Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence in South Florida:
Pushing the Envelope Further
This was originally written in Fall 2018.
As of 2012, the United States is the only developed nation in the world that has not ratified The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). CEDAW, often called “the international bill of rights for women,” is a treaty adopted by the United Nations in 1979. The fact that the United States is one of six countries that has not yet ratified the treaty was initially shocking to me. What does this say about the prioritization of women’s issues and their safety? Fortunately, cities like San Francisco, Tampa, and New Orleans became part of a movement to implement the principles of CEDAW locally. In September 2015, Miami-Dade County became the first county in the United States to pass a CEDAW ordinance. Women’s safety is of top priority in Miami-Dade County’s local implementation of CEDAW. In the County Commission for Women’s list of recommendations for CEDAW in the Status of Women In Miami-Dade Women (2016), the words “domestic violence” appear exactly 100 times! Over 45% of the data-driven recommendations by the County Commission for Women were on the topics of health and safety. However, much of the research that informs the domestic violence interventions is descriptive. I am certain you have seen it in eye-catching infographics: statistics about prevalence and the demographics most affected. This data is hardly ever strengths-based, but rather from a deficit model. While statistics about prevalence and who is affected by any form of violence are important, it does not give “the bigger picture.” Also, research is often focused on intervention once intimate partner violence has occurred and just recently on the ecological factors that contribute to the issues.
This literature review consists primarily of peer-reviewed literature from the last three decades on domestic violence. It also includes digital media from relevant conferences from the last few years. I will emphasize the lack of sufficient knowledge on assessing domestic violence as systemic issues and as a public health problem in South Florida. Despite expanding protections of the Violence Against Women Act (2013) there is also a gap in data, including the intersection of survivors’ identities such as queer and/or immigrant. There are some small victories, such as an increase in the literature that included unmarried women in their definitions of domestic violence. The purpose of this paper is to support the needs of the Miami-Dade Domestic Oversight Board as they shift from solely direct services to complementing their work by including preventive practices. In order to deal with root causes of domestic violence and move forward from placing responsibility on victims and survivors, they must include men in the process. In recent years the research has finally started to shift by assessing practitioners who include perpetrators in their prevention efforts. Most research is often focused on intervention centering it as solely a women’s issue. Most recently, there has been an increase of literature raising the issue of the interacting systemic and societal factors that contribute to domestic violence and intimate partner violence.
Definitions
The definition of domestic violence I will be using throughout is the same one defined by Dr. Caroline Bettinger-Lopez of University of Miami Law’s Human Rights Clinic. Below, is the excerpt directly from Law Enforcement Response to Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault: A Survey for Advocates, Service Providers and Community Stakeholders in Miami-Dade County, of which Dr. Bettinger Lopez is the Principal Investigator:
The term domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence, describes physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former partner or spouse. This type of violence can occur among heterosexual or same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy.
Note that the description clearly includes “partner or spouse” indicating that it is not limited to couples bound by marriage. Equally important, I chose this definition because of how comprehensive and inclusive, and intersectional it is. I will go into more detail on that later. I also chose it because the survey clearly pertained to South Florida service providers and stakeholders and was provided to me by Elizabeth Regalado of the Miami-Dade County Domestic Violence Oversight Board (DVOB); it is a suitable fit. This keeps definitions as close to the unique context of Miami as much as possible.
Literature Review
Just 14 years ago, a college was only reaching out to female students in their campus-wide efforts to reduce violence against women (Berns, 2004). Berns observed the biases of the justice system and claims that those biases end up serving in favor of perpetrators and men. In the last decade, national efforts have gradually shifted away from victim-blaming and framing it as just a women’s issue. Service providers and stakeholders have come a long way but there is still much left to learn and do. In essence, I seek to push the envelope further to provide information to the DV board about successful, new intervention and prevention programs that challenge the status quo. For decades, the literature has reflected the privilege of men, now it is time to challenge gender norms and include them in the process. As in the example of the aforementioned college, excluding men in the school’s efforts to raise awareness about sexual violence assumes two things: one that a man could never be a victim and that men are not responsible or to be held accountable for any sort of intervention or prevention effort. Furthermore, for systemic change, that would evidently mean examining all the various systems that survivors of domestic violence (in all forms: physical, sexual, financial) navigate through. This includes law enforcement, child protection agencies, homeless and domestic violence shelters, medical personnel specializing in these cases, the county court system, mental health service providers, and more.
Where are the men?
Approximately 85% of domestic violence perpetrators identify as cis men. Are men inherently more violent and more likely to sexually or financially abuse their partners? Perhaps not. Men are socialized differently than women. In his most famous speech, Tony Porter (2010) makes a call to men, and it is loud and clear: “break free of the Man Box.” Porter refers to societal and psychological constructs that mold men to behave in specific ways such as the suppression of emotion (commonly illustrated by the saying in Miami: “Los niños no lloran” which translates to “Boys don’t cry”) and the objectification of women. As founder of The National Association of Men and Women Committed to Ending Violence Against Women, he is part of a movement that makes it a point to talk to men and boys and frame domestic violence and sexual violence in a way that does not just make it a women’s issue. Men are accountable for perpetuating violence.
Truth is, the work that Porter and his organization have been doing for the last few years is seems like exactly what is needed. The research of Rachel Jewkes, Michael Flood, and James Lang (2014) identifies the same claim as this literature review, that in the past the approaches only focused on interventions with women but are now starting to seek to transform the systems and norms that sustain gender inequality and gender-based violence. Porter makes the claim that language used in parenting plays a huge role in our gender norms and how boys learn to perceive girls and women.
Jackson Katz (2012) also argues that it is indeed a men’s issue. Katz claims that for a long time men were erased from the conversation, and that this is how dominant groups (in this case, men) have been historically able to bypass accountability and the necessary introspection. He takes it further and examines the institutions that contribute to influencing abusive behavior in men to a disproportionate degree. Boys are not only socialized in the home. He looks at the intersections of economics, sports and toxic masculinity, and how they skew their perspective of women. Katz finds the goal to social change is to “get men who are not abusive to challenge men who are.” In other words, in order to first perforate male culture, it takes men and especially men who are admired and have power to first lead the way to change. The route to change is via paradigm shifts starting from leadership training as part of sports and military institutions. Both Katz and Porter blame the bystander effect and collective, complicit silence of men as a big factor to domestic violence. Language plays a role, especially in sports, where “throwing like a girl” or running like one is considered an insult to young boys. The programs of Mentors in Violence in sports teams and schools, which include critical reflection on gender norms, are recognized examples that call for the intervention of men with other men whom are acting aggressive (Jewkes, Flood & Lang, 2015). This is exactly the type of programs Katz alludes to in order to facilitate macro-level, systemic change.
Research discusses how men learn how to treat women (Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986), but it is imperative to remember that domestic violence also includes same-sex couples. There just is not enough research on the LGBT community and the details of how domestic violence manifests in the intimate relationships of the community. Moreover, national studies show that 1 in 9 men experience severe intimate partner physical violence, intimate partner contact sexual violence, and/or intimate partner stalking with physical impacts such as injury and psychological such as post-traumatic stress disorder (CDC, 2016). Men who have been victims of violence (not limited to domestic violence or intimate partner) are more likely to commit intimate partner violence (IPV) or rape (Jewkes, Flood & Lang, 2015; Jewkes, Roselli & García-Moreno, 2013). It is difficult to determine exactly what percentage of DV and IPV victims/survivors identify as male. One can only imagine the stigma that acts as a barrier preventing men from reporting or at least speaking up about being victims of IPV.
It takes a community
Coker (2015) critiques in a historical context how hyper-incarceration actually fueled domestic violence. Starting in the 1970s, criminalization of domestic violence was meant to heighten the seriousness of the problem. Now, it is more evident that the solutions to this social problem is not just in the hands of law enforcement. It takes a whole community of service providers. In November 2018, I visited CVAC. CVAC is Miami-Dade’s Coordinated Victims Assistance Center. It is known county-wide as the “one-stop” place for victims to receive services. I asked if there were resources for sons and daughters of survivors. The response was that there currently was none for their children. This relates to DV and IPV prevention because it appears that experiencing violence during childhood and/or adolescence is highly predictive of IPV in young adulthood (Gomez, 2010). There was also a positive correlation between growing up in single-father homes and higher odds of a son perpetrating violence in comparison to those who lived with both biological parents (Harris, Cavanagh, & Elder, 2000). Although it is possible that living with single fathers may reflect aggression (Gomez, 2010), it’s important to consider that it could also be another variable as well: less supervision and parental monitoring when there is not a mother present. Offering support for sons and daughters who have grown up in violent homes is an integral part of preventing further violence in future generations.
The research supporting a form of what I call “transgenerational trauma” dates back a very long time. As early as 1986, researchers, Hotaling & Sugarman, found that young boys who witness violence in their homes are more likely to beat up their girlfriends (again, the hetero-normativity of the previous research is noticeable). There are trauma-centered approaches to prevention and intervention of IPV (Taft, Murphy & Creech, 2016). Trauma-informed approaches are not necessarily in working with victims, and it must be a part of working with perpetrators as well. Traumatic experiences and exposure to abuse during childhood can contribute to aggressive and problematic behavior later on in life — that’s an acknowledged fact (Dodge, Godwin, & The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 2013; Taft, Murphy & Creech, 2016). However, there is a lack of integration of this knowledge into practice.
