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.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
Ben Debney
The Swimsuit that Overthrew the State
Ashley Smith
Anti-imperialism and the Syrian Revolution
Andrew Stewart
Did Gore Throw the 2000 Election?
Vincent Navarro
Is the Nation State and Its Welfare State Dead? a Critique of Varoufakis
John Wight
Syria’s Kurds and the Wages of Treachery
Lawrence Davidson
The New Anti-Semitism: the Case of Joy Karega
Mateo Pimentel
The Affordable Care Act: A Litmus Test for American Capitalism?
Roger Annis
In Northern Syria, Turkey Opens New Front in its War Against the Kurds
David Swanson
ABC Shifts Blame from US Wars to Doctors Without Borders
Norman Pollack
American Exceptionalism: A Pernicious Doctrine
Ralph Nader
Readers Think, Thinkers Read
Julia Morris
The Mythologies of the Nauruan Refugee Nation
George Wuerthner
Caving to Ranchers: the Misguided Decision to Kill the Profanity Wolf Pack
Ann Garrison
Unworthy Victims: Houthis and Hutus
Julian Vigo
Britain’s Slavery Legacy
John Stanton
Brzezinski Vision for a Power Sharing World Stymied by Ignorant Americans Leaders, Citizens
Philip Doe
Colorado: 300 Days of Sunshine Annually, Yet There’s No Sunny Side of the Street
Joseph White
Homage to EP Thompson
Dan Bacher
The Big Corporate Money Behind Jerry Brown
Kollibri terre Sonnenblume
DNC Playing Dirty Tricks on WikiLeaks
Ron Jacobs
Education for Liberation
Jim Smith
Socialism Revived: In Spite of Bernie, Donald and Hillary
David Macaray
Organized Labor’s Inferiority Complex
David Cortright
Alternatives to Military Intervention in Syria
Binoy Kampmark
The Terrors of Free Speech: Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act
Cesar Chelala
Guantánamo’s Quagmire
Nyla Ali Khan
Hoping Against Hope in Kashmir
William Hughes
From Sam Spade to the Red Scare: Dashiell Hammett’s War Against Rightwing Creeps
Raouf Halaby
Dear Barack Obama, Please Keep it at 3 for 3
Charles R. Larson
Review: Paulina Chiziane’s “The First Wife: a Tale of Polygamy”
David Yearsley
The Widow Bach: Anna Magdalena Rediscovered
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail