The Critique: API Response to the Standardized Model of Domestic
Violence Intervention
Current established approaches towards resisting and responding
to domestic violence in the U.S. are the result of the long history
of struggle by courageous women, children and male allies. What
is now colloquially referred to as a "mainstream" model
are the assumptions and practices which have become institutionalized
over time.
API survivors, advocates and community members have been challenging
these established practices by insisting on "language accessible"
and "culturally competent" services and by developing approaches,
practices and institutions more accessible to and effective for
API communities.
Articulation of these "innovations" requires some reflection
upon a definition of the standardized model of domestic violence
intervention. What has the API experience been of existing options
for domestic violence survivors? What are some of the characteristics
of such approaches? Interviews with key informants yielded several
characteristics of established domestic violence interventions[7]. These characteristics
are as follows:
- The definition of domestic violence is limited to interpersonal
violence.
- The goal of intervention is to end domestic violence through
the survivor/victim leaving the relationship.
- The major intervention for a woman survivor/victim is
escape of abusive situation through shelter and shelter-related
services.
- The major intervention for an abuser is the criminal
legal system, i.e., police, restraining order, arrest, etc.
- The unit addressed in intervention is the individual,
woman, man.
- Keeping professional boundaries between the worker and
client/survivor is appropriate.
- Interventions are standardized to fit a homogeneous survivor
profile: disregarding race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation
and immigrant status; and not accounting for those with disabilities,
mental illness or substance abuse problems.
These key informants then shared their assessments of the effectiveness
of these interventions within the API community? What works? What
are the limitations of these approaches?
Characteristic 1: Interpersonal Definition of Domestic Violence
The definition of domestic violence is limited to interpersonal
violence.
Many respondents view the very definition of domestic violence
and the conceptual models describing the dynamics of domestic violence
as characteristics of a mainstream model of domestic violence intervention.
Definitions of domestic violence focusing on a 2-person intimate
relationship, familiar conceptual models such as the "power
and control wheel" and the "cycle of violence" present
limited conceptual frameworks for the complexities of domestic violence
in API communities.
The kind of violence experienced by API women is
different. We can't respond to abuse if we don't know what kind
of abuse she's facing. For example, if the ex-wife is holding
down the new wife while the husband slits her throat, do our interventions
address this situation? (Director, ethnic-specific agency)[8]
The mainstream model is focused on interpersonal
violence. I distinguish that from organizations who think of
the problem as larger - who think within a social justice framework.
(Director, pan-Asian shelter)
What [batterer programs] teach is the domestic
violence model which I think is very western. Hmong men who truly
believe it's his right to discipline his wife can't look at that
[power and control wheel] model and say, "Okay. I'm withholding
money from her." He believes that that's his right. (Advocate,
ethnic-specific agency)
The mainstream model isn't even effective for the
mainstream. (Program Coordinator, pan-Asian shelter)
Characteristic 2: Leaving as an Intervention Goal
The goal of intervention is to end domestic violence through
the survivor/victim leaving the relationship.
What respondents view as the established goal of leaving the relationship
evoked a variety of responses. Some focused on the alienating impact
this has on API women seeking support.
I recently got a call from a family friend who
called a shelter. She had been told that she needed to leave,
and other than that, there weren't any other options for her.
(Program Coordinator, pan-Asian shelter)
I think that for most of the people we work with,
their goal is to end the violence and not the relationship. The
goal of the mainstream, the survivor leaving the relationship,
has really alienated a lot of Asian women, even if they speak
English, from seeking services in mainstream organizations. (Advocate,
pan-Asian shelter)
If we had approached cases through the lens that
the goal was to get the woman to leave, not only would we be putting
women in danger because we'd be pushing them to make decisions
that they wouldn't do, but we would have totally lost our clients.
(Advocate, pan-Asian agency)
Almost all interviewees stressed the particular difficulties of
leaving the relationship among women in the API community. For
immigrant women, leaving the relationship often means leaving the
community which is a source of identity, familiarity, and resources.
A really big difference between the mainstream
and the immigrant spaces was that the mainstream shelter really
minimized what it meant for the woman to leave her community.
We just acted like, "You can always pick up and move to the
next town or a few towns over or another state." But it was
very clear when we were working in immigrant and refugee communities
that leaving a community was as hard as leaving home and that
the people around you are at times as important as your family.
(Advocate, pan-Asian agency)
Others seriously questioned the benefits of leaving for some survivors
and were concerned about the implications for programs that uniformly
favor this as an option.
Something what I struggle with is that...we take
the women from abusive homes. We put them into housing projects
where their children are being abused in the buses and in their
neighborhoods. And they are in this cycle of poverty. Isn't
that also abusive? So we're exchanging one type of abuse for
another type of abuse. (Advocate, pan-Asian shelter)
It's not necessarily clear cut that someone really
has to leave or wants to leave. There are a lot of financial
considerations and lifetime considerations and her own implications
of her life. It's either you leave or "Adios, you're not
our problem." And why should someone necessarily leave?
Maybe she has to give up too much to leave. Maybe it would be
easier for us if she left. But for her, her life - and I think
more people stay anyway - what are we doing for her? Because
you don't leave, "You're not brave? You're not smart enough?
You're not resourceful enough?" What message are we telling
them? (Attorney, pan-Asian agency)
Characteristic 3: Shelter as the Major Intervention for Survivors
The major intervention for a woman survivor/victim
is escaping an abusive situation through shelter and shelter-related
services.
There was some ambivalence over the value of shelters for API women.
Many saw shelters as limited for API women not only because of a
lack of language access or cultural competency, but also because
of their cultural assumptions, for example, such as pressures to
get a restraining order or to follow steps to independence.
I recently visited [a Hmong program in] California,
and while I was visiting, a woman had come into the office saying
that her husband had beat her and she didn't know what to do.
They asked her if she had gone to shelter. She said, "Yes."
But she didn't want to go there because they would just ask her
if she wants a protective order and things like that. She didn't
want to go that route. (Advocate, ethnic-specific program)
Shelters and formal interventions are very uncreative.
There are huge geographical distances in a place like Hawaii,
but only 2 shelters. (Counselor, ethnic-specific program)
Shelters primarily assess if she'll fully utilize
[their services] to "get with the program." They do not
focus on offering refuge. Services are too tightly wrapped around
making her independent. (Director, ethnic-specific program)
Some also noted that shelter as an intervention becomes linked
to leaving even if that was not initially the woman's choice.
With the women I've worked with, most don't think
of actually leaving. But when they get to the shelter, it becomes
part of the intervention. It gets plugged in there, and, therefore,
yes, you must leave. (Advocate, ethnic-specific program)
For women who do not speak English, women with many children, or
queer[9] API women, shelters are even less of an option.
We tried to find a space for a woman with 8 children.
We couldn't find shelter at all. They said, "She can come,
but we can't take her children." Well, she's not going to
leave if her children cannot come. (Advocate, ethnic-specific
program)
For the API dykes [lesbians] in our group, there
was really no shelter option. There was an emergency shelter
option, but I would only recommend that people take it in only
the most dire situation. And I never ended up referring women
to a shelter. (Advocate, ethnic-specific program)
Others noted alarm at the general social control nature of shelter
attitudes, policies and practices.
We have so many rules. We're very judgmental and
controlling about the women. (Advocate, ethnic-specific agency)
Interviewees familiar with or working in shelters for API women
felt more comfortable with the flexibility of these shelter programs
and their sensitivity to the needs of API women.
Most respondents questioned the value of shelters as the primary
intervention strategy but believed that they remain a necessary
option for domestic violence survivors.
Characteristic 4: Criminal Legal System as the Major Intervention
for Abusers
The major intervention for an abuser is the criminal
legal system, i.e., police, restraining order, arrest, etc.
While interviewees generally viewed the criminal legal system as
an ineffective intervention for API abusers, the nature of their
responses was more ambivalent. Does it work? Is it necessary in
some cases?
Many voiced strong concerns about the criminal legal system's effectiveness
towards ending domestic violence in the API community. Many responses
echo the criticisms of the criminal legal system emerging from other
communities of color.
What we know is that the criminal justice system
is operating on a whole different agenda which is to incarcerate
and funnel the labor of low income and brown communities into
the prison industrial complex. So it is in their interest to
have the most number of people, particularly low income men of
color in prison. That's their first priority. That's their first
interest. I think that it is very clear in low income communities
that the police are absolutely not where you go to be safe. (Advocate,
pan-Asian agency)
For API communities, immigration issues and, in particular, recent
legislation and practice linking the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) and deportation to the criminal legal system has raised
further concerns.
The laws that are in place can make it very difficult
because individuals can be deported, and that may have negative
effects on the woman and providing support for the children.
(Director, ethnic-specific agency)
In 1996, the immigration law made a big difference[10]. Women
fear that men will get deported. We had a lawyer get up in front
of a whole group of Hmong women and tell them not to report domestic
violence because their men will get deported. (Advocate, ethnic-specific
agency)
I think that now we're in a new period of time
where there's such overt collusion between the INS and the federal
authorities and the local police department, that there's a good
chance that victims from South Asian, Central Asian, Muslim, Middle
Eastern communities - that if they have their partner arrested
on a misdemeanor or felony battery charge, that that can lead
to deportation, INS detention or any number of other possibilities
that we really have no control over. Advocates at this point
have such little power . with any of those systems. It can be
opening up a world of hate. And I think that down the road, that's
going to apply even more for all immigrants. (Advocate, pan-Asian
agency)
There was also a general criticism of the over-reliance of the
mainstream anti-domestic violence movement on the criminal legal
system as an increasingly exclusive intervention for batterers.
Here we are 20 years later. What we [the anti-violence
movement] asked for was "police, police, police" and now
that's what we have. There's no room for the community. There's
no room for what the woman wants. (Advocate, ethnic-specific agency)
The interesting thing is how you apply the law
and how you interpret it. I think that's the failure of the movement
in my opinion. We've focused it on using already existing things
to fit something where it doesn't. If you're looking more at
the issue of "What does justice really mean?" it goes
back to that. The criminal justice system isn't [about] justice.
(Board member, ethnic specific agency)
Further questions were raised about the effectiveness of batterer's
intervention programs mandated by the criminal legal system.
Our experience is [that] they sit there; they stay
there; but their attitude is, "No. I'm only here because
the judge told me to be here." (Advocate, pan-Asian agency)
I don't think the criminal justice system has been
effective at all in changing men. Hmong men go, and they get sentenced
to attend the domestic violence groups. So for one, they're not
[among] Hmong. [They] just sit there through 10 sessions. (Advocate,
ethnic-specific agency)
He might end up in jail or attending a domestic
violence group. But nobody else knows about it. Nothing else
happens. (Advocate, ethnic-specific agency)
Others acknowledged effectiveness of the criminal legal system
for some API women in domestic violence situations.
What we have found at [our agency], though, is
that for women who have used the criminal justice system, oftentimes,
depending upon the status of the abuser, it would actually help
because the men then were themselves fearful of getting involved
with the system. In that way, it was a real threat to them and
they would really heed what the court had to say. So for those
women who were able to use the system, they were able to use it
effectively. That's not really true across the board. (Director,
pan-Asian shelter)
I think a really key part of outreach is [the message
to batterers that] domestic violence is not only wrong but is
illegal in this country. [So our message was] "Batterers,
you should know this so that you prevent yourself from getting
in trouble by landing in jail." And so sometimes for batterers
and for community members, it's not so much that they believe
in equality of the sexes and that women are working just as hard
as men and women's work is valued just as much as men's work.
But what some of the women have told us is that the violence ended
because he can get arrested and that now that he knows that, he's
not going to physically abuse her. (Advocate, pan-Asian shelter]
The need for community levels of abuser accountability as either
an alternative to or a complement to the criminal legal system was
stressed by all respondents.
[The criminal legal system approach to batterer
intervention] is limited in that we see batterers only as a type
- a particular personality. And they come in different personalities.
There are those clearly where the only place for them is to be
jailed. Then there are those for whom a number of different sanctions
is probably what is needed. This is where the whole community
comes in. Why can't communities hold them accountable? (Board
member, ethnic-specific agency)
Characteristic 5: Individual as Unit of Intervention
The unit addressed in intervention is the individual
woman, man.
All respondents agreed that a major limitation of the standardized
model of intervention for the API community is their focus on the
individual whether it is the survivor, or the abuser and the conceptualization
of "independence" as a goal.
First, the definition of domestic violence in the API community
often defies the pattern of an individual survivor and individual
abuser. Family members and extended community member's active participation
in abuse makes intervention on the individual level limited at best.
This nuclear family model obviously shows that
the model came from the mainstream community. If we were to design
it for Korean women, we would look at family dynamics and relationships
more closely - the in-laws. (Attorney, pan-Asian agency)
Second, API women often view family as extensions of self. Family
can be seen not only as a cultural barrier to ending domestic violence,
i.e., bearers of oppressive ideas about womanhood or family responsibility,
but as positive emotional and financial resources. Solutions sought
only at an individual level can be alienating, unrealistic and ineffective.
If [Hmong women] file a protective order, if they've
gone through the shelter, they're going to move out of that community
because they are no longer accepted. Nobody in the community
is ever going to support them at all. So they needed to totally
move. The shelters couldn't understand that. I think before
that, they hadn't tried to understand that and to understand why
the families are involved and how they can be supportive to clan
leaders in assisting the woman. (Advocate, ethnic-specific agency)
Characteristic 6: Professional Boundaries Define Worker/Survivor
Relationship
Keeping professional boundaries between the worker
and client/survivor is appropriate.
The issue of boundaries summoned many different interpretations
and different opinions towards the notion of appropriate boundaries.
Boundaries were seen as programmatic, e.g., length of services,
or compartmentalization of services. Boundaries could be around
levels of personal disclosure, intimacy or the acceptance of gifts.
Boundaries around safety with regard to contact with the abuser
also came up in discussion. This diversity of interpretations brought
up a variety of programmatic questions which will be explored in
the next section, API Innovative Strategies: Emerging Issues.
If a pattern could be discerned, it is that programmatic boundaries
around service timelines and compartmentalization of services -
legal services versus housing services and so on - tends to be limiting
for API communities.
What I found was that many of the shelters were
saying that Hmong women tend to continue to come for all sorts
of services after. They were seeing these women for 2 or 3 years
rather than a short period of time. That's because that's how
they define themselves in their communities and the support that
they need. It's not one simple thing saying, "Well, let us
get a protective order for you, and you're fine. There are no
other needs." How many Hmong women see themselves in this
context? When they find hope in a place, they continue to go
to that place for other types of services. For Hmong women, she
continues to go there because she would if it were her community.
(Advocate, ethnic-specific program)
Characteristic 7: Standardization
Interventions are standardized to fit a homogeneous
survivor profile: disregarding race, ethnicity, class, sexual
orientation and immigrant status; and not accounting for those
with disabilities, mental illness or substance abuse problems.
The issue of standardized services and approaches continued to
emerge throughout these interviews because assumptions and solutions
are applied generically and uniformly to all situations of domestic
violence.
I think [one characteristic] is having a formula,
having to fit a routine. If it doesn't fit the routine, then
it's not done. If someone speaks a different language or does
something different, there's a hesitance to provide the services
- even if the situation is just as serious as another situation.
(Director, ethnic-specific agency)
The impact of standardization could be viewed as creating rigidity
when addressing the needs of survivors of domestic violence who
do not conform to typical survivor demographics. In some instances,
such women could even be harmed by standardized interventions.
Race/Ethnicity/Immigrant Bias
This report reaches beyond a narrow "cultural competence"
or "language accessibility" critique. Therefore, the limitations
of standardized approaches which disregard the significance of race/ethnicity
or immigration status appear throughout.
Middle Class Bias
Some respondents viewed the standardization around a class bias.
In so far as middle class assumptions were seen as defining goals
or success for survivors of domestic violence, interventions based
on these assumptions presume middle class values and, furthermore,
do not work for all women.
I feel like there were all these women who would
come to the [mainstream] shelter, and their dilemma would be,
"If I leave my husband, I'm going to lose access to a middle
class or wealthy lifestyle." And there wasn't a class analysis
to that. Instead the response was, "If you work really hard
and go back to school, over a period of time, you can get back
to that middle class lifestyle without the guy," as opposed
to saying, "It's possible to be safe and have a happy family
without being middle class." (Advocate, Mainstream shelter
and API domestic violence program)
Heterosexual Bias
Standardized interventions were also viewed as focusing on domestic
violence in heterosexual relationships.
