently funded by the Legislature.
While the state does not require further training after the Academy, many law
enforcement agencies provide it. For example, last year 85% of officers in Snohomish
County received eight hours of multidisciplinary training on domestic violence.
The Seattle and Spokane Police Departments have also provided inservice training
recently. Ongoing officer training in domestic violence is important for every
jurisdiction, as laws change and we gain better understanding of this problem,
including its impact on the elderly, people with disabilities, and other populations.
- Law enforcement agencies should provide periodic inservice training
to officers on domestic violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults
by caregivers, including changes in law and improvements in understanding
the power and control issues that affect this behavior. The Criminal Justice
Training Commission should provide assistance in developing curriculum and
training materials.
Over the last 20 years, the Legislature has provided a number of options
for victims of domestic violence who need a court order protecting them from
their abuser. The three most common types of orders are (1) criminal no-contact
orders under chapter 10.99 RCW, (2) domestic violence protection orders under
chapter 26.50 RCW, and (3) restraining orders issued in conjunction with a
divorce under chapter 26.09 RCW.
A violation of the restraint provisions of any of these orders is a separate
crime. The penalties, however, differ. A violation of a criminal no-contact
order or a domestic violence protection order is a gross misdemeanor; a violation
that involves an assault or act of reckless endangerment, or that results in
a third conviction for violating such an order is a felony. A violation of a
restraining order issued in conjunction with a dissolution is always a simple
misdemeanor.
- The Legislature should standardize the penalties for violating the
restraint provisions of various types of orders available for protection
of victims of domestic violence, so that penalties flow from the conduct
violating the order rather than the type of order.
The Legislature, in chapter 74.34 RCW, has also authorized courts to issue
protective orders in cases of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or abandonment
of vulnerable adults. In 1999, the Legislature broadened the definition of
“vulnerable adult” to include people who are under 60 years old and are not
developmentally disabled, adjudicated incapacitated, or receiving care in
a state-licensed facility, but are receiving care from a state-funded individual
provider. Either the victim or DSHS, on the victim’s behalf, may petition
the court for such an order. However, violations of these orders are not defined
as crimes, and police are not required to arrest violators with probable cause,
even if the orders were issued because of domestic violence. DSHS is not authorized
to seek protection orders under chapter 26.50 RCW which are enforceable through
mandatory arrest and more severe penalties.
- The Legislature should amend chapter 74.34 RCW to require arrest on
probable cause for violation of the restraint provisions of an order for
protection, when that order is based on abuse of a vulnerable adult, and
to impose the same criminal penalties for such as violation as for a violation
of an order issued under chapter 10.99 or 26.50 RCW.
- The Legislature should amend chapter 26.50 RCW to authorize DSHS to
petition the court for domestic violence protection orders on behalf of,
and with the consent of, vulnerable adults as defined in RCW 74.34.020.
- Specific training should be provided to appropriate DSHS workers about
the availability of telephonic protection orders to victims who may be bedridden
or do not otherwise have access to a courthouse.
Court orders seeking to protect victims of domestic violence generally prohibit
the batterer from contacting the victim and from entering the victim’s home,
workplace, or school, or the school or day care of the victim’s child. Often,
courts also prohibit the batterer from coming within a specified distance
of the victim’s home or other location. A court order prohibiting the batterer
from entering the home will offer little protection if it allows him to “stake
out” the home or wait on the sidewalk for the victim to leave.
However, the State Court of Appeals, Division II, recently ruled that coming
within a prohibited distance of the victim’s home, while punishable as contempt
of court, did not constitute a crime under RCW 26.50.110 because such a prohibition
is not a “restraint provision” within the meaning of that statute (State
v. Chapman, 96 Wn. App. 495 (1999)). In that case, the batterer was standing
in the bushes across the street from the victim’s apartment, despite a court
order requiring him to stay at least a mile away from the residence. The Chapman
court recognized that the conduct of a batterer who lurks near a victim’s home
or workplace may be almost as threatening and disturbing to the victim as direct
contact. The court invited the Legislature to amend the statutes criminalizing
violations of a protection or no-contact order to include violation of a provision
requiring the defendant to stay a specified distance away from a home, workplace
or school.
- The Legislature should amend chapters 10.99, 26.09, 26.10, 26.26, 26.50,
and 74.34 RCW to clarify the court’s authority to order batterers to keep
specified distances from victims and their children, their homes, their
schools, and their workplaces, and to make violation of such an order a
criminal offense.
A judge has broad authority to prohibit a defendant from possessing a firearm
when issuing an order for the protection of a domestic violence victim. Certainly
after conviction, a judge has wide discretion to prohibit a perpetrator from
possessing a firearm. However, no statute provides for any specific mechanism
for the enforcement of such orders. It is not even clear how the agency should
handle the weapon – as forfeited or as held temporarily pending some other
resolution by the court.
King County law enforcement agencies have recently formed a task force to
develop appropriate procedures to enforce “possess no firearm” orders, and
other local agencies may benefit from such a process as well.
- Law enforcement agencies should establish mechanisms for enforcement
of orders prohibiting a defendant from possessing a firearm.
Records of court actions are maintained in the Judicial Information System
(JIS), administered by the Office of the Administrator for the Courts (OAC).
Most judges and court personnel have computerized access to JIS records showing
defendants’ criminal history and other relevant information. RCW 26.50.160,
enacted in 1995, requires that, by 1997, all courts have access to a JIS database
that includes the names of the parties and cause number for every domestic
violence no-contact order under Title 10 RCW and every protection order under
Title 26 RCW. With that information, a judge can know about orders issued
in other courts to protect a particular victim or restrain a particular batterer.
Such information is essential to enforce these orders and avoid conflicting
orders from different courts.
However, OAC has informed the Action Group that only 166 of approximately 300
courts enter information about protection orders into the database. Some smaller
and part-time municipal courts do not handle domestic violence cases; they refer
them to the district courts covering the same geographic areas. But other courts
apparently remain outside the system designed to provide domestic violence victims
with the protection of court orders throughout the state.
- Every court that issues domestic violence protection orders should
promptly enter those orders in the Judicial Information System, to meet
the objectives of RCW 26.50.160.
The JIS database of protection orders includes those entered in criminal
cases under chapter 10.99 RCW and those entered in civil cases under chapters
26.09, 26.10, 26.26, and 26.50 RCW. However, it does not include protection
orders issued on behalf of vulnerable adults pursuant to RCW 74.34.110, the
kind of order Linda David obtained after her rescue. This means courts may
not be aware of such orders when victims or abusers come before them in other
cases.
- The Legislature should require that orders of protection issued under
chapter 74.34 RCW, which restrain acts of violence or contact between victims
and abusers, be included in the JIS database of domestic violence orders.
Information is useful only if it is easily accessible. Although the (OAC)
has recently developed a new electronic report that summarizes orders issued
involving the parties currently before the court, it is still somewhat difficult
to access detailed information about particular orders. In many courts, domestic
violence protection orders are issues on very busy calendars. It is important
that judges and commissioners have easy access to all the necessary information.
- The OAC should convert the JIS database to a “point and click” format
to make it easier for judges and others to use.
Interpreters must now be provided for any person who cannot fully participate
in a legal proceeding because of a hearing or speech impairment or because
of an inability to speak or understand English. RCW 26.50.055 specifically
requires the court to provide an interpreter to assist a person who cannot
otherwise prepare the forms and participate in a hearing to obtain a domestic
violence protection order.
Based on anecdotal evidence, the Group is concerned that, although courts
provide interpreters to defendants, less care is taken when the victim or
another witness needs assistance. Judges must be diligent in ensuring that
all participants in a trial or proceeding can fully participate and that interpreters
are present for those who need them. Prosecutors should contact victims and
other witnesses before trial for many reasons – including the need to determine
language difficulties in advance of the trial. Finally, police officers should
be trained to indicate in their police reports when there was difficulty communicating
with a victim or other witness, so that appropriate care can be taken when
the prosecutor prepares the case.
- Interpreters should be provided for domestic violence victims in all
legal proceedings, when the victim has a speech or hearing disability or
does not easily communicate in English.
When a person is convicted of a crime in Superior Court, RCW 7.68.035 requires
payment of a penalty assessment in addition to any fine, restitution, or other
cost the court imposes. This assessment is $500 for felonies and gross misdemeanors,
and $250 for misdemeanors. The funds are divided between the county and the
state, and used to support victim assistance, victim compensation, criminal
justice training, and other public purposes. However, this penalty assessment
is not imposed on defendants convicted of crimes in district or municipal
courts. In addition to increasing accountability for crimes of domestic violence,
such an assessment could provide funds for prevention and services to victims.
