Behind Close Doors: The City’s Response To Family Violence

Report of the Task Force on Family Violence

***

Co-Chairs: Ruth W. Messinger, Manhattan Borough President

Ronnie M. Eldridge, Chair, City Council Sub-Committee on Women

Co-Conveners: Alisa Del Tufo Elba Montalvo

Staff:

Ellen D. Doherty, Manhattan Borough President’s Office Margaret Nelson, Council Member Eldridge’s Office

Interns:

Laura Metallo Julie Pars Cadenhead

April 1993

Task Force on Family Violence

April 28, 1993

Dear Reader: Family violence is too often ignored and misunderstood. Yet some 40 percent of New York City’s homeless families are fleeing violence. Fifty-two thousand reports of child abuse are made in this City each year. An estimated 30-40 percent of emergency room visits by women are the result of battering. Although domestic violence and child abuse are viewed as separate problems, the evidence clearly indicates that where there’s one, there most often is the other. The 1991 report of the New York City Child Fatality Review Panel found that in 71 percent of the cases where a child died in a homicide, the mother was also abused. The report which follows is entitled “Behind Closed Doors” not only because that is where family violence occurs, but also because closed doors too often characterize the current response of City and State agencies to this problem. This report is an executive-legislative analysis of that response and makes legislative, program and policy recommendations to improve the City’s ability to intervene and protect families. This comprehensive report is only the first step in elevating the issue of family violence to priority status in this City. We look forward to working with City agencies, advocates, and other elected officials to effect the changes outlined here. Many of the suggestions contained in this report cost little and yet would save many lives. We hope to work with the City to allocate funding in the FY 1994 budget for several of these most critical recommendations. Finally, we wish to thank our Task Force on Family Violence. We brought together, for the first time, advocates and experts who work with children and with women to discuss and investigate this problem. We are grateful for the enormous amount of work which they accomplished between December and March. Although these two groups have done parallel work for many decades, together, they found common ground and a common voice. Ruth W. Messinger Ronnie M. Eldridge Ruth W. Messinger Ronnie M. Eldridge, Chair Manhattan Borough President Council Subcommittee on Women A joint effort of the Manhattan Borough President’s Office, the Women’s Sub-Committee of the City Council and numerous women’s

and children’s advocates and organizations.

Acknowledgments

The Task Force would like to thank the following individuals for their participation in our series of roundtable discussions, which were held on January 12 & 14, 1993. Their assistance has been invaluable to the preparation of this report. Special thanks go to Eric Brettschneider, Catherine Douglass, Esq., and Anne Lopatto, Esq., who, through the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, sponsored these workshops and assisted us so substantially.

Urania G. Anderson, NYC Board of Education; Susan Barrie, Esq., Brooklyn Legal Services; Heike Bocanegra, New York Task Force on Immigrant Health; Lehra Brooks, Urban Women’s Retreat; Effie Bynum, NYC Board of Education; Ruth Cecire, NYC Department of Health; Barbara Chang, New York Asian Women’s Center; Alison Clifford, NYS Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence; Juanita Colon, Henry Street Settlement; Lydia Colon-Fores, Victim Services; Bonnie Cousins, NYC Child Welfare Administration; Dr. Yael Danieli, International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies; Barbara Fedders, West Side SRO Law Project; Frances Gautieri, Bellevue Hospital Center; Janet Geller, Center for the Study of Family Abuse; Dr. Caren Ginsberg, NYC Department of Health; Joan Goodman, United Federation of Teachers; Roger Hayes, NYC Department of Health; Ellie Jennings, NYC Department of Probation; Santa Jiminez, Sanctuary for Families; Rev. Joseph Kane, NYC Department of Corrections; Dr. Stuart Kleinman; Joyce Klemperer, Coalition of Battered Women’s Advocates; Barbara Lwasson, NYC Board of Education; Melanie Lindsey-Brisbin, Park Slope Safe Homes Project; Miriam Lox, NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation; Sally MacNichol, Voices of Women; Detective Lydia Martinez, NYC Police Department; Rosaleen Mazur, Cornell University; Anne McGlinchey, Victim Services; Kristian Miccio, Esq., Sanctuary For Families; Jackie Miller, Jewish Board of Family & Children’s Services; Ellen Mishkin, Esq., Brooklyn Bar Volunteer Lawyer’s Project; Rebecca Moore, Esq.; Kristin Morse, Sanctuary For Families; Inspector Austin P. Mulryan, New York Police Department; Sr. Mary Nerney, STEPS To End Family Violence; Grace Perez, Violence Intervention Program; Ethelena Persons, Behavioral Sciences Institute; Thelma Prince, Council of Supervisors & Administrators; Bonnie Rabin, Esq., Legal Aid Society; Florence Roberts, Esq., Brooklyn Legal Services; Dr. Gwendolyn Rogers, Onisegune Institute of African Psychologgy; Roberta Schechter, Psychotherapist, Private Practice; The Honorable Sara P. Schechter, Brooklyn Family Court; Dr. Barbara Stimmel, Mt. Sinai Medical Center; Edmund Stubbing, Victim Services; Nancy Thomson, Esq., HRA Office of Legal Affairs; Winifred Tracey, Southern Queens Park Association; Susan Urban, HRA/Crisis Intervention Services; Betsy Wald, Coalition for the Homeless; Gillian Walker, Ackerman Family Institute; Carletta Joy Walker, Black Women’s Health Project; Cecile Ward, NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation; Diane Lacey Winley, NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation; Vivien Wolsk, Ph.D., Gestalt Center for Psychotherapy & Training; Ruth Young, Parents On The Move; Dr. Mary Zachary, Bellevue Hospital Center; Rita Zimmer, Women In Need; Joan Zorza, Esq., National Battered Women’s Law Project.

The following individuals have also provided essential information and resources to the Task Force throughout the drafting of this report.

Commissioner Catherine Abate, NYC Department of Corrections; Ronnie Border, Esq.; The Honorable Karen S. Burstein; Police Officer Leslie Cardona; Cleon Edwards, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Public Safety; The Honorable Marjory Fields; Liz Krueger, Community Food Resource Center; Deputy Chief Markman, New York Police Department; The Honorable Alan Marrus; Julie Martinez, Esq.; The Honorable Kay McDonald; Sally MacNichol, Voices of Women; The Honorable Sheldon M. Rand; The Honorable Eugene Schwartzwald; Barbara Seaman and The New York Women’s Agenda; Susan Schechter and The Boston Foundation; The Honorable Judith Sheindlin; Ralph Stith; Ed Talty, Esq.; Al Teichman, Esq.; Deputy Chief Timoney, New York Police Department; Linda Woncell, Esq.; and Susan Xenarious, St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center.

The Task Force wishes to thank: award-winning photographer Donna Ferrato for the generous contribution to this report of her powerful photographs of survivors of family violence; and Dennis Rivera, labor leader, feminist, and President of 1199, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union, for agreeing to underwrite a portion of the cost of printing this report. Words cannot express the gratitude of this Task Force to the many strong and courageous women and children who agreed to meet with us and share their stories with the conviction that this report will move this City to break the cycle of family violence. They are anonymous in this report not by choice, but in order to guarantee their continue safety. The Borough President and the Councilmember wish to thank the members of their staff who contributed their varied expertise to this process: Andy Breslau, Harriet Cohen, Bruce Cory, Maria Del Toro, Diane Morales, Mariet Morgan, Libby Moroff, Kenneth Nemchin, Patricia Roach, Ruth Rodriguez, Roberta Rohdin, Laura Srebnik, Jeri Woodhouse and intern Michel Buffet of Messinger’s office, and Lisa Gugenheim of Eldridge’s office. And certainly they thank Margaret Nelson of the Councilmember’s staff and Ellen D. Doherty of the Borough President’s staff without whom the report could not have been written. The Borough President further thanks the Hunter College School of Social Work for providing her Office and this Task Force with two extraordinary second-year Masters candidates whose unfailing contributions of skill, professionalism, and commitment made this report possible: Julie Pars Cadenhead and Laura Metallo. And finally, the Councilmember and Borough President acknowledge with gratitude the work of Alisa Del Tufo, Task Force Co-convener, who beyond all reasonable expectation gave unstintingly of her time, energy, good-will and unwavering vision in the preparation of this report.

Nina’s Story

This poem was written by a 17-year-old client of the Children’s Safety Project of Greenwich House, about her experiences. It was provided for the report by Flora Colao, the Project’s Director and a Task Force member.

I am 17 years old

I live in a group home I’ve been here for 3 years

My step-father used to beat up my mother And he used to rape me

He didn’t touch my little brothers But he made them feel like shit

Calling them faggots assholes and shitheads One night he beat my mother real bad

She was laying on the floor all curled up She couldn’t stop crying

She said “God give me the strength to leave him” That’s when I broke

I couldn’t hold it in no more I told her he been raping me since I was 12

We both cried and screamed She slept with me that night

He came home drunk but he left us alone Next day she told me to tell the counselor at school

It got reported BCW told my mother she got to take us and leave She said “How my going to do that I got nothing” They took my brothers and me They left my mother with him They said my mother knew or should have They said she was neglectful She needed a lawyer they was charging her We went to court so many times Two of them she had a black eye Nobody said nothing about that They sent my brothers back home Everybody acts like I’m the problem Nobody did nothing to help my mother It became them against me Should have been us against him I know in my heart Give my mother a place to be with her kids She would leave him for good Tell them that

Table of Contents

Letter from the Co-Chairs Acknowledgments Nina’s Story Introduction Executive Summary A Note to the Reader Chapter 1: Protective Services Systems Chapter 2: The Judicial System Chapter 3: Police Chapter 4: Housing and Homelessness Chapter 5: Employment and Entitlements Chapter 6: Health Chapter 7: Mental Health Chapter 8: Education and Youth End Notes Appendix: Members of the Task Force

Introduction

“They [the police] tell him to cool off. They leave and then there is hell to pay.”

“An Order of Protection! It’s just a piece of paper. It just made him more angry, and then when he beat me worse after I got it, the police and court did nothing about it.”

“They [child welfare caseworkers] made me feel like a criminal. My husband was beating the kids, he was beating me. All they did was take my kids away and send me to a group to teach me how to be a better parent. You shoulda seen how my husband laughed at that!”

***

In its many forms, family violence dramatically and adversely affects the lives of women, children and families. Historically, violence in families has been viewed as two distinct issues: child abuse and woman battering. The term family violence recognizes that, for the most part, these forms of violence co-exist in families, and that services, interventions and policies should also being to reflect this awareness. Our understanding of the interconnections of family violence is still developing. In her groundbreaking study of child welfare cases in Boston from 1860-1960 (A), Linda Gordon discovered that 41 percent of men who beat their partner were also child abusers, and that the protection of children from abuse was the factor most likely to increase a woman’s resistance to battering. More recently, a study conducted at Yale/New Haven Hospital found that spouse abuse may be the single most significant context for child abuse. The New York City Child Welfare Agency has also found that in a sample of 71 per cent of the child homicides it was called on to investigate, the mother was also a victim of domestic violence. The battering male is the most common child abuser, and existing services and theories of intervention are not effective in combating this dual abuse. The co-chairs of this Domestic Violence Task Force convened its members to report on New York City’s overall response to the family violence crisis, and to make substantive policy, program, fiscal and legislative recommendations. After four months of investigation and research, involving more than 100 interviews with City officials, service providers and the victims of family violence, the Task Force reached these troubling conclusions:

• There is no coordinated response to the problem of family violence despite the direct involvement of an array of City and State agencies with the issue. Existing services and theories of intervention are not effective in combating the dual abuse of women and children; neither battered women’s services nor child protective services, as they are presently structured, can intervene to meet the mix of needs of these families.

• City and State agencies have so far failed to develop procedures and protocols

that recognize and address the linkage between woman battering and child abuse.

• Battered women and children are often ignored by the system designed to help them, or are offered assistance that is either ineffective or, worse, puts them in danger of further abuse. Current options for many battered women include: placing their children in foster care to protect them; staying at home and trying to “manage” the violence; or leaving home to live in a shelter or on the street.

The members of the Task Force acknowledge that many City agencies have taken long strides forward in recent years to protect and help family violence victims and to lift the veil of secrecy that has long shielded its perpetrators. We recognize as well that there are many dedicated, hardworking and imaginative people working on these issues in government agencies, nonprofit organizations and volunteer groups. Our criticisms are not directed at them, but rather at the systemic gaps, omissions and errors that continually frustrate their efforts. Recommendations The Task Force has made recommendations for changes touching a broad range of policies and practices by the City and State agencies it has examined. Many of our recommendations are “cost neutral.” They involve changes in reporting practices, recordkeeping or inter-agency communication that will require no additional funds or personnel. Other recommendations call for new expenditures. For example, we advocate a substantial expansion of both homeless shelter space and permanent housing for victims of family violence. We recognize that in an era of diminished local government resources, it will not be possible to implement all such recommendations quickly or easily. Even incremental progress on them, however, will produce multiple benefits. It will relieve current and unnecessary suffering, demonstrate new sensitivity and imagination on difficult issues, and constitute and immediate down payment that will reap long-term economic and social dividends. On a philosophical level, we hope that this report will inspire a deeper appreciation for the need to address family violence holistically. We must sound an urgent note of caution: significant amounts of training and re-training, and the institution of accountability systems and other program development must precede implementing policies or procedures that ma increase the reporting of child abuse or neglect. Otherwise, the unintended result of greater compliance with such reporting requirements could well bet the subjection of battered women and children to even more severe violence, and even more unnecessary removals of children from non-abusive mothers.

Special Concerns Victims of family violence who are poor, from immigrant communities, lesbian or gay, elderly or disabled face special barriers, from inadequacy of translation services to outright bias and discrimination. Immigrant and undocumented women must deal with several issues that compound family violence. Language barriers, cultural and religious differences, and fear of deportation or other legal sanctions work to isolate them and prevent them from getting the help they need. Violence against the elderly and disabled is also a hidden and underreported crime. It is estimated that fewer than one in fourteen elder abuse or neglect cases ever reaches the authorities. Lack of information or contact with others, shame, and fear of retaliation prevent the elderly and disabled from obtaining help. An elderly person’s complaints are often dismissed as delusions or symptoms of Alzheimer disease; the misapprehension that “disabled” equals “intellectually impaired” means that many requests for help from disabled people are likewise ignored. Lesbian and gay victims of violence are reluctant to seek help from social service agencies, the police, or the criminal justice system because they anticipate a hostile response to their sexual orientation, and a lack of sensitivity to their specific needs. This Task Force strongly recommends that such concerns be considered a priority in training, service delivery and legislative reform in every City system we have analyzed. The services offered by such groups as the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, the Center for Independence and the Disabled, Victims Services and West Side One Stop (for the elderly), the New York Asian Women’s Center and the Violence Intervention Program in East Harlem, and other, similar organizations must be supported and expanded. City agencies also must become more sensitive and welcoming. Methodology At the first meeting of the Task Force in December 1992, its 35 members divided into eight subcommittees to discuss the specific issues on which each group would focus, and compile a list of experts with whom they would consult. During two full days in mid-January, each subcommittee of the Task Force held roundtable discussions at which they interviewed experts and clients. Working from transcripts of these meetings and in some instances conducting subsequent interviews with experts in the field, each subcommittee drafted its chapter. Additional research and writing has produced the final draft of this report. A unique aspect of this Task Force should also be noted: for the first time in any of its members’ memory, a group comprised both of advocated for women and

advocated for children worked together on issues of long-standing significance to both groups. Organization of the Report The report is divided into eight chapters. Each examines a different City system which in some way deals with battered women and/or abused and neglected children. Each chapter is further divided into the following sections:

• A case study which illustrates the problems that victims of family violence encounter in their attempts to negotiate each City system;

• An analysis of the case study;

• A statement specifying the problems inherent in each system; and

• An overview of the system in question, with recommendations for creating or

improving existing policies, protocols and programs, proposed necessary legislative changes and, in some instances, estimates of what new efforts might cost.

Conclusion The members of this Task Force believe that the problems we have documented are a powder keg ready to explode. The specters of lawsuits, liability for the City’s failure to protect and increasing levels of violence at home and on our streets weigh heavily upon us. It is incumbent upon our elected leaders, appointed officials, advocated, services providers and concerned citizens to take a hard look at these disturbing problems and make certain that change begins. They City of New York should also consider the Task Force’s finding that doctors, nurses, educators, counselors, therapists, attorneys, etc. (man of whom are mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect) consider calling CWA “the option of last resort.” It is a serious matter when, the agency established to protect the safety of children is seen by caring professionals to be harmful and punitive. We must be imaginative in developing new approaches and bold in advocating for change. We must urge our City to radically restructure the services and means of intervention that are now in place, to hold perpetrators accountable for their violence and provide realistic, concrete assistance to victims of family violence. We must start very early in children’s lives to re-educated them about gender roles and violence-free conflict resolution techniques. We must send a strong message that family violence will not be tolerated in New York City and that serious social sanctions will be used to hold abusers accountable.

Executive Summary

The Family Violence Task Force was jointly established by the office of Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger and City Council Member Ronnie Eldridge to assess City government’s response to this complex and critical issue. After four months of investigation and research, involving more than 100 interviews with City officials, service providers and the victims of family violence, the Task Force reached these troubling conclusions:

• There is no coordinated response to the problem of domestic violence despite the direct involvement of at least six City and two State agencies with the issue.

• Despite the growing body of evidence that batterers of women also are often child

abusers, City and Stage agencies have so far failed to develop procedures and protocols that recognize and address this linkage.

• Battered women and children are often ignored by the systems designed to help

them, or are offered assistance that is either ineffective or, worse, puts them in danger of further abuse.

This report offers ample evidence to support these conclusions. For example, we

found that: • Only about seven per cent of all calls to “911” concerning domestic violence

result in arrest, despite a longstanding “pro-arrest” departmental policy in such situations.

• A recent study of emergency room admissions at Bellevue Hospital concluded

that only one in 25 battered women treated there had been identified by hospital staff as battered.

• The perverse requirements of admission to homeless shelters often force a cruel

choice on battered women: Quit jobs and accept public assistance, or return to the homes—and batterers—they fled.

• Orders of protection deisgned to extend the security of the law to victims of

domestic violence are habitually ignored, and such violations routinely go unpunished.

• Doctors, nurses, teachers and others who are mandatory reporters of child abuse

are frequently so troubled by the practices of the City’s Child Welfare Administration (CWA) that they consider calling CWA “the option of last resort.”

The Task Force has made recommendations for changes in policy and practice by the

City and State agencies it has examined. Protective Services (CWA and CIS) Recommendations:

• Retrain State Central Registry hotline staff and CWA and contracted workers; • Develop a protocol which assesses domestic violence during child abuse

investigations;

• Develop non-residential services for battered women and their children;

• Expand shelter beds and Tier II beds, with enhanced services, for battered women;

• Expand Project Nova and similar support services for families in Tier II shelters;

• Provide specialized counseling services for children in domestic violence shelters;

• Develop a model family violence intervention program in four contracted

preventive services agencies in Manhattan. Judicial System Recommendations:

• Computerize and cross-reference family violence cases throughout the system; • Increase access to legal services and legal advocated for battered women;

• Train judges and court personnel on the interrelationship of domestic violence and

child abuse;

• Enhance data collection on outcomes and orders;

• Mandate attendance at batterers programs for first-time offenders of Orders of Protection;

• Create a coordinating body to address the issue of fragmentation in and among

courts and jurisdictions;

• Increase number of supervised visitation centers. Police Recommendations:

• Develop a patrol guide procedure to look for evidence of domestic violence when responding to a child abuse call;

• Develop a complaint form that would capture more information about family

violence complaints;

• Develop increased accountability measures regarding pro-arrest and mandatory complaint policies;

• Expand police training to include the relationship of child abuse to domestic

violence;

• Require that police officers assist victims in serving Orders of Protection. Housing and Homelessness Recommendations:

• Establish “Family Violence Crisis Centers” as intake centers for families who are homeless due to domestic violence;

• Increase the number of domestic violence shelter beds by making City funding

available for start-up expenses for not-for-profit groups;

• Make rental vouchers available for women and children whose 90 days in battered women’s shelters have lapsed;

• Increase permanent housing, with set-asides for homeless families fleeing

violence;

• Establish training and legal services in Housing Court for battered women seeking to evict the batterer.

Employment and Entitlements Recommendations:

• Changed Medicaid eligibility requirements, or provide alternative access to medical services, for working battered women and their children;

• Expedite entitlements, and make them accessible to battered women not in the

shelter system;

• Establish an Office of Eligibility Advocacy to address battered women’s entitlement needs and ensure that many of the lesser known and underutilized entitlements are accessed;

• Create funding streams to shelter those families not currently eligible due to immigration status or employment.

