FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Challenging the Shelter Model of Domestic Violence Services

by

Since the first shelter for domestic violence victims was opened in 1973 in St. Paul, Minnesota, countless women and children (and a few men) have benefitted from the chance to flee abusers to a safe location. It is important to recognize the four decades of assistance that has been provided by these shelters, yet at the same time, I wonder if perhaps time has come to move away from that model of service for domestic violence.

Below, I outline some of the reasons why the time may have come to change the way we go about helping victims of domestic violence. I offer these as suggestion given my work over the last eight years in the field, as well as my academic background on the issue. It is my hope that, at minimum, what I suggest here stimulates much needed dialogue about how to improve our work on this critical issue.

One way to see that this model is not working is that, on any given day, many victims are turned away because domestic violence shelters are at capacity. Each year, the National Network to End Domestic Violence conducts a 24-hour census of domestic violence programs in the U.S and territories. In 2013, 87 percent of identified programs participated. Results showed that victims made 9,641 requests for assistance that could not be provided. Most of these, around 60 percent, were related to housing. Where I live in South Florida, every shelter in the region has been at capacity for the last three weeks, despite multiple calls from victims seeking safety. While there is no clear data to show what happens to victims who are denied shelter, it is safe to assume that at least a portion of them stay with or return to abusers. Another portion likely ends up on the streets or in homeless shelters…not exactly safe locations when fleeing a dangerous assailant.

So, clearly the problem dwarfs the shelter capacity. But doesn’t that mean we should find and fund more shelters? I do not think so. Because another piece of the problem is that, as shelters have become increasingly bureaucratized, they have also become far more of a stop-gap measure, less able to respond to the unique needs of victims and to help them develop ways and means of living alone safely.

As funding for domestic violence services is scarce, and centers often compete for the same finite bundle of money, each must show that they are providing a specific set of services that funders have identified as “best practices.” While most of these are indeed good things (e.g., therapy, assistance in applying for state benefits), the need to document best practices inevitably results in services that cannot be provided because they were not included in the grant proposal or are supported by the funding agency.

Thus, a victim who needs legal assistance, for instance, which most do, is generally sent elsewhere. So, rather than a one-stop shop that can help a victim navigate the many systems with which she or he must interact, domestic violence shelters often simply make referrals, leaving the already traumatized person to fend for themselves.  All this while–I have personally witnessed–grant monies are being spent on non-essential items, like fancy office furniture, because the funding source allowed it.

Another issue is that this bureaucratization has led to a more professionalized work service. While in some ways that may be beneficial, as shelter staff may be more educated about the issue, it has also resulted in a more cold and clinical approach to a problem that requires a supportive and flexible response. Staff at many non-profit agencies are overwhelmed, often juggling fundraising, completing paperwork required for funders, and still trying to assist victims. Victims often complain that shelters feel like prisons and that they must beg for any personalized assistance. When they get it, many say they are treated as though they are a burden.

It is my contention that the current shelter model is failing to meet the needs of victims and is antithetical to the type of radical social change needed to end domestic violence. An alternate model, I suggest, would be more individualized, for instance, housing victims in hotels if needed during crises but then finding and helping pay for safe housing of the victim’s choice. During this time, advocates can work with victims to help them with all other required resources, from medical to legal, educational to economic.

I have worked with an organization that uses this model, and rather than feeling isolated and unwanted, victims feel safe, welcomed, and supported. I invite others to learn about the work of No More Tears (www.nmtproject.org) in South Florida to see if perhaps this model can be implemented elsewhere as an alternative to the traditional shelter.

Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology.

Laura Finley, Ph.D., teaches in the Barry University Department of Sociology & Criminology and is syndicated by PeaceVoice.

Weekend Edition
February 12-14, 2016
Andrew Levine
What Next in the War on Clintonism?
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Comedy of Terrors: When in Doubt, Bomb Syria
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb
Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy
Paul Street
When Plan A Meets Plan B: Talking Politics and Revolution with the Green Party’s Jill Stein
Rob Urie
The (Political) Season of Our Discontent
Pepe Escobar
It Takes a Greek to Save Europa
Gerald Sussman
Why Hillary Clinton Spells Democratic Party Defeat
Carol Norris
What Do Hillary’s Women Want? A Psychologist on the Clinton Campaign’s Women’s Club Strategy
Robert Fantina
The U.S. Election: Any Good News for Palestine?
Linda Pentz Gunter
Radioactive Handouts: the Nuclear Subsidies Buried Inside Obama’s “Clean” Energy Budget
Michael Welton
Lenin, Putin and Me
Manuel García, Jr.
Fire in the Hole: Bernie and the Cracks in the Neo-Liberal Lid
Thomas Stephens
The Flint River Lead Poisoning Catastrophe in Historical Perspective
David Rosen
When Trump Confronted a Transgender Beauty
Will Parrish
Cap and Clear-Cut
Victor Grossman
Coming Cutthroats and Parting Pirates
Ben Terrall
Raw Deals: Challenging the Sharing Economy
David Yearsley
Beyoncé’s Super Bowl Formation: Form-Fitting Uniforms of Revolution and Commerce
David Mattson
Divvying Up the Dead: Grizzly Bears in a Post-ESA World
Matthew Stevenson
Confessions of a Primary Insider
Jeff Mackler
Friedrichs v. U.S. Public Employee Unions
Franklin Lamb
Notes From Tehran: Trump, the Iranian Elections and the End of Sanctions
Pete Dolack
More Unemployment and Less Security
Christopher Brauchli
The Cruzifiction of Michael Wayne Haley
Bill Quigley
Law on the Margins: a Profile of Social Justice Lawyer Chaumtoli Huq
Uri Avnery
A Lady With a Smile
Katja Kipping
The Opposite of Transparency: What I Didn’t Read in the TIPP Reading Room
B. R. Gowani
Hellish Woman: ISIS’s Granny Endorses Hillary
Kent Paterson
The Futures of Whales and Humans in Mexico
Michael Howard
Hollywood’s Grotesque Animal Abuse
James Heddle
Why the Current Nuclear Showdown in California Should Matter to You
Steven Gorelick
Branding Tradition: a Bittersweet Tale of Capitalism at Work
Nozomi Hayase
Assange’s UN Victory and Redemption of the West
Patrick Bond
World Bank Punches South Africa’s Poor, by Ignoring the Rich
Mel Gurtov
Is US-Russia Engagement Still Possible?
Dan Bacher
Governor Jerry Brown Receives Cold, Dead Fish Award Four Years In A Row
Wolfgang Lieberknecht
Fighting and Protecting Refugees
Jennifer Matsui
Doglegs, An Unforgettable Film
Soud Sharabani
Israeli Myths: An Interview with Ramzy Baroud
Terry Simons
Bernie? Why Not?
Missy Comley Beattie
When Thoughtful People Think Illogically
Christy Rodgers
Everywhere is War: Luke Mogelson’s These Heroic, Happy Dead: Stories
Ron Jacobs
Springsteen: Rockin’ the House in Albany, NY
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“The Martian”: This Heroism is for Chinese Viewers Too
Charles R. Larson
No Brainers: When Hitler Took Cocaine and Lenin Lost His Brain
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail