vawor
violence against women online resources

In order to end domestic violence in all its forms, we must understand why it exists in Indian Country today, and assess our current challenges in addressing the issue. When we examine the reasons behind the presence of domestic violence in Native communities, we must first consider its historical origins.

Domestic violence in Native society came about over the course of centuries of change. Examining the history of oppression that laid the groundwork for the rise of violence against Native women shows us that efforts to end the domestic violence faced by women across Indian Country today are still in their infancy.

European contact began in large part in 1492, and led to an historic and tragic change in the lives of indigenous people: the beginning of the loss of culture and the change in the status of Native women.

The traditional Cheyenne saying, “A people is not defeated until the hearts of its women are on the ground,” reflects the destructive practices of the colonizers.

Early work in Indian Country was slow to start compared to the mainstream movement to end violence against women. However, as Native leadership in the movement expanded, significant efforts were being developed that created Native specific responses that went beyond replicating mainstream programming.

Ahead of us is an overriding challenge to undo a history that supports rape and violence against Native women and to create one that strives toward both the physical survival and cultural survival of Native people.

Navajo poet Luci Tapahonso read the following during the 1991 Modern Language Association’s annual convention:

Progressing in the work to end violence against Indian women must begin with the development of relevant responses that work at reclaiming pre-contact values, values that restore harmony and balance to Native communities shaken by a history of oppression.

In struggling to understand the frequency of violence against women in our communities, many Native American and Alaskan Native people believe that the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault in Native communities has its roots in the forced removal of Native children from their families to religious and government operated boarding schools. We believe that the problems affecting both rural and urban tribal communities today are a direct result of several generations of Indian children who were taken from their families and suffered abuse in over 300 boarding schools across this country beginning in 1879 and continuing well into the 1950s.^[37] Many children who were taken from their homes learned lessons of self-hatred, and domestic and sexual violence, and brought these ways back into their communities. The boarding school era of Native experience created one of the most tragic chapters of loss in Native identity, and left in its wake a legacy of domestic and sexual violence, alcoholism, displacement, and suicide that continues to affect tribal communities today.

To completely understand the impact of the boarding school era, one must not only look at the historical events of this period but also examine federal policy, religious influence, societal values, and western colonization.

The first boarding schools were started in the sixteenth century and were operated by Catholic missionaries whose goal was primarily to acculturate Native children. In the 1880s, however, the U.S. government began the “boarding school experiment”, another chapter of federal Indian policy that attempted to eradicate Native culture through the forced education and assimilation of Native children.^[38] Treaties signed between the federal government and tribes commonly included the “six to sixteen” clause, a provision that obligated the federal government to provide schools and teachers for Native children between the ages of six and sixteen.^[39]

Initially, the federal government funded day schools for Indian children that were operated by churches and missionaries. This allowed children to attend school during the day and be with their families at night. Day schools weren’t as effective an agent of change as the government had hoped because children were still connected to their culture: speaking their language and practicing their tribal ways at home. Day schools didn’t last long.

The federal government’s second attempt to move Native children into mainstream society was the creation of off reservation boarding schools that allowed children to visit their families only during the summer and on holidays, with the condition that family members be allowed to visit their children while they were at school. This condition was soon recognized as counterproductive to enculturation, as Native children were still influenced by family members during visits with them.

The final stage of the government plan was the creation of Indian boarding schools far away from home villages and reservations starting in 1879. Children at these boarding schools were not permitted to visit their families, and were expected to stay for a minimum of four years. Captain Richard Henry Pratt was a key figure in this era of the boarding school. Pratt had been a veteran of the Indian wars and his philosophy of “kill the Indian and save the man” was instrumental in the government’s approach to the assimilation of Native children. It is at this time that the government began to attempt the cultural cleansing of Indians by the forced removal of their children to schools where they would be isolated from their family, and where the government could effectively get rid of anything Indian remaining in the child, in effect, killing the Indian in the child. This philosophy was the goal of the boarding schools, with at least one founder and administrator proclaiming it in his commencement address.^[40] The commonly used term “savage” as a reference to Native people allowed the boarding school policy to prevail during this era. If the idea that the government was “helping” Native children to change their “savage” ways and become members of mainstream society was popularized, it justified what in any other context would amount to kidnapping and abusive treatment. According to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (1866):

Native children as young as six years old were taken from their families to these institutions, in many cases deliberately far away from their homes so that distance would strengthen the process of forced acculturation and education. There were also situations where children as young as three and four years old were sent to boarding schools. As an elder Julia Barton recalls: “I was three and a half then. I couldn’t even reach the sink to turn on the water. The older girls took care of me. They lifted me up so I could wash my hands.”^[41]

Living conditions on the reservations during this time were deplorable: poverty, starvation, disease and death were commonplace. These conditions were a significant influence on some Native families to relinquish their children to the boarding schools that promised them a better life. Some tribal leaders foresaw that the future survival of their tribe meant that their children would have to learn “white man ways” and so willingly placed their children in boarding schools. However, many times children were taken involuntarily, rounded up like cattle, and parents were forced to turn them over to the Indian agents. Should a family resist, food and rations were withheld, and threats of imprisonment and intimidation were used to coerce them to give up their children.^[42] The lengths to which some parents went to try to keep their children are tragic: for instance, in 1895 a group of Hopi men surrendered to the U.S. cavalry and chose imprisonment at Alcatraz rather than give up their children.^[43]

In order to integrate Native children into the dominant culture, a methodical approach of stripping away Native identity became a strong component in the federal educational curriculum. In true militaristic style, the first order of business for children arriving at boarding school was to cut their hair. Some children had never had their hair cut. Their hair was a source of pride and honor. Short or shingled hair to many Native children had specific cultural meanings. Short hair could signal that a person was in mourning, for example. In other traditions, it could be the sign of a coward. Cutting their hair was traumatic for Native children and many experienced it as an assault:

Children were stripped of their personal clothing and belongings when arriving at boarding school. Once stripped, they were scrubbed with lye soap that was harsh on the skin and left it dry and cracked. They were forced to wear school uniforms that were the required dress code, stripping them of their individuality and promoting uniformity. Schools were comprised of children from many different tribes each with distinctive characteristics of clothing relevant to their tribal custom. This clothing was also a strong link to their families. Older children often sewed many of the uniforms students were forced to wear. Medicine bags, jewelry, rattles and other personal items that provided comfort and connection to their families, and which had been given to them by their parents and grandparents were taken away. Some of these items would be returned to children when they left the school, however, many others were taken and burned upon a child’s arrival.

The cultural deprivation Native children experienced in boarding schools included changing their names to more “American” or “Christian” names. Reformers, for the most part, frowned upon using the true names of Native children as too impractical and reminiscent of their tribal identity. Educators believed that a good “American” sounding name would benefit them in their preparation for mainstream society. Some children’s names were chosen from the Bible, while others were inadequate English translations of a child’s Indian name by Indian agents for the purpose of recording them on government rolls. Initially, a child’s true name was changed, and then they were given both a first and a last name in the tradition of the dominant culture. This renaming was contrary to Native cultures in which individuals were not identified by a first name/ last name system. Indian names were generally a unique description of the individual, and described them as a whole person. Quite commonly, as a child grew, or an individual made note worthy accomplishments, a new name would be taken or given that signified this life change. In addition, the imposition of “American” last names upon children directly impacted Native culture, in which family lineage was connected to a clan system traced (in the main) through the mother, and did not denote ownership but belonging. This was in contrast to the dominant culture, where ancestry was traced through the father and very often was used to show ownership of offspring. Changing the names of Native children without any forethought by Indian agents and reformers was not only insulting; it was psychologically abusive, robbing the children of their sense of self, their identity. This practice also created problems for Native families in regards to ties and ancestral lineage. For example, Lillian Bull All the Time, the daughter of Bull All the Time, became Lilian Bomfort, a problem for her future children and a hindrance to proving lineage and entitlements that sprang from that lineage.^[46]

Native children attending boarding schools were forbidden to speak their own language. English was the only language a child was allowed to speak. This policy was strictly enforced by school personnel with punishments of varying degrees. Among the punishments children endured when caught speaking their own language were having their mouths washed out with soap, being forced to kneel for hours on a hard cement floor or on a broomstick, being stripped and immersed in ice-cold water, having their hair pulled, and having their hands, legs, and/or heads slapped with a leather belt, a rubber hose, wooden paddle, or other instrument.^[47] A survivor recalled witnessing a boy being thrown across the room with such force that his collarbone was broken for speaking to another boy in his own language.^[48] Another survivor recalls a relative who had difficulty pronouncing the required words of the required English language. Each time the child mispronounced a word, a nun would hit the child across the face with a switch causing her to bleed profusely. The child was repeatedly struck, until she was bleeding and unable to speak out of pain, fear and humiliation, and the frustrated nun locked her in the closet. This child eventually stopped speaking Lakota forever, and developed a nervous habit of pulling her hair out.^[49]

Shaming by ridicule also became way in which children were discouraged from speaking their own language: those who did were singled out and referred to as a “buck Indian”. Some children would speak their language in secret. Others kept it alive by quietly saying their Christian prayers in their own language. Some children kept their language alive (in the face of violent repercussions) by occasionally tormenting their educators: speaking to them in their Native tongue and feeling a sense of pride that their captors did not know what they were saying. This was an extremely dangerous act, the more strongly children resisted assimilation, the more severe the punishment and ridicule that would be inflicted upon them.

While the brutality of the physical violence that Native children endured in boarding schools can be seen as a conscious effort by school authorities to compel children to conform to the expectations of the dominant culture, the sexual abuse many children experienced at these institutions can only be described as unconscionable, it was a violation not only of a child’s body, but an assault on their spirit. Sexual abuse, especially the sexual abuse of children, creates silent victims: the abuse varies in experience; it can be disguised by the perpetrator to appear to the child as an act of affection, especially to children separated from their parents and desperate for love and attention. The sexual abuse Native boarding school survivors suffered at the hands of the adults to whom they were entrusted was varied. Some children were sexually fondled and touched, while some suffered extreme sexual violence and penetration.^[50] An Ojibwe elder who attended the Pipestone Indian School recalls his fifth grade teacher who admired his beautiful singing voice. So much so, that on Fridays he was expected to return to her class at the end of the day, and sing for her while she fondled him.^[51] Another child at the St. Francis Indian Mission School recalls witnessing young girls being taken in the night by priests and nuns alike and returning to their beds crying and refusing to speak to anyone about what had occurred.^[52] At a boarding school in Winnebago, Nebraska, it was considered an initiation for thirteen-year-old boys to be sexual abused by the priest on their thirteenth birthday.^[53] There are no accurate estimates of how many children were sexually abused at boarding schools during this era, child sexual abuse wasn’t an issue that would be addressed by psychologists until many decades later. Most of the stories come to us from survivor interviews or interviews with the relatives of survivors who struggle to understand their victimization. However, given the current publicity of child sexual abuse by clergy, we can conclude the magnitude of Indian children sexually abused at boarding school must have been great.

Many boarding schools, whether operated by military regulations or missionary rules were authoritarian and regimented. Children were housed in sparsely furnished dormitories, and forced to adjust to a strictly controlled environment. The sounds of a steam whistle, bell, or bugle regulated movement and time; such sounds would tell a child when to get up, stand, walk, eat, work, play, and sleep. The absence of family left Native children without traditional role models. Boys, for instance, were left without the positive men’s roles their culture provided: respect for the Earth, and for women as creators of life. The healthy familial relationships that Native children would have been exposed to at home were replaced by the regimented, institutionalized gender roles of the boarding schools, where women and children were subordinate to the male authorities.

Integrated into the reading, writing, arithmetic, and labor curriculum of the boarding schools were mandatory prayers and church attendance. Turning Native children, away from their tribal spiritual ways, had long been considered a powerful tool in acculturation. This enforced Christianity drilled the foreign concepts of corporal punishment, sin, and evil into the minds of Native children (concepts that were in striking contrast to their own spiritual beliefs), creating a strong sense of fear and confusion, and introducing children to a basic precept of domestic violence, power and control and the imposition of one’s will on another through the use of violence. An Indian child’s perception of spirituality did not include a God that punished one with beatings for living in the natural world the Creator had provided. Nor was the concept of physical punishment as a method of discipline culturally understood:

Christianity had been used as a tool to change Native societies since the arrival of the Spanish. At boarding schools, Christianity was used as a shaming device to portray tribal spirituality as pagan and uncivilized. After years of this forced indoctrination both in the schools and outside of them, many Native children and adults abandoned their traditional ways and converted to Christianity in some form as a matter of survival.

The loss and worry parents felt for their children in boarding schools were profound. The separation from their children caused great anxiety and sorrow, with parents imploring administrators to be allowed to visit, many writing letters that asked for permission to see their children. These letters were, for the most part, ignored and discarded. One elder recalls that his parents hid in the bushes outside the grounds of the Holy Family Mission School, just to get a glimpse of him, because visits from relatives were not allowed.^[55] The worries of Native parents were well justified: while some children were sent home when they became ill, many other children died while at boarding school and never returned home again, leaving parents to struggle with the loss and guilt of sending their children to school. There are no accurate numbers reflecting how many children may have died at while at school, however, almost every boarding school had a cemetery on the premises.^[56]

In trying to get back to their families, some children ran away. When these children were caught (and not all were) they were treated as escaping prisoners: they were locked up in the stockade, basement or makeshift building in order to isolate and punish them. Some children were shackled to their bed at night and forced to wear a ball and chain during the day. Runaways were also put on display: tied to a tree or made to wear a yoke and forced to parade in front of other children as an example, sometimes dressed up in ill fitting clothes with clownishly painted faces to further humiliate them.^[57] Some children successfully made it home, while other’s died in their attempt to be reunited with their families, some children’s despair at their forced separation was so overwhelming that they committed suicide.^[58]

In addition to the cultural and familial deprivation Native children experienced at the boarding schools, they also endured their caretakers’ often blatant indifference to their physical well being. This indifference amounted to institutional racism; it sprang from society’s perceptions of Indians as less than human, and was supported by federal policies created to address the “Indian Problem”. Native children were mistreated because the federal policy of the period allowed it.

As the treatment of Indians and Indian Education became public knowledge, the federal government commissioned a survey to evaluate the administration and effectiveness of federal Indian policy. The Institute for Government Research, in its report to Congress, entitled The Problem Of Indian Administration, (also referred to as the Merriam Report) stated, “the survey staff finds itself obliged to say frankly and unequivocally that the provisions for the care of the Indian children in boarding school are grossly inadequate.”^[59]

The Merriam report found that medical attention was inferior and irresponsible, leaving healthy children exposed to children with communicable diseases and infections, some of which could have been treated by an adequate diet. This pattern of substandard treatment in the area of addressing the medical needs of children was detected in most schools, and was the norm rather than the exception. The report also lists insufficient attention to dietary needs as a cause of concern: many children were found to be below normal health status, as much as 17 pounds underweight in some children. Another concern was the industrial and labor training children underwent, in particular the use of Indian children as labor to support the maintenance of the boarding schools during their time there, as well as the practice of “outing” in which Indian children spent some of the school year living with white families as laborers for the family. Children became a cheap source of labor for farms and merchants in the area. The report found it questionable whether this training was a beneficial preparation for mainstream society, or an issue of involuntary servitude and the exploitation of a ready and vulnerable work force,^[60] stating:

There were many things Indian children learned at school besides English. The most debilitating message was one of self-hatred. This lesson was repeated over and over again through the use of violence and racism. Native children who came to the boarding schools with a distinct cultural base of different values, customs and social norms that had been practiced from generation to generation were confronted with a life altering cultural conflict detrimental to their very existence. In their home cultures, Native children were considered gifts within the tribe and were treated with admiration. A child was nurtured in their development; grandparents (elders) were a significant part of a child’s upbringing, instructing them in life-ways such as hunting, gathering, preparing food, cooking and other activities. There were teachings that guided a child in their growth and relationships with other people and the world around them; for instance, respect and care for elders instilled appreciation and responsibility as a family member. Customs such as putting out a tobacco offering before the taking of any animal or plant fostered a reverence for Mother Earth and the gifts of the Creator, which reflected a spiritual and ecological understanding. These teaching defined a child’s place in the world and secured their identity. Instruction for a child included learning from the natural world around them: watching the seasons and life-cycles and knowing how these elements intersected with their life was all part of a child’s educational growth. A child’s development included ceremonies, separate for girls and boys, which marked in time rights of passage from one age to another. These cultural ways instilled confidence and courage and a personal sense of self worth that was vital to the child and tribe; in sharp contrast to the dominant culture of the time, Native children were not taught that they were less important than adults and elders. However, all this and more changed upon their entrance to boarding schools where Indian children learned to modify their behavior to conform to the ways of the dominant society. All too often, however, this was still was not enough for the reformers. No matter how well a child conformed to dominant culture beliefs and behaviors in an attempt to survive, in appearance they were still Indian.

Esther Naghanab, an Ojibwe elder, recalls that when a teacher at her boarding school visited her home, she demanded that Esther’s parents wash her more often because her skin was dirty (it was brown). Ester’s father, in an attempt to make her life easier at school, tried to bleach Esther’s skin with lemon juice in an attempt to lighten it.^[62]

The guardians of children at Indian boarding schools who were entrusted with their care and development failed. They failed to recognize that these were children—children who were still learning about the world around them, Native children who were powerless and alienated from their cultural base—who had to deny their own existence as indigenous people, and were forced to re-invent themselves in order to survive.

After the Merriam Report was publicized in 1928, the era of the boarding school finally began to come to an end, with the last of the government-operated boarding schools closing in the 1950s. Many children returned home to their communities and families as strangers, as prisoners of war,^[63] a war on Native culture, beliefs and way of life.^[64] For some children returning home, the years of separation and deculturation had been too great. Many events had transpired in their absence; parents, siblings, and relatives had passed away. The returning children’s primary language was English; they even arrived home called by a different name than when they had left for school. Their physical appearance was different and alienated them from others. As Helen Sekaquapatewa (Hopi) recalls:

The cultural transformation created life long divisions between these children and others in the communities they returned to. The shame and internalized oppression that the boarding schools had ingrained in children followed them home; they looked at their relatives as poor and ignorant. The casualties in this war on children would not be measured immediately. It would be years before the full damage of the boarding school era would be known.

When Indian children passed through the boarding school doors, they arrived in the hundreds, and eventually thousands. In the 39 year history of the Carlisle Indian Industrial School over 12,000 children passed through their doors alone.^[66] These children came to the boarding schools as distinct individuals who had mothers, and fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers, aunts, and uncles. They were members of Nations that had a direct lineage to centuries of traditions and customs handed down from generation to generation.

This lineage, this direct line back through the centuries was broken by the boarding school experience and the resulting losses can only be measured by the problems that affect tribal members today. We are Nations struggling with restoring our way back to tradition, handicapped by our relatives who are the survivors of abuse. Some of us are so traumatized that we deny the residual affects and grieve through alcohol. Some of us are still not able to identify as “Indian” because we were removed for too long and never made our way back. We live on the fringes of two worlds, we want to belong in both, but we may not be fully accepted by either. Too often, we use the rage and anger of our common experience against one another. Today, the disparaging slang term “apple” is a used amongst Native people to define someone who left the reservation or who has taken on dominant culture ways; red on the outside and white on the inside. This can be traced back to the children that survived the boarding school experience in the only way they could, by adopting the ways of the dominant culture, only to have their forced assimilation used against them. We use internalized oppression against each other to cover our fears. There are many people who struggle with their Indian identity today and deny that the ravages that currently affect tribal communities have their birthplace in the era of acculturation. The right to parent our own children in traditional ways was replaced by the violence many of us encountered in the boarding school, and now that violence has become a part of our lives, traveling from generation to generation traced back to the original traumatic events.

There is a name for the trauma we have experienced, according to Dr. Maria Yellow Horse Brave Heart; it is called Historical Trauma Response (HTR). A notable element of this theory is that the manifestations of HTR, such as depression, suicide, domestic violence, alcohol abuse and other social problems are passed on from generation to generation. Included in this theory is research that explains our connection to our ancestors in the past and how we as descendants experience their suffering in the present time.^[67] The destructive behavior adapted from boarding school plays out in ways that perpetuate the cycle of suffering. Children learn by example. If the parenting lessons children receive center on the use of extreme violence to discipline, having their basic needs neglected by their caretakers, and the violation of their bodies and spirits by sexual abuse, these children are often incapable of parenting well, and pass these lessons down in varying degrees to their own children and communities.

The cumulative years of the boarding school era can be categorized as cataclysmic. Though this education experiment transitioned many Indian children into mainstream society, many other children and families were devastated. There were some children who adapted and benefited from their educational experiences. They went on to become authors, teachers, athletes, and other leading figures in America and their respective tribes. However, for those tribes whose children never came home, or died, or whose broken spirits never recovered, the loss cannot be calculated in terms that today’s mainstream society can understand—there are no words.

The complexity of the boarding school experience and the issues it raises are too numerous to address in a brief overview such as this article. Many people, including our own relatives, say to let the past go and move toward the future. However, there are some of us who cannot move toward the future unless we face the historical events that shaped our lives today.

In the PBS documentary Nokomis; Voices of Anishinabe Grandmothers, Bea Swanson, a White Earth elder, travels to the old St. Benedict’s Mission School. She walks through the door of the abandoned school building and is overwhelmed by memory. Bea walks into one room and sees the old school sign on the floor. Trying to keep control over her voice and her emotions, she remarks that she believed that enough time had passed for her to be able to face this place. However, after standing in the place where she spent her childhood, the memories that come back are still too real. She says that in her mind, she cannot go back there. She is afraid of remembering; the pain is still there, many years after she left St. Benedict’s.

As a society we must take responsibility to acknowledge past wrongs. We can honor our ancestors by helping to heal the generations of broken spirits who are the descendents of this removal era. We need to address these issues by working on restoring a sense of tribal sovereignty that strengthens our identity as American Indian and Alaskan Native people, recognizing that violence against women is not a part of our culture, it is a learned behavior forced upon generations of Native children. It is only by telling the stories and acknowledging the pain that we can trace the paths of domestic violence and sexual assault to their beginnings and start to heal our communities.

Men may destroy or slay each other, but will never overcome the woman for in the quietude of her lap lies the child.

An Indian woman has many roles in her lifetime:

An Indian man’s role is to be the protector of the woman and her sacredness.

Domestic violence describes physical violence or sexual violence occurring within a domestic or family relationship committed by an intimate current or former partner. Generally, domestic violence is seen in male/female or same sex partner relationships. Domestic violence gets confusing because some disciplines also use it to describe violence being committed by a parent towards a child or perpetrated by an adult child towards an elderly parent, or violence perpetrated by a sibling. We can also see family violence used interchangeably with domestic violence.

The term “family violence” more frequently encompasses all domestic or familial relationships. The confusion that can come out of using certain terms interchangeably can be illustrated by a personal experience. I was working with a program whose name included Family Violence Services. We were examining their mission and vision for their agency. The staff expressed their frustration with the name of their organization; they felt it misled the public about what the agency did. Their program provided services primarily to women seeking assistance from intimate partner violence. Because of their name, however, they received a high number of requests to intervene in child abuse cases, and abuse between other family members such as between brothers, uncles and nephews, etc. They were not equipped to respond to these forms of violence nor did the program have the ability or desire to expand its services to address this need.

In working to end violence against women, it is important for advocates to be clear about what they are talking about, taking the time to clarify the terms when working across disciplines. As the example above demonstrates, lack of clarification can lead to adding more burdens to people whose lives are already touched with crisis.

The term domestic violence is often used to describe domestic assault related incidents as well. Domestic assault is refers to the legal nature of the violence and is defined by tribal, state, or local code. Using domestic violence and domestic assault interchangeably can be misleading to domestic violence advocates who are using a broader definition of domestic violence. While the law defines domestic assault specific to the act, advocates include tactics of power and control in the framework of domestic violence. These tactics go beyond the legally defined act of violence and include: using economic abuse, using coercion and threats, using intimidation, using emotional abuse, using isolation, minimizing, denying and blaming, using children, and using male privilege.^[95]

Many people think it is important to remain gender neutral in our discussions of domestic violence, recognizing that men can also be victims of abuse by a partner. While it is true that men experience domestic violence, they comprise a very small portion of the population affected by a partner’s use of violence. Remaining gender neutral masks the gender specific nature of violence occurring between intimate partners. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-99, intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 1999, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (671,110 total) and men accounted for 15 percent of the victims (120,100 total).

Some states use the term battery in describing domestic assault. Knowing that, we could conclude that a person who uses battery is a batterer. That is not accurate.

Battering is another term that is often used interchangeably with domestic or family violence and domestic assault. Battering is a system of behaviors used by the offender or perpetrator to establish control or dominance over the victim. Not all violence is the same. Violence committed in reaction to physical and sexual violence is not the same as violence initiated to control the actions, words, feelings, or thoughts of another.^[100] A batterer then is a person who uses a system of behaviors, including violence, to control their partner. It does not describe a person who commits a single assault, but refers to a person who engages in a pattern of control.

This distinction is critical, especially as we see more dual arrests and arrests of battered women. I was in a large meeting of women and we were discussing women’s use of violence. As we went around and shared our reasons for being there, several women identified themselves as batterers. It was surprising. As we moved through the meeting and discussed different forms of violence and gained a deeper understanding of the difference between battering and assault, many of the women who identified as batterers realized they were not using a system of behaviors to gain control but were using an illegal form of violence in one act.

As advocates, we will find ourselves in situations where we can mistakenly assume that a person committing an assault is a batterer or the other way around. Clarity is critical in order for us to be effective. Having a context for the violence gives us a greater understanding of what is happening; it is essential that we look beyond the use of force or an illegal act to see if there is a pattern of power and control.^[101]

What do we call a person who is a victim of domestic violence? Referring to women as victims seems to happen more and more often. While a woman who has experienced abuse by her partner has been the victim of an act of some form of violence; using the term victim can label and objectify her.

As we engage in our work to end violence against women, it is significant that we do not utilize some of the batterers’ same tactics in our efforts. Physically abusing a peer is difficult; batterers usually dehumanize victims prior to and during an assault.^[102] In our work, we must be careful not to engage in the same sorts of dehumanization that battered women have been faced with in their abusive relationships. Conversations with women who have been battered^[103] reveal how being called victim objectifies them, using the term removes the name and face from their story and dehumanizes their experiences.