Health Recommendations:

• Initiate a public health campaign to raise awareness about family violence and the availability of assistance;

• Establish operating procedures that add a domestic violence assessment to intake

charts, require confidentiality when interviewing patients, and require safety plans for patients when domestic violence is identified;

• Institute cross-assessment protocols for child abuse and domestic violence. Place

a family violence advocate on staff at each hospital. Mental Health Recommendations:

• Improve training for mental health professionals on family violence and require appropriate interview and intervention strategies as a conditions for re-licensing;

• Develop peer counseling groups for victims of family violence;

• Increase funding for research into effective treatment models for batterers and for

batterers programs;

• Establish written protocols and provide consultation, education and training on family violence issues to all DMHMRAS contractors;

• Develop special programs and services to address the special needs of children.

Education and Youth Services Recommendations:

• Mandate training for teachers on family violence;

• Institute workshops for parents and teens on the connection between child abuse and woman abuse and parenting skills;

• Weave violence prevention education for students into existing curricula on

family relationships, health and safety, and conflict resolution;

• Include questions on family violence in intake interviews for special education programs;

• Allocate DYS Safe Streets, Safe City money to fund family violence conflict

resolution programs;

• Fund hiring of at least one counselor or social worker in each Community School District and all high schools to coordinate family violence intervention activities;

• Develop a model anti-violence curriculum to be tested in one or more schools.

A Note to the Reader

All of the case studies in this report are true However, in all cases, names and other identifying information have been

Changed to protect the safety of individuals and families

1: Protective Services Systems

Case Study

Amanda Stone and her son, Malik, moved into a shelter in May of 1992, after one too many violent encounters between Mrs. Stone and her husband. She said it this way: “My husband was on medication. When he took it, everything was fine. When he didn’t, watch out. Then he used to come after me, curse me and beat me up bad.” The night before she and Malik moved out was one of those bad nights. Amanda remembers being in her bedroom, being beaten by her husband. Malik, she thought, was in the living room watching television. Except suddenly he was in the doorway—with a kitchen knife. “He was gonna stab his father. A nine-year-old child, but he just couldn’t take it anymore. He couldn’t stand to see me getting hurt. That’s when I realized how bad things had gotten for him, for me. I knew we had to get out before somebody—me or his daddy—got killed. So the next morning, we left with just the clothes we had on and we never went back.” By leaving her home, Amanda Stone averted one possible (and all too common) tragedy. But leaving did not begin to solve all of Malik’s and her problems. The Task Force members who met with the Stones all remember two things about them: how devoted Amanda was to Malik, and how bright and engaging he was. While his mother was meeting with the group, he sat in the corner making beautiful and sophisticated drawings. But something else happened as he sat in the corner drawing with other children whose mothers were participating in the discussion. Another boy, Nicholas, who is about Malik’s age but much larger, was also there and drawing. Suddenly, the two were fighting. It took several adults to separate them so that their mothers could remove them from the gathering. That same night, on the eve of the four-day Presiden’t weekend, a City holiday, the Stone’s CWA caseworker came to the shelter and removed Malik. He had a court order, but it did not indicate why Malik was being removed—whether for abuse or neglect. The next day, members of the Task Force learned through various sources that: Malik allegedly had a history of violent behavior and possible sexual acting-out; and that the Child Welfare Administration (CWA) had opened a case for the Stones in December. Informed sources at CWA and the shelter maintain that Amanda did not cooperate with CWA during the investigation. Amanda tells a different story: Malik had been in another fight with a different child in December. When the other child’s mother tried to break up the fight, Malik fought with her. She then reported this incident to someone. Due to confidentiality rules, we have no way of determining how the report made its way to CWA. CWA did investigate, sending a caseworker who made the usual inquiries. He told Mrs. Stone that he didn’t find any problems in her home (the shelter), but that he would be back in touch. Mrs. Stone next heard from the caseworker in January and they made an appointment to meet at the caseworker’s office. On the day of the appointment, Mrs. Stone spoke with

the caseworker and said she couldn’t keep the appointment because Malik was very ill with the flu and had a high fever. Although Malik reported that he had seen the caseworker at school, Mrs. Stone never heard from the caseworker again until he arrived with the court order to remove Malik from the shelter. Case Analysis No one, including shelter staff and the caseworker, believes that Mrs. Stone has abused her son. And, too, there is substantial evidence that she is not a neglectful mother. At the suggestion of his school, she has taken Malik for psychological and educational testing, and at the time of this writing has a follow-up appointment scheduled for March, 1993. Although Malik is very bright, his socialization problems prompted his school to place him in a special education program. Amanda has not been pleased with the program or its effect on her son. In fact, she feels his behavior worsened after being placed in the program. She has spent a significant amount of time at the school attempting to determine the problems with the program and to get her son re-assigned—not the actions of a neglectful caretaker. All of the experts consulted by the Task Force regarding this case agree: Malik is a child who is giving clear messages that he’s in trouble and needs help. When words fail, fighting, truancy and other acting out behaviors become the means of communicating need. Remember, this is a little boy who, in a desperate effort to protect his mother, felt forced to take a knife to his father. Unfortunately, the message to him thus far is that the help he can expect is punitive: to have to leave his childhood home; to leave his school; to be placed in at least two shelters; and new schools, then a special education program; and, finally, without any advance warning, to be taken away from his mother and sent to live Upstate. Consider, as well, the condition of Amanda Stone. She has been battered and abused by her husband. She has taken her son from his home, school and friends. She has left her life behind as well. She is living in a situation where she’s not even allowed—for safety and security reasons—to have friends visit. Now she’s faced with the need to pay very close attention to her son’s needs as she also seeks permanent housing. Without doubt she is overtaxed, overburdened, and overwhelmed, because she is doing it all herself. CWA and the shelter have not come through for her, have not successfully helped her to address the need for assistance with Malik’s schooling or his acting-out behavior. And, most importantly, no one had addressed both Stones’ needs for intensive services: treatment, counseling, support and advocacy. Is Mrs. Stone abusive or neglectful? It would seem not. Has she lost control of her son? Perhaps. Is his removal from her the correct response to a situation in which the system has, largely, failed them thus far? Not likely. Can the Stone fmaily’s situation be salvaged? Most likely. But it will require staunch advocacy and the certain cooperation of systems which, under most circumstances, do not interact in any meaningful way. The Stones have already had one Family Court date to discuss their reunification. Because no one told Amanda she had to have an attorney present, the judge has delayed discussion for another week. That’s another week in which Malik is Upstate and his mother is in the city.

Amanda states that the one thing which the protective services system has accomplished, without doubt, is to make her feel more powerless and less in control. And there is one additional effect which cannot be underestimated: every other mother in the shelter is well aware of the Stones’ story. It confirms all of their worst fears, and serves as an object lesson that they would do best to keep as a low a profile as possible for themselves and their children to avoid a similar fate. The ultimate consequence is that they, too, will miss opportunities to receive the services they desperately need. This case is undoubtedly the same as hundreds of others in the City system at this time. The difference is that because this case has come to the attention of this Task Force, perhaps the Stones will fare better than those hundreds of other families—until fundamental changes in the system are made. Problem Statement More than 161,000 emergency calls were placed to 911 to repot domestic violence crises in 1992.1 52,000 reports of child abuse and neglect in New York City, involving nearly 84,000 children, were made to the State Central Registry Hotline during the same period. 69 percent of all sexual abuse in this country occurs to children aged 17 and younger (E). 83 percent of their abusers are known to them. One in every seven to eight boys, and one in every four to five girls will be sexually abused (F). But these statistics, while they do much to reveal the magnitude of the problem of family violence in New York City, do little to illuminate its bitter depths or broad reach. Children are beaten, sexually abused and neglected. It used to be said that the long-term effects of physical and emotional trauma could not be predicted. But after 20 years of study, that is no longer true. There is now an entire generation of child abuse survivors who, in adulthood, are still manifesting very serious symptoms of their abuse. They have histories of institutionalization and experience acute dysfunctional episodes, such as flashbacks, psychological immobilization, inability to have healthy relationship, and inability to hold a job. Perhaps most sadly, those who never get help also become abusers and perpetuate the intergenerational cycle of family violence. Second, it is clear that the very system designed to assist these children can (and often does) trigger a re-victimization for the child. Rather than removing the victimizer from the home, it is far more common to remove children and place them in foster care, where additional victimization is all to frequent and where, even in the best cases, a child still feels vulnerable. Study after study has found that in removing children from their homes, we take away their supports, change their reality, alter their coping mechanisms, and challenge their sense of mastery over their world. In many cases, not even their clothes and toys accompany them.

1 As is discussed in this report in the chapter on Police, this figure represents only those calls that 911 operators classified as domestic violence calls. Because calls are classified according to the offense perceived to be the most serious at the time of the call, a report of a husband beating a wife will not be categorized as domestic violence but rather as an assault in progress. Therefore, it is impossible to know precisely how many more domestic dispute calls were actually made but coded as something else.

Women who are beaten also experience a very real loss of power, control, and sense of self. Depression often ensues, and if untreated can become first chronic, and then clinical. Experts who treat battered women agree that they see the same patterns repeated and a vicious cycle initiated. A woman’s judgment becomes impaired. Violence also shatters her ego—resulting in poor self-esteem, skewed perceptions of reality, and an impaired ability to solve problems. She begins to focus on survival, not parenting and household details. She becomes emotionally unavailable. Often, she will avoid taking her children to a doctor for fear of having the violence in her home exposed (G). Such actions often lead to charges of neglect and the loss of her children, precisely the situation she has sought to avoid. It is all too common for battered women to experience “helping” interventions as a second victimization. Time after time, the City systems established to protect children from abuse and women from violence fail to make the family connection. As one battered women’s advocate with a 20-year perspective said recently:

“The result is misdiagnosis and maltreatment. Disorganization is everywhere. The two sides barely speak to each other. It’s a dysfunction of the system that it blames battered women for the violence suffered against themselves and their children. I recently had a case where CWA criticized a woman for letting her batterer into the home. But he had been granted a court-ordered visit and she had to let him in to see the kids—whereupon he beat her. To CWA this was indicative of her inability to separate from her batterer.”

The two City systems charge to protect women and children, when they fail to deal with the family system, are fundamentally failing their mandates. Both short- and longer-term solutions do exist to correct these failings. However, the Task Force recommends strongly that, in regard to CWA, any changes in protocol occure only within the context of intensive re-training of Hotline staff, CWA caseworkers and contracted preventive services and foster care workers. Furthermore, changes in protocols should occur in concert with the development of effective services and appropriate referrals. It should be said that more referrals to domestic violence shelters are being made by CWA caseworkers today that were made five years ago, but it makes little sense to increase attention to the problem of family violence unless and until changes are accompanied by sufficient services for addressing it. Several people to whom Task Force members spoke remarked that, as things no stand, they fear that women who are encouraged to disclose battering may ultimately have that information used against them by CWA caseworkers. The Task Force has information about scores of women for whom that is true. Their caseworkers use, as evidence of their inability to protect their children, the fact that they themselves were being beaten. Such archaic and harmful views of the dynamics of family violence must be changed. Until they are, there can be no understanding reached, no trust established and no progress made in the struggle to break the cycle of family violence. Systems Overview

There are two City systems established to protect and assist women and children who are victims of family violence: CWA and Crisis Intervention Services (CIS). Both are divisions of the Human Resources Administration (HRA).

Child Welfare Administration

The CWA is charged with the responsibility to protect children from abuse and neglect. In addition, CWA provides preventive, foster care and adoption services. Reporting is the first in a series of steps which may result in a finding of child abuse or neglect. It is taken when someone who suspects such a problem makes a call to the New York State Department of Social Service’s Central Registry Hotline (Hotline) in Albany. Anyone can make an anonymous report to the DSS Hotline, although law enforcement officials, health care providers, social workers and teachers are among those required to report even if they have only a suspicious that a child is being abused or neglected. Some 52,000 such calls were placed on behalf of New York City’s children in 1992. The Hotline operator is the first person to have any contact with a report of suspected child abuse/maltreatment, and has the authority to decide if a report is serious enough to warrant an investigation by CWA. If deemed appropriate, a report called a “2221” is immediately transmitted to CWA for investigation. There is no policy or requirement that a Hotline operator ask any questions about other forms of violence in the home.

▲ Recommendation: In order to more firmly establish the link between child abuse and neglect, this Task Force recommends that, after retraining and sensitizing Hotline staff, the Hotline protocol be changed to require that every person calling to report suspected child abuse and neglect in a home be asked: “Do you have any reason to suspect that other forms of violence, such as wife battering, is occurring in that household?”

The Child Protective Service’s Domestic Violence Protocol is a document prepared for CWA by the New York City Inter-agency Task Force (ITFDV) on Domestic Violence. It is intended to be used when domestic violence is found to exist in a home being investigated for child abuse or neglect. Although it was accepted by CWA in 1990, it became very clear to the Task Force that it is an almost invisible document. It is unknown to the judiciary and to attorneys practicing in Family Court. Even more astounding, many CWA workers do not know of its existence. The protocol, and its method of implementation, are rife with problems. It only takes effect when the State Hotline receives a report of suspected child abuse and/or maltreatment that specifically mentions domestic violence. Furthermore, the protocol has no legal reinforcement. It has not been promulgated as a CWA policy and procedure, and has not been issued as a CWA bulletin. In its present form it cannot protect battered women from having their children removed by the governmental agency which they see as a last resort for protecting themselves and their children.

The Task Force heard frequent comments that the protocol often establishes an adversarial relationship between battered women and CWA workers. The caseworker is charged with acting in the best interests of a child, and can take the child from its mother. It is therefore difficult for a battered woman, who is vulnerable in many ways, to be open and honest about being battered with the caseworker. Rather than this issue being addressed by the protocol, it is actually reinforced. In Section III, Assessment of Parent/Caretaker’s Ability to Protect Children, for example, the evaluation is replete with value judgments about how battered women are to act if their children are to remain with them. The protocol, rather than being sensitive to a battered woman, is punitive and legitimizes her fear of being open and forthcoming. It places an enormous burden on women who are trying to extricate themselves from a destructive and life-threatening relationship.

▲ Recommendations: The protocol should be amended to eliminate judgmental questions and ensure that battered women feel free to share information with the CWA investigator. The amended protocol should then be utilized not only when a caller to the Central Registry happens to mention that there is a battered woman in the household, but whenever the child protective worker has reason to believe that the mother is a victim of domestic violence.

▲ The protocol will never be effective until it is promulgated as a CWA policy and procedure, issued as such in a CWA Bulletin, and made known to judges, attorneys and caseworkers.

Investigations of child abuse reports are performed by the Protective/Diagnostic (p/D) units of CWA. The P/D worker’s task is to investigate the allegation, assess danger to the child, and, if necessary, determine a family’s strengths, weaknesses and openness to receiving assistance. Until the adoption of the inter-agency domestic violence protocol, little or no consideration was given to abuse (other than to children) which might be occurring in a home. The protocol contains a fact sheet about domestic violence and a set of questions to be used to assess whether the occurrence of spousal abuse poses any danger to the children, and recommends steps that a case worker might take. It also serves to document the existence of this form of violence in a family. The protocol is given to P/D workers only if domestic violence is mentioned (and recorded) during a call to the Hotline. The ITFDV also developed a “palm card,” listing battered women’s services, to be given by P/D workers to women who are abused. Similarly, the palm card is only given out if a “2221” (the telephone report completed by the State Hotline and forwarded to CWA for investigation) mentions domestic violence. A third contribution of the ITFDV was a training program on domestic violence designed and implemented for P/D workers. Many women’s and children’s advocated maintain that without specific direction to do so, P/D workers never investigate the possibility of domestic violence. In fact, they contend, P/D workers routinely fail to adequately consider the men in households during their investigations. This, despite the fact that CWA’s 1991 Child Fatality Review Panel reported that in 70 percent of the households where a child homicide occurred, there was

also partner abuse. A CWA case is always opened in the name of the child’s mother “…even if,” as one advocate said recently, “she’s been dead for three years.” The implications of such a policy are extremely disturbing. Overwhelmingly, children in foster care are from poor families of color. Failure by CWA to inquire about men, and men’s roles, in a household being investigated for child abuse or neglect implies a set of stereotypical assumptions about their work.

▲ Recommendations: CWA, subsequent to intensive retraining and program development, should implement a policy of requiring its P/D caseworkers, during all investigations to enquire about the possibility of other forms of family violence besides child abuse and neglect.

▲ The “palm card” should be distributed to all women during the course of an abuse

and neglect investigation.

▲ It is imperative that all P/D workers receive mandatory retraining in order that they learn to look for, identify and assist families where any form of family violence exists.

Adult male members of families should be included in any risk assessment done

by CWA and, where appropriate, should be held accountable for the children’s maltreatment. There would be many fewer homeless families, and far fewer foster care placements, if the various City systems involved with family violence worked together to remove and abusive man from the household, thus obviating the need to move the family or remove the children. If it appears to CWA that there is abuse or neglect (or risk of same) to a child, the child can be removed to temporary foster care. The CWA worker must then appear the next day before a Family Court judge to justify continuing to keep the child in foster care. There are several foster care options available via CWA, including agency, direct and kinship foster care. Of course, foster care is not a panacea. If a child victim of family violence must be placed in foster care, CWA must ensure that ways are found to consider the special safety issues for families where violence is an issue: that children are protected from or during visits with the alleged batterer; that arrangements are made so that battered women can visit their children without encountering their batterer, etc. In addition, family violence guidelines must be promulgated, and training stipulated, for all foster care agencies and foster parents, and must be part of the home study assessment for all prospective foster care and adoptive parents. CWA is trying to develop programs to strengthen, support and keep families together while they solve their problems, rather than removing children from their homes. This is a particularly compelling need, given Department of Juvenile Justice Commissioner Rose Washington’s testimony at a City Council hearing that the two strongest indicators that a youth will enter the juvenile justice system are drug abuse and multiple foster care placements. CWA now has several programs and strategies in place, most notably the Family Preservation Program (FPP). It is encouraging that CWA Commissioner Robert Little

reports that FPP has begun to identify among its earliest interventions a significant percentage of families (as many as 70 percent) with domestic violence problems. Perhaps if FPP had been available for the Stones, Malik’s removal might have been prevented. It is extremely difficult for any progress to be made if women do not trust the CWA workers. Without trust, battered women will not disclose their situations to workers and the families will continue to be subjected to violence. Caseworkers also face an untenable situation: they are responsible for investigating allegations, accurately assessing situations, determining whether children should be removed and deciding whether or not to recommend prosecution—all while attempting to provide or arrange services for a family. A possible solution to this dilemma would be the creation of a pilot program which pairs a CWA caseworker with a battered woman’s advocated during the investigation. The relationship between the woman and the advocated should be a confidential one, with files blind to CWA, except that as a mandated reporter the advocate may have to make a report of suspected child abuse/maltreatment.

▲ Recommendations: State Youth Advocacy, in its three-year study of kinship foster care, should consider and include the issue of family violence and what systems exist or need to be created to protect children and their mothers.

▲ As a pilot project, the 12 preventive service contractors in Manhattan should be required to begin asking all of their clients about occurrences of family violence in their homes. All preventive services contractors also should be trained to interview, treat or refer abused women whom they identify in their programs as victims of abuse.

▲ As a model effort, four preventive service sites should be identified for intensive training in issues of family violence in order that they be used for confidential referrals of battered women when these women are identified by CWA caseworkers.

▲ A model Family Preservation Program should be designed to specifically address the needs of women and children where both are victims of violence. Training should be mandated for all FPP workers on the overlap of the abuse of women and children, and effective means of intervention.

Training Hotline operators and CWA caseworkers in issues of domestic violence is not mandate either by the New York State Department of Social Services of CWA. What training does occur happens sporadically, and largely through the efforts of the voluntary Inter-Agency Task Force on Domestic Violence. This informal approach is not sufficient.

▲ Recommendation: CWA caseworkers should receive comprehensive formal and mandated training about all aspects of family violence, as well as on-going follow-up training. In addition, all workers in contracted preventive services program, all workers in foster care agencies, and all foster parents should also

receive mandated training in family violence. This requirement should be stipulated in each agency’s CWA contract. It is imperative that the people who have day-to-day contact with women whose children are in foster care or who are at risk of being placed into foster care, understand the family dynamics that have placed these women and children in jeopardy.

Crisis Intervention Services

Crisis Intervention Services (CIS) is one sub-service of the Adult Services Agency at HRA. One of the agencies within CIS, in turn, is the Battered Women’s Program. The Battered Women’s Program offers a narrow range of services to women and their children: The Domestic Violence Hotline, shelter and, via the McKinney Act-funded Project NOVA, support groups and other limited services in non-battered women’s shelters. The Hotline number is listed on the “blue card” which is supposed to be given to women by the police when they are investigating a report of a domestic dispute. It is most frequently via the Hotline that women enter HRA’s battered women’s services system. The Hotline is professionally staffed and when a battered woman calls she is offered counseling as well as referrals for advocacy services and shelter through the Survivors Emergency Assistance Program (SEAP). The Hotline only operates Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 5:30 pm (holidays excluded). At all other times, Hotline calls are covered by the Victim Services hotline.

▲ Recommendation: HRA should either contract out its Hotline service to a community-based organization, or increase its own staffing to ensure that it is professionally staffed 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.