Consequently, preventing more and more human bodies from being battered and assaulted, and the detrimental psychological effects of IPV does not exclude the continued delivery of direct services. On the contrary, systemic change and direct social services must complement one another. Violence prevention cannot be successful without the continuation of services for survivors (Jewkes, Flood & Lang, 2015) coupled with institutions demonstrating that they value women and girls. For this reason, I recommend that the networks of services must also include service providers of all disciplines and for all of those involved: perpetrators, victims/survivors, children who have witnessed the abuse, and even family members of the abused.
There is no single factor that contributes to intimate partner violence and all forms of domestic violence. Heise (1998) frames her examination of violence against women using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (1979) to observe factors at various levels. She includes individual factors, situational factors, and sociocultural factors. Some of the social factors identified are: unemployment, low socioeconomic status, social isolation, and delinquent peer associations. As Coker (1999a) reiterated Schneider’s work in her DV research: “[battered women’s problems] are rarely linked to women’s subservient position within society and the family structure.” Coker is a recognized legal expert on intimate partner violence (IPV) and currently teaches at University of Miami. In her research on the systemic nature of abuse, the systemic gender imbalances she refers to include: sex discrimination in the workplace, economic discrimination (the persistence of the gender pay gap is an example), lack of childcare, little access to divorce, the issues that accompany single motherhood, and a lack of educational and community support. I would claim that her finding in Enhancing Autonomy, though seemingly worlds ahead compared to other literature from the 1990s, is in ways similar to the “empowerment model” that the Miami-Dade County government refers to in the context of its DV programs. What is common in both is the sense of noninterference. Our county aims to provide support without interfering with a woman's decision-making.
How might Miami-Dade County address domestic violence in its communities differently?
Local governments may contribute to the safety of our homes from their very own community jurisdictions. I also examined data from other large cities in the United States. A study in Chicago that expanded on social disorganization theory (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997) looked at the community factors that influence the lack of cohesiveness. In conclusion, Sampson et al. find certain community characteristics for affect the formation of lasting relationships and community attachment. Two of the community factors that stood out are poverty and residential instability. It appears that bringing the diverse populations to connect better and find commonalities would also help with violence in the long run. I argue that county-wide projects to bring communities together is a sociocultural manner of addressing violence. In a county with immigrants from all over the world, finding common goals is beneficial to develop neighborhood cohesiveness and reduce violence.
Women lower in socioeconomic status are more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence (Weaver et al., 2009). In fact, in some definitions, financial abuse is considered a form of domestic violence. Considering that Miami is already one of the metropolitan cities with the lowest wages, addressing the gender gap in the community is critical. In Miami-Dade, 20.5% of women live in poverty (Anderson & Hess, 2016). As recommended in 2016, by the County Commission for Women, encouraging the city governments to follow suit in the County’s audit of employee wages is a step in the right direction. The city of Miami alone has at least 4,000 employees. Equitable pay for women in city and county government can serve as a proverbial low branch to continue the movement since the county cannot control the private sector. As alluded to earlier, in Coker’s research on the systemic factors demonstrated, there are links to DV and the systemic discrimination against women. The idea is to encourage the public sector to value the work of women and also lift women in Miami-Dade out of poverty.
In 2004, the DVOB hired the Thurston Group to conduct a three-year review of the County’s domestic violence shelters. Part of its review included a workshop with DVOB members. which identified the recommendations listed below. I fully recommend the implementation of the following:
1. Increase the visibility of the DVOB before the [Board of County Commissioners] BCC
2. Advocate for legislation to protect and increase funding for domestic violence services, and position the DVOB to diversify its funding sources over time
3. Shift the DVOB focus to systems change and bring domestic violence issues into the political spotlight
4. Strengthen the network of DVOB service providers
5. Build the capacity of the DVOB membership
On the county website, there is very little information on the Domestic Violence Oversight Board. When I visited CVAC, the pamphlets were outdated. These need to be updated as soon as possible and should be tri-lingual. In South Dade, especially, materials need to have Spanish translations. In North Dade Haitian creole accommodates to the needs of the immigrant communities in those regions of the county.
The fourth recommendation is also paramount. As our county endorses CVAC as a “one stop” center, it must do its due diligence to thoughtfully broaden the list of local organizations that provide services to all parties involved in a domestic violence situation. As discussed in the “three-planet model” clients/victims/survivors exist in live in various contexts and multidisciplinary practices make timely access to solutions much easier (2011).
