Policy Analysis of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Peri Champoux
Anyssa Haberkorn-Gomez
Blair Newman
SW 220
December 9th, 2018
Scope of the Problem
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was created in 1994 by Senator Joe Biden and co-written by senator Louise Slaughter. According to Meyer-Emerick (2002), VAWA was created as a response to the extensive amount of violence that women and individuals experienced in all areas of their lives. VAWA first sought to focus on violence in the forms of sexual assault and domestic violence, and has since expanded to other forms of violence people can experience. The legislation included protection from violence while in public, in the home, in the legal system, improving laws that protect this population, stalking, and violence against undocumented immigrants. This policy is incredibly important because it was the first piece of federal legislation passed to violence against these vulnerable communities.
Domestic Violence is defined as a pattern of abusive behaviors in any type of relationship including, romantic, familial, friendships, etc., that is used to gain power and control over another person (United States Department of Justice on Violence Against Women, 2018). For the purposes of this paper, domestic violence and intimate partner violence (IPV) will be used interchangeably. Domestic violence can involve abuse in the form of physical, sexual, emotional, psychological, financial, threats, or stalking. Anyone, regardless of socioeconomic status (SES), gender, sexual orientation, race, or religious beliefs can experience domestic violence.
The rates of domestic violence are egregiously high and continue to impact large amounts of individuals and communities. For every 20 minutes that goes by, someone experiences some form of domestic violence and this equates to 10 million people each year (Breiding, 2014). In the United States, approximately one in three women and one in seven men will experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). Folks in the LGBTQ+ community are at a 30% higher risk of experiencing domestic violence than people not in this community (Ard & Makadon, 2011). The risk of experiencing domestic violence also increases amongst pregnant women and women and families with children (Martinez‐Torteya, Bogat, Von-Eye, Levendosky, 2009).
Families with children are often at a higher risk of experiencing domestic violence than families without children (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008). Roughly three million children in the United States live in environments where they are exposed to domestic violence (Chemtob and Carlson, 2004; Lieberman, Van Horn, & Ozer, 2005). Children who are exposed to domestic violence are more likely to experience adjustment problems, difficulty establishing relationships with others, and have negative effects on their overall development (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008).
Despite the fact that domestic violence is an issue that can impacts people of all communities and identities, some identities and communities are at a greater risk of experiencing this form of violence. Communities that are often most likely affected by domestic violence include, people of color, people living in poverty, people with disabilities, and undocumented folks (Kasturirangan, Krishnan, & Riger, 2004; Modi, Palmer, Armstrong & 2014). VAWA sought to address the increasingly fatal issue of domestic violence by creating more legal protection for survivors, and to also address the individual needs of the communities that experienced domestic violence. VAWA created protections for immigrants, people of color, Indigenous communities, and individuals with disabilities (Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013).
Although VAWA protects all survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault there is a potential bias found in the name and the target population it intends to serve. The target population for the policy is anyone who has experienced some form of violence, domestic violence or sexual assault, etc., regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Despite the policy being applicable to anyone in this target population, the name VAWA seems to only reach women who are victims of violence.
The name does not seem inclusive to others who also experienced violence including male survivors, gender non-conforming or non-binary people, and others who do not identify as a woman. Brown (2005), explains that Biden created the name VAWA because women and women with children often experience higher rates of violence compared to men and non-binary folks. Biden further explained that VAWA is accessible to anyone regardless of gender and all services and protections apply. However, despite the policy being applicable to anyone, the name of the policy seems to be targeted towards women and not as inclusive of all the other populations who also experience violence.
Prior to VAWA being introduced, domestic violence in Western communities was viewed in as something that happened “in the privacy of one’s home” (Legal Momentum, 2018). Law officials and legal systems found it challenging to respond to and prosecute domestic violence crimes. The limited amount of domestic violence shelters and mental health resources that were available were incredibly underfunded (Legal Momentum, 2018). Joe Biden stated that before VAWA, police and other legal authorities assumed that if a person was assaulted or killed by their partner it was because they did something to provoke them (Biden, 2014). Despite Biden’s initial assumptions of domestic violence being an issue that happens “behind closed doors”, we now have evidence to suggest otherwise because of the 24 years VAWA has been in place.