Survivor’s Emergency Assistance Program is a crisis internvention network of two directly-run and eight contracted-out domestic violence shelters and three community-based residential domestic violence programs. This network, with a mandate to provide services to women and their children who cannot return home due to thte threat of violence, contains 864 beds; 93 of these will unfortunately be lost to the system in June. (Please see Chapter Four.) The HRA Hotline receives some 4800 calls per year. When a battered woman calls the Hotline and states that she is seeking shelter, she is given the phone numbers of domestic violence shelters. In calling through the list, she either locates a shelter with beds for her children and herself, or determines that none are available. If there are no spaces available, she is directed to he

Battered women, in acute crisis and danger, have reported that it is particularly onerous to both leave their homes and be expected to organize their family’s placement in a shelter. Often, discouraged by their inability to make shelter arrangements, and faced with the prospect of several days on the floor of an EAU, they simply return to their homes (and the violence) as they attempt to make better arrangements for themselves and their children. Immigrant women may avoid the shelter system for fear of jeopardizing their legal status, or because staff has failed to make them feel welcome because of cultural or linguistic differences. Further, all battered women face the risk of being accused by CWA of putting or keeping their children in jeopardy, and thus losing them.

▲ Recommendation: SEAP should develop a more active and supportive method, such as actually making calls for women and children, to place them in safe housing.

Fewer than one in 50 battered women seeks shelter. At the present time, battered women who are not on public assistance or who refuse to enter the shelter system are not eligible for priority housing status. There is, in addition, an astounding paucity of non-residential services, essential to the stability of women and children, available to battered women.

▲ Recommendation: HRA should, at the very least, develop emotional support programs, housing and legal advocacy services for all battered women, not just those in residential programs.

Placement in an emergency shelter for abused women, versus a general shelter, is certainly the preferred outcome for a battered woman. These shelters are specifically staffed and provide a broader range of services, including: group and individual counseling; advocacy; and referrals for police, courts, health, mental health, education and vocational needs. A woman can, theoretically, stay in a domestic violence shelter for only 90 days. However, this time limit is not strictly enforced. After waiting the required 75 days in an emergency shelter (during which time the focus is on personal and safety issues, budgeting, and dealing with CWA and/or the criminal justice system), women begin working with a housing advocate and have their names entered in a pool of women waiting for the next step, Tier II transitional shelter. Women are also eligible at this time for permanent housing, if it can be found. All eligible women in the domestic violence shelter system (both emergency and Tier II) are given priority status for obtaining permanent public housing. Even this results in significant delays. Tier II shelters are the next stop after a battered woman’s initial stay in an emergency shelter, if no permanent housing has been located. Debate rages about the relative merits of this housing option. Some argue that Tier II housing, intended to provide a transition between emergency shelter and permanent housing, is merely a stop-gap response by the City and State because, in fact, no permanent housing exists. Others maintain that the Tier II option allows a woman and her family to better prepare for a return to permanent housing, and is more desirable than emergency shelters because of the additional privacy and in-room cooking facilities afforded by a Tier II. Although Tier

II shelters are certainly a better option than returning to their batterer, many women spoke of how disruptive it was to move their family from one shelter to another. Regardless of the theory to which one subscribes, three problems are clear: (1) there are many fewer services available in Tier II housing than in emergency shelter, and this presents a serious problem for women who are dealing with the additional complication of violence in their lives; (2) this problem of fewer services is due, in part, to the lower State reimbursement rate afforded operators of Tier II housing; and (3) there are only three Tier II Shelters specifically designated for battered women in all of New York City. These shelters operate under precisely the same regulations as all other Tier IIs, and offer essentially the same lesser array of services, despite the fact that the population they serve had a more complicated history and, therefore, greater needs.

▲ Recommendations: If the City must, as a temporary measure, expand its Tier II network for battered women, then responsibility for them should lie with the Department of Social Service’s Domestic Violence Unit, rather than with its Homeless Unit. Ultimately, however, more set-asides should be created for homeless families. [Please see Chapter Four.]

▲ All Tier II shelters for battered women should provide enhanced services, including special staffing akin to that available in an emergency shelter. Additional funding should also be provided, as well as more flexibility to address the special needs of this population.

▲ Programs and services for battered women and their children should be made more widely available in Tier II shelters. Project Nova, a McKinney-funded program administered by HRA/CIS to provide individual counseling, support groups, and other programs for victims of family violence, currently operates in several Tier IIs, as well as in a congregate shelter, hotel, and EAU. Funds should be made available to expand the NOVA program through not-for-profit providers.

Children’s services in domestic violence shelters are also problematic. Although there are some services for children in these shelters, children do not fare as well as their mothers. Contracts between HRA and the sponsors merely stipulate that shelters “will offer hours of care.” Therefore, the range of services vary widely. Most shelters have some children’s programming. All have some form of child care, and most offer “group life” activities such as arts programs and trips. However, although all domestic violence shelters are required to provide individual counseling and support groups for women, most do not offer parenting skills or family counseling, play therapy, or other forms of therapy for children. This is a serious oversight. That the need for special services and treatment for children exists is evidenced in a new (and as yet unofficial) psychiatric diagnosis: “vicarious abuse.” This refers to the abusive effect on children who witness violence against their mothers. Lack of children’s services is not the fault of the shelter operators. Rather, it is the responsibility of the New York State Department of Social Services (DSS) to provide more funds for such services.

▲ Recommendation: In recognition of the deleterious effects of direct and indirect abuse on the children of battered women, more should be done to assist shelters in addressing the needs of children. HRA should provide funding to residential battered women’s programs for professional child care, a therapeutic nursery, and specific therapy, treatment and counseling services for children and families.

The new administration in Washington has expressed its intention to increase funding levels for childrens’ services. This Task Force strongly urges the Human Resources Administration to access these new dollars and invest a substantial portion in contracted services for child victims of violence.

In New York City, due to the communal nature of emergency shelters, women with adolescent sons are not allowed to reside in a domestic violence shelter.

▲ Recommendation: It is unacceptable that most battered women’s shelters cannot accept adolescent boys, thus denying them help and severely limiting options for their mothers. HRA should develop alternative housing options for this population.

The Mayor’s Office for Children and Families, which is responsible for coordinating the efforts of City agencies to provide services for children and families, is in the process of developing an implementation plan in response to proposed new State DSS regulations that mandate non-residential services for battered women and their children. Under these new regulations, core non-residential services may include: individual counseling, hotline assistance, advocacy, legal assistance and information and referral. Services and support groups for children are included in these new regulations as optional services. The Office for Children and Families had officially requested that these services to children be included in the list of core services. The Task Forces supports this request, and further urges that the implementation plan currently developed by the Mayor’s Office make provision that all non-residential services be contracted to and provided by community-based organizations. Conclusion It is increasingly documented that in most homes wehre a child is abused or neglected, a woman is battered and abused. The two systems designed to protect these two populations (the Child Welfare Administration and the Survivors Emergency Assistance Program—both sub-agencies of HRA) should work together to acknowledge this reality, and respond to it effectively. This cannot happen in the absence of staff retraining, policy and protocol revisions and residential and non-residential program and service development. Historically, victims of domestic abuse have been blamed for the harm that has come to their children—either directly, or in citations for “failure to protect” their children from harm at the hands of the children’s (and, usually, their) abusers. Consequently, victims of domestic violence, already terrified of their abuser, are also terrified of CWA and its power to take their children away. They become caught in a

downward spiral of denial and avoidance which inevitably leads to crisis. CWA’s response to this should be: additional training of its staff; substantially increase awareness of the complex issues which family violence presents; and a new set of protocols and programs to treat, refer, support and follow-up which are not punitive and which address the family violence issues in its entirety.

SEAP, in turn, must begin to focus attention on the needs of children from violent families. It is not only the battered woman who has safety, emotional and other needs created by violence in the home. SEAP should develop linkages with CWA in order to address the crises experienced by children in their shelter system. These two branches of HRA should unite to develop effective programs not only for those in the shelter system, but for those in violent homes who have not or can not yet leave their homes.

2: The Judicial System

Case Study Cynthia has three children; her youngest is just a baby. When she arrived at a battered women’s shelter in January of this year, however, all of her children were in foster care. She was battered for years by the man who is also the father of her children. Having grown up in foster care, Cynthia was strongly committed to keeping her family together. She went to Bronx Family Court to obtain an Order of Protection and an order requiring her husband to move out of the house. However, the court also ordered visitation for Cynthia’s husband and, in order to make it convenient, said that he should pick the kids up at Cynthia’s apartment. Not surprisingly, he used these as opportunities to abuse and harass her. Although she reported that her husband had violated the OP, nothing ever happened, either through the court or CWA, to her husband. One day, when her husband was at the apartment for visitation, he left the baby at a neighbor’s apartment because he wanted to be alone with Cynthia. He then began to harass and abuse her. In the middle of this, the CWA worker arrived. He reported to his supervisor both that Cynthia was being abused and that the baby was out of Cynthia’s care and in a stranger’s apartment. Later that week, Cynthia’s three children were placed in foster care. Case Analysis Cynthia has appeared in court five times to try to get her children returned to her. Three times, her CWA worker was not able to appear, and twice her assigned counsel was absent. Cynthia is now in a battered women’s shelter and has support and advocacy from professionals who understand her plight. Due to their intervention, Cynthia has been able to visit her children (at first she wasn’t ever informed whether or not she could visit) and get a new 18B attorney who seems to understand the complexity of this situation. Most importantly at this point, she has a safe place to be with her children once they are released from foster care. The court, which did very little to protect Cynthia and her children from further violence, acted in concert with CWA in ways that appear to punish Cynthia for the behavior of her violent husband. Caught in this circle of misunderstanding and misdirected sanctions, Cynthia has attempted to protect herself and her children from the decisions of the systems designed to help her. Problem Statement

There is growing evidence and awareness of the close interrelationship between woman abuse and abuse or neglect of children within the family. The City’s judicial

system, however, had not yet developed a holistic approach to dealing with family violence. To the contrary, the response of the courts tends to be highly fragmented and often operates at cross-purposes, to the detriment of battered women and abused children.

In its investigations2 this Task Force heard repeatedly from battered women, court personnel and child welfare professionals about the lack of coordination, adequate information and vital services within the system. There was consensus that sanctions are too lenient, lack uniformity and are not enforced vigorously. Court personnel, including judges, were frequently described as insensitive to the victims of family violence; the courts were criticized for failing to hold batterers accountable for their behavior.

The Task Force found that the judicial system fails to inspire confidence among those who depend on it for their own and their families’ safety. We found the general level of satisfaction with the courts to be extremely low. Women, in fact, reported that they are terrified to appear in court. They fear revealing domestic violence in child protective proceedings, either because they have been threatened with harm by their abusing partners if they do so, or from fear of having their children taken away. This reticence is often interpreted as failure to cooperate, or worse, as purposeful deception of the court, and can contribute to the outcome the women dread most—losing custody of their children.3

The Task Force believes it is normally in the best interests of children to be raised by their own families. But children also have a right to grow up in safe, healthful and nurturing homes. The Task Force found that the courts do a poor job of protecting children from family violence, or of giving their parents the assistance they need to better perform their roles as parents.

Some improvements have been made in the various systems that converge in the courts to assist battered women and protect children. Expedited systems for issuing orders of protection and orders of support have been implemented in the Family Courts. Petitioners in family offense proceedings now have the right to counsel at most stages of the proceedings. The Family Court Act has been amended to facilitate the exclusion of abusive respondents from the home in orders of protection. In the Criminal Courts, systemic changes have been made that speed up the processes for filing criminal complaints and gaining improved participation from complaining witnesses. In addition, the creation of units and bureaus within the district attorneys offices specializing in domestic violence and child abuse has concentrated attention on these issues and

2 In addition to each Task Force member’s expertise in domestic violence or child protection, the Task Force conducted the following investigatory activities in order to determine the problems and their possible solutions: convened a group of experts for a 3-hour workshop which included representatives from a prosecutor’s office, the Legal Aid Society, Legal Services, the Department of Probation, the Child Welfare Administration’s Office of Legal Affairs and Child Protective Services, Victims Services, alternatives to incarceration programs, the City Department of Corrections, battered women’s shelters, children’s programs in such shelters and a preventive services agency. The Task Force also interviewed three Family Court and two Criminal Court judges in three different boroughs and prosecutors in two boroughs. Lastly, we convened a group of five battered women for a discussion of the problems, all of whom had or have cases with the Child Welfare Administration. 3 In addition to our interviews with battered women, this “double bind” experienced by women has been documented by an innovative program in Boston Children’s Hospital called “AWAKE,” which was created to provide advocacy to battered women whose children come to the attention of the hospital department of social work, because of abuse or neglect. AWAKE found that women could not be forthcoming about their circumstances unless they were offered sufficient safeguards.

improved the quality of prosecution. The Department of Probation has developed a “Training and Procedure Manual for Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Sexual Assault Cases.” It will provide extensive background information about these issues and supply Probation Officers with procedures for supervising appropriate probationers.

There remain, however, many serious gaps in the system which allow violence to continue despite court intervention. The Task Force is particularly concerned that further reforms to the system enhance protection of women and children and prevent unnecessary removals of children from non-abusing parents. Systems Overview There are essentially four different points of entry into the New York City court system for victims of family violence: 1) through a family offense proceeding in the Family Court, where a battered woman can seek an Order of Protection against the batterer; 2) through a domestic violence prosecution against the batterer in the Criminal Courts; 3) through a child abuse or neglect proceeding brought against a parent in the Family Court; or 4) through a criminal prosecution of a parent for acts of child abuse or neglect that constitute crimes. Although an individual could be involved in more than one of these proceeding simultaneously, there is little interconnection among them. Whether the issues of domestic violence and child abuse are concurrently addressed depends on many different factors, including the type of proceeding. The Criminal and Family Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over alleged acts of disorderly conduct, harassment, third degree menacing, reckless endangerment and second or third degree assault or attempted assault between family members and between present or former spouses. A battered woman may seek relief in either court, but may not proceed in both courts simultaneously on the same allegations. This is known as “the right of election.” Having made the decision, unless she changes her mind within 72 hours, the decision is final. The only exception to this rule is that before a finding is made, a Family Court judge can decide to transfer the case to Criminal Court. At this point, the case is permanently assigned to Criminal Court. Statistics show that the number of complainants who choose either Family of Criminal Court is about the same.

Criminal Courts: Battered Women

A battered woman may file a complaint with the police, which may cause the arrest of the batterer. If she chooses Criminal Court as her forum, she must follow up with the district attorney to initiate the criminal prosecution. Many domestic violence prosecutions are now handles by specialized units.4 This increases greatly the likelihood

4 In January 1990, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office set up a Domestic Violence Bureau which is administratively on par with the Sex Crimes Bureau that prosecutes child abuse and sexual abuse of adults and children. In January 1992, the Bronx Criminal Court in conjunction with the Bronx District Attorney’s Office designated a court part to handle exclusively domestic violence misdemeanors. In Queens, the Coalition of Battered Women’s Advocates in conjunction with the Queens District Attorney’s Office is setting up a community-based project that will help battered women through the Criminal Court process.

of vigorous prosecution. Nevertheless, 50-80 percent of the domestic violence cases filed each year are dropped (I). If a case proceeds to conviction of the batterer, sentences may range from fines to conditional discharge to jail time, although incarceration is rare except in the most serious cases. A first offender with a misdemeanor conviction is almost certain to receive an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) for six months. He may be referred to a treatment program in conjunction with sentencing, but such programs have long waiting list, and their effectiveness is debatable (See Chapter Seven). Even where attendance in such programs is made a condition of probation or an ACD, penalties for failure to cooperate are rarely imposed. In domestic violence cases the condition of children is usually not addressed. Criminal Court records, which consist of the complaint or indictment, motion papers and occasionally a hospital record, will only identify domestic violence or child abuse to the extent that each is reflected in the charge crime. This is the only record a judge sees in adjudicating a case. Prosecutors may access information about a defendant’s history of criminal prosecution for child abuse. This can raise the stakes in an apparently minor domestic violence case. Information concerning prior or pending child abuse proceedings in the Family Court is confidential and usually cannot be cross-referenced. If there are obvious indications of crimes against the children in a pending domestic violence case (or the complainant mentions abuse of the children) a referral for investigation may be made to CWA for possible proceedings in Family Court or Criminal Court. Limited or permanent orders of protection may also be issued that direct or prohibit specified behavior toward family members, including children. Violation of an order of protection can result in a jail sentence, although hail time is rarely imposed.

Family Court: Battered Women

In the Family Court, a battered woman may file a family offense petition against the batterer, if she is (or was) married to him or they have had a child together (Family Court Act Article 8). A temporary order of protection may be obtained ex parte immediately. This order may: exclude the offender from the home; prescribe or prohibit certain behavior; grant of deny visitation; and award custody. It remains in effect through the fact-finding hearing and until the disposition of the case (Family Court Act § 828). Petitioners are entitled to counsel, but attorneys are not assigned at this initial stage. Because a family offense proceeding is civil in nature, the most serious disposition available is an order of probation coupled with a permanent order of protection (Family Court Act § 841). Many women choose Family Court precisely because they do not want the imposition of criminal penalties. The Family Court

Several of the special victims bureaus only handle felony domestic violence cases. The Brooklyn Domestic Violence Bureau is an exception to this and handles all of the office’s misdemeanor and felony domestic violence cases. The Bronx Domestic Violence and Sex Crimes Unit handles selected misdemeanors where there is a serious assault and a history of prior abuse. The majority of domestic violence cases are misdemeanors and therefore are handled by an ADA in the Criminal Court Bureau rather than an ADA who specialized in this issue.

generally has no power to impose fines or jail terms, except where an order of protection has been violated. In such cases the court may (but rarely does) order incarceration for up to six months (family Court Act § 846-a). Nor does the Family Court have any express power to order the provision of services, except for treatment programs for batters. As in criminal domestic violence cases, family offense proceeding do not normally address the condition of children in the home. It is possible for the court to order a CWA investigation when obvious signs of abuse or neglect are present, but it is the Probation Department and not CWA that normally assists the court. Unless the petitioner reports mistreatment of the children by the offender, the court may not even learn about an offender’s history of neglect or abuse, even is such a case is currently pending in the same court. Visitation or custody may be mistakenly awarded to an offender with a background of findings or convictions. Moreover, there are no computer links among the courts in different boroughs. Court orders pertinent to a case may exist in one borough and be unknown to the judge hearing the case in another. Abusers who have been ordered to stay away from their partner of their children successfully petition for and receive visitation awards from different courts. Family Court judges received little training in handling domestic violence cases. At one time, new judges received a week of training on the broad spectrum of their duties; because of budget constraints this has, in recent years been pared to two days. Formerly mandatory one-week annual training seminars for all Family Court judges, which had included workshops on women’s issues, were discontinued in 1990 because of budget cuts.

Family Court: Abused Children

The vast majority of child abuse cases are prosecuted in the Family Court. For such purposes, an abused child is one whose parent or other legally responsible person (1) inflicts or allows to be inflicted upon the child non-accidental physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death, serious disfigurement or impairment of physical, mental or emotional health, (2) creates or allows to be created a substantial risk of such injury or (3) commits or allows to be committed sexual offenses against the child (See Family Court Act § 1012 (e). In 1990 (the most recent year for which comprehensive statistics are available) there were 1,509 such cases filed in New York City, of which 909 resulted in the children’s being removed from the parents and placed in foster care. Neglect proceedings, which involve a lesser degree of child maltreatment, accounted for 15,614 petitions and removals of 11,201 children (J). Studies show that woman abuse is present in approximately 70 percent of homes in which children are also abused.5 Information regarding this overlap could be a significant factor influencing dispositional outcomes for both children and respondent parents. Yet there is no systematic means of detecting the presence of woman battering 5 Two studies, using adult victims’ self reports, have found that 53-70 percent of the men who batter a spouse also abuse a child. Two additional studies determined from hospital child abuse reports and mothers’ medical records that 45-59 percent of the mothers of the victims were battered women.

in child abuse investigations or subsequent prosecutions. A “domestic violence protocol” designed to assist Child Protective Service Workers in probing allegedly abusive family situations is only used when spouse abuse is alleged in the initial report. Domestic violence is sometimes one allegation, among others, in a child abuse or neglect petition, but rarely, if ever, constitutes the sole allegation. In Family Court proceedings, domestic violence is being raised with increasing frequency as a defense to abuse charges against the mother. However this information is not sought out and is only taken into account if the battered woman raises it. The overarching consideration in child abuse and neglect proceedings is the safety and well-being of the children, regardless of whether the mother is herself the victim of abuse. In determining whether to file a petition against the mother and/or to remove the children from her care, both the Child Protective Service and the Family Court examine similar factors: What is the extend of the mother’s actual involvement in the abuse? If not the perpetrator, what is her relationship with and attitude toward the abuser? Can she protect the children with or without an Order of Protection? Is she cooperative with CWA and the court? Is she willing to accept services? Are there other problems, such as substance abuse or mental health issues, that may impair her ability to parent? In disposing of the case, the Family Court has several options, which are intended to protect the children. If the children are living with or can be returned to the parent, the court may order an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) for one year (Family Court Act § 1039). An ACD means being supervised by a child protective agency and fulfilling specified terms and conditions, which may include cooperating with services and avoiding contact with the abuser. An ACD is often the disposition in cases where the mother is not the actual abuser and is perceived as being able to protect her children. The court may also issue an order of protection. When the court determines that a child cannot be returned to the parent, it may order foster care for an initial period of one year (Family Court Act § 1052). The Family Court also has the power to order CWA to provide services for the protection of the child or the rehabilitation of the family so that a child may be returned from foster care (Family Court Act § 1015-a). Once children care in foster care, the agency having custody of them must make diligent efforts to return them to the parents. Theses efforts include facilitating bi-weekly visitation with both parents, including the abusing parent, unless there is a Family Court order prohibiting visitation. Although visitation will usually be supervised by a caseworker as a matter of convenience to the agency, supervision is not required unless the court orders it. A mother who wishes to regain custody of her children once they have been removed usually bears the burden of demonstrating her fitness as a parent. Her parental rights may be terminated permanently if she is found to have abandoned the children for a period of six months immediately prior to the filing of a termination petition, or if she has failed substantially to plan for their return for more than a year, despite the foster care agency’s efforts to strengthen the parent/child relationship (Family Court Act § 384-b).

Criminal Court: Abused Children

Child abuse is also prosecuted in Criminal Court as cases of endangering the welfare of a minor, assault, or sexual violations. Although the district attorney occasionally becomes involved through direct referrals from the police, most cases are referred by CWA, in accordance with a protocol that identifies the most serious instances of child abuse. Non-abusing women who have failed to protect their children may be criminally charged, but jail sentences for such women are extremely rare. Criminal prosecution usually goes forward simultaneously with a child abuse proceeding in the Family Court. It is much slower and has a considerably higher standard of proof than a Family Court abuse proceeding. This is a substantial problem when children are the only witnesses. While criminal prosecution can entail more serious penalties for the abuser, there are few services available in the criminal justice system to treat the underlying causes of abuse. The identification of domestic violence and child abuse does not occur systematically by Family Court personnel or the CWA in any proceeding other than those for family offenses. The Family Court forms used for proceedings involving paternity, visitation, child abuse or neglect and custody do not contain a reference to domestic violence. Conversely, there is no systematic mechanism for identifying child abuse in family offense petitions.6 In Criminal Court, there is more opportunity for cross-identification of domestic violence and child abuse because on-going records are kept on each defendant, and child abuse and domestic violence are often handled by the same special prosecutor unit. However, as in Family Court, there is currently no systematic way of cross-checking for domestic violence and child abuse. General cross-referencing of information between the court systems is impeded by the statutory confidentiality of Family Court and child welfare records. There are obstacles to cross-identifying these issues in Criminal Courts. Questioning battered women regarding child abuse in the prosecutor’s office may scare women away from prosecuting. Without proper services and a sympathetic response from CWA concerning domestic violence, such questioning may expose battered women to the risk of unnecessary placement of their children. Identifying domestic violence within the context of child abuse may also be problematic since questions regarding domestic violence may be difficult for women who are not psychologically ready to address their own abuse. However, avoiding such questions may result in an inability to determine if a woman can protect her children, or leave the children at risk of harm. Such avoidance may also deprive her of services to address domestic violence. Similar concerns are present in Family Court. Family Court recordkeeping systems do not have the capacity to reflect case histories across proceedings. This results in the loss of valuable information about the perpetrator’s violent history. Also, there is no mechanism for retrieving information about Family Court proceeding in another county.

6 This Task Force is mindful that improved identification of these issues will only be as helpful as the systems are themselves to responding to the complexities of a domestic violence/child abuse situation and therefore the recommendations for this problem must be read in conjunction with the other recommendations of this chapter.

The fragmentation of the court systems results in a failure to protect battered women and their children, as well as in the failure of the courts to impose appropriate sanctions on those who are violent towards family members.

▲ Recommendations: Family Court and Criminal Court personnel, in conjunction

with domestic violence and child advocates, should develop recordkeeping systems which: identify domestic violence in child abuse or neglect cases, identify child abuse in domestic violence cases, and maintain a history of the abusive party in Family Court. This recommendation should be carried out in a manner which prevents the increased removal of children, as long as there is no imminent risk to their health and safety.

▲ The Task Force recommends the creation of a coordinating council which will address the issue of fragmentation by: working with agencies and advocated involved in both court systems to write protocols for intervention in domestic violence and child abuse; and by ensuring that services are provided to all families entering the court system where domestic violence and child abuse are evident. It also should organize working groups of judges, court personnel. Child and domestic violence advocates to create standards and policies for: determining visitation and supervised visitation; removal of children from the home; custody where there is domestic violence; and the confidentiality and Constitutional issues inherent in the use of prior court history of perpetrators.

Advocates and legal representation for battered women are often not available, especially at the initial ex parte hearing. The negative effects of this are numerous. Battered women have been ordered to allow unsupervised visitation, attend couples counseling with the abuser7, and have not been informed of their rights regarding support and exclusion orders.

▲ Recommendations: Provide a lawyer or battered woman’s advocate through all stages of filing family offense petitions.

▲ Expand current legal services programs and pro-bono networks so that battered

women can get assistance on issues of support, custody and divorce.

▲ Expand court advocacy services through community-based organizations to battered women who are not residing in shelters (Please see Chapter One).

▲ The Task Force supports the creation of a model program designed to work with

battered women whose children are at risk for neglect or abuse, and urges that this program dedicate resources to court advocacy (See Chapter One).

7 Couples counseling and mediation in domestic violence situations is widely through to be dangerous to battered women. Contact the National Center on Women and Family Law for an information packed on these issues and for organizational resolutions condemning the use of mediation in situations where there is violence.

Enforcement of Orders is uneven in both Family and Criminal Courts. In Family Court, failure to order effective sanctions after repeated violations continues despite the increased public recognition of the danger of domestic violence issues. In addition, many judges are reluctant to exclude the batterer from the home despite violations of orders of protection. By failing to enforce its own dispositions, the Family Court fails to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. Domestic violence often escalated when the victim reaches out for help and particularly when she decides to leave the relationship.8 Enforcement was also found to be a problem in Criminal Court. Probation officers reported that the courts often fail to impose jail time for violations of orders of protection. In one borough, where the prosecutors have adopted a policy of mandatory prosecution of violations when there is a physical assault of the victim, they report that they are not getting appropriate sentences. In cases where dispositions are conditioned on abusers attending educational group on domestic violence, courts fail to impose sanctions for failure to attend. As a result, abusers learn that they can get their case dismissed (“ACD’d”) by agreeing to go to a group and then not attending. In child abuse cases, there is no mechanism for obtaining information on whether an abuser is attending such groups. Prosecutors also state that judges are reluctant to hold evidentiary hearings on alleged violations of orders of protection except in the most serious cases.

▲ Recommendations: Supervising Judges of Family and Criminal Courts should issues a policy directive urging that penalties imposed for a violation of an order of protection should be more severe than those imposed at the time of the original order, and should escalate with successive violations.

▲ The recommended coordinating council should work with the community and

appropriate agencies to develop a range of meaningful sanctions for batterers and parents who are abusive of their children. Options to be considered include: fines (by sliding scale); exclusion from the home; supervised or no visitation; enforced mandatory attendance of an educational group; electronic bracelets; “panic buttons”; and for serious and assaulting violations, jail time.

▲ The Department of Corrections should develop an educational group on domestic

violence and child abuse for men in prison.

▲ Funds should be allocated to programs providing treatment to offenders so they can provide attendance information promptly to the courts.

Visitation for many battered women is an issue fraught with difficulty. The Task Force found that the granting of visitation to abusers poses significant danger to a battered woman and her child. Visitation is sometimes ordered when it is harmful to the children and dangerous to the woman, and unsupervised visitation is ordered when it should be supervised (See Chapter Four). There is currently only one program in New

8 A recent Department of Justice survey found that a disturbing 79 percent of the domestic violence reported by women was committed by divorced or separated men. Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice, Special Report: Preventing Domestic Violence Against Women (1989) p. 2.

York City which was created to provide supervised visitation. Other arrangements are made through CWA and social service agencies. Court personnel and experts in the fields report that these arrangements are often unsatisfactory for the children and the parents.

▲ Recommendations: Develop at least one supervised visitation center in each borough open in the evenings and weekends as well as during daytime hours. These centers should be able to accommodate non-English speaking people. The court should allow custodial parents to choose the center that is the most convenient to them.

▲ Family Court should assess whether visitation is being used as a means of perpetrating further abuse on women and children and develop appropriate sanctions for such behavior.

▲ Family Court should consider the physical abuse of the mother and children as reason to require supervision of visitation or deny visitation completely. Visitation should be denied if the offender continues to abuse, or violates an Order of Protection.

Access to courts by immigrant and non-English speaking people is essential. There are virtually no signs in languages other than English; printed material is mostly in English. Although there are significant numbers of Spanish-speaking court personnel, the courts have extreme difficulty accommodating other languages such as Chinese, Arabic, French and others. Both Family and Criminal Courts should develop the capacity to be culturally and linguistically sensitive to the communities they serve.

▲ Recommendations: In Family Court, every effort should be made to provide mental health services that are culturally and linguistically sensitive to the litigants.

▲ Translation services need to be available. Translators should be appropriately

supervised so that they do not give out legal information, attempt to mediate conflicts or take sides in the conflict between parties.

Lack of written procedures or guidelines results in unclear and conflicting policies. Written guidelines will enhance the consistency of the court’s response to family violence, from one case to the next, one court to the next, and in one stage of the case to the next. In Family Court, there is no consensus on how to assess domestic violence in neglect or abuse proceedings, especially as it may affect the safety of the children, or influence a decision to remove them from a non-abusing parent. Expectations of the lay public and outside advocacy organizations can be unrealistic without written protocols to guide them.

▲ Recommendations: All court personnel and agencies associated with the courts in both the Family and Criminal Courts should develop written procedures and

guideline concerning their intervention in domestic violence and child abuse. To achieve consistency, this should be done in cooperation with other agencies and battered women’s and children’s advocates.

▲ Family and Criminal Courts should develop accessible pamphlets in several languages describing procedures in domestic violence and child abuse situation, the rights of the litigants, the contact numbers of relevant staff within the court system and services available to litigants.

There are insufficient services in the areas of domestic violence and child abuse. Experts cited three salient service gaps:

• The few residential and non-residential programs for battered women are severely over-taxed. In addition, many agencies currently providing service to children and parents lack an expertise in domestic violence. This lack of services and the Court’s inability to specify the program an offender should participate in results in excessive reliance by Family Court on referrals to CWA, particularly in family offense proceedings.

• Services for perpetrators of child abuse and domestic violence are virtually non-

existent, often are reluctant to treat violent offenders and are of doubtful quality. Also there is no mechanism to monitor compliance with conditions of a disposition.

• In the Criminal context, Alternatives to Incarceration programs are lacking in

New York City (K). Alternatives to Incarceration programs could provide the structures services needed for offenders and be required to report violations of the conditions to the court. However, there are so few that they could not support the volume of domestic violence and child abuse cases generated by Criminal Court.

▲ Recommendations: The coordinating council should assess the effectiveness of

educational programs for batterers and parents who are abusive to their children and make recommendations regarding the creation of more offender programs.

▲ The Task Force supports the creation of a model program designed to work with

battered women whose children are at risk of neglect or abuse. It urges that this program dedicate significant resource to monitoring abusive behavior in violation of court orders and to reporting such information to the courts (See Chapter One).

▲ Amend Article 8 of Family Court Act to include an express provision authorizing

judges to order preventative or community services through the Department of Probation. This would be part of a disposition carefully designed to protect children who are at risk of abuse or neglect because of domestic violence yet keep them in their homes as long as there is no imminent danger to their health and safety.

▲ Communication between the courts and community services should be improved so that these services are more fully used by the courts.

Training is urgently needed for court personnel and those involved in the court

proves, including judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, assigned counsel from the 18B roster, Corporation Counsel, court officers, probation officers, law guardians and child welfare officials. Such training should cover problems faced by battered women when they try to leave; the clinical indicators of an abuser’s dangerousness; the harm caused to a child who witnesses domestic violence; and the appropriate services of good quality. Battered women’s advocates also spoke of the need to understand the legal system better with respect to child abuse and neglect proceedings. Child advocates spoke of the need for training in court procedures as they relate to domestic violence.

▲ Recommendations: Training should be provided for all court personnel in Family and Criminal Courts on issues of domestic violence and child abuse on an ongoing basis. The Task Force recommends that promotions, recertification and privileges be conditioned on attendance and participation in such training.

▲ Training funds should be available so that domestic violence experts can train

child advocates on the legal aspects of domestic violence and conversely, child protection experts can train domestic violence advocates on the legal aspect of child protection.

Access to custody and support orders are essential if battered women are to survive

with their children. Though Family Court Act 439(a) provides for the handling of support requests in an expedited manner, many battered women do not know this. Similarly, many women remain unaware that Section 842 of the Act provides for the resolution of visitation and custody issues as part of an order of protection.

▲ Recommendation: Battered women appearing in Family Court should be informed of such rights, and offered the assistance of legal counsel in a clear and meaningful manner.

The way many domestic violence cases are currently “settled” in Family Court is extremely problematic. Judges frequently delegate to their law clerks, who are sometimes no more than law students, responsibility for negotiating pre-hearing settlements between unrepresented parties. These negotiators may not grasp the underlying coercion or violence in the relationship. Litigants may not learn they are entitled to counsel until after settlement has been attempted. Agreements may well not reflect the wishes of either party because they believe they should go along with the neighbor.

▲ Recommendations: This practice should be discontinued where there is any

possibility of violence or coercion between the parties.

The lack of resources dedicated to child abuse and domestic violence within the court system is a significant problem in the adjudication of these cases. Family Court judges often have 40-50 cases on their docket each day. This huge volume seriously hampers a judge’s ability to make sound assessments and decisions. This problem also exists in Criminal Courts.

Several of the special victim bureaus only handle felony domestic violence cases.9 However, the majority of domestic violence cases are misdemeanors. This means that these cases are handled by an ADA in the Criminal Court Bureau rather than an ADA who specialized in this issue. This prevents the district attorneys offices from preventing further and more serious violence through more effective treatment of initial and often less serious offenses. There are not adequate staff in child abuse, domestic violence or special victims units to spend the time and resources necessary to provide the support required by a complaining witness. This is especially problematic since an abuser’s most successful tactic for escaping sanctions is coercing the complaining witness out of signing a corroborating affidavit or testifying in the prosecution’s case. In child abuse cases, prosecutors should protect and encourage their witnesses, especially when they are children, and stay in touch with CWA workers and non-abusive family members. They need interviewers who are trained in child interviewing, and the services of fulltime therapists. There are not currently sufficient resources to employ this kind of staff. Domestic violence and, to a lesser extent, child abuse cases are still viewed as relatively unimportant when compared to other crimes. As a result, there are fewer court resources dedicated to their adjudication. Experts reported insufficient court time for trials which resulted in plea bargaining by prosecutors and high case loads in those parts that specialize in domestic violence or child abuse.

▲ Recommendation: State and City funding should be increased to the Family and

Criminal Court to adjudicate cases whether there is violence in the family.

Sentencing, most of those famliear with the Criminal Court’s handling of doestic violence cases agree, is too lenient. Adjournments Contemplating Dismissal (ACDs) are used in the majority of misdemeanor domestic violence cases. In this disposition there is no finding of criminal conduct and therefore no record of the case if a battered woman returns after the expiration of the adjournment. Violations of ACDs are not, as a rule, taken seriously by the court system.

Since the court has not developed a systematic way of screening domestic violence cases for child abuse, and a significant overlap has been found by researchers between domestic violence and child abuse, it follows that a significant number of men who abuse both their children and their partner are receiving ACDs in criminal court. This disposition is not sufficient to either hold the abuser accountable for his behavior or provide protection to battered women and their children.

9 The Brooklyn Domestic Violence Bureau is an exception to this and handles all of the office’s misdemeanor and felony domestic violence cases. The Bronx Domestic Violence and Sex Crimes Unit handles selected misdemeanors where there is a serious assault and a history of prior abuse.

Those familiar with the criminal court system and domestic violence spoke of the vast differences in sentencing from judge to judge. Though such disparities can also be found in stranger-to-stranger crimes, interviewees reported that the disparities are more accentuated in domestic violence cases. This lack of uniformity is noticeable when the judge is deciding whether a battered woman will receive a full order of protection ordering the abuser out of the home, or a limited one which allows him to stay.

▲ Recommendations: Prosecutors and judges should develop policies which allow the use of ACDs for first-time misdemeanor offenders only.

▲ Criminal Court should make more use of probation and suspended jail sentences

as a means of supervising the offender’s violent behavior.

▲ The proposed coordinating council should work in conjunction with Criminal Court judges to develop a bench guide on domestic violence and child abuse in which recommendations regarding sentencing of violent offenders are made.

3: Police

Case Study Carla Simpson was regularly victimized by her husband. One night, when she was being beaten, a neighbor called 911. When the patrol car arrived, the officers saw that Mrs. Simpson had bruises on her face and body. Her husband said that they had an argument and things got out of hand. Mrs. Simpson said that he had hit her with a bat, which was why she was bruised. When the Emergency Medical Service arrived, she refused treatment. She was asked, in front of Mr. Simpson, whether she wanted to press charges. She refused. The police told Mr. Simpson to take a walk to cool down and come back later. They also said that since Mrs. Simpson didn’t want to press charges, she had to sign their memo book stating this and a report would be filed.

***

Sylvia Kennan owns her own business and considers herself middle- to upper-middle class. A year ago, her boyfriend moved in with her. He had no job, and proceeded to live off of her income. He became progressively more abusive, hitting and punching her. She called the local precinct to seek help. She told the officer that her boyfriend had outstanding warrants and asked if the police could come and arrest him on those charges so that he wouldn’t know that she was the one who called. The police agreed and arranged a time to come to her home. They asked her to be there to let them in. She also told the police that he carried a knife at all times, and that he had said he had a gun, although she had never seen it. On the pre-arranged day, she feigned an illness as an excuse for staying home. The police never arrived and told her subsequently that “something else had come up.” A second appointment was made. This time, she waited until midnight and later learned that the police had left a message on her business answering machine canceling the plan. This upset her, because her boyfriend had the access code to the machine and could have heard the police message. The third time, they finally came to arrest him. The police told her to change the locks as soon as possible because they would only be able to detain him overnight. An hour and a half later, as the locksmith was changing the locks, the boyfriend returned. The police, instead of arresting him on previous charges, had told him that she wanted him arrested and he was enraged. That night, he beat her very badly. Sylvia finally had to leave her apartment and live in hotels in an effort to escape her batterer. Nevertheless, he still managed to find her. She obtained several orders of protection, which he constantly violated. He finally spent five months in jail, only because he could not raise bail. Case Analysis In Carla Simpson’s case, her injury was caused by a weapon, which is a felony offense. According to NYPD guidelines, a domestic violence felony is a “must arrest” situation. Therefore, the police should have arrested Mr. Simpson. If Mr. Simpson had

understood that this was a criminal offense, he might have begun to re-think his abusive behavior. It also may have helped Mrs. Simpson to have this policy implemented, rather than her being asked if she wanted him arrested. Despite the apparent willingness of the police to intervene on Sylvia Keenan’s behalf, they twice placed her in greater jeopardy and did not consider her requests for assistance a high priority. They not only gave her misinformation about how long her batterer would be detained, but also increased the danger to her, by revealing her role in the arrest. Both cases illustrate the urgent need for additional sensitivity training and education for all members of the Police Department to ensure that they understand the real dangers inherent in these situations and learn to act accordingly. Problem Statement The New York City Police Department (NYPD) responds to some four million “911” calls each year. By conservative estimates, 200,000 of these calls involve family violence. However, currently only 30 percent of police visits to investigate reports of family violence result in complaint reports, and fewer than seven percent of these radio runs result in arrests. In the past, family violence was seen as a “family matter,” not a crime. Police intervention focused on achieving reconciliation or mediation, not arrest. However, the Police Department’s policy changed in 1979 as the result of a court-ordered consent decree entered in Bruno v. Codd, 47 N.Y. 2d 582. In that class action suit, married women sued the NYPD, Family Court and the Probation Department charging unequal enforcement of the law because of their marital status. As a result of the consent decree that ended the litigation, the Department’s domestic violence policies were changed radically, and mandatory complaint and pro-arrest policies for domestic violence

System Overview There is only one NYPD Patrol Guide procedure that addresses the well-documented connection between domestic violence and child abuse. Patrol Guide Procedure 110-38 provides in relevant part: When a report of any offense committed between members of the same family our household is brought to the attention of a uniformed member of the service or the member is directed to respond to such offense by competent authority [that officer must]…

3. Determine whether there are children present in the home who may be victims of neglect/abuse/maltreatment.

(1) If a member reasonably suspects a child less than eighteen (18) is abused, neglected or maltreated, prepare Report of Suspected Child Abuse or Maltreatment (PD377-154), notify the State Central Registry, and/or take other appropriate action as outlined in Patrol Guide Procedure 106-15.

Thus, pursuant to this procedure, when an officer responds to a domestic violence call, he or she should look for child abuse. No parallel procedure exists requiring officers to look for domestic violence when they respond to a reported child abuse incident. Some of the areas in which the NYPD should focus on the connection between child abuse and domestic violence include training, reporting procedures, arrests procedures, investigations, recordkeeping and accountability. Under the anti-crime initiative “Safe Streets, Safe City,” and the NYPD’s new community policing philosophy, the Police Department has stressed forming partnerships with neighborhoods to identify and solve problems. This commitment represents a unique opportunity for the NYPD to work with the families, neighborhood associations and advocacy groups of each community to combat the problem of family violence.

▲ Recommendation: The NYPD should institute an operations order that requires the assessment of adults, particularly women, when responding to a child abuse call.

Training

According to information the Task Force received from the Department, of 785.5 total hours of training provided by the NYPD to its new recruits, 35 hours address domestic violence and child abuse. None of these lessons focuses on the connection between child abuse and domestic violence. Since 1985, the NYPD has offered two hours of in-service training to patrol officers on either child abuse or domestic violence every second year. One to three hours of training is provided to all uniformed officers ranked sergeant or above in promotional

then contact them through letters, phone calls, and home visits. The purpose of the program is to inform both victims and batterers that family violence is a crime and that assistance and services are available. According to Victim Services, the results of the DVPP are: a decrease in the frequency of recidivist domestic violence incidents; an increased likelihood that victims will seek help from the police for subsequent violence; a doubling of the rate at which officers write up domestic violence incidents as crimes; and an increase in the arrest rate. In the DVPP precincts, all officers receive bi-weekly roll call training on domestic violence issues. In addition, in several DVPP precincts’ commanding officers have issued forms which ask officers to state why complaint reports were not completed in each case. The complaint issuance rate in these precincts exceeds 60 percent, double the 30 percent citywide rate. The success of the DVPP program demonstrates that training and accountability can make a difference in a precinct’s compliance rate. The Mayor’s announcement in his State of the City Address that he will expand the DVPP to six more precincts by the end of fiscal year 1993 is a necessary first step.

▲ Recommendations: Expand the DVPP to address the connection between child abuse and domestic violence, and expand the program citywide.

▲ Institute accountability measures to increase the complaint issuance rate.

▲ The Department should stress the importance of the policy, and discipline officers

who fail to file complaint reports.

Arrest Policy

A careful reading of section 110-38 of the Patrol Guide reveals that when an officer responds to a family violence call, an arrest is mandatory in four situations: (1) when the officer has probably cause to believe a felony has been committed; (2) when there is probably cause to believe a misdemeanor has been committed and the victim wants an arrest to be made; (3) when an Order of Protection has been violated; and (4) when a violation is committed in the officer’s presence and the victim wants an arrest to be made.11 Despite the NYPD’s pro-arrest policy, only about seven percent of domestic violence 911 calls result in arrest. This low arrest rate is particularly surprising since the alleged perpetrator is certainly identifiable and often at the scene when the police arrive or, if not, many times is at a known location. Moreover, the NYPD’s arrest rate for domestic violence crimes is much lower than the comparable rate in other jurisdictions, such as New Jersey (35 percent) and Dallas (39 percent). It is difficult to extend this comparison, because many cities do not code 911 calls the way New York does. Just as officers should be held accountable for their failure to file complaints, officers also should be held accountable for the failure to arrest the perpetrators of family 11 Patrol Guide Procedure 110-38 is an unnecessarily convoluted statement of the NYPD policy. A simple clarification of the language of the procedure might have an enormous positive impact.

violence crimes. Members of the Department at all levels should be responsible for enforcing the pro-arrest policy and should be disciplined if they fail to do so. In addition, the Department should explore instituting awards for family violence arrests similar to those traditionally awarded for other crime category arrests such as grand larceny auto and other property crimes (See Patrol Guide Procedure 120-34). The Department should recognize “bravery,” “perseverance” and “intelligence” in this area of law enforcement as well. In sum, it is time for the NYPD to fully implement its strong pro-arrest policy and create incentives for officers to do so.

▲ Recommendations: Institute accountability measures to fully implement its existing pro-arrest policy.

▲ Expand the reward system to include family violence arrests.

Mandatory Reporting

New York State Law requires that police officees refer child abuse cases to the New York State Central Registry. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 413 (McKinney 1992). Despite this requirement, and despite the existence of a Patrol Guide procedure requiring officers to look for child abuse when investigating domestic violence, very few domestic violence incidents appear to lead to child abuse investigations. Although the State Central Registry Hotline received some 52,000 reports of child abuse and neglect in New York City in 1992, the NYPD has reported fewer than 1,100 cases per year to the State Central Registry every year since 1988. The Police Department does not keep records of how many of these complaints originated with a domestic violence investigation. Despite this reporting requirement, very few cases are jointly investigated by the Child Welfare Administration (CWA) and the NYPD.

▲ Recommendations: Develop accountability regarding child abuse reporting.

▲ Conduct a study of when joint investigations by NYPD and CWA are appropriate.

Recordkeeping and Date Collection

According to the NYPD, during 1990 there were 4,120,323 calls received by 911 citywide. Of those calls, 161,215 calls were dispatched as family dispute radio runs. Throughout 1991, the Department received 3,838,941 calls, 158,094 of which were classified by 911 operators as domestic violence calls during 1990 and 1991 constituted approximately four percent of all radio runs. There are significant problems with these statistics. First, there is no specific code for child abuse, making statistics on 911 child abuse calls unretrievable. Second, 911 operators classify calls according to the offense perceived to be the most serious at the time of the call. For example, a report of a husband beating a wife will not be categorized as domestic violence but rather as assault in progress. Third, while there is a

procedure in place to reclassify calls when responding officers report dispositions of the incidents, this procedure is rarely used. All of these factors contribute to the inability of the NYPD to assess accurately the full extent of family violence in New York City. The example cited above should be coded for family violence a well as assault in progress. The Department also should train 911 operators to record more family violence calls by re-categorizing them when appropriate. The number of 911 calls can be one of several indicators of the extent of family violence in New York City. However, the NYPD will not be able to rely on 911 statistics to evaluate properly the scope of this problem until calls are properly categorized. The NYPD has other record keeping procedures and requirements. Whenever a case of child abuse is reported, an officer should fill out a Report of Suspected Child Abuse or Maltreatment (Patrol Guide Procedure 110-38). In addition, a complaint report and an “Aided Card” must be prepared if a child has been injured. In cases of domestic violence, a complaint report must be prepared when any alleged offense has been committed between members of a family. Aided Cards are prepared if an injury has occurred and an arrest report is completed if an arrest is made. The NYPD does not prepare any other reports in family violence cases, and there are numerous defects in the reporting procedure described above. For example, although every complaint report is supposed to list the relationship between the victim and the offender, this information, if it is in fact recorded, cannot be retrieved by the NYPD. Similarly, the NYPD reports that it keeps data regarding the relationship between the incidence of child abuse and domestic violence but cannot retrieve that data. Fault for this lies with the Department’s antiquated management information system which is not yet fully computerized. A new, computerized system is being developed. Clearly, the NYPD’s existing record keeping and data collection procedures are inadequate. The NYPD either lacks the necessary forms, does not complete the forms as the law requires, or cannot access the information stored on those forms. Accordingly, we recommend that New York City adopt the reporting requirements contained in legislation enacted by New Jersey, Rhode Island and several other states and municipalities. All of those statutes require that officers fill out a one-page form when a family violence incident is reported. The information on that form is then stored in a computer and annual statistics are generated regarding the victims, perpetrators and other relevant aspects of family violence crimes.12 Adopting such legislation and instituting reporting requirements would enable the NYPD, other City agencies, and community groups to better focus their efforts to combat family violence.

▲ Recommendations: Code 911 calls for family violence, in addition to any other standard code.

▲ Develop a complaint form to capture more information about family violence

complaints.

▲ Computerize family violence information now or incorporate it into plans for the new Management Information System, so that data is more easily retrievable.

12 This goal also could be accomplished by modifying the existing complaint form.

Accountability

The NYPD currently monitors the enforcement of its domestic violence and child abuse policies through its desk officers, who are responsible for reviewing all precinct complaint reports including those relating to family violence. NYPD procedure also requires that when a child’s life or health is in imminent danger, a patrol supervisor must be called to the scene. In addition, the Department has a self-inspection program conducted by each precinct and has its inspections unit conduct audits of each precinct. Although the NYPD reports that these policies provide a sufficient accountability mechanism, the Department is unable to provide any information about the number of officers who have been subject to disciplinary action for failure to follow its domestic violence or child abuse procedures. This apparent lack of accountability also might explain why the arrest rate and complaint reporting rate for family violence offenses are so low despite pro-arrest and mandatory complaint policies. Improvements in training, protocols and reporting mechanisms will only lead to better policing if the NYPD’s officers are held accountable for enforcing those policies. The NYPD currently disciplines its officers for failures in other areas and should do so in this one. The Department should consistently sanction officers who fail to follow the mandatory complaint or pro-arrest policies. One lost vacation day may be worth a thousand hours of training.

▲ Recommendation: Institute accountability measures for family violence procedures, backed up by disciplinary actions and sanctions where necessary.

Community Policing

The success of the NYPD’s community policing program necessarily depends on the strength of the relationship between the Police Department and the community. In keeping with NYPD’s community policing philosophy, beat officers are now required to read all complaint reports in their beats and identify any patterns that may emerge. Thus, community policing should enable the beat officer in each community to be aware not just of all incidents of family violence within his or her beat, and all active Orders of Protection, but also of particularly violent households that should be closely monitored. According to the Patrol Guide, police officers may assist in serving Orders of Protection, an often dangerous endeavor for victims. Just as police officers rely on members of the community for information about crimes under investigation and various community issues, New York City residents depend on the police to provide information about the services and legal remedies available to victims of crime. Pursuant to section 812.5 of the Family Court Act, NYPD patrol officers are required to disseminate information to domestic violence victims concerning their rights, including their right to choose to go either to Criminal Court or Family Court and to change courts within 72 hours of filing a complaint. These rights, together with the Victim Services and statewide hotline numbers, are described on a 3” x 5” blue card entitled “Rights of Victims of Family Offenses” (the “Blue Card”).

Despite the state law requirement that a Blue Card be issued to every victim of domestic violence, a recent study by Victim Services revealed that only eight percent of victims who had contact with the police received a Blue Card. While the Task Force applauds the recent directives of the Police Department requiring each command to reiterate that Blue Cards must be disseminated, the Department must institute accountability measures in addition to regularly reminding officers of this requirement.

▲ Recommendations: Institute accountability so that a Blue Card is distributed in all relevant situations.

▲ Precincts should be actively involved in disseminating information, tracking and

intervening in households with a history of family violence.

▲ The proposed enhanced 911 system should show addresses of past family violence calls and indicate those with active Orders of Protection, to better assist both beat officers and officers responding to 911 calls.

▲ Officers and precincts should work with victims to serve Orders of Protection

whenever possible. Conclusion Many changes should be made in various City systems to prevent family violence from occurring. By the time the NYPD is asked to respond to family violence, the situation is often at a critical juncture. When the NYPD becomes involved, its actions may determine both whether a perpetrator understands that his conduct is criminal and whether a victim feels that the criminal justice system believes and will help her. There is much that the NYPD can do to improve its response to one of New York City’s biggest crime problems. The Task Force applauds Commissioner Kelly for creating an advisory committee on domestic violence, and offers the following suggestions:

• By adopting the reporting requirements described above, the NYPD could become a source of valuable information regarding the frequency, pattern and nature of family violence incidents throughout the City. Until that information is gathered, the NYPD will be unable to assess the magnitude of the family violence epidemic and the City will be unable to know what resources should be allocated to fighting the problem.

• Family Violence is rarely a one-time occurrence. If both the officers and the

civilian employees of the NYPD can be trained to understand the nature of family abuse, then they may be able to prevent future violence among family members and thereby save lives. Adopting the procedures and policies recommended in this chapter would help enable the NYPD to work with the communities it serves to achieve this end.

• Community policing depends on forging relationships with families in different

neighborhoods. Working with the families of every neighborhood to reduce family violence should help build the relationships upon which the success of the NYPD’s community policing program depends.

IV. Housing & Homelessness

Case Studies Shyla, a 29 year-old woman from Trinidad, moved to the United States in 1990 with her seven-year-old son to be with her husband as he completed his college education in Upstate New York. Everything was fine for the first six months. Then Sylvia discovered that her husband had actually been married and divorced twice and was embroiled in a bitter custody battle. Soon her husband became physically and emotionally abusive. Isolated in a trailer home, Shyla had no friends or relatives to turn to, no money to help her escape. Within a short period the beatings escalated, culminating one evening when Shyla’s husband put a gun to her head and threatened to “blow her brains out.” Shyla’s husband threw her out of the home and she ran to the nearest phone and dialed 911. She reported her husband as armed and dangerous but when the police arrived he denied all wrongdoing and refused to let her gather her belongings. Shyla crawled through a back window and grabbed a few necessities for herself and her child, and the police took her to a YWCA shelter where she could stay for 30 days before being transferred to another shelter. Her husband constantly followed and threatened her. The police refused to enforce her order of protection and Shyla was forced to move from shelter to shelter to escape him. Eventually she was given a bus ticket to New York City and a few phone numbers. Shyla and her son were placed in a battered women’s shelter in the Bronx for 90 days and then transferred to a transitional apartment where she is currently awaiting permanent housing. She has obtained her GED and is studying to become a nurse, while volunteering at a local hospital.

*** Mary Lou was not as fortunate. She is the 23-year-old mother of three children who was beaten so severely she was hospitalized several times before being placed in a battered women’s shelter. With only a seventh grade education, Mary Lou had never worked outside her home before. Mary Lou and her children seemed to flourish while in a small battered women’s shelter in Brooklyn. She arranged day care for her children, enrolled in a job readiness program, and attended classes for basic skills. But once her 90 days in the battered women’s shelter were up, Mary Lou was unable to obtain an extension and was transferred to a large Tier II facility in Staten Island. Within 48 hours, Mary Lou had lost contact with her caseworker, teacher, and classmates. Mary Lou was heard from several weeks later. She was depressed, disoriented, and showed no interest in discussing anything involving future planning. She reported that her children were doing badly in their new school and she had neither the time to arrange baby-sitting nor the money to take the bus to the ferry to the subway for any appointments. She was cut off from her domestic violence counselor and felt completely alone.

Case Analyses Although Shyla’s story has a more positive outcome than Mary Lou’s, we see in both cases that the onus of relocation is commonly on the victims of family violence rather than the perpetrators. Instead of holding abusers responsible for their actions, the very systems designed to help victims of family violence have left both Shyla and Mary Lou with no option but to flee their homes, and disrupt their children’s education, in efforts to protect themselves and their children. The experiences of Shyla and Mary Lou also point out the serious implications of the federally imposed 90-day limitation for length of stay in battered women’s shelters. In the “best case” scenario, we saw that this provided enough time for Shyla to obtain a transfer to transitional housing specifically for battered women, although she still awaits permanent housing. Mary Lou was not even that fortunate. Once her 90 days had lapsed, she was transferred to a general Tier II shelter which did not provide the services or access to the resources she needed in order to get her life and the lives of her children back on track. Consider also the safety implications of Mary Lou’s transfer to a Tier II shelter. Given the large size of most Tier II facilities, and what is often a lack of sensitivity to the special needs of victims of family violence, the confidentiality and safety provided by smaller, community-based battered women’s programs are lost to Mary Lou at the Tier II. This makes it increasingly likely that her abuser will be able to track her down and inflict further violence on her and her children. It is clear that what both Shyla and Mary Lou need most is safe, affordable permanent housing, as is undoubtedly the case for thousands of other victims of family violence in New York City. Attaining this goal is especially difficult in a city that is experiencing critical shortages in the permanent housing supply. Until the housing needs of women like Shyla and Mary Lou are adequately addressed, their lives and their children’s will continue to be threatened and disrupted, further victimizing the victims of family violence. Problem Statement Although not all women who are battered seek shelter, nearly 40 percent of the 18,000-plus women and children in New York City’s emergency shelters—more than 7,000 women and children—are fleeing violent domestic situations. At the same time, public and private battered women’s programs can accommodate only 864 women and children each night. Those who are lucky enough to find a placement in a specialized battered women’s shelter face a federally imposed 90-day limit on their stay, at which point they are often transferred to a Tier II shelter run by HRA or a non-profit provider. The implications of this dilemma are even more troubling when we consider the inter-relationship of woman abuse and child abuse. Studies that show that men who batter also abuse children in 70 percent of families in which children are present (M).

The provision of safe housing is necessary to prevent the further abuse of women and their children. Something is seriously wrong when the initial choice afforded most of these women is between a plastic chair in an Emergency Assistance Unit (EAU) or returning to their batterer. The lack of safe, affordable housing is one of a battered woman’s foremost barriers to breaking away from an abusive relationship and establishing a productive and health y life for herself and her children. Over the past decade, an emergency shelter system has evolved in New York City largely in response to numerous court orders. The City has largely focused on crisis management, and not on the security issues of victims of family violence. Heightening sensitivity to these security needs, as well as increasing the overall supply of housing for his vulnerable group, are primary goals of this Task Force report. Systems Overview EAUs are the portals through which homeless families enter the emergency shelter system. EAUs are operated by the New York City Human Resources Administration’s Crisis Intervention Services (HRA/CIS), which is responsible for providing emergency housing and relocation services for homeless families. There are currently four EAUs—one each in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens. The notoriously overcrowded conditions and health hazards in the EAUs have recently compelled a State Supreme Court judge to hold top City officials in criminal contempt. If a woman entering an EAU identifies herself as a victim of domestic violence, HRA workers trained in dealing with such situation will be called to attempt a placement for her and her children at a City or non-profit operated domestic violence shelter. Citywide, there are 13 battered women’s programs providing shelter and/or safe dwellings for victims of family violence, with a total capacity to accommodate 864 people. After the 90-day limit elapses, victims of family violence often find themselves in the general Tier II shelter system, awaiting the availability of permanent housing. Tier II shelters are required to provide help in finding permanent housing, including assistance in filing applications for housing run by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), or private sector housing through the Emergency Assistance Rehousing Program (EARP), and the federal Section 8 Voucher/Certificate Program. There are currently three facilities that provide transitional housing specifically for victims of family violence. These facilities, however, operate under precisely the same regulations as general Tier II shelters, and therefore receive no additional funding to provide for this population’s more specific needs. Changes to the homeless system are imminent. The Mayor’s 1991 Commission on the Homeless recommended the creation of a separate agency to administer all shelters, program, and contracts assisting the homelss. This proposed new agency and a restructures dhelter system are soon to become a reality. The City plans to close all EAUs and shift the primary responsibility for shelter placement to “Income

Support Centers” (previously known as “Income Maintenance Centers.” A.k.a. welfare offices) and newly created Assessment and Reception Centers. There are a variety of other City agencies and systems that victims of family violence are likely to encounter in their quest for safe, affordable housing. Women and children living in NYCHA or HPD housing are often forced to seek a housing transfer to escape their batterer. Additionally, victims of family violence often find themselves in Housing, Family, or the Criminal Courts, seeking orders to vacate that exclude the batterer from the home, orders of protection, or other legal remedies.

The Emergency Shelter System and Housing

When a woman enters an EAU, she walks through a metal detector, has her belongings searched, and is told to sign in on a long waiting list. She is surrounded by squalor and dozens of other families vying for a chair or a spot on the floor to rest. Several babies huddle together in cribs under glaring fluorescent lights. The drone of children crying is edged out by the voices on a television in the corner. Once her name is called, the battered woman will tell her story to a City caseworker on the other side of a bullet-proof partition, hoping the others on line behind her cannot overhear. As difficult as this scenario already is, it’s about to get a lot worse. When the City closes the EAUs, Income Support Centers (ISCs) will become responsible for daytime shelter placements. These Centers operate during business hours only. After 5 pm, an “800” telephone number will be available to make referrals to overnight “Reception Centers.” The next stop on this odyssey will be an “Assessment Center,” where applicants will be further screened to assess their needs.

Included in this restructuring are Division Teams and anti-Eviction Teams, located at the ISCs, whose purpose will be to determine whether the person seeking shelter can go back home or to friends or relatives, or whether some other means exist to divert the applicant from the homeless system. Needless to say, encouraging a battered woman to return to friends or relatives can be extremely dangerous proposition. It can literally mean the difference between life and death for the woman and her children, enabling a batterer to easily stalk and further victimize them. No special provisions have been made in this restructuring for women and children attempting to escape violent homes, despite the fact that they constitute 40 percent of all homeless families. ▲ Recommendation: The City should establish “Family Violence Crisis Centers” where victims can go for emergency respite. These Centers, to be run by not-for-profit providers located throughout the five boroughs, would provide overnight respite care for women and children with social services and advocacy staff on site 24 hours per day.

Losing beds in the battered women’s shelter system, given how few there are, is painful to contemplate. But New Beginning Shelter, a 93-bed, HRA-operated

battered women’s shelter in Brooklyn, will be converted into permanent housing in June 1993. This shelter has long been the subject of controversy, due both to its large size- which poses threats to the confidentiality and safety needs of its residents—and the fact that the site was originally designated for permanent housing and then changed into a shelter. It is not yet clear how much, if any, of this view permanent housing will be earmarked for victims of family violence. Given the scarcity of space available in battered women’s shelters, this significant loss of shelter beds is an issue of immediate concern which should be addressed, with special consideration given to the safety needs of victims of family violence which can be best met by small, community-based shelters. ▲ Recommendations: The City should move immediately to replace the imminent loss of domestic violence shelter beds at New Beginning. Funding should be made available for capital start-up expenses foe new shelter beds to be developed by not-for-profit, community-based providers which can more effectively meet the safety needs of their residents. ▲ The administration should commit to expanding the shelter system for battered women by 400 beds within the next four years. ▲ At least 40 percent of the permanent housing developed at the New Beginnings site must be set aside for victims of family violence. This allocation proportionately reflects the percentage of families who are homeless due to family violence.

The disruptive transition into Tier II housing, as was evident in the case study of Mary Lou, is perhaps the most unsettling period for a battered woman and her children. This occurs once a family has completed 90 days at a domestic violence shelter. At this juncture, they have just begun to come to terms with their abusive situation and establish a rapport with counselors and teachers. Although extensions to this 90-day limit are sometimes available, they rarely afford enough me for family to find a permanent apartment. Like Mary Lou, these women and children are often transferred from the relative “comfort” of a battered women’s shelter to the uncertainty of a Tier II shelter. This transfer does not address the real need for permanent housing. ▲ Recommendations: Housing priority should be given to women and children whose stays in battered women’s shelters have lapsed, thereby enabling them to bypass the Tier II system. ▲ Women and children whose 90 days in a battered women’s shelter have lapsed should be given a two-year rental assistance voucher by the City to seek a safe, decent apartment. Like EARP, which provides incentives to landlords for renting to homeless families, these vouchers can be piggy-backed onto Section 8. Unlike EARP, this rental assistance program should be managed by not-for-profit domestic violence service programs who can more quickly place families and monitor their progress once they are housed.

▲ For battered women, HRA should waive the 60-day waiting period required before filing and EARP application. This would allow battered women and their children to move out of the shelters more expeditiously.

Tiers IIs often provide insufficient security and sensitivity to the needs of abused women and children. Battered women’s advocates report that 75 percent of serious injuries to battered women actually occur after they attempt to flee the battering situation. They recount stories of women and children being stalked by their abusers, who are often able to locate them in general shelter system and terrorize them further. If battered women and children must leave domestic violence programs after 90 days and are left with no option but to enter the Tier II shelter, it is imperative that issues of safety, confidentiality, and sensitivity to their special needs are addresses at Tier IIs. ▲ Recommendation: HRA should contract with not-for-profit providers for the development of family violence protocols and training for all Tier II staff-including caseworkers and security personnel. This training must emphasize, and make provisions for, the special safety needs of victims of family violence.

Two underutilized rental subsidy programs are of particular relevance to battered women seeking housing for themselves and their children. A foster Care Prevention Rental Subsidy is available for families facing imminent risk of foster placement due to inadequate housing. A family Reunification Rental Subsidy also exists to provide assistance when the only factor preventing reunification of a mother with her children in foster care is inadequate housing. Both these subsidies must be more widely utilized. [Please see Chapter Five.] Permanent housing for battered women and children is insufficient in this city. As the last 12 years of misguided federal housing policy have illustrated, homeless is not a problem that can be “vouchered” away. Shelter space, rental subsidies, and voucher programs do not obviate the necessity of an adequate supply of permanent, affordable housing for victims of family violence. Top experts at HRA estimate that 40 percent of women and children in HRA domestic violence programs are “housing ready” by even the strictest standards. ▲ Recommendations: Increase the capital expenditure for new homeless housing construction by ten percent, with a five percent set-aside in each City-funded building for families transferring out of battered women’s shelters. ▲ NYCHA recently reduced its allotment of housing to homeless families by over 400 units. These units should be re-designed for families transferring out of domestic violence shelters.

Long delays for NYCHA and HPD transfers put families fleeing violence at grave risk. Such transfers are necessary, and can accommodate concerns such as

where the family feels most safe. Transfers also save the City money by safely diverting another family form the costly shelter system. The City must do everything in its power to expedite such transfers. ▲ Recommendation: Allocate funds to establish special transfer teams at both NYCHA and HPD. The sole responsibility of these workers will be to expedite intra-agency apartment transfers for women and children who are victims of family violence. The Role of the Courts in Housing for Victims of Family Violence

The Housing Court’s failure to respond to the needs of battered women and abused children must also be examined. Our courts are increasingly reluctant to infringe on the property rights of a batterer. In essence, the batterer’s assumed property rights outweigh a battered woman’s right to safety for herself and her children. This judicial attitude manifests itself in a reluctance to issue orders to vacate which would exclude the batterer for the home. As a result, women and children, not the batterer, are the ones most likely to become homeless following violent episodes within a household.

Currently, no grounds exist in Housing Court to have a batterer evicted for physical or emotional abuse. Advocates in Housing Court frequently recount the shift in a judge’s questioning following any attempt by a family violence victim to secure a home for herself and her children. Judges focus on the woman’s relationship with her batterer and ask intimate questions regarding her personal life, often suggesting that she would be better off seeking accommodations with friends and relatives. Every step of this process reinforces the return of the woman and her children to the abusive home environment.

Victims, not batterers, are most likely to become homeless. ▲ Recommendations: A study should be implemented to examine the feasibility of using Housing Court to issue orders to vacate which would exclude the batterer from the home. ▲ Training for Housing Court judges should be increased by at least five hours per year to ensure more effective intercessions in matters of family violence. ▲ Programs should be developed and funded to make family advocates available to battered women in Housing Court. Orders of protection and visitation rights, and the problems which surround them, are all well-known to battered women. If orders of protection were routinely

enforced, and supervised visitation programs were available, fewer women and children would be forced to flee into the homeless shelter system. Decisions made by the judiciary can mean the difference between housing and homelessness, as well as life and death, for victims of family violence (See Chapter Two). The recent death of a resident of a local battered women’s shelter underscores this point. The batterer in this instance was given the right to visit his children at a nearby restaurant every Saturday. This arrangement enabled him to continually stalk, and eventually kill, the mother of his children as she escorted them to the visitations.

5 Employment and Entitlements Case Study Celeste is a professional musician, a cellist, who is the mother of a 21 month-old daughter. The day she and her husband were married, the battering began. He came two hours late to the wedding, and she was terribly embarrassed. After the ceremony, an argument ensued, and he hit her. At the time of their marriage, she was working but he, a violist, was not. However, he did take control of her money, citing his prerogative in the marriage. The more successful she became in her career, the more abusive he became with her. The violence escalated, and Celeste required medical attention to recover from his abuse.

Before long, Celeste learned that her husband’s role as money manager was a sham. In lieu of paying the rent and utilities, he had begun spending her money on his drug habit—she’d never suspected. On her next payday, Celeste did not come home.

without an employee health benefits plan, and with the added requirements of childcare during the day for rehearsals and in the evening for performances? Celeste is multi-talented, has worked in computer systems management and is very gifted seamstress. Her dream, at the moment, is to save money, raise capital and open her own business. Celeste is a person who needs to work. Her self-identity and self-worth are closely connected to the ability to be productive and successful. There is no storage of opportunities for her in the world of work, and yet what little stability she managed to create for her daughter and herself would be threatened if she began to work. But by not working, by subsisting on a public assistance (PA) grant, Celeste knows she will never be able to save money, get a decent apartment, start her own business. This situation is making Celeste severely depressed, and she is becoming incapacitated by her depression. Having already forfeited so much in her effort to survive, Celeste may soon forfeit her one remaining asset—her dreams. Problem Statement The issues surrounding employment, entitlements and women who are battered are exceedingly complex and must be viewed in a psycho-social context.

First, there are the psychological factors which attend a battered woman in crisis who has fled her home: loss of control and power; fear and the need to reestablish safety; disorganization; feelings of failure; depression. During the first weeks in a shelter, these are the issues which must be addressed in order for a woman to begin recovery. But at the same time, there are the realities of the life to be dealt with: the effects of the move on her children; the need to help them adjust; their safe transfer to a new school. These psychological conditions and practical demands would place and enormous strain on anyone under any circumstances.

Now add to the mixture the social realities. A woman leaves her home because she fears for the life and safety of her children and herself. In leaving, she forfeits her possessions, everything familiar to her. In almost every case, she leaves in secret and it is imperative that her whereabouts not be revealed to her batterer. That means minimal or no contact, for her and the children, with their accustomed social support system of family and friends.

For grown women and their children in crisis, congregate living is virtually untenable. Even in he best of residential programs for the battered women in New York City, where private rooms are available to a woman and her children, there are still the issues of having no personal possessions, adhering to curfews, and are required participation in services.

In other circumstance, where there are no private living arrangements, a woman and her children are compelled to share living and cooking space, with one or more other families who are also in crisis and are total strangers. Because of security considerations, battered women are not even allowed to have a family member visit them in the shelter, In short, the result of making the difficult and courageous decision to leave is that nothing—the good with the bad—is as it was before.

Then, the issues of food, clothing, health care—and even paying for such non-essentials as toothpaste and subway tokens—must be considered. Under the best of

circumstances, applying for these entitlements is burdensome. But for a woman in crisis (who most often has not thought—in fleeing for her life—to take Social Security cards, birth certificates, bank account information, and proof of income or joint ownership of property with her) it is overwhelming.

The entitlement system frequently penalizes working women.

Issues of employment cannot be easily factored into the most complex

equation. One needs to consider those women, like Celeste, who are skilled and employable but actually discouraged from working by the possible loss of essential benefits. In addition, there are women forced onto public assistance by the fact that they must quit their jobs in order to avoid being found by their batterers, or in order to qualify for certain benefits. And, as well, those women who have never or rarely had jobs—perhaps because they attended to child care and homework while supported by their batterer—or who have a few employment skills would benefit greatly by becoming employable and financially independent. Disincentives such as loss of irreplaceable benefits or priority housing status unquestionably contribute further to feelings of loss of control and disempowerment.

Battered women must either be eligible for a PA in order to receive shelter or, it they are employed must negotiate a payment plan for shelter at the local Income Support Center (ISC). A woman not receiving public assistance is allowed to live in a shelter for up to 90 days. However, unlike a PA recipient, she never becomes eligible for Tier II or permanent public housing. (However, were a woman able to find a Mitchell Lama apartment during her three-month stay, she could move there.)

Given the lack of low-income housing stock in New York City, a battered woman who is not PA-eligible and is working has these options after the 90 day shelter period ends: enter a congregate shelter; put her kids in foster care; or return to her batterer. Many battered women, who because they work, are ineligible for the City’s network of shelters, housing and services, find themselves forced, after their short stay in a battered women’s shelter, to return to their abuser.

For women who are eligible for public assistance, the whole array of shelter services and housing options are accessible. Emergency shelters and Tier IIs can keep a woman and her kids housed and safe from her batterer for close to two years. In that time she will probably be able to find an apartment through HPD, EARP or NYCHA. Even if, during her shelters stay, she finds that she has the time, energy, interest and ability to work, she cannot afford to, as she will be unable to access these housing resources.

In addition to the issue of shelter and permanent housing are the problems of health care, child care, food and eligibility for others services. Many working battered women are employed in jobs with few or no health benefits. Unable to ensure that the health needs of her children will be met, other working battered women feel forced to quit their jobs in order to access Medicaid. Food Stamps, publicly funded children care and other social services are less available for working women and their children. And of course, if a woman has her children removed by Child Welfare

Administration, she also loses a significant portion of her public benefits and can be evicted from a family shelter because she no longer is part of a family. Ironically, given the perverse nature of the entitlement system, battered women cannot afford to work if they are going to protect themselves and their children from further violence. Systems Overview

Public Assistance provides help for needy women, men and children. “Assistance” includes the following categories: food and clothing; rent or mortgage payments; utilities, including heat, gas, electricity, and water; meals (if you are unable to prepare food at home); Women, Infants and Children (WIC) benefits, which provide supplementary funds and food for pregnant and new mothers; housing and household-related expenses (of particular relevance to this report are funds available to establish a new household and funds to prevent eviction). These funds of assistance are funded through Title IVA. The City and State each pay 25 percent of the cost, and the federal government pays the balance. Foods Stamps are provided through an entirely federally funded program. Expedited Food Stamps are available to families in an emergency, including families fleeing violence.

For families about to become homeless, the City offers the following assistance: help in staying in one’s own apartment; payment to enable a family to stay with someone other than a “legally responsible relative,” such as the parent of a minor; accommodations in a shelter, hotel or motel; a restaurant allowance when there are no cooking facilities; arrangements for a safe place to stay if there is family violence; payment for moving expenses and rent security deposits; broker’s or finder’s fees; furniture storage; payment for household items necessary for establishing a new home; payments for transporting children to and from school while living in a shelter.

Although the City estimates that is costs $274 million per year to shelter homeless families, these costs reflect only the actual cost of providing shelter. It is estimated that ancillary services cost at least an equal amount.

Health Coverage is provided to eligible families in the form of Medicaid. Medicaid covers most of the medical needs of battered women and their children, including some mental health needs. Practitioners outside of hospitals who will accept Medicaid, however, are difficult to find and the waiting list for many services is dangerously long. Therefore, it is uncommon for a battered woman and her children (like other poor families) to wait an entire day in a hospital emergency room for attention.

Many working battered women without health benefits are forced to quit their jobs when they leave their batterers (and either are no longer covered by the men’s health plans or cannot access them without revealing their whereabouts) in order to ensure that the health needs of their children are met. It is essential, and cost effective, to enable families to obtain just the public entitlements they need.

▲ Recommendation: Eligibility requirements for Medicaid must be changed, or alternative access to medical services must provide for working battered women and their children.

Access to entitlements presents problems for battered women and their children similar to those faced by many other in New York City. However, many working battered women are forced to leave their jobs in order to obtain (PA) solely to qualify for shelter. In addition, most of this City’s low-cost housing is available only to families who are receiving public entitlements.

Over the past 15 years, New York City has established several exemptions for battered women who are receiving PA, in defense to the danger they face from continued contact with the batterer. In particular, battered women are exempt form cooperating in child support collection while the family is in the shelter because the safety of the woman, her children and the entire battered women’s shelter in which she is living may be jeopardized. BEGIN, the City’s welfare reform effort, also exempts all homeless women. However, there are many battered women receiving PA who are not in homeless shelters. ▲ Recommendation: These exemptions and support services should also apply to battered women who are not living in shelter in order to assist them in making the difficult changes necessary to escape violence without entering the homeless system.

Certain entitlements are available to battered women and their children in an expedited manner. These include: Food Stamps, Agency for Child Development (ACD) day care transfers, and emergency clothing allowances. However, it is too often the case that these are not explained or accessed.

When battered women receiving PA grant enter a battered women’s shelter, the rental portion of their PA grant is expanded in order to reimburse the shelter. The “food and other” portion of their grant is supposed to remain the same as when they lived in their own apartment—unless it is increased with enhancements for which a family in crisis may be eligible. This is not always what happens, however. The Task Force heard testimony regarding the frequency with which these grants are erroneously reduced. In addition, homeless families are entitled to Food Stamp benefits even if the programs they are in provide meals. This fact is frequently overlooked. ▲ Recommendation: Expedited entitlements recognize the emergency needs of a family which has had to flee its home because of violence. These entitlements should also be available to battered women who are not in the shelters.

Eligibility for safe residential services should be assumed for all battered women and their children, regardless of their income. Their status as crime victims, which has caused their homelessness, should ensure that even non-PA eligible battered women and their children receive shelter for more than a mere 90 days. If necessary, their shelter costs should be assumed by other revenue streams. Women who receive other forms of public entitlements, such as SSI, SSD, and unemployment

benefits, and families that are now ineligible due to their immigration status, should also be eligible for shelter without giving up other source of income.

Housing is, after safety, a battered woman’s greatest concern. She fears that she will become homeless and never find safe, affordable, permanent housing. The women with whom the Task Force spoke repeatedly said that housing was their most pressing need. Mothers spoke passionately about the problems that homelessness, living communally with strangers, and constant relocation, were having on the emotional state of their children and themselves. Although the issue of housing and homelessness is addressed in another chapter o this report, it must be noted here thee are financial subsidy programs that, if utilized, could reduce the amount of time a battered woman and her children are homeless and improve their quality of life. Housing is, after safety, a battered woman’s greatest concern.

Foster Care Re-Unification Funds are a housing subsidy for which battered women are eminently eligible. These funds, up to $300 per month for up to three years, are available to women whose children have been in foster care for 90 days or longer and where their primary reason for their remaining in care is the lack of adequate housing. Many children are placed in foster care because CWA believes that their non-abusing mother can protect them form family violence. In addition, some battered women place their children in foster care voluntarily because, in fact, they have no other way to protect them form abuse. Given the co-incidence of woman and child abuse, however, we conservatively estimate that the placements of 25 percent of children in foster care could be prevented or shortened if these subsidies were better utilized.

The Foster Care Prevention Rental Subsidy is a pilot program administered by CWA that provides up to $300 per month for up to two years to mothers who are in imminent risk of losing their children to foster care due to inadequate housing. Many battered women are categorized as having inadequate housing—meaning their homes are too dangerous for the children to remain in. During the time that this benefit has been available, however, very few battered women have been able to access it.

Prevention and re-unification would also be expedited if batterers were excluded from the home. Support services could then be provided to a woman and her children in their own home.

AIDS rental subsidies of up to $480 dollars per month plus $300 for each additional person are also available to women or children who are HIV-ill. Many battered women and their advocates are unaware of this subsidy.

▲ Recommendations: Establish an Office of Eligibility Advocacy to address battered women’s entitlements needs. This office would work to insure that all battered women receive the entitlements and exemptions for which they are qualified. ▲ The Office of Eligibility Advocacy should research and access alternate revenue streams for non-PA eligible women, including: Crime Victim’s Compensation, McKinney funds, Title XX monies, a dedicated increase to the marriage license tax, and fines and penalties levied against batterers. 6 Health Case Studies A hospital employee who did not work in the emergency room, but who often passed through the area, frequently saw the same woman waiting to see a doctor. After several weeks, the hospital worker approached the woman and said, “I’m beginning to feel like I know you. Why are you here so often?” The patient began to cry her story spilled out. She said that no one had ever asked her why she was there so often or how she got so many injuries. She said that she was being increasingly battered by her husband, and that she had been to the hospital on many separate occasions for stitches, a broken arm, x-rays for possible broken ribs, and several other injuries. She said she was becoming increasingly worried because her husband, who had always been harsh with their three children, was getting worse and she was beginning t even worry about her own control with them. Anita, a victim of family violence, purposely went to a different hospital every time she was injured. She was ashamed of the fact that this was happening to her, and didn’t want anyone to find out. She particularly remembers a time when her boyfriend insisted on coming with her o the hospital after beating her up. He had a gun in his pocket, and told her that she had better not tell anyone how her injuries had happened. Anita remembers that the nurse asked her about her injuries in front of him. Knowing that his gun was secretly aimed at her, she lied to the nurse. Case Analyses

These case studies illustrate the need for health protocols which identify and assist families experiencing family violence. It is important that questions are asked of patients in a compassionate, non-judgmental way. In cases where family violence is identified, here must be: staff available to provide follow-up and counseling; a safety plan prepared with victims before they leave the health care setting; and accurate referrals for additional resources. In addition, through medical records of hospital visits and injuries treated can provide critical documentation in later court proceedings. Problem Statement

Family violence is a major health issue. In 1985, the U.S surgeon General reported that battering was the single largest cause of injury to women, more common than auto accidents, muggings, and rape combined—and declared domestic violence a leading public health problem. Women, children, and he elderly are the primary victims of family violence.

Studies show that 22 to 35 percent of female emergency room patients suffer form injuries or symptoms caused by ongoing abuse (N). Battered women also visit primary care physicians for a variety of medical complaints including headaches, sleep disorders, depression, and abdominal pain. In a hospital study by Stark and Flitcraft, 45 percent of the mothers of abused children were also battered (B).

Often, battering starts or escalates in severity with the onset of pregnancy. The American Medical Association recently estimated that one out of six pregnant women is battered, and women who are battered are twice as likely to miscarry, and four times more likely to deliver a low birth weight baby (O).

Battering is the single largest cause of injury to

women in the U.S. In addition, there is a high likelihood that chemically dependent women were

victims of child abuse, and are victims of domestic violence. These issues must be addressed in any effective treatment program. Women who are battered are also less able to negotiate safe sex practices, leaving them at higher risk for HIV transmission.