Methodological critique
One of the most common methodological issues in research on intimate partner violence is the lack of common language. From one article to the next, words are used interchangeably. Victim or abused partner used to be the only terms used to describe the person who experienced the violence. As early as the 1990s, the construct of survivor replaced victim in certain disciplines. Depending on the context, the same or similar subjects might be defined as domestic violence, gender-based violence, family violence, or intimate partner violence.
In From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations, the authors call out Katz’s recommendations for bystander education for its “assumption that behavior change will follow” when decades of research show that there is a bidirectional relationship between attitudes and behavior (2014). Hewkes, Flood, and Lang also found that the interventions were not highly generalizable to the population of men because some men are in environments where violence is a social norm and in impoverished communities are at higher risk. Be critical of adopting intervention programs that boast impeccable results but do not have a fair amount of research supporting it. The “Duluth Model” makes high claims and even sells its trainings online, but there is a lot of research debunking the methods.
As of 2001, there have been research instruments to quantify not just the frequency of violence but also its nature, severity, and extent (World Health Organization, 2001). The benefit of anonymous surveys is that survivors can comfortably skip a question if it makes them uncomfortable or brings up previous trauma. Quantitative research allowed for larger sample sizes that were more generalizable. WHO used a wide, multi-country sample and then during analysis they removed the data from participants who had stated in the survey start they never experienced violence (Abramsky et al., 2011). However, the details and deep context is lost in a lot of the quantitative methods.
As expected, there are sampling limitations when conducting qualitative research. The methods of sampling also highlight the lack of intersectionally, meaning that it was an all-women sample and almost entirely heterosexual. More research needs to be completed on non- “mainstream” DV programs, as mentioned by Goodman et al (2015). When collecting qualitative data from vulnerable populations such as IPV survivors, researchers must be careful not to re-traumatize their participants. Immigrants and LGBT+ survivors may not feel safe or comfortable sharing their histories with researchers. More importantly, qualitative data can be used to more ethically represent these already marginalized groups. I recommend moving beyond a deficit model when sharing findings.
To ease data collection of national research, such as those by the Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV), national data tends to be descriptive and quantitative via surveys. Marianne Hester, head of the Centre for Gender and Violence Research, makes the distinction that methodology of domestic violence research is contingent on gender (2011). The evolution of DV research is influenced by DV’s inevitable ties to gender inequality. Williamson and Hester (2008) used case studies and interviews to highlight the significant gaps between service providers. In one case study, she interviewed a mother who explained that child services misinterpreted her calls to police whenever the ex-partner trespassed their home. Child services misinterpreted the mother’s calls for help as “proof that she was failing to protect” her children. By using interviews, the interviewers were able to effectively exhibit the disconnection between law enforcement and child protection services. This supported their thesis as they explored the systemic contradictions that were, at times, further compounded by gender inequalities.
Similarly, in Necessary Third Parties, Jeff Baker uses case studies as well coupled with hypothetical scenarios based on actual, common experiences at a Law Clinic to demonstrate the need for service providers, counselors, and attorneys to collaborate in order to not re-traumatize their clients (2011). Baker describes the delicate dance of not compromising confidentiality but still using multidisciplinary approaches when gathering information about clients. In order to give rich detail, this type of storytelling gets the message across in a way that is clear. Upon reading the case study of Katrina, readers understand that if a survivor just fled, she or he or they are in crisis, and having to constantly recount the gruesome details exacerbates the trauma. The challenge with collecting qualitative data directly from vulnerable populations such as DV victims is in sampling. Participation must always be voluntary, and never a prerequisite for services.
Qualitative data can be expensive to collect and more time-consuming than collecting a service provider’s quantitative “staff data.” One needs to consider that the safety of survivors is of utmost priority. No researcher should ever endanger a survivor of any kind for the sake of publishing (Sullivan & Alexy, 2001). Research with vulnerable populations such as DV survivors is only ethically possible with: the consent of victims/survivors, with a thorough explanation of what the information would be used for, and omission of any identifying details that could harm their lives or legal proceedings. These are human lives at stake, and our aim should always be to support them and elevate their voices in the name of a greater good. In addition, phone interviews should be used very sparingly since it could put her in danger with a controlling partner.
This includes all voices. No survivor is more valuable than the next. Immigrant women, native women, and women who identify as queer: they all need to share their stories as well. I understand — it gets complicated. The world does not have exactly the most positive track record of accepting and valuing immigrants. Immigrant victims are less likely to have the social support needed to heal. With that said, the immigrant community needs to be approached in a culturally-relative manner and only after building trust with them. The current climate is one of fear; researchers must never pressure anyone to share their stories.