As we work with and for battered women, we struggle to engage them in a process that retains their humanness, when we using terminology that objectifies them, it becomes an obstacle to our long-term effectiveness.

Sexual violence encompasses all acts that have the intent to harm, injure, insult, and improperly use a person sexually. Such acts negatively impact the sexuality of the person targeted, harming their sexual health and well being, and robbing them of a positive image of who they are and how they define themselves. Sexual violence includes a wide range of sexual activities that are forced upon someone, eliminating their right to consent, erasing their choice and denying them their sexual freedom and ownership of their sexuality.

Marital rape is the crime of forcing another person to submit to sexual intercourse within the context of a marriage, and constitutes abusive treatment. Battered women, and even women who may not be battered, often face sexual violence in their relationship, and find it difficult to get help. A woman may assess her situation and deem it hopeless, thinking that no one can protect her from her partner’s unwanted sexual advances. (See text box.)

Native American communities remain at a distinct disadvantage when addressing sexual violence. All too often, the problems they face can seem insurmountable. Denial, lack of services, no money for programs, jurisdictional issues, and the rural nature and isolation of many Native communities, are compounded by the lack of formal training for law enforcement, and the fact that small communities often mean no confidentiality for the victimthe list can go on and on. Further complicating the issue is the fact that records of reported sexual violence against Native American Indian women are hard to find, because most cases are never prosecuted. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, more than 70% of sexual assaults go unreported, the most often stated reason being that the victim fears the assailant (76%). In Indian country particularly, it is very difficult to document the extent of sexual assault, and therefore, difficult to gather specific statistics, largely because of jurisdictional authority issues.

Native women organizing around the issue of sexual violence have formed tribal/state coalitions, women advisory groups, and volunteer led groups for sexual assault victims, Sexual Assault Response Teams (SART). Without such organizing efforts the level of help available for sexual assault victims would remain at little or no services or support, women’s organizing provides a glimmer of hope at the end of the tunnel.

While communities are addressing the issue of sexual assault, too often it’s been at a snail’s pace. Too many times communities address the issue only after a major event takes place: a woman is raped and murdered, or sexual assault victims come out and tell their stories, prompting people to come together and say, “let’s do something about this”. Communities are rightly motivated by these events to take action. When a community goes beyond responding to a specific event, and begins organizing coordinated community efforts to ensure the safety of women, a change begins to take place within the community. Members of the community who feel strongly about an issue feel empowered to take the lead and commit to a project or event to create change. They begin to make things happen. Sometime these projects or events are so important that they become an annual event for the community, or they may diminish, be missed and then someone will come along and start them up again. When communities make a committed effort to ensure women’s safety, change comes, it happens, and it changes again and again. With the momentum created by many smaller changes communities as a whole begin to change, and although it may take time for some to grasp it, they will, knowing that it is a good change, a change definitely needed.

There is a tension in discussions about restorative justice and violence against women. At one end of the spectrum are those who say restorative approaches should never be used when women are victims of violence. At the other end of the spectrum are those who say that restorative approaches should be used in all types of crime, no matter how serious the crime or the relationship of victim and abuser. People’s views are across the spectrum. Some are outside the spectrum all together because people lack knowledge or are confused about restorative justice. There are two key reasons why dialogue is needed:

Unlike the justice system that has two parties active in court - an offender, represented by a defense attorney, and the state, represented by the Crown attorney,^[114] a restorative model has four parties: victim, offender, community and government. The diagram shows the roles of each of the players in achieving justice.^[115] The victim’s role is to describe the impact of the offence and what might be needed to assist with healing. The offender’s role is to accept responsibility for harmful actions and to make amends. The community’s role is to make safety and peace, with a responsibility to the victim to assist with healing and to the offender to support rehabilitation. The government’s role is to assist in providing safety by maintaining order in the community. Government’s role also includes ensuring fairness to the offender and redress for the victim.

Restorative justice is based on a set of values or guiding principles. Some of the values include:

Restorative justice is a way of “looking at” the problem of crime, rather than a specific program. Programs that are restorative include: mediation, family group conferencing, community justice forums, and circle sentencing. Restorative justice processes can be used at any phase of the criminal justice system. They require the voluntary participation of the victim. The offender must accept responsibility for the actions and agree to participate.

Victim-Offender Mediation ^[117] A person trained in the process of mediation meets with the victim and offender to increase understanding about the impact of the crime and to negotiate an agreement.

Family Group Conferencing A facilitator meets with the victim, offender, affected family and friends, and service providers, to increase understanding about the impact of the harm and to support the extended family in making a plan for safety and healing.

Community Justice Forums A facilitator meets with the victim, offender, family and community to increase understanding about the impact of the harm done and to make a plan for healing the harm and holding the offender accountable. Community Justice Forums are most often used with young offenders.

Circle Sentencing A facilitator meets with the victim, offender and broader community to consider the impact of the crime on the victim and community and recommend an appropriate sentence to the judge. Some Circles are for the purpose of healing rather than sentencing. Circles are often held in Aboriginal communities.

Alternative Measures are options to formal criminal processes that are based in law and are guided by policy. Alternative Measures can be, but are not necessarily, restorative. The Prince Edward Island Alternative Measures Policy is usually a pre-charge process, amended in 1998 to include Community Justice Forums.

Women are victims of violence when they are hurt physically, sexually assaulted, emotionally abused, threatened, when someone takes or damages their property. Physical violence is punching, kicking, biting, shoving, or injury with a weapon; sexual assault is rape or any forced sex act; threatening is someone saying they will harm or kill or following person when told to stop; taking or damaging property can include stealing money or things, destroying things, and hurting or killing pets. Emotional abuse is criticism, name-calling and put- downs, alone or in front of friends, which attacks self-esteem.

Women are usually harmed by people they know. Women who are sexually assaulted usually know the person who hurt them. Women who are married or living common-law are sometimes hurt by their partner. Sometimes a friend, teacher, parent or other relative may harm them. Occasionally, a woman doesn’t know the person who harms her.

Some women are more vulnerable to abuse because of characteristics like age (younger or older), disability, language or cultural differences. It is important to keep these differences in mind when thinking about women who are victims of violence^[118].

Woman abuse in relationships includes a cycle of violence with escalation, abusive incident, and cooling down that can result in apology and “making-up”. Without intervention to stop the abuse, there is a pattern of abusive incidents being more frequent and the “making-up” period shorter.

While not every woman who has experienced abuse will be impacted in the same way, there are some commonalities that could contribute to re-victimization of a woman during justice or restorative justice approaches.

Here are a few examples. A woman may:

If the offender was the woman’s intimate partner, she may, for example:

Men who abuse their partners also tend to have some common characteristics, which raise concerns about the potential for restorative approaches re-victimizing women. For example, abusers may:

A recent study examining issues of restorative justice and violence against women identified concerns about restorative justice.^[119] They include:

Other concerns raised by victim advocates include:

Re-victimization of Women in Restorative Processes

Some women have reported feeling re-victimized by their participation in restorative processes. For example, in a report by the Pauktuutit Inuit Women’s Association, the story of an Inuit woman, the victim of domestic violence who participated in a sentencing circle is told:

“She does not speak unless the judge calls upon her to do so, an indication of the measure of control held over her by her husband, who also sits in the circle, only three have any supportive relationship to the victim…The sentence that is created requires that the victim and accused attend counseling together, a proposal put forward by the accused. …the judge strongly suggests to the victim that this would be a positive step, assuming the victim would speak out should the abuse continue. She hears the suggestion as an order and feels compelled to comply, though it is unlikely that she will speak out about further abuse. She has been silenced not only by fear of her husband but by a process that should have given her voice.”^[120]

There have been many criticisms of the current justice system by women’s advocates. A report by the Provincial Association Against Family Violence, Newfoundland and Labrador reports that “Victims have concerns about not being a part of the process and sometimes feel like they are on trial instead of the person who has committed the crime. This has been particularly true for women who are victims of abuse and violence. The system is often very overwhelming.”^[121]

Research into the experience of victims has found that “contact between the victim and the administration of criminal justice has been primarily a source of re-victimization, frustration, disappointment and annoyance rather than a contribution to the solution to the victim’s problems.”^[122] Many victim’s advocates suggest that victim’s needs are not met in a criminal proceeding whose objectives often have very little to do with the actual harm done to the victim and that this process does not encourage the offender to truly take responsibility for his actions.^[123] In some cases, women who have participated in a restorative process report satisfaction. One B.C. woman, who was a victim of rape over 20 years ago, stated in a video that she has healed more in the few years since participating in a restorative process and hearing her attacker admit that he was guilty, after having been found not guilty in court, than she had done in the 18 years since the rape.^[124]

While there are strong concerns being raised, one Canadian researcher found that the majority of victim’s advocates interviewed “are not necessarily opposed to restorative justice initiatives per se. Rather, they are opposed to these initiatives as they are presently developed and applied. Many of the women consulted during this research stated that they had serious concerns with present restorative justice initiatives but that they would like to see them implemented in the future, after careful research and consultation has been carried out.”^[125]

Those who support the use of restorative justice in cases of violence against women note the following potential benefits:^[126]

Shared goals of justice and restorative processes are to end abuse, keep women safe, and hold offenders accountable. Restorative processes also want to aid victims in healing, offenders in habilitation, and communities in restoring balance. There are many issues to consider in addressing woman abuse, especially using restorative processes.

Improving the Justice System The risk of re-victimization of women through criminal justice processes is well documented. There is a risk that the flaws of criminal justice processes will be repeated in restorative processes. It is important that needed improvements in the justice system are made, and the problems not passed on to alternatives.^[128]

Goals of Restorative Processes The primary goals of restorative justice interventions must be clear. When the goals focus on the offender, or cost-savings for the system, risks to the victim increase. A New Zealand study recommends that the primary goals of any intervention in domestic violence situations must be the safety and autonomy of victims over any other outcomes including reconciliation or conciliation of the parties.^[129]

Informed Consent Some women feel pressured by justice personnel, family or an abusive partner to participate in restorative processes. It is essential that her participation in restorative processes be voluntary. Informed consent means that women have a full description of the purpose and process of an intervention and are aware that participation is a choice at every stage of the process. A victim must be made aware that she can stop the process at any time. The consequences and alternatives should be clearly outlined. This is best done by a victim support person.

When the Offender is Known to the Victim Most reports recommend extreme caution in restorative approaches when the offender is known to the victim.^[130] There are two key issues: the feeling of safety and autonomy on the part of the victim, and the ability of the offender to manipulate not only the victim, but the process facilitator. Reports recommend that mediation, which typically has the goal of negotiating an agreement, is not appropriate in cases of domestic violence or sexual abuse when there is a relationship of some duration.^[131]

Timing Restorative processes that are victim focused take place when the victim is ready. This will mean preparation for the victim so that she may chose and when to participate. Timing with criminal justice processes may not fit the timing of the victim.

Offender Accountability While restorative processes showed promise in short-term follow-up, longer-term follow-up resulted in less victim satisfaction. This was related to the lack of follow-through by offenders, and lack of monitoring by anyone.^[132]

Offender accountability and follow-through, including monitoring by authority is often lacking in restorative processes.

Training The dynamics of woman abuse are such that without deep understanding of the social and gender dynamics, facilitators of restorative processes inadvertently perpetuate the environment of abuse. Training of facilitators must include gender-based analysis of issues and historical, social, economic, and cultural context of woman abuse.

The status of Native women has declined over the past centuries. In our work to end violence against women, our advocacy work must consider the status of Native women and men in our work to reclaim our long-established values.

Women are sacred. According to Minnesota’s American Indian Battered Women: The Cycle of Oppression,^[135] a cultural awareness-training manual for non-Native professionals, the most fundamental aspect of a woman’s role in tribal life was her status as a woman. By virtue of her gender, she was accorded great respect. The legends of creation differ from tribe to tribe, but most equate the power of woman with that of the Earth Mother, universally honored and respected for her life giving powers. In various tribes this honor and respect was evident in the way in which Native women were active and influential in political, religious, and economic spheres.

Women’s greatest power was an inherent power, the power to produce life. This power could not be manipulated or controlled and was not to be exploited on the one hand or contained on the other. In addition to the respect for a woman’s spiritual power and adherence to codes of honor and good conduct, tribal economy ensured the high status of women.^[136] The actual rice, berries, or fish supplied by women were no less valuable than was the balance achieved through cooperation. Even if a woman made not direct contribution to the procurement of food, the fact that her labor freed the man to hunt proved the value of her role.^[137]

Men’s power in tribal societies derived from their role as hunters, providers, spiritual leaders and warriors. A man’s connection to family was very important; men earned their standing in the tribe through this relationship.^[138]

As the influence of colonization took over, women’s sovereignty and respect for women weakened. Government attempts to assimilate Native people destroyed the power and prestige of Native men. Native women were denigrated and attempts to destroy their inherent power lead to the physical and sexual attacks that ensued over the course of the centuries to follow. As the values of the colonizing societies were adopted, the mutual respect between Native women and men was damaged, as was the balance and harmony inherent in tribal societies.

Our advocacy work must reclaim our traditional values of respect and cooperation and we must work to restore the balance and harmony to our tribal communities. We can do this in the way we conduct our work.

Domestic violence exists because our society creates an environment that supports it. Therefore, if we are to be successful in ending violence against women, we must create change in our society. Changing the values and beliefs that cultivate domestic violence can be a daunting task. Too often domestic violence workers claim “it is not my job.” We must question, “Why isn’t it our job?” As a domestic violence advocate, we see it as a vital part of our purpose. We must not only help battered women find and make choices in their lives that create safety for themselves and their children, we must also attempt to change the root causes of the problem. To me this means our role as advocates includes working to change our society.

Social change work means working at a level that attempts to reach the root causes of a problem. As the story suggests, we can engage in a way that either has us working “one by one” or trying to find out what is causing the problem and working to change it. Moving beyond working only with the offender and victim and working instead to change or stop the societal supports for domestic violence enables us to create lasting change: a society in which domestic violence is no longer an issue.

To look at the causes of domestic violence, we must dig toward the roots of the issue. This process can be achieved through inspecting the violence at multiple levels:

Individual- We must examine domestic violence at the individual level, exploring power and control tactics, and how various forms of physical, sexual, emotional and economic controls support or reinforce a batterer’s use of physical and sexual violence.

Family– Looking at the whole family system is important in understanding the role family plays in supporting and expanding the environment where violence is occurring. How many times do we hear family members say things like “she started it” or “he has so much on his mind”? There are many ways that families participate in the violence by reinforcing his behavior or by blaming her for his violence. We must become aware of how this continues to perpetuate domestic violence.

Institutional–Social service systems, criminal justice systems, and religious institutions can support violence perpetrated against women, often reinforcing or giving more power to the batterer. For instance, many of us have heard stories of:

Institutions that respond in these ways are, in effect, indulging in victim blaming and give the batterer permission and support to batter again.

Society– Our society holds many values and beliefs that have been distorted by colonization. We talk about women being sacred and how domestic violence is not a part of our traditional value system, and yet we look at images and listen to music that represents women in disrespectful ways, we indulge in humor that degrades her, and we look at pornography that exploits and objectifies her. We talk about balance, harmony and cooperation as central values in our communities yet we talk about each other in ways that destroy relationships, we engage in practices that bring benefit to a privileged few and fail in many ways to recognize and support the value of all.

As we look at larger societal issues, we must understand the role poverty, inadequate health care, and discrimination faced by Native people plays in creating and supporting domestic violence. It is a challenge for many to recognize the far reaching arms of the root causes of domestic violence, however, it is important to note that in a society that has some groups of people being valued and respected while others are degraded and disposed of, on a smaller scale, it mirrors the tactics used in intimate relationships where a woman is being battered.

Once we come to understand the multiple layers of support for domestic violence, then we can be more effective in reaching the root cause of domestic violence.

Our strategies must include looking at how we can create change on all four levels. Often we find that our work focuses on creating change in the criminal justice system. While this is very important work, it alone will not end domestic violence. Creating change in the criminal justice system will only serve to provide a better response to domestic violence once it occurs. Referring back to The Three Sisters, in focusing on changing the criminal justice system, we become better at moving the babies to shore, one by one. Creating social change helps us understand why the babies are in the river in the first place and gives us tools to stop it from happening.

While we must appreciate our personal and organizational limitations, we also must find a balance between providing direct services to battered women, participating in systems change work and making efforts that address social change.

Our jobs as advocates are complex. We play the delicate and critical role of working directly with battered women at times of crisis, never knowing if a battered woman’s life will end in homicide. We also have the challenging role of bringing up issues with other providers and systems responders. In many communities, advocates are seen as an adversary. This can be a particular difficult place to be in.

Advocates are actually partners in the work of helping battered women to be safe, holding offenders accountable and creating social change. First responders such as 911 operators or law enforcement officers want to ensure the safety of the public and the individuals involved. Prosecutors are working to hold offenders accountable. Judges are working to determine the facts within the law. Overall, they all want to keep battered women and their children safe. When we look at social services and child protection workers, they are working to preserve families. Generally, their underlying desire is to enhance the family environment in such a way that the family can succeed. Overall, these providers all want what advocates want, to keep battered women and their children safe from harm.

While battered women’s advocates and systems workers have the common goal of keeping women and their children safe, each employ a different means of accomplishing it. At one time or another, our work as advocates will place us in the position of being in disagreement with a decision being made or with the way a situation is being handled or managed. We will find ourselves wanting to have the decision changed or some action taken in response to our disagreement. Our relationships become even more complicated by our familial and community relationships.

Because of the close nature of many of our communities, we can end up having to take some unpopular positions. We may find our selves in a situation advocating for a woman whose partner is in a position of authority in our community and end up having pressure put on us to back off or are told “you don’t know what really happens in that family.” As well, we may find that we are advocating for a woman who is a relative of ours and be asked to provide privileges that are not normally afforded women we work with or we may be accused of providing privileges even if we are not. Some advocates have even had their jobs threatened because they stood firm on their positions.

We must remember we are working for battered women. We are working to affect the best possible outcome for her, enhancing her safety and expanding her choices. We must balance our many relationships in a way that strategically positions us to be at our most effective in advocating for women.

As advocates, we work with women who may pose issues for us. For instance, many programs find it difficult to determine who is battering in a lesbian relationship. Consequently, programs often avoid engaging in the critical work of expanding their analysis of domestic violence to include same sex violence. In part, this is the result of advocates who have not engaged in the work examining their own heterosexism and homophobia. As a consequence, lesbian battered women are often excluded from receiving the advocacy they need.

We find ourselves having different levels of comfort with different issues and yet, because we have committed to work with battered women, we must be open to addressing the needs of each woman when she arrives.

I learned a lot from examining myself and looking for my shadows. I asked myself, “Who am I most uncomfortable with? Why?” I had to spend time engaged in discussion about this with others, people who were willing to challenge me directly and honestly about my own biases and ignorance.

We have to take responsibility for developing our ability to work with the multiple issues women bring to us, whether it be finding ourselves having to push through the discomfort of talking about rape, facing our own demons around alcohol and drug addiction, or recognizing our lack of understanding about mental illness. We are responsible for preparing ourselves to work with all battered women. Do you know your shadows?

Working with battered women in the battered women’s movement can put us on a pedestal. Generally, we are the voice of and for battered women’s experiences. We hear the stories they tell about their experiences with 911 operators, law enforcement responses, the courts, prosecutors and judges. We hear their stories of contact with social workers, financial assistance workers, and child protection workers, in effect, multiple social service responses. We often find ourselves examining how these systems are doing their jobs. As advocates, we participate on the local coordinating council or community response team, and we work to influence the policy and practices of multiple systems agencies. We find ourselves responsible for judging whether the responses to battered women are right or wrong, effective or ineffective. Our work also engages us on the broader issues of social change. We are engaged in a principled work.

In addition, we can find ourselves having stories told about us to other systems people, to neighbors and to family. All too often, we may make excuses for the stories that find their way back to us that reflect poorly on our work.

A key part of our role in advocacy is to examine our own agencies, looking inward at the role we play in the continued violence against women, confronting how we might be using tactics of power and control on her or blaming her for the violence in her life. This is not always an easy task. We find it easier to locate reasons for why things are the way they are instead of looking at what we are doing that supports the status quo. Looking inward requires that we step down from the pedestal.

We must examine how we are responding just as we examine in detail how systems are responding to battered women. We ask batterers in re-education groups to look at their actions and intents, we as advocates can ask ourselves similar questions to examine how we are participating in the continued violence against women.

This will not be an easy task for many, some will want to resist this level of organizational self-exploration claiming that they are doing a good job already; however, it is critical for us to raise our own awareness of how we participate in the continued violence against women. This can only be done through critical self-examination.

Actions - What are we really doing?

We may create practices and procedures that shape the way we view women and may place added burdens in her life particularly at a time when she is burdened by other systems expectations and the crisis brought on by domestic violence. We need to reflect on what we are doing in a way that is intentional, finding the time to examine our actions.

Intents - What are we trying to do?

Just because we are all advocates, does not mean that we are all in agreement on what we are trying to accomplish or the means we should use to accomplish our goals. I think this is one of our biggest misconceptions. It is important to create a way for organizations to regularly examine what they are trying to accomplish and detail a common agreement of what that means.

Beliefs - What are our guiding values?

We all have guiding statements in our work. These might be mission statements, vision statements, philosophy statements and such. Our work has to take time to regularly examine how effectively we are using these statements to guide our work. We should be thoughtful about how our values carry through in our daily interactions with battered women, with the public and with each other.

Effects - How is it affecting women & children?

We must look at how our work is affecting women and children. Are we adding more burdens to their lives? Have we eliminated access to our services for some? Are women finding that they are truly being supported in their contact with us? We must be prepared for honest answers, and not let our need for a positive response get in the way of hearing how we can do better.

Change Strategies - Developing new responses.

After we thoroughly examine our work of providing advocacy, we will find that there is room to make changes. Being intentional about what we do, we are motivated to develop strategies to implement changes where we discover a need. Through our diligence, we will bolster our advocacy into a process that can create lasting change to end violence against women.

We have a history of oppression that has taken a toll on our values and beliefs. Today, we live in a society that enables violence against women to exist. As a result, it can be difficult for us to conduct our work without recreating the many forms of control and oppression that exist in the dominant culture. In order to reclaim our values and beliefs, we are required to be intentional about how we conduct our work with battered women.

Privileged Communications

First, what are “privileged communications”? Privileged communications are those communications between certain people that may not be brought into the public light, for instance, into court. Under U.S. law, one of the privileges widely recognized and established under common law was that of attorney-client, meaning that communications between an attorney and his/her client were privileged and those communications could not be brought before the court or disclosed to anyone.

Indian nations may look to their own common law, which consists of the laws and rules derived from their customs and traditions or from their tribal court decisions to see whether there were any types of privileges in existence traditionally or whether privileges have been created by court decisions. For example, it may have been customary in situations where people’s lives were at stake (for example, when enemies were attempting to locate the rest of the tribe by torturing someone) that communications and information would not be revealed or violated. There may have been an overall understanding in the Indian community that people could trust each another to ensure the safety and survival of the community. This type of understanding created a privilege that was upheld by all in the community.

Indian communities may create a statutory privilege for communications between battered women and advocates based on the need to ensure the safety and survival of women in the community. Battered women are in need of safety because in many instances they are running for their lives. The release of information about their whereabouts, their identities, their children or their lives may potentially lead to the batterer either finding them and killing them or to the batterer finding them to continue the battering. Through enactment of statutes or laws stating that communications between battered women and advocates are “privileged”, Indian nations will protect the confidentiality of battered women and will be taking huge strides toward ensuring their safety and the very survival of the Indian community.

Indian nations also have the option of looking to their tribal courts to create privileges that will ensure the confidentiality of battered women. Judges have the ability and authority to issue opinions and make decisions in these matters whenever advocates and/or prosecutors raise them in court. Advocates and/or prosecutors should be aware of these opportunities for assisting the judiciary to issue decisions that uphold the confidentiality of battered women, uphold the privilege of their communications and that prohibit the disclosure of information to ensure the safety of battered women.

Nondisclosure laws

Indian nations also have the option of creating and enacting their own laws to specifically prohibit the disclosure of information obtained in communications between advocates and battered women. These nondisclosure laws or statutes go hand-in-hand with the laws creating privileges and are useful as tools for educating the tribal council about the importance of maintaining and respecting the confidentiality of such communications. With nondisclosure laws or statutes, the information provided by a woman who has been battered or sexually assaulted is kept confidential and may not be disclosed in court or any other forum unless the woman consents to the disclosure of her information.

Policies and procedures

Battered women often come in contact with many tribal agencies and programs in their search for help and safety. Information about a battered woman is obtained whenever she seeks a protection order, whenever she calls the police, or goes to court, whenever she applies for housing, financial assistance or employment, whenever she enrolls her children in school, obtains a post office box or goes to the hospital, IHS or local health clinic. All of this information has the potential of being revealed or disclosed unless the various agencies or programs take steps to put policies and procedures in place to recognize the need to protect confidentiality. The nondisclosure of information should also apply to the tribal council members and tribal administration as well as tribal agencies, programs, etc.

Today people are able to access most anything through the Internet. Such technological advances increase the danger that information that should be confidential can be released to the public. Through an awareness of these potential dangers and the adoption of procedural policies, staff training, strict adherence to policies and procedures followed by reviews and internal audits of those policies and procedures, the safety of battered women may be ensured by holding her information confidential, secure and in trust.

Confidentiality for Victims of Sexual Assault

Confidentiality concerns for victims of sexual assault are affected by the goal of the criminal justice system to prosecute the offenders. Advocates need to assure women who come to them for assistance that they will do all they can to keep the woman’s information confidential. If the advocate is employed by either a prosecutor or the court, the advocate should be prepared to inform the woman who has been sexually assaulted that any information she provides has the potential for being used in court for prosecution purposes unless the tribal code or statute explicitly protects her information. This type of disclosure by an advocate will provide the woman with the option of deciding whether or not she will go forward and cooperate with the prosecutor or district attorney.