History of VAWA
Anita Hill testified before an all male Senate Judiciary Committee against Clarence Thomas on October 11, 1991 for sexual harassment during the time when he was her employer (Rowley, 1991). Despite these allegations, Thomas received his nomination for a seat on the supreme court. Hill’s testimony may not have prevented Thomas’ supreme court nomination, but it did create ripple effects felt today. Hill’s testimony inspired a record number of congresswomen to be elected. The following year, 1992, was deemed “Year of the Woman”. Another landmark following Anita Hill’s testimony was the creation of the Violence Against Women Act.
VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 was created to recognize and address the critical issues of sexual assault, harassment, interpersonal violence, and stalking. The act was originally passed with the Violent Crime Control and Prevention Act of 1994. VAWA has since been expanded in 2000 and again in 2005. VAWA was originally drafted by then Delaware Senator Joe Biden’s office, and co-written by New York Senator Louise Slaughter. According to Bethany Backles, director of research at the Institute on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault at the University of Texas at Austin,”[The Violence Against Women Act] really formalized a stream of funding and support for services of victims. It created a more formalized way for agencies to obtain money and it really changed our support across the criminal justice system" (2018).
VAWA becomes eligible for reauthorization every five years. The most recent reauthorization date, September 30, 2018 came just three days after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified against Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court appointment hearing, in the shadow of Hill’s all too familiar testimony. Upon VAWA’s September 30th expiration, it was extended until December 7th, until after the midterm elections. The 2018 midterm elections resulted in what is being called the “pink wave” after even greater number of women were elected than in 1992. Dr. Blasey Ford likely impacted midterm results in a similar way that Hill impacted the 1992 elections. Still, VAWA sits unresolved, with the ensured protection and support for survivors of gender based violence hanging in the air. The history of this act is changing every day, but both Hill and Dr. Ford have reinforced the ever-present issue of gender-based violence, and it’s intersection with politics.
Eligibility
Individuals and/or families who have experienced domestic violence, sexual violence, sex trafficking, and/or stalking may be eligible for benefits provided under VAWA. One does not need to be a US citizen to receive services. In fact, individuals and families who are not citizens but endured violence from a US citizen may be eligible for a green card through VAWA benefits. Despite what the name of the act suggests, VAWA is not just for women.VAWA was extended in 2013 to provide further benefits to LGBTQ+ survivors and Indigenous survivors. These inclusive amendments were made under President Barack Obama. VAWA has focused on the needs of women-identified survivors of violence due to the disproportionate violence they experience compared to men. The United Nations estimates that, “of all women who were the victims of homicide globally in 2012, almost half were killed by intimate partners or family members, compared to less than six per cent of men killed in the same year” (United Nations, 2014). Since it’s conception, VAWA has made benefits available to survivors of intimate partner violence of all genders.
Organizations, tribal governments, and agencies working to support survivors of intimate partner violence or are working to hold perpetrators accountable are also potentially eligible for VAWA funding. To receive this funding, agencies must prove that they are serving this population and that their services are specific to the issue.
The Four Dimensions
Provisions/Benefits
VAWA funding is used in micro, meso, and macro level supports. At the micro level, VAWA supports resources for individuals and families who have endured domestic violence and intimate-partner violence. Some of these supports include crisis counseling, emergency housing, and legal aid. As stated above, VAWA also created a path to citizenship for “a battered noncitizen…[who is] the spouse or child of an abusive U.S. citizen or permanent resident” (Immigration Center for Women and Children, n.d.). On the meso level, VAWA works to spread awareness of these issues through education and professional development trainings. VAWA also funds services administered through community agencies. On a macro level, VAWA collects data to keep track of national trends, informing policy (DOJ, 2016). VAWA has also impacted criminal proceedings for the perpetrators of violence.
Delivery
The Office on Violence Against Women delivers most of VAWA services. The Office on Violence Against Women operates under the Department of Justice. To be eligible for VAWA, services must be provided by a US agency. As of October 2016, the Office on Violence Against Women had authorized “nineteen statutorily authorized grant programs, fifteen of which are discretionary” (DOJ, 2016). The Office on Violence Against Women also funded other programs and special initiatives, including technical assistance provider programs. Programs are funded for two to three years at a time.
Financing
VAWA receives its funding from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the department of Health and Human Services (HHS). There are over twenty-five grants that are funded through the Office on Violence Against Women, which is under the DOJ. VAWA funding goes toward both survivors receiving supports, and also to the prosecutors and law enforcement whose job it is to fight against this kind of violence.
The Violence Against Women Act is a major source of funding for a large variety of Domestic Violence Survivors resources and has certainly resulted in an increase in services and treatments for female victims of violent crimes. In the time since VAWA was enacted through Congress, this piece of legislation has evolved in order to attempt to cover all survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, and in the last three renewals of the law, lawmakers have made many improvements to the legislation in order to attempt to make the services more inclusive and accessible to all people regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation or immigration status. VAWA has provided funding that has resulted in an increase in the availability of legal services for survivors. This has been associated with a decrease in intimate partner homicide as shown by a study in 2010 (National Association to End Sexual Violence).
VAWA has made improvements in accessibility of services and increases in protections immigrant women, including providing a path to citizenship for survivors and their children through U-Visas. The 2013 version of the law made efforts to improve access to services and enforcement for Native Survivors of domestic violence. VAWA has also provided protections for survivors around housing, including support after eviction and protection around the need to break leasing contracts (Source??). Finally, VAWA had added protections for rape survivors, including the “Rape Shield Law” which protects survivors from disclosing any prior sexual behavior or encounters during cross-examination. Finally, since the legislation was enacted in 1994, VAWA has correlated with a decrease in overall domestic violence rates (Pickert, 2013).
Alternatively, even though three, soon to be four, reauthorizations of the act, VAWA still has severe limitations in how well impacts and supports its target population. Like most legislation, VAWA fails to consider the influence of race or economic status in the way the law is written. It is argued that VAWA fails to address the root of the problems that cause domestic violence while fueling mass incarceration (Pickert, 2013). Pickert (2013) also points out that while rates of domestic violence decreased after the legislation was enacted, a handful of legislation that was enacted at the same time decreased overall crime rates, not necessarily attributing the decrease in domestic violence to VAWA.
Impact on Target Populations
The Violence Against Women Act is a major source of funding for a large variety of Domestic Violence survivor resources, and has certainly resulted in an increase of services and treatments for female victims of violent crimes. In the time since VAWA was enacted through congress, this piece of legislation has evolved in order to attempt to cover all survivors of intimate partner violence. In the last three renewals of the law, lawmakers have made many improvements to the legislation in order to attempt to make the services more inclusive and accessible to all people regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation or documentation status (Ball, 2013). VAWA has provided funding that has resulted in an increase in availability of legal services for survivors. This has been associated with a decrease in intimate partner homicide as shown by a study in 2010 (Department of Justice, 2016). VAWA has made improvements in accessibility of services and increase in protections immigrant women, including providing a path to citizenship for survivors and their children through U-Visas (Immigration Center for Women and Children, n.d.).
The 2013 version of the law made efforts to improve access to services and enforcement for Native Survivors of domestic violence. VAWA has also provided protections to survivors around housing, including support after eviction and protection around the need to break leasing contracts (Department of Justice, 2016). Finally, VAWA added protections for rape survivors, including the “Rape Shield Law” which protects survivors from disclosing any prior sexual behavior or encounters during cross-examination. Finally, since the legislation was enacted in 1994, VAWA has at correlated with a decrease in overall domestic violence rates (Pickert, 2013).
Alternatively, even through three, soon to be four, reauthorizations of the act, VAWA still has severe limitations in terms of how well VAWA impacts and supports its target population (Burns, 2013). Like most legislation, VAWA fails to consider the influence of race or economic status in the way the law is written. It is argued that VAWA fails to address the root of the problems that cause domestic violence, while fueling mass incarceration (Pickert, 2013). Pickert (2013) also points out that while rates of domestic violence decreased after the legislation was enacted, a handful of legislation was enacted which decreased overall crime rates. Therefore VAWA cannot be proven as the direct cause of the decrease in domestic violence (Pickert, 2013).
While VAWA regulations do allow for sex-specific programming where appropriate and necessary, an unintended result of sex-specific programming is a severe lack of resources and shelter for marginalized populations including those who identify as, cisgendered male, LGBTQ, undocumented, and native individuals (Miller, 2013). When speaking specifically about protections for undocumented peoples experience of intimate partner violence in the United States, VAWA provides protections, services and a path to citizenship, however those protections have significant room to grow in order to better serve these populations. The 2013 reauthorization expanded the violent crimes that qualify undocumented individuals for protection, specifically U-Visas.
However, the 2013 reauthorization did not increase the number of U-visas that are authorized to be issued annually (Modi, Palmer, & Armstrong, 2014). Further, native tribes are among the populations facing the most significant barriers to accessing VAWA’s protections and resources. Native land is not federally regulated, and so tribes are responsible for the application of and enforcement of VAWA standards. Native courts do so with considerably fewer resources (Ball, 2013). VAWA strives to protect all peoples from domestic violence and sexual violence. In practice, however, the systems currently in place only effectively serve a very small portion of that population (Coker, 2016).
Part of VAWA’s enforcement of and protection against intimate partner violence is the enforcement of mandatory arrests. These mandatory arrests require that law enforcement “make an arrest when responding to a domestic violence call if there is probable cause to believe any violence has occurred, regardless of the wishes of the person assaulted” (Center for Research on Violence Against Women, 2011). Despite the policy’s presumably well-meaning intentions to encourage law enforcement to take reports of violence seriously and prevent victim intimidation around reporting, there have been harmful impacts of these arrests. This policy allows for law enforcement to take action without participation from the victim (Pickert, 2013).
Unfortunately, there have been several unintended consequences of these mandatory arrest laws. First, if it is difficult for law enforcement to distinguish between the victim and batterer– in the case of same-sex couples or in a scenario where a victim acts violently out of self-defense– the policy suggests the arrest of both parties (Miller, 2001). This is consistent with the data that “that mandatory arrest policies result in higher arrest rates of battered women”, revictimizing survivors and discouraging reporting the crime at all our of fear the survivor may be mistaken as an aggressor and arrested (University of Akron, 2016). According to a report released by Harvard, mandatory arrest policies were consistent with increased domestic violence-related homicides due to victims underreporting, as they may have wanted the violence to stop but did not want their partner to be arrested or risk their own arrest (Iyengar, 2007).
Another shortcoming of the current VAWA is the lack of funding allocated to preventative programs and restorative justice (Burns, 2013). Moreover, VAWA generally is lacking in the regulation of funds. VAWA requires the collaboration of many different agencies and organizations, however, without effective oversight or regulation, funds can be wasted, used improperly, or fraudulently (Aday, 2015). A 2016 audit conducted by the Department of Justice found that twenty-one of twenty-two randomly selected VAWA grants were in violation of grant terms (Office of Violence Against Women, 2016).
Proposed Changes and Policy Recommendations
Ultimately, female victims of crime and arguably all survivors have benefited at varying levels from VAWA, but the act still has a great deal of room to grow. In a Huffington post article, Melissa Jeltsen (2018) reported that some of the proposed changes will continue to address many of the shortcomings of the past bill(s) and seek to strengthen the things that are working in the current bill. Some of the proposed changes to the 2018 VAWA renewal suggest improved protections for domestic violence survivors living in public housing, increased protections for marginalized populations, dramatically increased funding for local rape prevention efforts, more funding for preventative programs, grants for alternative justice, and greater regulation of how funding is used (Jeltsen, 2018).
Considering modern-day controversy surrounding guns and gun violence, the 2018 bill will inevitably have some new considerations when deciding to tighten or loosen VAWA gun regulations, though the result of those conversations is not yet clear (Sarappo, 2018). Other social justice factors worth considering future renewals include: the naming of VAWA as it refers to only women; mandatory arrest policies need more consideration for, LGBTQ populations, race, and socio-economic status; more education of law enforcement; greater considerations for peoples living on native lands.
References
Aday, T. (2015). The effectiveness of the violence against women act (VAWA) in creating
system-level change. SPNHA Review: 11(1), 5-24.
Ard, K. L., & Makadon, H. J. (2011). Addressing intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender patients. Journal of general internal medicine, 26(8), 930-933.
Ball, M. (2013, February 12). Why would anyone oppose the violence against women act? The
Atlantic. Retrieved from: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/
why-would-anyone-oppose-the-violence-against-women-act/273103/
Biden, J. (2014, September 10). 20 Years of Change: Joe Biden on the Violence Against Women
Act. Retrieved December 7, 2018, from
http://time.com/3319325/joe-biden-violence-against-women
Boccino, A. J., & Tanford, J. A. (1980). Rape victim shield laws and the sixth amendment.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review,128, 544-602. Retrieved 1979, from
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4788&context=penn_law_review.
Breiding, M. J. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate
partner violence victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey,
United States, 2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries
(Washington, DC: 2002), 63(8), 1.
Brown, Robin. (2005). Billboards criticize Biden’s violence Law. The News Journal
Burns, R. (2013, February 28). VAWA: A Victory for Women-But Which Women? Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/article/14668/vawa_a_victory_for_womenbut_which_women
Center for Research on Violence Against Women. (2011). Top Ten Things Advocates Need to Know [Pamphlet]. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.
Chemtob, C. M., & Carlson, J. G. (2004). Psychological Effects of Domestic Violence on
Children and Their Mothers. International journal of stress management, 11(3), 209.
Coker, D. (2016). Domestic violence and social justice: A structural intersectional framework for
teaching about domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 22(12), 1426-1437.
DOJ: Office on Violence Against Women. (2018, December 07). OVW Grants and Programs.
Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/ovw/grant-programs
Department of Justice. (2016). 2016 Biennial report to congress on the effectiveness of grant
programs under the Violence Against Women Act(Rep.). Retrieved
https://www.justice.gov/ovw/page/file/933886/download
Edwards, H. S. (2018, October 4). How Christine Blasey Ford’s Testimony Changed America.
Retrieved from http://time.com/5415027/christine-blasey-ford-testimony/
Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on
children and young people: A review of the literature. Child abuse & neglect, 32(8),
797-810.
Immigration Center for Women and Children. (n.d.). Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Retrieved from https://www.icwclaw.org/violence-against-women-act-vawa/
Itkowitz, C. (2018, September 21). The Health 202: In #MeToo era, Congress isn't prioritizing
Violence Against Women programs. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-health-202/2018/09/21/the-health-202-in-metoo-era-congress-isn-t-prioritizing-violence-against-women-programs/5ba3e43e1b326b7c8a8d1587/?utm_term=.488df7623756
I-VAWA: International Violence Against Women Act. (n.d.). PsycEXTRA Dataset.
doi:10.1037/e597572012-001
Iyengar, R. (2007). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from
mandatory and recommended arrest laws. NBER Working Paper Series, 13186, 1–32.
Jeltsen, M. (2018). Violence Against Women Act Is About To Expire. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/violence-against-women-act-expiring-september_us_5b6b0a4ae4b0de86f4a789db
Kasturirangan, A., Krishnan, S., & Riger, S. (2004). The impact of culture and minority status on
women’s experience of domestic violence. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 5(4), 318-332.
Laney, G. P. (2010). Violence against women act: History and federal funding. Washington.
Lieberman, A. F., Van Horn, P., & Ozer, E. J. (2005). Preschooler witnesses of marital violence:
Predictors and mediators of child behavior problems. Development and psychopathology,
17(2), 385-396.
Martinez‐Torteya, C., Anne Bogat, G., Von Eye, A., & Levendosky, A. A. (2009). Resilience
among children exposed to domestic violence: The role of risk and protective factors.
Child development, 80(2), 562-577.
Meyer-Emerick, N. (2002). Policy makers, practitioners, citizens: Perceptions of the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994. Administration & society, 33(6), 629-663.
Miller, K. (2013, February 28). LGBT people will receive first-ever domestic violence
protections under VAWA. ThinkProgress. Retrieved from: https://thinkprogress.org/lgbt people-will-receive-first-ever-domestic-violence-protections-under-vawa-f3ebfe1d946a/
Miller, S. L. (2001). The paradox of women arrested for domestic violence: Criminal justice
professionals and service providers respond. Violence Against Women, 7, 1339-1376.
Modi, M. N., Palmer, S., & Armstrong, A. (2014). The role of Violence Against Women Act in
addressing intimate partner violence: a public health issue. Journal of women's health,
23(3), 253-259.
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence. (2017). Legislative Priorities. Retrieved from
https://www.endsexualviolence.org/legislation/
Office on Violence Against Women. (2016). Grant programs to end violence against women.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Pickert, K. (2013, February 27). What's Wrong with the Violence Against Women Act? Retrieved from http://nation.time.com/2013/02/27/whats-wrong-with-the-violence-against-women-act/
S. 47 (113th): Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s47/text
Rowley, J. (2018, September 26). AP Was There: The Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill hearings.
Retrieved from https://apnews.com/0e7625b761e7416194562aea38ab9910
Sarappo, E. (2018, October 16). What's Next for the Violence Against Women Act? Retrieved
from https://psmag.com/news/whats-next-for-the-violence-against-women-act
University of Akron. (2016, March 36). Mandatory arrest laws may hurt domestic violence victims. Retrieved from https://www.uakron.edu/im/news/mandatory-arrest-laws-may-hurt-domestic-violence-victims
The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113–4, 127 Stat. 54
Walters, M.L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M.J. (2013). The national intimate partner and sexual
violence survey (NISV): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Waxman, O. B. (2018, September 24). Anita Hill's Testimony Didn't Stop a Supreme Court
Confirmation—But It Did Affect Election Results. Retrieved from
http://time.com/5402936/anita-hill-elections-effect/