- The Legislature should require courts of limited jurisdiction to impose
a penalty assessment on every defendant convicted of a domestic violence
offense, as defined in chapter 10.99 RCW or similar municipal ordinances,
or when a defendant enters into a diversion agreement where treatment is
required in order for a case to be dismissed without a finding of guilt.
The assessment should be $500 for gross misdemeanors and $250 for misdemeanors.
Funds should be dedicated by law for prevention and services to victims
of domestic violence.
When Adult Protective Services and other professionals investigate possible
abuse, it is generally considered a good practice to interview the alleged
victim alone, outside the presence of the possible abuser or anyone else who
might influence the victim’s statements or whose presence might make the victim
less willing to provide all relevant information. Recently adopted DSHS policy
is to interview possible victims alone under most circumstances. In some instances,
such as a language or other communication barrier, a third party may have
to be present, but such a third party should never be a suspected abuser or
anyone who might influence what the victim tells the interviewer.
- APS workers should continue to follow existing policies requiring that
possible victims of abuse or neglect be interviewed alone, or if necessary
with the help of third parties whose presence will not inhibit full disclosure
of the facts.
Adult Protective Services publicizes a telephone number for reporting abuse
or neglect, but in many parts of the state this number is staffed only during
the work week. The APS phone number is not intended for reporting emergencies.
However, hospital emergency room staff and others who see victims on a 24-hour
basis should not have to wait to provide APS with information that they may
be required by law to report. Delays are not only inconvenient for those making
reports; they may result in less accurate information when, for example, a
social worker or a nurse on duty Monday morning calls in a report based on
observations of another professional who saw the victim Saturday night.
- APS should receive reports by e-mail, voice mail and fax during hours
when its reporting phone lines are not staffed, so that reports can be made
at any time. APS staff can make follow-up return calls if necessary to get
more complete information.
Many domestic
violence victims must seek public assistance through the state’s WorkFirst
program, often because they lack income after separating from an abuser.
Federal and state laws require that DSHS make efforts to tailor program
requirements to their special circumstances and needs. For example, victims
may have difficulty meeting work, training, or job search requirements when
they are still looking for secure housing or coping with the traumatic effects
of domestic violence. Further, victims may not readily disclose the violence
to their case managers because of embarrassment or mistrust. Local domestic
violence programs can help case managers serve WorkFirst participants better
when there is clear communication and active collaboration between DSHS
offices and local programs.
To improve the WorkFirst program’s response to domestic violence, DSHS should:
-
Appoint a domestic violence expert to its Economic
Services Advisory Committee.
-
Develop a training packet for case managers, outlining
basic policy on working with participants who have experienced, or are
experiencing, domestic violence. This should include information about
screening, linking participants to domestic violence experts, and appropriate
roles for those experts in developing Individual Responsibility Plans
required of participants.
-
Pilot the use of domestic violence counselors in
some Community Services Offices.
-
Develop mechanisms and the expectation of collaboration
between local Community Service Offices and domestic violence programs.
In addition to services to victims, some judges and other professionals believe
treatment of batterers is an appropriate part of a comprehensive response
to domestic violence. Treatment, when appropriate, should be part of a response
that holds batterers accountable and reduces the likelihood of their re-offending.
State law gives DSHS responsibility to set standards of quality and accountability
for batterer treatment programs, certify those meeting the standards, and
monitor their operations to assure that standards continue to be met.
However, DSHS has only one part-time employee responsible for monitoring
and enforcing standards for batterer treatment programs. This is not an
adequate staffing level to assure the quality and accountability these programs
must maintain.
-
The Legislature should provide funding to increase
DSHS staff evaluating and enforcing quality standards for batterer treatment
programs.
Many communities across the state have coalitions to fight domestic violence
through community education, prevention, law enforcement, and services to
victims. These coalitions usually include a range of service providers such
as shelter providers, victim advocates, police and prosecutors, health professionals,
and community leaders. Because meeting the needs of people of color, people
with disabilities, same-sex couples, the elderly, refugees, and immigrants
may be especially difficult, it is important that statewide and local coalitions,
as well as programs serving victims, reach out to these populations as actively
as possible.
-
Community coalitions against domestic violence, and
programs serving domestic violence victims, should actively seek participation
of members of minority, disabled, elderly, immigrant and refugee, and
sexual minority communities on boards and committees.
The Legislature should set aside or increase funding
for domestic violence services to special populations.