When law enforcement, the courts, prosecutors, advocates and other members of the criminal justice system can honestly tell a battered woman that they will protect and preserve the confidentiality of information she provides them, we will be making true strides toward ensuring her safety. Through enactment of laws, statutes and policies, the various tribal agencies and tribal programs will also be taking steps to hold batterers accountable for their actions. This accountability was traditionally in place within each Indian community as we upheld the value of respect for each other and realized the sacredness of Indian women. Those values and realizations need to be more than words, we need to live them, to put them in practice so that they are once again the reality of our worlds where we are all related.

Protecting Confidentiality of Victim-Counselor Communications, by Lynne A. Marks and Susan H. Rauch (1993) [often referred to as the “Confidentiality Manual”]. This manual is on file with every state domestic violence coalition. It was distributed by the National Center on Women and Family Law and is being revised and updated.

“Report to Congress: The Confidentiality of Communications Between Sexual Assault or Domestic Violence Victims and Their Counselors, Findings and Model Legislation”, U.S. Department of Justice (December 1995)

“Report to Congress: The Confidentiality of Communications Between Sexual Assault or Domestic Violence Victims and Their Counselors, Findings and Model Legislation”, U.S. Department of Justice (December 1995)

“Recognizing and Protecting the Privacy and Confidentiality Needs of Battered Women” by Joan Zorza, Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 2, Summer 1995.

Working in a domestic violence advocacy organization, in the early years of its development, women came to us with varying experiences of physical and emotional abuse. Some of the women came to us with experiences of having been abused and raped as children and younger women. In addition, some of the women also lived with a range of mental illness, some resulting from the abuse they suffered as children, some as a result of physical chemical imbalances, and some with mental illness stemming from both. We found that we were least prepared for working with the women who had issues related to mental illness.

Our organization quickly realized we needed ideas on how to address the intersection of domestic violence and mental illness. In gathering this information, we looked at the ways in which some other domestic violence programs were providing advocacy to women with a wide range of mental health issues including depression, schizophrenia, borderline and multiple personality disorders. We quickly learned that many of the agencies we turned to for guidance were as unprepared to work with women with mental illness as we were. One of my greatest challenges as an advocate came from attempting to balance my personal limitations with the needs of battered women living with major mental illness. I was not formally educated to work with mental illness and did not know the complex ways it impacted women’s lives on a daily basis nor did I know how to effectively respond to help them make decisions to broaden their safety as battered women.

One of my greatest challenges as an advocate came from attempting to balance my personal limitations with the needs of battered women living with major mental illness. I was not formally educated to work with mental illness and did not know the complex ways it impacted women’s lives on a daily basis nor did I know how to effectively respond to help them make decisions to broaden their safety as battered women.

Mental illness covers a wide range of disorders, sometimes categorized as minor or major. This distinction, though clinically significant, makes no difference to the person experiencing the symptoms of mental illness. Major mental illnesses present obvious and undeniable signs and symptoms, both to the person experiencing them and to those observing them. They are chronic and/or recurrent, and are often severe enough to prevent a person from working, playing and fulfilling responsibilities.^[201] The women we worked with who were experiencing mental illness varied in their personal understanding of the mental illness that affected them. Some women had been diagnosed as having a specific mental illness by a psychiatrist, had accepted this diagnosis, and were cooperating with medical treatment. Other women had been diagnosed, found the diagnosis unacceptable and were resistant to medically addressing their symptoms. Still others were undiagnosed, but aware of their symptoms and willing to take some steps to exploring them, while some were resistant to looking closer at their symptoms. And then there were some women we worked with who were misdiagnosed because they were reacting to the violence in their lives. In working to address the issue of how domestic violence and mental illness intersect; our staff was painfully aware of our limitations, realizing we lacked a broader understanding of mental illness and its many variations.

A particular challenge we faced concerned women who were diagnosed with mental illness who were not mentally ill. These women were reacting to the violence in their lives and got caught in the net of a system that historically enlisted a psychiatric response to women’s emotions and behaviors. Suspecting that some women might not be mentally ill, it was daunting to think of working to undo professional opinion. What if we were wrong? It could have grave consequences for women.

We realized we did not have the knowledge or working experience to guide us in helping women expand their choices. However, we believed we could find a way to be effective in helping battered women with major mental illness, and that we had a responsibility to assist women who were wrongly labeled mentally ill. We were forced to critically examine not only the way we did our work, but ourselves. Of the utmost importance, I believe, was our staff’s desire to work vigorously to answer some hard questions:

Many shelters have rules that guide their work with battered women with major mental illness, or limit whether they work with them at all. For instance, some shelters have rules stating they will not work with women who have certain kinds of mental illness, because of the organization’s inability to assess how effectively she is managing her mental illness or what support resources are available to assist her. Another shelter may require a woman with a major mental illness to be on medication before she can enter the shelter. Others will not take a woman into shelter if she is on medication. Because advocates lack clinical training, many programs avoid advocating for battered women who they suspect might have been misdiagnosed.

The countless circumstances confronting issues around mental illness raise some questions:

Many shelters have a range of rules to guide them when they work with issues of mental illness, however, these rules often do not cover the women who have not been diagnosed, those who have the least amount of support in dealing with their mental illness. Further complicating the issue, there are times in shelter work where no rules exist to guide us. Some advocates find little direction on how to approach their work with women who have been misdiagnosed; they pose a challenge to advocates who often decide not to get involved in order to avoid making serious mistakes. Often it is left to the discretion and comfort levels of advocates to determine whether or not or how long such women are sheltered.

Our organization’s first step was to acknowledge our own limitations as advocates; we recognized our lack of experience, knowledge and formal training. In addition, we recognized our lack of policy and protocols to guide us in our work. This awareness created room for us to examine how we should shelter battered women diagnosed with mental illness.

Some of the questions we put to one another were:

Our organization revisited our commitment to working with battered women, and decided that women with major mental illness or who were dealing with mental health issues must have the same access to the safety resources afforded women without mental illness. We looked closely at the motives behind what we were doing or not doing, examining them at many levels and assessing their impact on women and children seeking safety from abuse and rape. It was important for us to not create another oppressive environment that would impose our own ideas and solutions on women who were already being oppressed by their batterers and a society that did not support them. In addition to being challenged by our lack of knowledge and experience, we were faced with recognizing the personal judgments and stereotypes we carried and sometimes placed on women. Our role as advocates was to work from an informed position to help women expand their choices. Central to this work was the ability to examine it through the filter of our philosophy and organizational vision, and this included examining able-ism as another form of oppression. We acknowledged that in our society, sexism permits and reinforces violence against women and identified able-ism as a component of sexism in that it defines women living with mental illness as flawed and throwaways in our society. Our efforts were critical in maintaining the dignity of women coming into shelter, ensuring that we did not unjustly use our position of authority and privilege to impose in women’s lives.

In order for us to provide credible advocacy, we had develop a plan to ensure that our advocates were effectively prepared to respond to women with issues of mental illness, whether it was diagnosed, undiagnosed or misdiagnosed.

This included:

Our organization identified the community resources available to us. They included resources that provided therapy, psychiatric care, in-patient/outpatient care for a variety of mental illnesses, day programs and independent living support. We spent time visiting the programs and learning about what they had to offer and how they might be a match for us in working with battered women. We shared information with them about working with battered women and how domestic violence might be a factor in lives of the women they served. When we discussed the best way for us to make referrals, we used what if scenarios from our work at the shelter in order to learn how to utilize their resources as practically as possible. We also explored issues that related to each resource’s ability to work with Native women and women of color, women with substance abuse issues, women with children and children with mental illness.

We developed partnerships. In our work with women, we became part of a community team that extended support and safety to her and her children. Our partnerships gave us access to the technical expertise and problem solving that we lacked. In addition, we had a more complete understanding of what they had to offer the women we worked with so we were able to make more effective referrals. This strengthened our ability to help women access their services faster. Our relationship strengthened our ability to raise issues around our concerns of how women were being diagnosed, medicated and treated. While we recognized our lack of formal clinical training, we came to appreciate our closer relationship with women and were able to help them be heard.

Our community partners received a benefit as well. They gained a greater understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and the complexity of creating safety for battered women. This strengthened their work with women with mental illness who were also battered women, and they became more perceptive at being able to recognize manipulation and interference by a batterer. Overall, we were able to create a safer response for some of the battered women we served.

Through exploring community resources, we were able to identify areas of in-service and community training for staff. We looked at the organizational resources available to us and made decisions about how staff should be trained. This included looking at what level of training was necessary for all staff, and ascertaining what intensive training for staff with closer contact was needed. In addition, we developed an ongoing staff development plan that enabled staff to remain current on the issues and accommodated staff turnover.

We identified a range of trainings, this include learning about specific mental illnesses such as borderline personality disorders, multiple personality disorders, chronic depression, and bi-polar disorder. Beyond the actual illnesses, we also learned about other general issues as well. We attended training on crisis intervention and management, grief and loss issues, supporting independent living, issues related to other major life challenges, ethics and liability.

A significant challenge was to develop policies and procedures that facilitated the values and philosophy of the organization and provided for the enhanced safety of all involved. We created policy that determined how we interacted with therapists and psychiatrists and how information was shared. We also had a policy that did not permit women to commit suicide while in the program. It sounds strange, but it basically forced the issue, and gave us an opportunity to talk with women before they found themselves in trouble. We used the policy as a means to discuss some of the hard issues facing women and began building a relationship of trust with them. Further, developing a strong confidentiality policy helped to protect women with mental illness from having their diagnosis used against them, labeling them as incapable, unable to parent well, not able to following through with expected details, incapable of living independently and more. Working in a small office, it was important for staff to adhere to communication boundaries about women’s private information. In order to protect privacy, the staff was given information about individual women on a need to know basis. This guarded each woman’s privacy so that it couldn’t be accessed and used by an abusive partner, community members or community professionals.

In addition, we designated two advocates for each woman, a main advocate and a backup. When things got hard, both advocates knew enough about what was going on to help develop effective responses. The advocates also had the support of the full staff to problem solve and develop strategies in their work with women. When things got complicated, it was helpful to bring in a fresh set of eyes to examine the issues.

Our role as advocates is to create societal change that will end violence against women. In working with issues of mental illness, we had to look at the way women are defined by society, both historically and currently, drawing connections between violence and the oppression of women. We engaged women in examining the societal supports for able-ism and who it benefits. We also gave women as much information we could, information that helped them to take an active role in deciding the direction of their lives. We actively partnered with the women we worked with. Recognizing they knew more about what was happening in their lives, we worked with them in a way that reflected our belief in their ability to direct and make choices in their lives.

I have learned a lot from working with women with mental illness. I think of major importance has been discovering my own limitations and learning to partner with others who can fill the gaps. While we turned away very few women with major mental illness, we did turn away some. We made our decisions by looking carefully at why we were doing what we were doing, and asking difficult questions. The answers were not always easy. As an advocate, I work hard at taking responsibility for being ready to work with the women we serve. My life is changed because of them. The fear and insecurity I once experienced when a woman I worked with had a form of mental illness is gone. It is replaced with a confidence, one that does not assume I know all the answers but one that knows how to find and use the support available to me.

-By Victoria Ybanez, Women’s Advocate, MSH-TA Faculty

Groups for men who batter may go by different names: anger management, counseling, batterer treatment, men’s re-education classes, or simply men’s groups. The name of the group often describes the focus and content of the group; for instance, anger management states a focus on the perception that anger is at the root of intimate partner violence. Batterer treatment implies that the group will use a mental health / therapy approach to intervention; men’s re-education implies that violence is a learned behavior and can be un-learned through the group process, while calling them men’s groups is ambiguous enough to include a wider focus not only on men who use violence, but on men as a whole. This being said, it is important to remember when developing a program to address men’s use of violence in intimate partner relationships that the name is less important than the program philosophy and the issues addressed in group.

Effectively designed groups for men who batter will offer participants tools similar to those used in anger management, counseling and therapy by incorporating skill-building techniques, but they also include the crucial element of examining beliefs on gender roles, the right to use violence and other control tactics, and how these beliefs affect intimate relationships. In early attempts to address domestic violence, men were commonly sent to or mandated by courts to complete anger management classes. Anger management teaches skills that help members control their responses in conflict situations. The philosophy behind using anger management to address domestic violence is that if men can manage their anger they will not resort to using violence in their relationships and will not physically assault their partners. However, while anger is an obvious emotion present in most violent situations, it is not the cause of men’s violence towards women. Anger, like violence, is a tool used to maintain control over the relationship. Men’s programs must address the underlying societal beliefs that give permission to men to use anger and physical force to get what they want.

Counseling and family therapy approaches each attempt to get at the root of unresolved issues that cause problems in relationships. Each makes an effort to discover the cause of conflict, examining family dynamics and stressors that could be contributing to the use of violence in the relationship. The focus in these approaches is usually on the individual and how they respond. They use skill building techniques similar to those taught in anger management groups like identifying individual anger “triggers”, developing communication, and learning to compromise. With their emphasis on cooperation and compromise, counseling and family therapy assume a balance of power between partners that doesn’t exist in violent relationships, and by focusing on the individual and how they respond, these approaches too often can be used to blame the woman for the violence she experiences, while overlooking the batterer’s use of violence as a means of control.

Mediation is often viewed as a friendlier approach to handling conflicts as opposed to using the court system to resolve disputes. However, because mediation assumes that both parties enter into the process with equal power and will negotiate in good faith, it does not address the batterer’s tactics of power and control, or the woman’s safety. It is for this reason that mediation should not be used as part of men’s programs.^[203]

Programs for men who batter their partners commonly refer to their groups as educational rather than counseling or treatment. Although the group process is therapeutic by nature, the goal is to provide education on having respectful relationships. The educational approach is based on the belief that violence is a learned behavior that men use in order to control a relationship and that violent behavior can be un-learned.

It is important to look at the issues of domestic violence in a larger context, identifying the root of the problem in order to find solutions. The social harmony and balance intrinsic to Native society has been disrupted by colonization, creating changes in the environment, in the animals, and in society. It has affected our communities, families, and individuals in ways that range from spiritual disconnectedness and drug use to violence and disrespect for those around us.

When we realize our crucial place in the circle of life, we look things differently. Diverse teachings illustrate that Native people tried to live in a way that held all living things in the highest regard. Rocks, trees, water, plants, and animals are part of the same circle that humans share, that is why permission was asked before taking an animal’s life or using any of these elements. For instance, when we return to balance, we understand how important water is to giving and maintaining life, and we do not pollute the rivers. When we understand the importance of forestlands to give shelter and oxygen to all creatures, we use this resource sparingly. When society values life, we don’t kill our animal brothers for recreation, nor do we use domestic violence to harm our human sisters.

The lack of connection with the natural environment has created imbalance. People no longer have the connection with the environment that creates a close relationship with the natural world. Most people don’t have to fetch water from a spring or go into the fields or woods to find food. The values of the larger society have changed us; our teachings about our relationships with all living things have been altered or bypassed for other values. Much of the work in Native men’s groups emphasizes our relationship with family and community by incorporating traditional teachings of respect, acknowledging and honoring the roles of men and women, bringing us closer to a balanced way of living.

When developing a men’s program it is important to have facilitators that agree with the program’s basic philosophy. Programs for men who use violence must address the fact that a man’s use of violence against his partner is about power and control; programs should not use couples counseling or mediation. The discoveries made in understanding the dynamics of domestic violence during the 70s and 80s clearly show that violent relationships are characterized by an imbalance of power. The batterer uses violence to keep control and power over his partner. Methods that approach a conflict situation assuming that both parties have equal footing or bargaining power will usually help reinforce the batterer’s power and authority over the woman and will sometimes compromise her safety further if she is too forthcoming about the abuse and the batterer is threatened by her disclosure.

Safety for women needs to be a primary concern in any program developed for men who use violence. Whether the program will be working with men one-on-one or within group settings, safety procedures need to be established so that when protection order violations are disclosed in-group or there are concerns over escalating anger, a woman’s safety needs can be addressed. Coordinators of a program or facilitators of groups should have a relationship with courts, law enforcement, and advocates to help deal with such problems as they arise. This can be accomplished by developing well thought out and meaningful working agreements, such as memorandums of understanding or cooperative agreements that specifically outline the types of information that will be shared and under what circumstances.

Accountability for the use of violence must also be a part of the men’s program. Men who are mandated to complete a men’s non-violence program are ordered to do so because they use violence against their partners, regardless of whether they acknowledge this fact. Establishing an environment where men can acknowledge and be open about their use of violence is a key factor in changing their behaviors. Men’s programs must create ways to do this without minimizing the violence or colluding with the participants.

Programmatically, groups for men need the support of the courts to ensure that sanctions are imposed when men do not complete classes or the program is having difficulty with certain individuals. When programs for men who batter are connected with court systems in a meaningful way they can help ensure compliance with court orders by reporting violations of court orders back to a judge, prosecutor, or probation officer. Some men will be resistant to the program and may present obstacles for coordinators and facilitators. In this case, if a program chooses to extend the amount of time that such a person needs to continue with groups or suspends the person from the program for inappropriate acts, judicial personnel can support the program by allowing for this type of variance. When perpetrators see that the men’s program is viewed as valuable and important by other community programs and institutions, they are more likely to take the sessions seriously. This viewpoint will aid them in making meaningful changes in their behaviors so they complete the groups and apply what they learned to their lives.

Those developing programs for men who batter must be mindful of the fact that there is a high rate of recidivism among men who use violence in relationships, even after completing a batterer’s program. A common perception when beginning to teach different ways of behaving in relationships is that the classes will cause immediate change. This is understandable, but it be must recognized that the average time one individual spends in a group (about 40 hours) will not undo a lifetime of perceiving men as authority figures who are granted permission to use violence to maintain their position. Batterers’ group facilitators and program coordinators should be realistic with the goals they are working to achieve and understand that they are facilitating a process of personal change for each individual, rather that curing an individual of an ailment. Sometimes this change can take several mandated returns to the program:

We have stories and teachings that depict men as warriors, protectors, and providers. These are roles that are honored and necessary for the survival of the community. However, our understanding of these male roles has been altered by the influence of the dominant culture. Too often, they are distorted to justify the use of violence against a partner. An individual might say, “I am a warrior” and believe he is defending his position when he batters his spouse. The role of men as protectors and providers has been twisted into a “king of the castle” belief that supports the use of power and control tactics. We must remember that these are not our traditional roles; they are the roles and values of the colonizing culture. Violence against women is not a Native tradition.

Examining traditional roles provides a framework for understanding the impact that the colonizing culture has had on Native men’s beliefs about their relationship role. Helping men assess the attitudes and images they may have adopted from the dominant culture and re-claim a way of living that is respectful and balanced, is basic to the program’s success. Ultimately, however, the individual will need to change his thoughts and attitudes about relationships. Examining traditional roles can provide guidelines that help support this change.

Men’s programs should make specifically addressing the violence their top priority. Many states have established standards for men’s programming and although tribes are not required to adopt such standards, many do so in order to receive state funds or state court referrals. While standards vary from state to state, they share some common characteristics and priorities. While a curriculum may vary according to the author’s perspective on the causes and contributing factors for the violence, it is almost universally accepted that violence and abusive behavior are choices made by the batterer in order to maintain power over another in a relationship. In addition, while it is important to remember that not all controlling tactics constitute criminal behavior (for instance, name-calling and controlling money) men’s programming must create an environment where men can examine their use of such tactics, understand their effect on their partners, and confront the ways in which they benefit by using them. Utilizing standards already in use elsewhere can reduce the amount of trial and error your program experiences when creating a curriculum and incorporating activities into the group format. However, you must also understand the rational behind the practical application of the standards you use in order to apply them properly.

When establishing an effective program focused on men’s use of violence in relationships, it is important to be aware of certain critical elements that your program must address. Selecting facilitators, administration, and creating strong relationships with community agencies, court systems, law enforcement, and advocacy programs are key. These are areas that will make your program viable and meaningful, creating social change in the community. The remainder of this article will look at some primary issues that men’s programs should deal with when they are being established, examine the importance of maintaining community relationships, and discuss safety and accountability issues.

Preparing men to examine and reflect on their relationships will acclimate them to the group process. When a participant is starting the program he should be made aware of the rules and guidelines that are in place, and complete the necessary paperwork so that to the program can communicate with involved agencies if needed. Conducting an intake session with the men prior to the start of the group will cover the paperwork, provide them with an overview of the topics that the group will discuss, and help them understand what they should expect while participating in the program.

The facilitator must keep the group focused on talking about their use of violence in their relationships. Some participants may have been assaulted or abused as children either sexually or physically. The facilitator should be prepared to make the appropriate referral and then redirect the group’s discussion back to the topic at hand. It is very important to keep the focus on addressing men’s violence against women and not let the other issues become a distraction. Confronting and discussing issues like racism however, can provide a means for the men to understand how their actions dehumanize women in much the same way. Be clear that the expectation is that they stay focused on themselves and their behavior because that is the intent of the group. If the facilitator allows the participants to continually get off the topic, the group will be very ineffective.

There are many resources available to help create group content. Various curricula specifically geared toward men addressing domestic violence are available, but incorporating the tribe’s traditional values and principles into the group will greatly enhance the process. Making use of your own community resources, such as spiritual ceremonies, teachings, and stories, as well as having discussions on tribal morals and ethics, will make the content relevant to your community regardless of the curriculum you chose to follow. Discussing the influence of colonization and utilizing tools like 500 Nations videos, White Bison material, and resources from the Internet and library can allow for the exploration of the differences between tribal life and ways before and after colonization. Inviting local storytellers, elders, or professional people to speak during groups about their work and views toward handling the problems related to domestic violence in the community is also very helpful.

Remember that each participant enters a program with varying degrees of group experience and openness to discussing their experiences. Applying consistent expectations to the group as a whole, while meeting the needs of specific individuals, is an acquired skill that gets honed over time.

Programs vary significantly in regards to staff and structure. In some areas a program may only have one staff member, while others may have an administrator and several group facilitators. Selecting personnel to operate a men’s program is core to its success.

The primary responsibility in administering men’s programs is ensuring the direction and focus of the program stays on course and that all facilitators are in line with program goals and direction. Beyond this, a men’s program administrator should coordinate with other community agencies and build and maintain those relationships. Handling conflicts and problems with men in the program is also part of the work. Administrators should be prepared to provide information to the courts or testify at times when someone is not complying with the program guidelines or fails to follow through with the court order. If a person gets suspended from the group, the administrator needs to follow up immediately with the courts, probation, law enforcement, and advocates so that everyone is aware of the situation and able to take the appropriate action, whether legal or safety oriented, or both. Selection of facilitators should be based on the person’s understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and their ability to provide direction, keeping the group on track. Facilitators should have a clear understanding of program expectations, and be trained to keep the group on topic as well as clearly conveying the material. It is fairly common that the program administrator is also the group facilitator. If you are fortunate enough to have both a program facilitator and an administrator, keep in mind that they must communicate regularly with one another so that issues that arise during group are shared and problem solving can occur.

Both administrators and facilitators must have the ability to recognize and deal with safety issues and problems with enforcement of orders. When a participant is challenged, either during group or intake, program staff should be aware of the potential risk of escalating the danger for the woman the man is involved with. While the group process and participation in the men’s program is intended to challenge the participants’ violent behavior, being overly confrontational with an individual does not help him process through the statements he is making, or the information the facilitator is providing, and it may jeopardize his partner’s safety, your safety and the integrity of your program. At times it may be necessary for the program staff to pressure the courts to deal with someone who may not be ready to hear the information and does not wish to attempt change.

The program staff must hold one another responsible for staying focused on addressing the violence and adhering to a common philosophical perspective. The people working in a men’s program should view their position not simply as employment, but see themselves as providing examples of the behavior that is expected. Most programs will have male and female cofacilitators. Many men have become effective facilitators by drawing on their past behavior and being able to relate and explain to men how their actions are detrimental to their relationships. Many women facilitators have also used their experience in violent relationships to help the participants understand the impact that their abusive and controlling behaviors have on their partners. This approach role models sharing responsibility and leadership, with men and women working together as equals, a dynamic not often witnessed in many of these men’s lives. This approach also keeps the voices of women at the table, providing a balanced perspective and helping the male facilitator avoid collusion with the participants. All men’s program staff should adhere to the overall goal and philosophy of the program, because it is that philosophy that guides the work and effectiveness of the program.

Working with men who batter is a vital component in changing the way our communities handle and address violence in the home. The staff and personnel of men’s programs should be conscientious, diligent, respectful, and work with others in the community to achieve their goal: to increase the level of safety in the community and reduce the amount of violence men perpetrate. Coordination and communication, both internally and with local agencies is essential to create a sound program. Before starting a program, carefully consider all the issues that may arise and take precautions, so that the violence is addressed, not escalated. Some areas may not have the capacity or resources to create an effective program. If core services and strategic elements are missing in your community, you may be better off not starting a men’s program at all.

Before programs were developed for men that specifically addressed their use of violence in relationships, many advocacy and shelter programs had been established to provide services to women who were assaulted by their partners and to lobby for legal reforms so institutions could better protect women. However, the question about what to do with the men remained. In abusive relationships, many of the abusive behaviors are controlling behaviors that do not necessarily fit within the criteria of criminal offences. Even today, police and court intervention is largely reserved for physical assaults. It became fairly obvious that jail time for offenders didn’t change the offender’s beliefs regarding his use of violence in relationships; it was merely a punishment for his actions. In addition, many physical behaviors, like shoving, pushing or restraining didn’t result in jail time, yet the women who experienced such environments found them to be as fearful or intimidating as the environments of those who experienced more extreme violence. Protection for women is the most critical issue in addressing domestic violence, but it became clear that in order to truly stop the violence, the issue had to be viewed holistically. The perpetrators had to look at and change their violent behavior.

As the knowledge and awareness of the dynamics of domestic violence spread, more effort was placed on rehabilitating men, resulting in the creation of men’s services. People realized that marriage counseling and family therapy were failing to address the power imbalance in violent relationships; they weren’t stopping the abuse. Certainly, these services can be of benefit to couples, but the issues surrounding the use of violence need to be addressed first, before the couple enters into any process that centers on cooperation, negotiation, and compromise. This realization, that traditional methods like family therapy and marriage counseling weren’t effective, gave rise to intervention programs geared toward men that addressed their use of power and control in relationships. Communities that are just getting started with men’s programs or have limited services available in their area need to develop and revisit intervention strategies that address domestic violence.