It is human nature to have preconceived notions and intrinsic values, but one must never place judgment on survivors for staying with their partners. Very recent trends in policy and practice reflect this level of understanding by providing services for women who decline shelter beds and choose to stay. An example is Miami-Dade County, which now provides safety plans for DV victims who decide not to leave their partners. Similarly, indicators of “success” during Miami-Dade County’s evaluation process are set by the survivors themselves. This sense of shared-authorship is beneficial to the women who had felt a loss of control. Sullivan and Alexy also recommend using feedback from survivors when constructing questions.
Due to the lack of literature covering same-sex couples, I was forced to discuss mainly “mainstream” couples in which a man is typically (but not always) perpetrator and a woman is the victim/survivor. There is not much literature yet detailing the nuances of intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships. Moreover, members may not report to avoid the risk of “outing” themselves if they are not open about their identities.
Underreporting is, I would argue, one of the biggest flaws in relying upon what researchers call “staff reporting” or “staff data.” Therefore I recommend that, when possible, collect some data from survivors directly. I also recommend expanding outreach to not just domestic violence shelters but other support groups. For instance, group meetings in places of worship. Researchers and practitioners can connect to client-centered immigrant rights’ organizations. Mixed-methods design is ideal as long as data collectors do not ask for more information than is needed (Sullivan & Alexy, 2001). It allows the opportunity to widen sample size but also get the contextual details that may be needed when studying specific intersections.
Conclusion
The safety and mental health of survivors are of utmost priority in domestic violence prevention, intervention, and evaluation. Research and evaluation have made strides in understanding domestic violence as a societal and public health problem. Nonetheless, the research on evaluating programs that claim to address DV as a systemic issue has not caught up yet. There is still a significant need for research that studies survivors at various intersections such as age, sexual orientation, and immigration status. No two women experience abuse in the same way. To arrive at sustainable solutions, communities — just need to push the envelope further.
References
Abramsky, W. et al. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. 11, 109.
Aliverti, A. (2005). Researching Gender Violence: Feminist Methodology in Action. Edited by Tina Skinner, Marianne Hester and Ellen Malos. Devon: Willan Publishing. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 983–986.
Baker, J. (2011). Necessary Third parties: Multidisciplinary Collaboration and Inadequate Professional Privileges in Domestic Violence Practice. Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law, 21(1), 283–356.
Benson, M.L., Fox, G.L., DeMaris, A., & Van Wyk, J. (2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 207–235.
Berns, N. (2004). Framing the victim: Domestic violence, media, and social problems (First ed., Social problems and social issues). Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter.
Browne, A. (1998). Recognizing the strengths of battered women. In E. W. Gondolf Assessing woman battering in mental health services (pp. 95–110). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781483328188.n5
Coker, D. (1999a). Enhancing autonomy for battered women : Lessons from Navajo peacemaking. Los Angeles, CA : University of California.
Coker, D. (1999b). Shifting power for battered women: Law, material resources, and poor women of color. UC Davis l. rev., 33, 1009.
Dutton, D. (2011). Rethinking Domestic Violence. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Golmohammadian, Z. (2016). Essays on Women Empowerment Focusing on Paid Family Leave and Domestic Violence. 78.
Goodman, et al. (2015). Advancing Domestic Violence Program Evaluation: Development and Validation of the Measure of Victim Empowerment Related to Safety (MOVERS). Psychology of Violence, 5(4), 355–366.
Hester, M. (2011). The Three Planet Model: Towards an Understanding of Contradictions in Approaches to Women and Children’s Safety in Contexts of Domestic Violence. British Journal of Social Work, 41(5), 837–853. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr095
Jewkes, R., Flood, M., & Lang, J. (2015). From work with men and boys to changes of social norms and reduction of inequities in gender relations: A conceptual shift in prevention of violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9977), 1580–1589.
Katz, J. (Speaker). (2012, November). Violence Against Women — it’s a Men’s Issue. EDxFiDiWomen. Video retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jackson_katz_violence_against_women_it_s_a_men_s_issue?language=en
Miami-Dade County Office of Management and Budget. (2018) A Review of Miami-Dade County’s Domestic Violence Programs.
Porter, T. (Speaker). (2010, December) A call to men. TedWomen 2010. Video retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men
Sullivan, C. & Alexy, C. (2001). Evaluating the Outcomes of Domestic Violence Service Programs: Some Practical Considerations and Strategies.
Taft, C., Murphy, C. & Creech, S. (2016). Trauma-informed treatment and prevention of intimate partner violence. 3–12.