A health care provider may be the first, or only, non-family member to whom a battered woman goes fro help. Battered women who my be suspicious of traditional social services still seek health care, especially emergency services, for themselves and their children. Women who do not define themselves or their children as “battered,” and therefore do not seek help from other systems such as the police or courts, will still access health care and emergency care for their children’s and their families. Health care is often seen as a neutral and accessible system, with much less stigma attached to it than a social service or battered women’s program. Moreover, a batterer who tries to control and limit his family’s freedom will often allow them to

go to a doctor. This gives the health care system a special responsibility to intervene in the cycle of family violence.

Yet, according to another study by Stark, emergency department physicians identified only one in 35 of their female patients as battered, when a review of their medical charts indicated that one in four were likely to have been battered (P). The insensitivity of the health care system to the underlying causes of their injuries may explain why a survey of 1000 battered women ranked the effectiveness of health care professionals in addressing their abuse lower that that of battered women’s shelters, lawyers, social service workers, police and the clergy (Q).

Many families are ashamed of battering, or are afraid to reveal the causes of their injuries. Many victims rotate the hospitals where they seek treatment in order to avoid being identified as a recurrent victim. Even if a woman is not immediately psychologically ready to access services or resists revealing the fact that she is battered, studies show that it is important for women to be told that what happened to them is a crime, that they do not deserve to be battered and that help is available. Often, this is the first step towards escaping the violence.

The health care profession is beginning to recognize that its responsibility for the health and welfare of its patients extends beyond treatment of injuries and symptom. It is beginning systematically to examine and respond to the underlying causes of injuries. Health professionals are also recognizing that safety for victims of battering is the first priority. Since he highest levels of violence are shown to occur after a woman leaves or attempts to eave the batterer, this becomes a delicate task. As shown by the Flitcraft study of abused children and their mothers, it is vitally important for the health care system to make the connection between child abuse and domestic violence. System Overview

Since health care providers are among those professionals who are mandated to report child abuse, City hospitals and clinics have protocols for suspected cases of child abuse. The Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) also trains staff, monitors their adherence to the protocols, keeps certified records on child abuse, and gathers statistical data. All health care providers are mandated to receive annual training on what to look for and what procedures to follow. Each hospital has a trained team to evaluate suspected cases of child abuse, and to report them to the State hotline. The City hospital system reports 4,000-5,000 suspected cases of child abuse each year.

There is no mandated reporting system for domestic violence, and this Task Force is not recommending one, because battered women are competent adults. However, intervention and treatment are also critical for adult victims of violence, and the connections between child abuse and domestic violence must be made in health care policy and protocols.

Under the provisions of 10NYCRR Part 405 of the Hospital Code (Article 28), all hospitals are required to develop and implement written policies and procedures to identify and treat adult domestic violence victims. These regulations are enforced by the State Department of Health; the City Department of Health also has jurisdiction.

To assist health care facilities in meeting these regulations, the New York State Department of Health issued domestic violence protocols for hospital emergency services in January, 1990. These protocols list the types of injuries that are indicators for possible domestic violence. They recommend that the emergency services log include a code for domestic cases, highlight the need for women to be asked about possible battering in a confidential manner (away from any accompanying partner), and suggest that hospitals maintain community and legal referrals. They further recommend offering to call the police, helping the victims develop a safety plan, and maintaining evidence of assaults, including photographs. Overall, these protocols recommend a team approach, including doctors, nurses, and social work staff, for assisting a victim, and suggest training for the triage team, intake person, and hospital security.

The only mention of the link between domestic violence and child abuse in these protocols reads as follows: “…battering is a major factor in a range of psychological problems including suicide attempts, alcoholism, and child abuse.” (page1) This suggests that battered women may be prone to beat their children. What is missing, and must be included, is the fact that there is a strong possibility that both the mother and the child are victims of battering by someone else.

On the federal level, in January, 1992 the joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations (JCAHO) began requiring that all accredited hospitals implement policies and procedures in their emergency departments and ambulatory care facilities for identifying, training and referring victims of abuse. These standards also require training for hospital staff. To monitor these regulations, JCAHO does site visits and examines medical records. Hospitals that do not comply are at risk of having their accreditation suspended and funding jeopardized, although in practice such accreditation sanctions are rare.

In the summer of 1992, the American Medical Association also issued Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines on Domestic Violence. These guidelines cover identification, interventions, barriers to identification, documentation of cases, legal issues, risk management, and trends in treatment and prevention.

Recently, Bellevue Hospital began a program to provide family violence advocates on staff in the emergency room, and is beginning to develop intake sheets that include family violence issues. They have also completed a study of female emergency room patients, finding that 40 percent were being identified as such. Standard Operating Procedures

Although all City hospitals have domestic violence protocols on file, it was clear from conversation with hospital personnel that in practice these protocols have not have been implanted fully, if at all. Few if any hospitals have changed their intake forms, and while cameras are used for documenting child abuse, few are used to document injuries of adult victims of domestic violence. There are too many instance when a patient is never asked how an injury really occurred, or isn’t asked in a confidential setting. This means that many battered women and elderly people are

being treated by the health system but are not receiving the intervention they need to break the cycle of family violence.

Health care providers are reluctant to identify

patients as family violence victims. According to State regulations, these family violence protocols must be

adapted for use in all hospital departments, not only emergency rooms. In particular, it is important to have protocols in place in obstetrics and gynecology and pediatric departments.

There is a disturbing reluctance among health care providers to identify a patient as a victim of family violence. In the case of adult victims, the refrain is: There’s such a lack of services, why identify someone if you can’t do anything for them? In the case of child abuse victims, some health workers are so mistrustful of the child welfare system that, despite the fact that they are mandated reporters, they hesitate to make a report. They say: How can I be sure that the child will be any safer in foster care?

Community clinics that treat women and children are required to follow the State Department of Health regulations. Hospital-based substance abuse programs and HIV-AIDS programs are covered by the same guidelines. Yet once again, in the practice there is little identification of victims of domestic violence, and there are no cross-assessment procedures in place to link the issues of child abuse and domestic violence. This is a critical missing link, since we know that battering or abuse is one of the casual factors in substance abuse. These protocols must be enforced system-wide, and health care professionals should be held accountable to the standards set forth in the guidelines. ▲ Recommendations: HHC and DOH should issue standard operating procedures for their health facilities and departments (all City-funded hospitals, primary health programs, including health clinics, drug treatments programs, AIDS prevention and outreach programs, AIDS treatment programs, children’s health clinics, infectious disease clinics, and immunization clinics): ● All intake sheets and charts should be revised to include questions on family violence. ● Where family violence is suspected, all patients should be asked about violence in a confidential setting. ● There should be a camera and film available to document injuries. ● Where family violence is identified, a safety plan should e developed.

▲ In addition, domestic violence and child abuse protocols need to be expanded to include cross-assessments: If an adult victim of domestic violence is identified, the children accompanying her should also be assessed for evidence of family violence. Similarly, if a child shows evidence of abuse, its mother should be asked if she, too, Is experiencing violence at home. ▲ A multi-service palm card, containing information about women’s health issues and domestic violence, should be made available in every health facility and given to those women identified as victims of domestic violence.

Many families access a variety of service that are co-located, such as immunizations, primary health care services, and WIC benefits. Yet there is no coordination of information about families receiving these services that might be helpful in identifying and assisting victims of family violence. ▲ Recommendation: HHC, DOH and any other relevant agencies should set up a system to share information about clients of community based services.

The AWAKE model in use at Boston Children’s Hospital has proven very effective in identifying battered mothers of child abuse victims, and providing intensive services to those families. The social work staff, working with health professional, does intensive assessment, and links victims of family violence with a range of legal, shelter, and counseling services. The program keeps the mothers and children together, in a safe environment, and works with families over a period to ensure that their situation is stabilized. (R). ▲ Recommendation: HHC should develop a pilot program, based on the AWAKE model, in one City hospital.

Staffing

If health care providers do identify a domestic violence victim, some hospitals have a social work staff to which the case can be referred for counseling and service referrals. But many hospitals do not have big social work staffs, and do not have social work staffing on all shifts. Few social workers are specifically trained or charged to act s domestic violence advocates, and City hospitals have a consistently high vacancy rate for MSWs due to pay scale, recruitment problems, budget cuts, and hiring freezes. There are, however, specially assigned child welfare advocates on staff at each hospital. ▲ Recommendation: HHC should mandate that every hospital have one domestic violence advocate staff, for at least two shifts, with additional coverage by phone if necessary.

Training

It is already the case that physicians are required to undergo annual training

on child and reporting requirements. Currently there is not state requirement mandating annual domestic violence training. However, the federal HHC did offer a system wide training for all health care providers in 1992, coordinated by the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic violence. Since the ideal model for responding to cases of family violence is the team approach, it is important to train all levels of health care providers and support staff. Private providers must also be educated in issues of family violence. The AMA diagnostic and treatment guidelines for private providers should be expanded to make the family violence connection.

There are class and cultural issues that should also be part of any training. Too often, health care providers overlook signs of abuse in middle class white patients, thinking that family violence occurs mainly in poor or minority communities. In addition, some ethnic communities, and the private health agencies that serve them, are notable for their lack of reporting of signs of family violence. There is the perception by some providers that family violence is acceptable in certain cultures. Providers must still intervene in these cases, in a culturally sensitive way, and must also be sensitive to the concerns of and barriers faced by groups such as the elderly, the disabled, immigrants, lesbians and gay men. [For a more complete discussion of these issues, see the Introduction of this report.] ▲ Recommendations: HHC should require, as part of its affiliation agreements that medical schools include curriculum about family violence. ▲ HHC and DOH should institute annual training requirements for all affiliated health care personnel. Copies of the AMA report should also be distributed to all providers.

Data Collection

HHC and DOH have recently proposed a pilot program at Lincoln Hospital to identify the number of domestic violence victims treated there, and to access the costs incurred by the hospital in providing service to patients. As part of this data collection, the program will develop an identification methodology and a coding system. This is a good first step towards standardizing data collection on family violence.

HHC and DOH should also implement data collection procedures for family violence incidents, to capture the prevalence of adult domestic violence concurrent with child abuse cases in all facilities. HHC has advocated for the Child Welfare complaint sheet, 2221, to include a category for domestic violence. In addition, voluntary hospitals should also implement standardized data collection on issues of family violence. ▲ Recommendation: State Department of Health’s Department of Injury Control should fund the Lincoln hospital pilot program.

▲ HHC and DOH facilitates should collect data on family violence cases.

Accountability

DOH and HHC must develop a system of oversight and monitoring if they are to be successful in responding to family violence. This task force heard from many advocates and health care providers within the system that many policies exist on paper, but not in practice. While the State could legislate or mandate certain additional requirements (such as training), City agencies have the power to set their own standards and hold hospitals and clinics to them. Through a coordinated effort of mandated standard operating procedures, quarterly monitoring and reporting, mandated training, and site inspections, DOH and HHC can ensure that our health system is meeting he needs of the vast numbers of family violence victims. ▲ Recommendation: DOH and HHC develop a coordinated oversight system for family violence.

Public Education Campaign

Family violence is increasingly reorganized as a major public health problem. Prevention and early intervention could save lives. Funds spent on prevention also save money through fewer emergency visits and fewer repeat injuries. It is imperative that the Department of Health, which is charged with identifying major public health risks and developing intervention strategies, begin to focus on the issue of family violence. ▲ Recommendation: DOH should develop a public awareness campaign which includes outreach in hospitals, clinics, health programs, subways and other public spaces, and public service announcements on television and radio. Conclusion

The problems with the health system’s response to issues of family violence fall into three broad categories: lack of comprehensive, interconnected protocols and the failure to provide the staffing and resources to implement them; lack of training to identify and treat; and a lack of a commitment to hold the health systems accountable for following any protocols that are implemented. When these three problems are finally and responsibly addressed, when the connection between child abuse and domestic violence is consciously made by health care providers, when the City health care providers, begin to work together, then we will see lives saved.

Mental Health Case Study Mona is a 25-year-old mother of a four-year-old girl with whom she lives in a battered women’s shelter. Mona was married at age 18 in an arranged marriage, as is customary in her culture. Her husband began beating her within a few months of their marriage. When she went to her family for help. they told her to try to be a better wife. During this time, Mona was working part time as a sales clerk. When one of her co-workers was commented on her frequent bruises, Mona told her about being beaten by her husband. The woman expressed her horror, said didn't know how to help Mona, but offered to lend her money whenever she needed it.

Mona became pregnant when she was 19. She didn't want to have a baby. She says," I knew I'd be trapped forever if I had a baby with him." She told her husband she wanted an abortion. H beat her, screaming the he'd never let her kill his son. She borrowed money from her friend and had the abortion anyway. She still had bruises from his beating when she went to the clinic. The staff asked her about them. She explained that her husband had hit her when she told him she wanted an abortion. They told her it was her body, her right to do as she wished, and they gave her a number to call for help with domestic violence. Mona asked whom she should ask for there, and was told to ask for a counselor. When Mona's husband found out she had the abortion, he beat and raped her. She called the number that night and asked for a counselor. She was told she reached the answering service and the counselors would be available the next day. Mona's husband told her family about the abortion. They chastised her and told her it was unnatural for a mother to kill her baby. Mona carried her second pregnancy to term because “I didn't really have a choice and I wasn't going to go through all that again." The husband was enraged at the birth of a daughter. Despite the fact that Mona was in her hospital bed, he yelled,” You killed my son and gave me a girl! It should have been the other way around!" Mona was referred to a staff social worker who reassured her that her husband would soften once that baby smiled at him. Mona was never asked about violence. She continued to endure abuse until her daughter began daycare at age three. The daycare center staff was concerned about the child's aggressiveness. At a parent-teacher conference Mona told them her story. The daycare teacher called several programs and was able to get Mona placed into a shelter within a week. Mona had to remove her daughter from that center because of concern that her husband would show up there and hurt them. Mona credits the shelter with saving her life. She is grateful for a place away from her abusive husband. However, she is upset that "They really don't do anything for kids in the shelter." She asked for help for her daughter's acting-out and was given a number to call. The agency she called had a two-month waiting list. She had to call eight different agencies before she found one that would take her daughter

within a week. The shelter has assigned someone to try to help her find daycare for her daughter, but to no avail. Repeated calls to the Agency for Child Development have left Mona and the worker frustrated and no closer to placement for her daughter. Mona also reports being concerned that "The kids are out of control in the shelter. They all act out, hitting each other, hitting their mothers, throwing thing and nobody does anything about it. There are parenting classes, but they are not required. There is not therapy for the kids. They have child care when we have our therapy but nobody's doing anything to make these kids better." She also reported witnessing a lot of corporal punishment of children by their mothers in the shelter. She asks, "How are these kids ever going to learn not to be violent if they're getting hit all the time?" Mona goes to the parenting classes at the shelter. She has told other mothers about how helpful she finds them. Mona pointed out, "The problem is, the mothers who really need these classes don't go. Nobody at the shelter tells them they have to, either. The whole system is a mess, especially for kids." Mona has recently found an apartment and expects to move out of the shelter within a few weeks. Case Analysis Mona's experience is all too common for many women and children in our city. Appropriate mental health interventions would have made a difference. Mona and her daughter could have been spared a lot of anguish. Mona's co-worker wanted to help, but she was not aware of who to call or what services were available. She lent Mona money because it was a concrete Service she could offer. This City has never has a massive public education campaign, with telephone numbers to call for assistance, targeted to those who are abused or who know someone who is. The staff at the abortion clinic was sensitive enough to recognize domestic violence and want to help. Unfortunately, they did not consider Mona's emotional vulnerability or her cultural background. In addition, had they given her a special name to ask for, or a number to call that would have been answered by a counselor, or even warned her those on off-hours she would get an answering service, it would not have been such a discouraging experience. It is equally unfortunate that the hospital social worker assumed she was simply dealing with a father who was disappointed that his wife had given birth to a girl and not a boy. Mona did not need reassurance; she needed options and a safety plan. Her husband needed to be confronted about his abusive behavior. This was never done because the assessment did not include questions about violence. The daycare center staff advocated for Mona and were vigilant until she was safely placed in a shelter. It is heart wrenching for Mona and her daughter that the women who were most supportive and helpful are the ones they must be separated from. The risk of Mona's husband behaving violently at the daycare center is a real one.

Family violence should be seen as a social pathology. Mona's husband has never been held accountable for his behavior. There is little incentive for him to change. The hospital social worker who could have had the most impact missed that opportunity. We don't know if the batterer considers his behavior unacceptable and no one in authority has taken the stand that it is. Mona makes it clear that there is little available for children within most battered women's programs. She knew her daughter needed therapy before she came to shelter. Battered women's programs have not adequately addressed the needs of clients who have child caring responsibilities. There are few special interventions for children who may also be victims of abuse or who are in need of counseling because of the violence they have witnessed. Allowing corporal punishment within the shelter is giving children a confusing message. They have been removed from their homes due to their father’s violence but the shelter allows their mothers to be violent against them. Few children are capable of distinguishing hitting in the name of discipline versus simple violence. Programs must not be in the position of meeting the mother's needs of the children's; the must meet both. Problem Statement Mental Health and counseling services are provided be many agencies in the city. However, gaps in services exist, and there is no agency that provides training and accountability to the system as a whole. People experiencing abusive behavior may enter the mental health system in a myriad of ways: some seek help from private therapists or from their local social service agency; others may approach a minister, a school counselor, or family physician. Many do not seek help at all and suffer until someone else intervenes to help them. Yet gaining access to the mental health system does not ensure proper care. Many City hospitals and mental health clinics do not have active protocols for domestic violence. As was apparent in Mona's case, providers are not always knowledgeable about appropriate services or referrals, nor do they posses an understanding of, or sensitivity to, the complexities surrounding battered and response to these problems. It has been reported that female victims end up institutionalized far more often than their perpetrators. The victims get diagnosed, blamed and often psychiatrically abused, which the perpetrators go free (S). Stark and Flitcraft note that wife battering is often compounded by institutional and professional mistreatment of the victims. including "neglect, inappropriate medications, and labeling women who persistently seek help."(S) In order to deliver effective services to clients, it is imperative that the mental health system understand family violence and child abuse. In the past, the necessary connections among battered women's advocates, children's advocates and mental

health practitioners have been missing, possibly because these groups conceptualize the issue of family violence differently. Theoretical considerations must be weighed in attempting to move the mental health community toward a better understanding of family violence. Clinicians are charged with treating the patient. They identify the disease and seek a cure. In this endeavor they have a whole array of methods to deal with afflictions, including psychotherapy, drug therapy, and behavioral therapy. The focus is on identifying the problem as being within the patient. She is generally viewed in isolation and is encouraged to find resources within herself to inform her recovery. Advocates for women and children do not view the client in isolation. They see the client as a victim of social pathology and seek to help the client change the external environment via personal empowerment and by providing resources and support. Many mental health professionals have begun to recognize that there is often a complex set of factors at work in case of battering and abuse. The family is seen as the primary dysfunctional unit. There is an increasing awareness that in our culturally pluralistic society family structure can take many forms. A laudable attempt is being made to assess family values and lifestyles with sensitivity to the many factors that shape them. In this regard, family systems theory has contributed greatly to the understanding of, and effectiveness in dealing with, a population as diverse as those from violent homes. Clinicians using a family systems approach believe that the whole is often more than the sum of its parts. They see that causes of problems often evolve, and are exacerbated by, the interactions of various family members and do not originate solely within an individual. This implies mutual responsibility for problems and problem solving. If, when taking a systems approach, the family members are seen together without assessing the risk of further violence, dangerous repercussions for women and children can ensue. Battered women's advocates cite the risks involved in offering couples counseling to couples in abusive relationships, reporting with frequency that any disclosures made by an abused woman in such counseling may be used against her by batterer once they get home. Clearly, families must be properly assessed for violent behavior before attempting to work from a family systems perspective. It is estimated that people have 50-50 chance to experiencing family violence in their lifetimes (G). It is vital that mental health professionals, and advocates for women and children find common cause and integrate their approaches. Currently a dispute exists which threatens to divide these groups. The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R), which represents the official classification of mental disorders, is being revised and proposes a new diagnosis called "self-defeating personality disorder." It implies that women remain in battering relationships because they "derive unconscious pleasure from suffering." This proposed diagnosis would define a general social pathology as a personal psychological one. This definition strikes many as nothing more than blaming the victim. Others posit that the proposed diagnosis is really just a variation on the theme, "They really like it." (S)

Mental health clinicians must understand the dynamics of family violence and asses it more effectively through the use of standardized protocols. Conventional, clinical questions are likely to miss critically important indicators of abuse and battering. ▲ Recommendation: Mental health providers, including psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers, should receive special training regarding family violence, and appropriate interview and intervention methodologies, as a condition for re-licensing.

The mental health needs of battered women are of paramount importance. It is essential to acknowledge the social and cultural forces in our society which tend to condone men's aggression toward women, as well as their desire to dominate them. It is equally important to understand that women internalize the same societal and cultural messages. This often prevents them from seeking or giving help. In addition, overwhelming firsthand evidence reveals that women also remain in abusive situations because of lack of services ad=and safe options. As we saw in the case study, Mona and the social worker had both internalized societal and cultural messages so well that they excused Mona's husband's violent reaction to the birth of their daughter. Mona did not identify herself as battered, nor did the social worker think to inquire about domestic violence. This resulted in a missed intervention and placed Mona and her daughter in jeopardy.

Victims of violence grow up to be violent. A recent study of battered women in Bellevue's Emergency Department reveals that over 33 percent of those women expressed a need for counseling and support groups, more than any other single service with the exception of medical services (T). Clearly, such counseling and support must take a comprehensive approach. Battered women need help to gain control over their lives. They need to be offered concrete alternatives and they should be counseled to help change perceptions that violence can be rationalized or justified. Years of living under domination causes feelings of powerlessness, immobilization, low self-esteem, and poor judgment. Battered women often experience depressive illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction. Many attempt suicide. Prescribing psychotropic drugs for depression, or merely treating the alcoholism or drug addiction alone, is not enough. The root cause of these symptoms, rather than the symptoms alone, should be addressed. Battered women are also constantly negotiating safety for themselves and their children. This can result in an inability to provide what society sees as proper child care. Battered women who have children deserve assistance in fulfilling their child care responsibilities. Parenting classes and day care would help. It is also true that some battered women abuse and neglect their children. It is important that their

mental health needs around these issues be met. An assessment of the child's safety and the child's mental health needs should be done. ▲ Recommendations: Women who are at risk (or who have a history) of abusing or neglecting their children should receive counseling to address that issue, and should attend positive parenting classes as well. ▲ Substance abuse programs should recognize the high incidence of violence that often leads women to use drugs. Substance abuse programs should assess for violence and address violence issues in their treatment plans. The mental health needs of child victims of family violence are often overlooked. It is essential to examine how the mental health community deals with children who live in abusive environments. Are they taken from their families and put into group homes or into foster care where they may encounter additional abuse? Are children sent to play therapy and then sent back into an abusive home? If they are acting out in school, are they labeled and sent to special education classes rather than recognized as victims of family violence who need special counseling and attention? Are school authorities identifying these children and making appropriate referrals? Studies have found that children who are victims of parental violence, and who grow up in homes where violence exists, are much more likely to resort to violence themselves. New studies are focusing on the long-term effects on children who witness abuse and battering against their mothers. The social costs for ignoring these findings will only serve to perpetuate the cycle of violence in future. It is important to acknowledge that battered women may respond to their own abuse by abusing their children. Whether child abuse is inflicted by the mother or a battering father, it has been shown that children who are both physically abused and witness to spouse abuse are at greater risk of "adjustment disorders"(i.e., acting out in school, fighting with other children, less able to cope and live effectively). These children are described as "doubly abused" and are reported to function less well than a comparison group of children. It has further been found that the risk of children experiencing psychological difficulties quadruples with the presence of two or more stressors (i.e., witnessing battering and experiencing physical violence) (U). Most often, children do not wish to be separated from their familiar surroundings and care takers. They just want the violence to stop. Many studies document the damage caused by uprooting children and removing them from their friends, school, and home. Of course it is perpetrator of the violence who should be removed, but until the criminal justice system understands and responds, it is the children and their mothers who suffer dislocation. ▲ Recommendation: The special needs of children who have been abused and who have witnessed battering and violence should be considered and services developed and provided. Children living in battered women's shelters need special services to help them cope with the realities of their lives and to ensure their future mental health.

Batterers' treatment needs are also under-addressed. When looking at programs designed to work with batterers, no particular philosophies of treatment are found to be especially effective. For example, while it might seem logical that a longer treatment period if more effective, sociologist Edward Gondolf cautions that some 30 percent of batterers are further provoked by treatment itself (V). The New York State batterers Intervention Project (BIP) contends that battering is a criminal behavior that will not decrease until the criminal justice system holds perpetrators responsible for their actions, and that battering a partner should carry at least as strong a penalty as assaulting a stranger. ▲ Recommendations: Funding for further research into effective treatment models for batterers is required. However, funding for such research, and subsequent program development, should not come at the expense of programs for women and children who are the victims of family violence. ▲ Any batterer's group should, in addition to acknowledge the criminality of battering, direct the batterer’s energy toward clarifying his own mental health issues. There is a need to combine the best from all approaches and develop a training and consultation process that will facilitate the transfer of knowledge and skills. There is much misunderstanding between staff working in domestic violence and child advocacy settings, and staff working in mental health settings. The language, organizational culture and treatment/interventions are all different. Cross-system training is needed to break down stereotypes and ensure that victims and perpetrators of family violence receive proper care. Systems Overview It is the finding of this Task Force that the many City agencies which serve as points of entry to the mental health system are only loosely connected, with no standard protocols in place across agencies. It is major intention of this report examine existing protocols and determine which agencies can be appropriately linked in order to develop more efficient and effective family violence interventions. The Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Alcoholism Services (DMHMRAS) DMHMRAS is mandated to focus on the special mental health needs of adults and children with diagnosed psychiatric conditions, to serve seriously mentally ill adults and children, and also to ensure the mental health of other populations. The Department emphasizes treatment; very little funding is available for consultation, education, or treatment. The Department contracts with some two hundred non-profit agencies for a range of mental health treatment and support services, but does not target services to victims of violence. Few of the community agencies funded by

DMHMRAS have protocols for dealing with family violence. This leaves families at risk and compromises the effectiveness of the intervention. The Department has done training with its providers in the past around the issues of domestic violence, and expects them to address family violence in their treatment planning. However, training which addresses family violence is not done on a regular basis nor does it consistently reach all providers.

The Violence Prevention Program (VPP) is a new City initiative to address violence as a public health issue. The department of Mental Health is the City's lead agency on the initiative. The Task Force was delighted to use some evidence of inter-agency linkages in the development of the VPP. The "Cross System's Collaboration Cabinet Members" who worked for many months on this initiative were high-ranking officials in the Human Resources Administration, Department of Youth Services, Department of Health, Department of Mental Health, Community Development Agency, New York City Housing Authority, Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Department of Probation, as well as the Mayor's Offices of Management and Budget and Children & Families. This is precisely the approach, stressing inter-agency linkages and system development, which this Task Force hopes to encourage. Despite months of work, however, the VPP plan is a disappointing effort. It makes general statements, in very vague terms, about inter-agency cooperation, an unspecified "multiplicity" of services to be offered to youth, community surveys and focus groups. The VPP is intended to focus on children aged 8-19. But there is no mention in the report of dealing with family violence-which, studies have proven, is the "cradle" of future violent activity. ▲ Recommendations: DMHMRAS should set aside (or otherwise located) funds to enable them to begin dealing with the issue of family violence in a systematic way-via consultation, education and training. ▲ DMHMRAS should establish written protocols dealing with family violence for their contractors to follow. The requirement to adhere to these protocols should be stipulated in all DMHMRAS contracts. Protocols should require the: all evaluations include assessments of violent behavior; parenting classes stressing positive discipline measures be offered; and that all mandated reporting staff be fully trained to recognize, report and intervene in family violence situations. ▲ DMHMRAS should establish a training program in family violence, require participation by all of the agency's appropriate staff as well as contracted staff, and offer this training bi-annually. ▲ Regarding the Violence Prevention Program, this Task Force strongly urges that the plan be reconfigured to include a model program for intervening in family violence.

7 Mental Health

The Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) HHC is a public benefit corporation charged with overseeing New York City's municipal hospitals. Members of the Task Force spoke with representatives of the Office of Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Services within HHC and were told that no mental health programs exist which specifically deal with family violence, nor have past training sessions been designated to address family violence. HHC representatives acknowledged the need to focus on family violence and express a desire to work with the Task Force. ▲ Recommendation: A training component should be developed at HHC to ensure that the Office of Mental Health's Chemical Dependency Services and other units can better serve battered women. HHC administrators and medical staff acknowledge that there is no standardized way of indicating on an in-patient chart that an individual is a domestic violence victim. ▲ Recommendation: HHC should develop protocols for assessing the existence of family violence in a patient's life. In the interim, since nothing prohibits inquiry, it is recommended that an evaluation about family violence take place with each emergency room admission. Related city systems which should be closely linked to DMHMRAS and HHC, but which are not technically part of the mental health system, include the New York City Board of Education, the Mayor's Office for Children and Family, and HRA's Protective services for children and women, the Child Welfare Administration and Crisis Intervention Services. ▲ Recommendation: The Mayor's Office of Children and Families should compile and widely disseminate a list referral services for victims of violence that identifies which services are available where. (See Chapters One and Eight.) 8 Education and Youth

Case Study Mrs. Alvarez, a third-grade teacher, noticed that Kim, One of her students, had a black eye. When asked what had happened, Kim responded that she had fallen off a swing. The next week, Mrs. Alvarez noticed a bruise on Kim's arm. This time, after class were over for the day, Mrs. Alvarez asked Kim to stay for a few minutes. In their conversation, which lasted over an hour, Kim, in tears, finally admitted that her father beat her. She was afraid to tell anyone because she did not want to make trouble and she was afraid that people would take her away because that was what her father had told her. Mrs. Alvarez reported the abuse to the school's principal. A report was then made to the State's Central Registry. A few days later, Mrs. Alvarez received a hysterical phone call from Kim's mother. Not only had Kim's parents figured out the source of the report, but Kim's mother had been the target of her father's violence. He blamed her for Kim's bruises being noticed and the involvement of the Child Welfare Administration. Later the same day, Mrs. Alvarez received a threatening phone call from Kim's father saying that if Mrs. Alvarez ever interfered in his family again he would "get her." When School stared on Monday, Kim was not present. She was not present all week. The rest of the children in Mrs. Alvarez's classroom were troubled and upset that Kim had disappeared. Mrs. Alvarez later learned from the school principal the Kim had been placed in a foster care and would not be returning to her class room. No one seemed to know exactly where Kim was or what was happening to her. Shaken and unsure that anything good had come of her reporting the abuse, Mrs. Alvarez decided that it would be a long time before she would make another such report. Analysis This case study reveals that many layers of difficulties faced by teachers trying to address the issue of violence in the home. The teacher in the case did her job in reporting the abuse. She clearly followed the appropriate procedures. But she lacked an awareness of the danger posed to Kim's mother, and she could get no information from CWA (a consequence of CWA's confidentiality rules) about the disposition of the case. She also never anticipated the Kim's father would identify her as the reporter and threaten her. Given all of this, Mrs. Alvarez's concern about ever making another report is quite reasonable. Nevertheless, she and other teachers are mandated to report. It is a grave concern of the Task Force that, throughout its investigation, professionals in schools, hospitals and elsewhere have candidly discussed their reluctance to expose children to CWA. Schools can play a vital role in preventing violence. Although the Task Force understands that the City's schools are inundated with problems, the importance of understanding and addressing family violence should not be overlooked. Ways should be found to connect school-based violence prevention efforts with efforts to

address and end violence at home. Problem Statement Some children first learn violence in their families; all are exposed in the hallways of their apartment buildings, and on the streets. Given that there is neither any respite from violence, nor enough violent behavior is difficult. If the schools are to succeed in this atmosphere, they should deal head-on with this critical social issue. Recent research is beginning to demonstrate the impact of family violence on other social problems which affect our youth and create serious obstacles to education. For example, 90 percent of youthful offenders incarcerated in the state of California for homicide were in jail for killing their mother's batterers (H). In a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, 65 percent of all pregnant teenagers were incest survivors (W). Being abused or neglected as a child increases the likelihood of arrest as a juvenile by 53 percent (X). Offenders who begin their "careers" as sexual victimizers as teenagers will commit an average of 380 sexual crimes by the time they are caught as adults (Y). These studies represent extremes, but we should begin to ask whether children can learn in homes that are war zones. And we should decide whether our schools will take a lead role in identifying family violence, teaching ways to stop and prevent it, and intervening in a manner that prevents children from growing-up to be the cause of the next generation of violence statistics. Child or spouse abuse occur in at least one out of every four households in the U.S. Recent studies show that, in addition, 70 percent of the mothers of abused children are also abused. This epidemic of violence provides the foundation for a host of other problems which impact on children's emotional, intellectual and social development. It is well documented that children who are abused (physically, emotionally or sexually) or neglected fail to thrive, can be aggressive, hyperactive, depressed, fearful, withdrawn, have attention deficits and learning disabilities. In addition, we are now learning that many of these same labels can also be used to describe children who may not be physically abused themselves, but rather are witnessing the abuse of their mothers.

Nationally, family violence occurs in one of every four households. Once children have become adolescents, the symptoms of their abuse become both more obvious and of more concern to society. It is during adolescence that we find that children who live in violent homes often become substance abusers, truant, severely depressed, delinquent, runaway, pregnant, violent and drop out of school (Y). Many of the social problems faced in our schools today are the direct result of the violence children have been exposed to in their ability to learn and their ability to be good citizens.

The problem becomes even more complicated when one factor in the abuse being experienced by the mothers of these children. How do you help a family where the children and the mother live in fear? How can schools, working with families and communities, help children and their families live better, safer lives? How can schools be instrumental in protecting children and helping them to be safer so that they can learn? These are the pivotal questions of the chapter. Systems Overview The Public Schools The New York City school system is the largest in the country. With a budget of just over $7 billion, it educated just under one million students each year. The system includes 638 elementary schools, 182 middle schools, 126 high schools and 60 special education schools. In 1991-92 there were 71,626 students in special education schools that provided services at an average cost of $17,741 per student. This is compared to an estimated cost of $6300 per student in all other types of schools. Research shows that the symptoms of abuse and of witnessing abuse can be identical to the organic and learning disabilities exhibited by many special education students (X). In particular, hyper-activity, attention deficit, aggressive or regressive behavior are all consequences of experiencing family violence. Many of the battered women's and children's advocated with whom the Task Force spoke commented on how many of the children entering shelters were in special education programs. New York City schools reflect the enormous and serious problems faced by society today. From hunger to homelessness to HIV-AIDS to the special needs of new immigrant communities, our schools have become the locus of intervention in a society rife with problems. Some say our schools are trying to do too much and that the family should do more. But in an area where the family is the problem it is the responsibility of the educational system to provide leadership. As Schools Chancellor Joseph Fernandez said in a handbook on child abuse: Today the concept of educating the "whole child" has powerful implications for teachers and the classes the serve. It may mean helping children and families in ways never dreamed of before. Child abuse is dreadful plight which is a reality for an alarming number of children. Safety is clearly a concern in schools today, and school violence is a problem familiar to every New Yorker. In an attempt to stem the tide of escalating violence in the schools, a growing number of conflict resolution and peer mediation programs have been incorporated into hundreds of public schools. These programs are not mandatory; they require funding and commitment from the school. It is clear the there is a nascent awareness of the magnitude of the family violence problem within the city school system. However, current resources are lacking or

inadequate to deal effectively with the problem. Moreover, although the problems mentioned above constitute the basis of the moral dilemma facing our school regarding family violence, teachers face other problems, as well. Mrs. Alvarez in the opening case study is just one of many school administrators and other professionals in the schools who spoke of their frustration with the systems established to deal with abuse. When teachers make reports to the Central Registry, they complain that they are left totally in the dark about the results of the report. Sometimes children are removed from their classroom, placed in foster care and the teacher never hears from the child again. Other times reports are not handled in a confidential manner by the State Central Registry. As a consequence, teachers have been harassed, threatened or even assaulted. In New York City, all teachers are mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect. All new teachers receive two hours of training which covers the following areas: ● Signs of physical abuse, sexual abuse, physical neglect, emotional maltreatment; ● Reporting responsibilities and procedures ● Characteristics of abusers ● Managing and working with students and parents before, and during and after reporting ● Understanding the family ● Understanding procedures of CWA and the State Central Registry ● Legal aspects and implications of reporting child abuse. It is impossible to address adequately the intricate and delicate emotional and safety issues related to family violence in so short a time. In addition, this training does not deal with the effects of other forms of family violence on children, and what might be done to intervene in families. This training is also fairly and only directed to new teachers, teachers who have been in the school system for many years have not received this training. In addition, each school is required to create a team of faculty members who will train their colleagues on how to recognize and report suspected child abuse. These teams include school personnel from many levels. The special responsibility that school personnel have in the area of family violence is reflected in the fact they are mandatory reporters of the child abuse and neglect. This status recognizes their relationship with, and responsibility for, their students. Elementary school children, in particular, spend more time with their teachers than any other adults besides their parents. It was not unreasonable, therefore, for New Yorkers to be angry when children are hurt at home, and schools

do not get involved.

New teachers receive two hours of training on child abuse and neglect. Training school personnel to adequately recognize and confront issues of family violence is of paramount importance. It is clear, given the complex and sensitive nature of family violence, that two hours of training is inadequate. The designated child abuse teams in each school should also receive intensive training, coordinated by Office of Student Guidance Services. ▲ Recommendations: The Task Force recommends that all new teachers receive at least ten hours training before permanent certification, and that all teachers receive a full day of training each year on child abuse, domestic violence, intervention techniques, and services available. In addition, the Task Force recommends that training be provided to members of the Board of Education and the Chancellor's students advisory group. ▲ Each school’s child abuse team (renamed "family violence team") should receive 12 hours of training each year on child abuse, domestic violence, identification and intervention and services available. ▲ The Task Force further recommends that all family violence teams develop a prevention/intervention plan for their schools, updated annually. These plans would form the basis for training all personnel in each school.

Education on issues of family violence awareness should not be limited to teachers and other schools personnel. Parents and children need and would benefit from educational interventions. ▲ Recommendations: Workshops, developed and offered to parents by family violence teams, could focus on the relationship between child abuse and women abuse, the long-term effects of abuse and witnessing abuse on children, and the availability of help. ▲ Preventive education should also be provided to all students, beginning in the earliest grades, on issues of family violence: what it is, why it's wrong, how to get help. This could be woven into other curriculum involving family relationships, personal health and safety, and conflict resolution. Accurate date collection, particularly regarding the number of children experiencing violence in their homes, is essential to developing better intervention programs and services.

▲ Recommendations: Modify in-take procedures for special educations programs to include identification of family violence. ▲ Design and implement a study to determine how many children in drop-out prevention programs are from violent homes. ▲ A study should be conducted in one elementary, one middle and one high school, to determine the frequency of family violence. Services should be developed and provided to students and families where family violence has been recognized. Cost-effective services can be developed. ▲ Recommendations: Discussion groups for adolescents, support groups for mothers and linkages to community-based organizations should be established. ▲ Using Safe Streets/Safe City funds, programs should be designed to provide conflict resolution training for kids from violent homes. ▲ Funding should be made available to hire more counselors or social workers in each school to address family violence issues by providing support services and preventive education for children, teachers and parents. ▲ Funds should be earmarked to design a model program in which: an anti-violence curriculum is sued; on-site social workers or counselors address family violence and violent behavior in schools; services are offered to battered mothers, and parenting classes would be available for community school boards and superintendents to replicate within their districts. Accountability and communication were the two concepts most stressed to the Task Force during the past several months of research and interviewing. They seemed to possess particular resonance for school personnel, many of whom contributed to the following recommendations. ▲ Recommendations: The Chancellor should issue a directive which communicates the seriousness of family violence and stresses both the connection between child and woman abuse, and the responsibility of school personnel in seriously addressing the issue. ▲ Better linkages should be established between the Board of Education and CWA. ▲ A formal Interdepartmental Working Group should be developed to facilitate reporting and communication between these systems. ▲ Schools should be vigilant in the monitoring of their compliance in reporting child abuse. Low incidence of reporting should be followed by increased training on the issues outlined above.

▲ Each district should appoint a fulltime staff person responsible for coordinating violence prevention and school safety efforts, including family violence issues, conflict resolution, and peer mediation programs. The Department of Youth Services Another major City agency with responsibility for children is the Department of Youth Services (DYS). This agency, with a budget of $60 million, operates a range of non-categorical after school, recreation, tutorial, and cultural programs, and services to runaway and homeless youth. In 1991, the Mayor's Safe Streets, Safe City Program provided additional funds to DVS designed to expand delinquency prevention and youth development services. In addition DYS was to provide intervention services to youth, in particular at-risk youth. Despite the recognition by this Department of the serious effects that family violence has on our city’s youth, there is no programming directed at prevention, education or services directed to issues of violence in the home. Given the high incidence of delinquent behaviors exhibited by youth from violent homes, it is essential for DYS to work in collaboration with others to address family violence directly. ▲ Recommendations: Develop gender-specific programming to: teach boys about non-violent relationships; teach girls about empowerment and gender roles; and teach both about good parenting. ▲ Provide group counseling services to girls in pregnancy prevention and teen pregnancy programs to discuss violence in their own homes as well as violence with their boyfriends. ▲ Develop group counseling services on family violence issues as part of all runaway services. ▲ Train all 12 Youth Coordinators on issues of family violence so that they can become resources for DYS-funded programs. ▲ The commissioner should authorize a study to document the level of family violence experienced by youth in Dees’s contract programs. ▲ The commissioner should mandate training on issues of family violence for all contracted program staff.