These questions help determine a starting point for a comprehensive response to address the violence. No matter what level of service is being planned or in existence in your community, there are several elements that make men’s programs effective in a community response.

A major consideration is examining how the program is connected to other local programs. This connection must go above and beyond having cordial relationships with those in similar professions and maintaining a referral network. Programs for men must be connected in a meaningful way to the courts, probation, law enforcement, and most importantly, to advocacy programs. These relationships need to be reciprocal in nature and cohesively work toward safety for women and accountability for offenders.

A majority of men entering domestic violence programs will come through the court system. Courts can order that the individual comply with the sanction and impose consequences if they don’t. This is an example of the way in which the connection with other agencies is reciprocal in holding an offender accountable. The men’s program will ensure that they are addressing domestic violence: the offender is participating in the process, and attending group, and if there is any noncompliance with the program, then a report will be made or letter sent to the judge. The courts should follow up and strictly impose consequences for not following the court order. It is very important to create a dialogue with court personnel when establishing men’s program procedures and expectations. Both the courts and the program should be clear about the ways in which accountability with the court order will be maintained.

Connecting with advocacy programs is a means of enhancing safety for women. If there are situations where threats are being made during group, or a participant’s hostility seems to be increasing, contact with the advocacy program can help assess the danger to the woman: an advocate can talk to her to see if things are getting worse at home, or if the offender is harassing or stalking her if he is no longer living in the home. Many times what is being said in groups must be clarified for the woman. Because men who are controlling have a tendency to look at their own needs first, there are times when they may take what they hear during group out of context and then use it against their partner. The most common example of this type of distortion is the use of time-outs. Time-outs are a suggested way for men to immediately take a break from the situation when they feel themselves addressing an issue with escalating anger or tension. Men are encouraged to take a short walk or go into a quiet room and calm down before resuming the discussion with their partner. This is meant to be a short- term method, intended to help them start practicing communicating about issues. It is hoped that they will no longer need time-outs as they learn other ways of communicating. This concept often is abused; men use it to take off for long periods of time, or to avoid examining an issue that they don’t wish to talk about. Time-outs and other topics of conversation in groups can be clarified by communication between the men’s program and advocates, helping the women who are partners of group participants.

At times it will be necessary for the program to have an emergency response, and a strong relationship with police will be a benefit in such a situation. In the instance that a group participant is visibly enraged, the group facilitator can work with the advocate and law enforcement to ensure that the woman is safe. There are times when a warrant is issued for a court order violation or a re-offense, and the police may need help locating a man. The men’s program may be able to assist by providing current information or the police can apprehend the offender after group.

Any arrangement that the program makes with local agencies needs to have clear lines of communication and agreements on how information is shared. Program participants must be notified that information will be shared and sign a release of information form acknowledging that fact. Check data privacy requirements and legal obligations in order to determine the type of information that can be shared.

Remember that men’s programs are not intended to be an extension of the courts or act in lieu of probation officers. Men’s programs need to have clear procedures in place to address safety issues and offender violence while conducting groups, in addition to having procedures in place for reporting noncompliance to the courts. Going beyond these distinct activities creates unrealistic expectations for the program and (especially in under resourced areas) places a high burden of responsibilities and work on a small program. Men’s programs are not effective when operated autonomously. Without a strong connection to other agencies the program can be seen as less than effective, and its validity can be challenged. While some people can and do change after completing 40 hours of group, many others return several more times and spend a considerable amount of time behind bars. Effective management of resources and coordination is key to connecting with local agencies, helping the community and agencies at large to hold men accountable at different levels and bringing about a change in offenders’ violent behavior.

Educating the community about the work helps establish men’s programs. When operating a men’s program there should be no mystery surrounding the philosophy of the program and the way the work with men is approached. Proactively educating the community gains the support of community members, tribal leaders, and service providers. It is also important for the courts and probation officers to understand the program and know how to access information when they have to make determinations on probation violations or in criminal proceedings.

The group environment should create an opportunity for men to discuss their actions and behaviors in a beneficial way. Many people get the impression that addressing domestic violence in men’s groups focuses on shaming and blaming participants. In actuality, if groups are conducted in this way, they risk creating more problems, and even heighten the potential for homicide. On the other hand, the program must not make light of the seriousness of the participants’ violent behavior and minimize its impact on the household. Facilitators should be vigilant about not colluding, or siding with group participants. The community should be educated about what the men can expect when they enter the program and know the consequences for participants if they don’t comply with program guidelines.

For some programs it may be difficult for the program personnel to handle complex political relationships and do the necessary work with tribal and state courts. Accountability can be difficult to interpret in tribal and reserve areas with men’s programs. The term itself infers a community response is possible and has the privileged idea that resources and responses from the community are available. Some remote village and reservation communities are only now getting to places with their infrastructure where they can begin to address domestic violence cases. Resources for this process need to be evaluated and interpreted before men’s programs can be started. Programs that promote training for police, probation and judges are getting more involved in addressing men’s use of domestic violence, but have many obstacles, not the least of which is funding for trainings. Skilled community trainers and advocates must be found or volunteer. When tribal/village politics, interpersonal relationships, and extended family on the council level is added to this mix, there is the potential for compromised programming and serious loss of safety for victims. A men’s program in and of itself cannot hold men accountable. It has to be a community effort. Without the support of agencies that will work together with men’s programs, these programs can raise the danger level for victims, seriously compromising women’s safety. Communities without support or proper infrastructure to ensure safety and accountability should strongly consider whether or not to start a men’s program.

Traditionally, as Indian people, we always looked out for the elderly, the women, children, the sick, and the weaker members of our communities. Today many of us don’t do this. We place the blame for domestic abuse upon the woman. We indulge in victim blaming or we see the batterer as the victim. For instance, when an abuser cooks a meal or sheds a tear when missing his children, his family and friends often empathize with him; instead of seeing him as a perpetrator of violence, they see him as a victim. Family members and friends who feel sorry for the abuser are allowing themselves to be manipulated by him into becoming colluders.

When a family member is abused, we must ask ourselves whether we step in and say that such behavior is unacceptable, or whether we tend to look the other way, thinking it’s not our place to say anything, believing they will work it out for themselves.

What if the abuser is your son, brother, or uncle? You may find yourself allowing him to beat his wife, girlfriend, ex-wife or ex-girlfriend by saying, “It’s her fault, she should have …”, or “He wouldn’t do this if she didn’t…” Do you threaten her, do you enlist women relatives or friends to beat her up, stalk her, and/or harass her?

Extended family and friends colluding with the abuser is a very big problem for battered Indian women. Far too often, family and friends of her abuser help violate her more. The following is a small group exercise that allows participants to critically analyze ways in which family members collude.

Choose one of the following topics for small group exercise/discussion:

Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen topic. Ask participants to look at how their family interacts with each other and then discuss how they interact with others.

Collusion happens in the best families. It happens when family ties are very strong, and family members are very devoted to one another. To collude means you have each other’s back no matter what. Even if a member of your family has committed an act of violence or a crime, the family will lie, threaten, blame, post bail, or stay tight-lipped about the incident. The family will not make that family member responsible, or hold them accountable for their actions and behavior; there are no consequences. On the other hand, if someone outside the family commits a crime or is violent against a family member, then the scenario changes. The family will then come together and become much more aggressive in dealing with the outsider.

Some suggestions are:

When friends, family and /or systems and institutions collude with the abuser they hold the abuser’s pattern of violence in place. Only when such collusion is addressed and stopped, will the abuser will be held accountable. Violence should not be tolerated at all. Family and friends who harass, threaten, stalk, and physically assault the battered woman think that they are showing their support and love to their son, brother, uncle, friend, or cousin by their actions, but their actions have also been abusive. Their actions are not usually seen and identified as abusive, and if their behaviors are addressed, there will be resistance and denial by those family members. They have lived and practiced the value of “family ties” for so long, that even when a family member is clearly abusive, they will still be devoted and blindly so. Many times this devotion to family is so blind that the abuser may support his female relative when she is abused by her partner, but finds that he feels justified in his mind to abuse his own partner.

A battered woman’s safety and holding her abuser accountable must be the focus of the family and the community. A battered woman’s life is always on the line from the moment she awakes to the time she crawls into bed at night. Isn’t the sacred gift of life more valuable than allowing an abuser continue to abuse in the name of family ties? Where are our priorities?

Reviewed studies report a series of childhood problems statistically associated with a child's witnessing domestic violence. These problems can be grouped into the three main categories presented in more detail below: (1) behavioral and emotional; (2) cognitive functioning and attitudes; and (3) longer-term.

Several factors appear to moderate the degree to which a child is affected by witnessing violence. As will be seen below, a number of these factors also seem to interact with each other creating unique outcomes for different children.

Interpreting this literature raises several problems based on the research methodologies applied. These include problems with definitions, samples, sources of information, measures, and research designs. Each is reviewed below. While together these flaws raise serious questions about this body of literature, these problems should not cause us to dismiss findings that are consistently replicated across different studies using different methods and samples.

The studies reviewed for this document provide strong evidence that children who witness domestic violence at home also exhibit a variety of behavioral, emotional, cognitive and longerterm developmental problems. Each child will experience adult domestic violence in unique ways depending on a variety of factors that include direct physical abuse of the child, his or her gender and age, the time since exposure to violence, and his or her relationship with adults in the home. Significant percentages of children in the studies reviewed showed no negative developmental problems despite witnessing repeated violence. We must be careful to not assume that witnessing violence automatically leads to negative outcomes for children.

These data are primarily based on samples of children living in shelters for battered women. This has been used as a criticism of these studies on the grounds that shelter residence is a time of crisis and not representative of a child's on-going life. These data do, however, provide shelters with a much better understanding of the problems many of their resident children may be experiencing. And despite the limitations of some individual studies cited, the number and variety of studies so far reported provide a strong basis for accepting the overall findings.

There is a danger that these data may lead some child protection agencies to more frequently define child witnessing of violence as a form of child abuse or neglect. It is not uncommon to see battered women charged with “failure to protect” their children from a batterer. Many child protection agencies continue to hold battered mothers solely responsible for their children's safety. These actions are often based on the belief that separating from a batterer will always be the safest path for the battered woman and her child.

Yet these actions on the part of the child protection system ignore the reality that the majority of assaults and murders of battered women occur after they have been separated or divorced from their perpetrator. Such actions also ignore the reality that battered mothers often make decisions about their relationships with male partners based on their judgments of what will be best for their children.

The responsibility for creating a dangerous environment should be laid squarely on the shoulders of the adult who is using violent behavior, whether or not that adult is the legal guardian of the child. Responsibility and blame should not be placed on adult survivors in the home. Holding the violent abuser responsible for ending the use of violence is the path that leads to safety for these children and their abused mothers.

It is likely that the outcomes of additional studies on this topic will be reported in the immediate future. The responses to existing and future studies should be to identify ways to provide safety to both children and any abused adults who also reside in their homes.

Recent Reviews of the Literature

Edleson, J. L. (1999). Children's witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14 (8), (Forthcoming August 1999).

Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, B. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence. Part II: The psychological effects of husband violence on battered women and their children. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 179-213.

Margolin, G. (1998). Effects of witnessing violence on children. In P. K. Trickett, & C. J. Schellenbach (Eds.), Violence against children in the family and the community (pp. 57-101). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Additional References Cited

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1983). Manual for the child behavior checklist and revised child behavior profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Carlson, B. E. (1991). Outcomes of physical abuse and observation of marital violence among adolescents in placement. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 526-534.

DuRant, R. H., Cadenhead, C., Pendergrast, R. A., Slavens, G., & Linder, C. W. (1994). Factors associated with t he use of violence among urban Black adolescents. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 612-617.

Henning, K., Leitenberg, H., Coffey, P., Turner, T., & Bennett, R. T. (1996). Long-term psychological and social impact of witnessing physical conflict between parents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 35-51.

Hughes, H. M. (1988). Psychological and behavioral correlates of family violence in child witness and victims. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 77-90.

Hughes, H. M., Parkinson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing spouse abuse and experiencing physical abuse: A “double whammy”? Journal of Family Violence, 4 , 197-209.

Jaffe, P., Wilson, S., & Wolfe, D. E. (1986). Promoting changes in attitudes and understanding of conflict resolution among child witnesses of family violence. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 356-366.

Kolbo, J. R. (1996). Risk and resilience among children exposed to family violence. Violence & Victims, 11, 113-128.

Mathias, J. L., Mertin, P., & Murray, A. (1995). The psychological functioning of children from backgrounds of domestic violence. Australian Psychologist, 30, 47-56.

McClosky, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic family violence on children's mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261.

O'Brien, M., John, R. S., Margolin, G., & Erel, O. (1994). Reliability and diagnostic efficacy of parents' reports regarding children's exposure to marital aggression. Violence and Victims, 9, 45- 62.

O'Keefe, M. (1994). Linking marital violence, mother-child/father-child aggression, and child behavior problems. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 63-78.

