VAWA Questions and Answers YWCA Capitol Hill Day 2012

VAWA Questions and Answers YWCA Capitol Hill Day 2012 Signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a landmark law which aims to prevent and end violence against women and girls. VAWA was reauthorized in 2000 and again in 2005. VAWA is up for reauthorization this year. The Senate bill to reauthorize VAWA is S.1925. The questions and answers below will help advocates become more familiar with VAWA reauthorization and answer possible questions regarding the bill. Question: Why does the YWCA support the Violence Against Women Act? Ending violence against women is one of the YWCAs seven policy priorities chosen by local YWCAs as our focus. The issue of violence against women and girls relates to the YWCA mission of eliminating racism, empowering women and promoting peace, justice, freedom and dignity for all. One in four women will experience domestic violence and, on average, more than three women are murdered by their partners in the United States every day. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 1.3 million women reported being raped or sexually assaulted in 2009. VAWA also relates to our programs at the local level. The YWCA is the largest provider of battered women s shelters and services in the United States. In addition, YWCAs operate domestic violence, dating violence and sexual assault prevention, intervention and recovery programs. Survivors of violence are also helped by YWCA housing, economic empowerment, youth development, and child care programs. Violence against women and girls directly affects the clients, staff, directors and board of the YWCA because women who have been victimized are not only served by us but work for us to carry out our mission. Advocating for the reauthorization of VAWA gives the YWCA credibility, respect and visibility locally/nationally, because we address ending violence against women from both from a programmatic and advocacy standpoint. We also lend an alternative perspective that other organizations do not present as a direct service provider. We are a national, grassroots, bipartisan organization that reaches countless women survivors across this country. Question: What is the status of the Violence Against Women Act (S.1925) bill in the Senate? On the Senate side, Senate Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator Crapo (R-ID) introduced S. 1925, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize VAWA in the 112th Congress. The bill now has a total of 61 co-sponsors, a majority of United States Senators. On February 2, 2012 the Senate Judiciary Committee passed VAWA out of the committee on a party line vote of 10-8, with all Republicans on the committee voting against the bill. Republicans on the committee expressed concern with S.1925 s inclusion of provisions to protect Native American women, immigrants and the LGBT 2025 M St., N.W., Ste. 550 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 467-0801 phone (202) 467-0802 fax www.ywca.org

community. Since the bill has passed out of committee, the next step for the bill is to be voted on by the entire Senate. We expect the Senate to vote on S. 1925 in late April. Question: What is the status of the Violence Against Women Act in the House? We expect a bill similar to S.1925 to be introduced in the House in the coming months. Question: What are some of the most common arguments against the Violence against Women Act S.1925 from certain members of Congress? When S.1925 was being debated in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republicans on the committee expressed concern with S.1925 s inclusion of provisions to protect Native American women, immigrants, and the LGBT community. Republican members of the Senate continue to express concerns on these provisions. Advocates can expect that Republican members of the House may also share some of these concerns. The answers below can be used with both Senate and House offices. Question: If these provisions are controversial, why are they in the VAWA reauthorization bill? One of the main strengths of VAWA is that it has historically taken into account the unique needs of victims, thus making victims services client tailored. For example, victims in rural communities have different needs from those who live in a large city. Likewise, the needs of young women ages 14-19 who are victims of dating violence will likely be different from the needs of women with children who are escaping domestic violence at home. VAWA has recognized this and addresses victims needs accordingly. The legislation to reauthorize VAWA, S.1925, builds on this history by addressing the unique needs of victims who are immigrants, LGBT, and Native American. In fact, these provisions came out of extensive dialogue among direct service providers and advocates for survivors of violence. Over two years ago, more than 2,000 advocates from local programs, state and federal grant administrators and national resource centers were asked to name the most pressing issues facing victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. 22 issue committees were convened to work through the responses and prioritize the most important issues for victims from all walks of life including: 1. Lack of services available to LGBTQ victims; 2. Barriers to services for undocumented victims; and 3. Continuing high levels of violence against Native American and Native Alaskan women. Question: What is the YWCA s position on these provisions? The YWCA is a service provider that serves every woman and supports the passage of S.1925 as it currently is, including critical language that provides key provisions to protect underserved communities, such as: Native women, immigrants, and the LGBT community. VAWA has historically addressed the unique needs of victims and S.1925 is no different. Furthermore, as a provider of services to prevent and end violence against all women, the YWCA recognizes that different victims have different needs and experiences and services must be culturally competent and available for all victims. There cannot be a one-size fits all approach to preventing and ending violence against women. 2

Question: Why are the provisions in S.1925 that help women of color and LGBT individuals generating opposition? As an organization that has a long history of fighting for the rights of people of color and LGBT individuals, we recognize that provisions in S.1925 that help women of color including Native American women and immigrant women, or survivors who are LGBT might be controversial for some people, similarly to how hate crimes legislation has been opposed in the past. Specifically, opponents of hate crimes and racial justice legislation argue that all crimes should be treated the same regardless of motive and that special legislation is not needed to address crimes that are motivated by a victim s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. Under similar thinking, it might be logical to argue that there does not need to be specific VAWA programs for specific populations. Advocates should point out how VAWA has historically recognized the unique needs of survivors of violence and that a one-size fits all approach to preventing and ending violence against women and girls will not work. Question: What are the specific concerns around the immigrant women provisions and how do I respond to them? There is concern that the bill (S.1925) increases the number of visas for immigrant women who are victims of violence by 5,000 visas. This is in fact not true, as the additional visas are in fact recaptured from previous years. For the reauthorization of VAWA in 2000, advocates and law makers agreed that immigrant victims of violence faced additional barriers to seeking assistance. There were an overwhelming number of cases that went unreported in immigrant communities due to: fear of deportation, limited English proficiency, a lack of understanding of laws that protect them, visa dependency status on a spouse, and a lack of awareness on how to navigate the legal system. For these reasons, U-visas were created to provide special protections for immigrant and undocumented victims of violence. If a victim cooperated with law enforcement on the prosecution of their perpetrator, she was now eligible to apply for a U-visa, which would allow her to remain in the country and not depend on her spouse or partner to sponsor her. Although first laid out in 2000, the process to apply for U-visas was not clearly outlined until 2007, leaving thousands of visa allotments set aside for victims of crime unused. S.1925 asks for a recapturing of these visas not an increase in visas. The Grassley amendment is an unfriendly amendment targeting immigrant communities. It has no place in VAWA, and should be removed. The Grassley amendment penalizes immigrants by penalizing them with automatic deportation should they accrue 3 DUI and aggravated assault offenses. Advocates of VAWA argue that this has no place in VAWA, which is a bill that specifically addresses the needs of victims of violence. Furthermore, advocates recognize that this may negatively impact immigrant victims of violence by keeping them from reporting their abusers to the police. Due to the economic downturn, many families including immigrant families are faced with harsh economic realities that force them to depend on dual incomes to support their families. With the addition of the Grassley amendment, immigrant women will likely endure violence for the sake of keeping her family safe and financially stable rather than fear deportation of her spouse/partner and suffer financial instability. Share stories of immigrant clients from your local association that are facing barriers in obtaining visas, are fearful of reporting their partners due to fear of deportation or loss of financial support, or other concerns. What are the specific concerns around the LGBT provisions and how do I respond to them? 3

S.1925 has been politicized because some people are opposed to extending services and programs to underserved communities such as the LGBT community. Advocates should point out that S.1925 actually only adds language to ensure that LGBT victims of crimes, just like all victims of violence, are able to receive assistance and services when reaching out to service providers. Advocates should also note that all women are apt to experience violence. For example, more than half of LGBT victims of domestic violence experience physical violence, and LGBT women account for the majority of domestic violence related murders in the LGBT community. It is critical to include language in the bill that ensures LGBT victims needs are met. If advocates get a question regarding the LGBT provisions, they should talk about how the YWCA strongly believes that all victims of crime should be able to access services and receive help. If you have a client who is LGBT and has faced barriers receiving assistance, we encourage you to share it. For more information on this issue, you can visit the VAWA reauthorization toolkit at: http://www.ywca.org/site/c.cuirj7ntkrlag/b.8032411/k.6ea8/ywca_capitol_hill_day.htm. What are the specific concerns around the Native American women provisions and how do I respond to them? There is concern that the bill (S.1925) has been politicized by extending services and programs to underserved communities such as the Native American community. Native women are 2.5 times more likely to be raped or battered than other women in the United States. Many argue that extending services to Native women conflicts with matters of jurisdiction between state and tribal areas. However, S.1925 only addresses the epidemic rate of violence that impacts Native communities. Currently, tribal governments have no authority over non-indians and have to rely on the Department of Justice to prosecute cases of domestic violence and sexual assault. However, according to a 2010 GAO report, 67 percent of cases referred to the U.S. Attorneys were declined for prosecution, leaving tribal communities severely vulnerable and unprotected. S.1925 includes clear language to enhance services and provide protections for Native women. If advocates get a question regarding the provisions, they should talk about how the YWCA strongly believes that all victims of crime should be able to access services and receive help. For more information on this issue, you can visit the VAWA reauthorization toolkit at http://www.ywca.org/site/c.cuirj7ntkrlag/b.8032411/k.6ea8/ywca_capitol_hill_day.htm. Question: Are there any additional concerns that members of Congress have? For example, will congressional offices tell me how important it is that tax payer money be spent wisely and questioning the need for VAWA funding? Yes, advocates should expect the two main arguments they will hear against VAWA reauthorization (S.1925) to be: 1) a concern about provisions helping specific populations of survivors and; 2) concerns about the high federal deficit and debt. 4

Question: Given members of Congress will be concerned about the deficit and debt, what provisions are in VAWA reauthorization (S. 1925) to ensure tax payer money is properly spent and accounted for? The bill (S.1925) reduces the amount of taxpayer money available for the VAWA programs by reducing the authorization levels for VAWA programs by 20%. The bill (S.1925) also consolidates overlapping and similar programs. The bill (S.1925) also contains: o more detailed reporting and evaluation requirements for all grantees; o increased regulatory compliance requirements for all grantees; o more detailed reporting requirements for the Department of Justice; o and requires the Department of Justice to publish grant awards, data analysis, and other reports online within a designated time frame. Advocates can also note that there are also accountability provisions already in VAWA. For more information please see the handout titled, Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Accountability Provisions. Question: If all Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted against S. 1925, what are they and other Republicans in favor of? What should advocates do to address this? Other versions of VAWA, including the substitute amendment offered by Senators Grassley and Cornyn on the Senate Judiciary Committee contain provisions that would: Remove the authority of the Office on Violence Against Women to oversee VAWA, which actually decreases accountability and increases cost and substantial reductions in authorization levels beyond the already 20% cut in S.1925. Reduce programs aimed at prevention of violence including: eliminating the Engaging Men Program that helps men and boys become anti-violence advocates; decreasing the age in the definition of youth from 24 to 20 thus taking away the ability of advocates to serve the population most at risk of dating violence; and reducing the ability of middle schools, high schools and colleges to do prevention education with young people. Reduce programs for women of color who are survivors of violence including: eliminating services and protections from violence for communities of color; eliminating protections from sexual and domestic violence for LGBTQ communities; making the U visa certification process more onerous for immigrant women who are victims of violence; and stripping provisions that improve the ability of tribal governments to hold offenders accountable. Advocates should expect that when VAWA comes to the floor of the Senate for a vote, harmful amendments that contain items listed above might be introduced or debated. To prevent Senators from supporting amendments with provisions listed above, advocates should reiterate: o The YWCA is a service provider that serves every woman and supports the passage of S.1925 as it currently is, including critical language that provides key provisions to protect underserved communities, such as Native American women, immigrants, and the LGBT community. o VAWA has historically addressed the unique needs of victims and S.1925 is no different. o We believe that the provisions in S.1925 ensure that VAWA reauthorization is done in a fiscally prudent manner. o We encourage all Senators to support passage of VAWA. 5

Question: What are the top three things advocates who want to see the VAWA reauthorization happen should know? Advocates must persuade members of Congress that VAWA has always been a bipartisan issue and new provisions focusing on specific populations of victims are not unique. Advocates who serve victims of violence should discuss the unique needs of immigrant women and LGBT victims they serve and how S.1925 provisions can help them. Advocates must persuade members of Congress that VAWA address the needs of crime victims in a fiscally responsible way. In this difficult fiscal climate, advocates should stress to members of Congress that VAWA has a successful track record at preventing and ending violence against women. If advocates can share a story of a client(s) that has been helped by VAWA funded programs and has moved on to self-sufficiency that would be helpful to illustrate these points. Know our legislative ask. VAWA has historically received bipartisan support since 1994 and we encourage Congress to continue this important tradition. The YWCA asks Congress to swiftly reauthorize VAWA without making the issue of women s health and safety into a highly politicized one. We strongly support S. 1925 as is currently drafted. 6