- Bilingual and bicultural advocacy
services;
-
Multi-lingual crisis lines
-
Multi-lingual public and community education and
organizing;
-
Services for children who witness domestic violence;
-
Services meeting the special needs of gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgendered victims;
Shelters accessible to victims with disabilities and with programming
designed to serve special populations.
Elderly and disabled adults who receive state-funded care are sometimes
at risk of abuse by caregivers, who may be relatives, employees, or both.
When caregivers are employed by home care agencies, the agency is responsible
for assuring the quality of care. But when the caregiver is employed directly
by the client, as under the “individual provider” program in which Linda
David participated, there are fewer safeguards to assure quality and prevent
abuse. In some cases, the disabled or elderly client, though dissatisfied
with the quality of care, may have difficulty communicating that concern
or fear loss of care if he or she reports abuse, neglect or exploitation
by the caregiver. DSHS is funding, on a pilot basis, training for clients
to help them more effectively manage their paid caregivers through assertiveness,
conflict resolution skills, and effective hiring and firing practices.
-
DSHS should expand availability of this training,
on a voluntary basis, for elderly and disabled clients receiving home
care services from individual providers.
Domestic violence victims who leave their abusers face many problems,
including finding alternative housing. Emergency shelters have limited
capacity and receive new victims every day. Too often, victims are denied
the chance to rent housing because landlords are concerned about damage
to the property if the abuser finds out where the victim is living. Barriers
to housing make it more difficult for a victim to leave her abuser and
protect her own and her children’s safety.
-
The Legislature should prohibit discrimination
in housing based on one’s current or former status as a victim of domestic
violence. To make this protection meaningful, the Legislature should
also prohibit landlords and tenant screening firms from using information
about protection orders, or other information from court records, to
deny housing to victims who are otherwise qualified to rent.
A victim who has a job and leaves her abuser may not be safe from his
retaliation in her workplace. Too often, victims must quit jobs and look
for new employment, sometimes in a different community, to protect their
safety. But the unemployment compensation system does not provide benefits
when someone has to quit a job to escape from domestic violence.
-
The Legislature should allow victims, who left
jobs to seek safety or relief from domestic violence, to qualify for
unemployment compensation. [1]
For the past twenty years, efforts to end domestic violence have been spearheaded
by feminist activists who have worked to protect women and children and
to make the legal, medical and social services systems more responsive to
their needs.Their pioneering work has accomplished a great deal. The passage
of important legislation and the training of judges, prosecutors, and law
enforcement personnel have dramatically changed the way family violence
is treated in the courts. Feminist activists and their allies have also
won significant funding to provide services to women and children escaping
from domestic violence.
These are important gains, and the Group recognizes the need to continue
to improve the criminal justice and social service systems that provide
a lifeline to those who suffer from domestic abuse.These systems must
become more responsive to the needs of women who face barriers of distance,
culture, language, age or disability.
But it is simply not enough to improve the systems that come into play when
violence has already occurred.The truth is that no system will ever be perfect.
More importantly, if we focus only on what happens after violence has occurred,
we will never accomplish the more important task of finding ways to make
domestic violence abhorrent and unthinkable.
American culture can produce new taboos.In the past few years, our culture
has significantly reduced smoking, made bicycle helmets and infant car
seats ubiquitous, and made the sight of a pregnant woman with a drink
in her hand troubling. These changes have come about because the public
became aware of the suffering that could be prevented by changing our
behavior.
Ending domestic violence will be harder because it requires changing the
nature of relationships.All of us must embrace the values of equality, non-violence
and mutual respect -- not just as abstract ideas, but as bedrock principles
that guide all our interactions with our romantic partners, our spouses,
our children, and our elders. To end domestic violence, we have to let go
of the idea of dominance.
To end domestic violence, we also have to let go of the idea that government
will do it for us.Government is not in charge of creating cultural norms;
we are. We have the power to create a culture that celebrates equality,
diversity and non-violence. If we do nothing to try to change attitudes
towards women, towards power, and towards violence, we remain complicit
in the perpetuation of a culture of violence.
To some, our faith in grassroots change by ordinary citizens may seem like
a Utopian vision.But every journey of a thousand miles begins with a single
step. And fundamental social change begins with the belief that such change
is possible.
[1] Pursuant to Canon of Judicial Conduct 7(A)(5), Judge Halpert did
not participate in the discussion or adoption of this recommendation.