Peled, E. (1996). Supporting the parenting of battering men: Issues and dilemmas. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Rossman, B. B. (1998). Descartes's error and posttraumatic stress disorder: Cognition and emotion in children who are exposed to parental violence. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence (pp. 223-256). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Silvern, L., Karyl, J., Waelde, L., Hodges, W. F., Starek, J., Heidt, E., & Min, K. (1995). Retrospective reports of parental partner abuse: Relationships to depression, trauma symptoms and self-esteem among college students. Journal of Family Violence, 10, 177-202.

Singer, M. I., Miller, D. B., Guo, S., Slovak, K., & Frierson, T. (1998). The mental health consequences of children's exposure to violence. Cleveland, OH: Cayahoga County Community Mental Health Research Institute, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.

Song, L., Singer, M., & Anglin, T. (1998). Violence exposure and emotional trauma as contributors to adolescents' violent behaviors. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 152, 531-536.

Spaccarelli, S., Coatsworth, J. D., & Bowden, B. S. (1995). Exposure to serious family violence among incarcerated boys: Its association with violent offending and potential mediating variables. Violence and Victims, 10, 163-182.

Stagg, V., Wills, G. D., & Howell, M. (1989). Psychopathology in early childhood witnesses of family violence. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9, 73-87.

Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., & Dawud-Noursi, S. (1998). Using multiple informants to understand domestic violence and its effects. In G. W. Holden, R. Geffner, & E. N. Jouriles (Eds.), Children exposed to marital violence (pp. 121-156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wolfe, D. A., Jaffe, P., Wilson, S. K., & Zak, L. (1985). Children of battered women: The relation of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 657-665.

Wolfe, D. A., Zak, L., Wilson, S., & Jaffe, P. (1986). Child witnesses to violence between parents: Critical issues in behavioral and social adjustment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14, 95-104.

On-Line Resources

Bibliography on “Children Who Witness Violence: Research & Intervention” by J. L. Edleson.

Bibliography from the Project to Address Violence through Education (PAVE) at the University of Minnesota on “Young children and violence”.

Mothers & Children: Understanding the Links Between Woman Battering and Child Abuse is a briefing paper by Jeffrey L. Edleson for a recent strategic planning meeting on the Violence Against Women Act.

In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies is a briefing paper by Susan Schechter and Jeffrey L. Edleson prepared for a Wingspread Conference of a similar title.

Child Witness to Domestic Violence is a brief paper written by Kathryn Conroy, DSW, on the effect on children of witnessing their mothers being battered.

Children and Family Violence: The Unnoticed Victims is a May 1994 report by Gabrielle M. Maxwell of New Zealand's Office of the Commissioner for Children.

An art gallery from the Domestic Abuse Project in Minneapolis of 13 images drawn by children who have witnessed violence.

Children frequently witness violence in their homes. Eighty-four studies of the problems associated with children's witnessing have been reported in the literature but only 31 were found to have met rigorous research design criteria and included in the review. These studies have documented multiple problems among children that are significantly associated with a child's witnessing assaults of one parent by another in the home. These problems include:

These problems appear to be magnified or decreased by a number of moderating factors including:

The studies in this body of literature vary greatly. There are a surprising number of welldesigned studies, but a large number of others contain methodological flaws that should raise caution in interpreting their findings. These flaws include:

Finally, significant numbers of children in these studies showed no negative consequences from witnessing violence. One must be careful not to assume that all children who witness domestic violence will show negative results. A careful assessment of each child is extremely important.

This document was not developed by Violence Against Women Online Resources. The document's author or sponsoring organization granted VAWOR permission for placement on this site. Points of view in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

This article was reprinted from a web site that is a cooperative project of Office on Violence Against Women and Minnesota Center Against Violence & Abuse at the University of Minnesota and is supported by grant number 98-WT-VX-K001 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

©Copyright 1998-2003 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse ( MINCAVA ) File Last Modified on: Tue Oct 15 13:12:04 2002

When planning a visitation center, those involved must be fully aware of the risk of doing more harm than good if they are not informed about the complex dynamics involved in operating a visitation center. They must also be prepared to handle the issues surrounding domestic violence if they are to provide a successful service. Centers should have a sound philosophy and focus from which to operate. Their programs and philosophy should offer no mysteries to the community, and the families that may be served by the visitation center should know what to expect. There is more to operating a center that addresses domestic violence and parental visits than simply monitoring parent and child time and being the third party who passes the children from one parent to the next. If a program is going to address violence against women, their position should not be that of a “neutral, un-biased, observer”. Instead, the position of the program should clearly state that the center acknowledges the dynamics of domestic violence and actively works to provide safety for women and children as the primary victims of such abuse. Taking a strong position is taking a stand toward social change.

When a program operates as “un-biased” or “neutral” it means that it is unwilling to address the social problems in the community that provide a basis for domestic abuse. This philosophical statement of neutrality conveys the impression that the program exists by capitalizing on the misfortunes of the community: it makes no stand on creating social change, and in this way, participates in maintaining the existing social factors that contribute to abuse. The accepted philosophy of programs that successfully address domestic violence is based on the understanding that domestic violence occurs out of an individual’s desire to have power and control over a relationship. When a woman separates from a controlling man, he loses his direct power over her. Clichés like “if I can’t have you no one can” can become serious threats with a clearly directed homicidal intent in such relationships. The reality is that too many women have lost their lives because of “neutral” and “un-biased” stances by institutions or services that should have helped them, and too many children have lost one or both of their parents – their mother to murder and their father jail or suicide. If a visitation center program feels it should maintain neutrality in these most serious circumstances, then the program should not accept families with a history of domestic violence.

When focusing on safety, a program must build consistent responses that create the needed levels of precaution. Although there are many indicators and assessment criteria for determining when a situation may escalate in violence, there is no way to accurately determine if an abuser will murder. The program must also be aware that not all abusive and controlling relationships have a high occurrence of physical assaults, but that there are many threatening and intimidating acts that are serious threats to women because “there was that one time when” she did get hit, choked, or pushed to the floor. Because a program cannot fully know the extent and impact of the abuse in the relationship, and is unable to predict whether or not a homicide will occur, stringent safety precautions should be implemented.

Women who come into contact with a visitation center are most often at the end of their relationship. Many have, along with their children, already experienced the tension, stress, trauma, and court proceedings that have been caused by domestic violence. During this period there may have been irregular visits with the abuser and if there are pending court hearings the conflict level can be quite high. As an intervention program, a visitation center can help establish new boundaries and demonstrate respectful ways of communicating and negotiating conflicts for all family members in this difficult time.

While the physical violence is the most obvious indicator of an abusive relationship, there are many other methods of power and control. Often, controlling men will attempt to reclaim control over the situation by changing visitation schedules. Consistently changing scheduled times and dates, canceling, or not showing up for visits is often a way to “get back at her” for making him “go through all this”. In some cases, a man will deliberately get thrown out of a visitation program so he doesn’t have a third party “telling him how he should be with his own kids”. Because this action doesn’t negate his parental rights, the woman will once again be vulnerable to his abuse during unsupervised visits.

Social problems are often ingrained into the social institutions that are meant to serve the community. Our society places a higher burden of responsibility on women as mothers than it does on men as fathers. This is another reason why it is so important for the program to have a strong philosophy and focus. It must make a stand; visitation centers are pressured by many interests. The needs of the women, men, and children who use the program often conflict with one another and create tense situations. In addition, the interests of local service agencies and institutions will have an effect on your program. Courts, attorneys, child protection, Guardian ad Litem programs or court appointed special advocates, shelter/DV programs (if your VC is not already part of such and agency), and funders, among others, will influence how your program operates. If you have institutions that punish a woman by removing her children because she cannot control a man’s use of violence, and you have institutions that don’t believe her when she says she is abused and afraid for her safety, then a visitation center that addresses domestic violence should be the place where a women can get the safety and protection she deserves. If domestic violence focused visitation centers are not providing this service, they become simply another social institution that victimizes women.

All too often, programs that are not committed to providing women safety and protection take a child-centered focus and gain quick community acceptance and support. There is no easier moral highroad for a program to take than to say it stands for child protection over all other concerns. In addition, such a program can avoid having to deal with the pervasive belief that men are treated unfairly in programs that address domestic violence. However, when families use a visitation center there is no doubt that there has been at minimum an incident of nonphysical abusive behavior; otherwise they would not need the program. How can a program claim to be child-centered when it neglects to address women’s safety and protection and contributes to the same victimizing that other institutions do?

When information became available about the effects of domestic violence on children there was a strong public response to protect children. In some states laws were passed making a child witnessing an act of domestic violence a crime. People reacted passionately to the fact that children have to live in homes where violence is occurring. Clearly there is a need to protect children, but at what point does the need to protect children become more important than protecting their mothers? When does it become important to educate men about how their use of violence against their partner affects their children?

Visitation centers focusing on domestic violence must deal with the intersecting issues of providing safety for women and children while encouraging healthy relationships between father and child. Because most men will have continued contact with their children, the opportunity exists to provide education during the time they are using a visitation center. Educational groups can be designed for each member of the family. For fathers, groups can examine their use of violence and how this use of violence created their current situation. They can also show them how they can change to the benefit of their relationship with their children. For mothers, groups can be structured to process the impact the violence has had on them, and children can have an opportunity to discuss the violence they have seen or the changes they are experiencing as a result of the violence. The visitation center can provide each member of the family with information to help them help themselves and their children heal from the violence that occurred in the home.

Community organizing for women’s safety must be a democratic process that invests the community in the issue being addressed. Key principles include:

Community organizing doesn’t simply mean putting together a march or protest. There are many different ways to organize. While marches and protests are excellent ways to raise public awareness of issues, true and lasting change requires a sustainable organization that can continue to work for change over time. The following are just a few examples of effective organizing.

On November 13, 2002, the following notice was released in various ways in Indian Country:

On November 25, 2002 – less than two weeks later – the following article appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

Grassroots community organizing is truly the “Indian way” of doing things. We have a rich history of bringing people together at the last minute to address a serious problem facing the “village.” The moccasin telegraph is a very useful tool in spreading the word (list serves never hurt either!).

There needs to be at least one point person in any good community organizing activity to ensure that there is one person that has their finger on the pulse of every detail. Behind every good organizer, there are community people who have the skills needed to create a successful outcome. It’s amazing the talents and experience that our Indian people have, both youth and elders: people who have contacts with the media, people who have contacts with groups that like doing activist type work like protesting and carrying banners, people with vans and buses in order to carpool those that don’t have vehicles, and people who can bring pots of coffee for all the many volunteers that will show up on the “day of”.

To begin, a meeting is called to present the problem at hand. You get the word out in as many ways as possible, whether it’s through list serves, phone calls, mailings of notices for the meeting, announcements at other meetings and, of course, the plain old moccasin telegraph. You invite “key people/stakeholders”, but keep it open to the community; it is important to encourage and empower community folks (youth and elders, survivors and family members of “victims”), because they are primary stakeholders; besides, the media likes the human-interest aspect of any story.

This first meeting requires a good facilitator who should not be the point person. There should be some background to hand out to attendees about why this meeting has been called, and some type of an agenda (although, as Indian people, we tend to stray away from agendas). Primary agenda items should include:

The designated spokesperson needs to prepare some key points, and it should be very concise. Indian people can get pretty long winded! Action items should be highlighted, and as they are discussed, people should be designated who will be responsible for those action items, including how they can be reached (phone, email etc). These people will be in touch with the point person/people.

It is up to the point person/people to stay abreast of the progress of those that have either volunteered or were delegated to accomplish certain tasks. Tasks might include:

There should be at least one more meeting before the day of the event to make sure that all the necessary details are in place and to do a final check in.

This is basically how the March for Justice (the subject of the excerpted newspaper article) was organized. When you get the word out to the community about something that can or is affecting them, and show the urgency of that issue, people tend to pay attention. Sometimes you need a particularly tragic event in order to wake people up. To ensure that such a tragedy hasn’t happened in vain, it is very important not to miss the opportunity to use it as an example of why we need appropriate responses from law enforcement. It is also very important to speak with the family members of the victim in order to get their permission and also to elicit their involvement if they so choose.

Because of the strong showing we made in the March for Justice, the mayor pledged his support and asked Chief Olson of the Minneapolis Police Department to cancel his prior commitments in order to meet with us and respond to our demands.

Establishing a program to respond to domestic violence in your clinic or hospital may seem overwhelming and expensive during these times of cost-cutting and health care reorganization. This section describes a model program that has been extensively field-tested and has the added advantage of being inexpensive to implement. This prototype shows how to create a comprehensive program within an emergency department, primary care, ob/gyn, or other clinical setting. (For help implementing the following model, call the FUND’s Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence toll-free at 1-888-Rx-Abuse.)

In 1992, the FUND and the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence designed a model program to strengthen a hospital’s response to domestic violence; this program was then pilot-tested and fine-tuned in 12 hospitals in two states, California and Pennsylvania. Over the next year, another 50 hospitals and clinics implemented the model. The FUND worked with California’s Department of Health Services to set up the program in 59 California clinics, and as part of this process, 800 clinic staff were trained.

This approach, applicable to an HMO, hospital, clinic, or group practice, enables the staff of a health care institution to respond in a comprehensive manner to domestic violence (i.e., through screening, identification/assessment, treatment, documentation, safety planning, referral, etc.) by:^[221]