[The mainstream model] doesn't work. It doesn't
address same sex [domestic violence], bi[sexual], trans[gender],
nothing. (Board member, ethnic-specific agency)
Mental Health Bias
Interviewees saw standardized intervention approaches as limiting
for women with mental health difficulties, depression and/or substance
abuse problems from continued exposure to abuse or other conditions.
[The domestic violence movement] didn't have a
good way to talk about women for whom the trauma has been so severe
that they were experiencing temporary or long-term mental health
issues. We didn't talk very much about the importance of them
healing, having long-term mental health support to heal from their
abuse regardless of if they were showing symptoms of any more
serious mental health problem. (Advocate, pan-Asian agency)
Bias Against Persons With Physical Disabilities
Although interviewees in this report did not specifically discuss
issues of women and children with physical disabilities, these standardized
approaches similarly disregard the needs of survivors with physical
disabilities.
Summary of API Response to the Standard Model of Domestic Violence
Intervention
For the API community, the mainstream model of domestic violence
intervention has limited effectiveness.
Interpersonal Definition of Domestic Violence
Standardized interpersonal definitions and conceptual models of
domestic violence such as the "power and control wheel"
and the "cycle of violence" fail to capture the complexities
of domestic violence in general, and in API communities in particular.
A result of these limited frameworks is the inability to envision
and to create interventions which address the realities of the violence
which API women face.
Leaving as an Intervention Goal
The implied or explicit goal of leaving the relationship can be
alienating or unrealistic for API women. While leaving the relationship
should still remain an option, simply stating this as an option
without recognizing the particular difficulties that this raises
for API women can subject her to alienation from domestic violence
services, blame for failing to carry out this option, or further
abuse as she attempts to leave the relationship.
Individual as Unit of Intervention
In particular, the individualistic approach to domestic violence
intervention is ineffective for the API population. First, API
women do not necessarily experience domestic violence as an individual
survivor abused by an individual batterer. Immediate and extended
family members are often actively involved in the pattern of abuse.
Likewise, abusers may not abuse in isolation of other family members
or members of the community. They may be actively joined by others
or view the community as supporting or resisting the abuse. Family
and community need to be a critical component of intervention.
Thus, definitions of domestic violence need to extend beyond individual
interpersonal violence to include abusers within the extended family
and the community.
Shelter as the Major Intervention for Survivors
While shelters are a necessary intervention strategy for many survivors
of domestic violence, existing shelter practices including time
limits, pressure to follow standardized procedures, lack of language
access and lack of safety for API women, non-English speakers and
others who fall out of the "norm" of the shelter population,
and general controlling practices limit their effectiveness for
API women and families. Furthermore, many API women will never
view shelters as a realistic option. Non-shelter as well as shelter
options need to be developed as more accessible and realistic resources
for API women and families.
Criminal Legal System as the Major Intervention for Abusers
The criminal legal system has limited effectiveness as an intervention
for abusers. It has become the only legitimate intervention for
batterers thus removing the community from an active role in abuser
accountability. Police brutality and other injustices within the
criminal legal system as well as a significant increase in INS and
police collaboration heighten the dangers for API women seeking
safety from violence. In addition, API experiences with abusers
confronting the criminal legal system are mixed. While some effectiveness
in the threat of arrest and imprisonment has been noted, others
have seen no change or worse among abusers who have entered the
criminal legal system.
Professional Boundaries Define Worker/Survivor Relationship
The appropriateness of professional boundaries in domestic violence
intervention is less conclusive. The very term "boundaries"
evokes a number of interpretations ranging from the extent to which
services are provided to appropriate levels of personal disclosure.
There was general agreement that standardized programs compartmentalize
or draw service boundaries which do not meet the needs of API women.
Opinions regarding other areas of boundaries revealed a number of
questions and practices related to the diverse issues of boundaries
which will be explored in the next section, API Innovative Strategies:
Emerging Issues.
Standardization
These all relate to the issue of standardization which arose in
many discussions regarding the limitations of the mainstream model
of domestic violence intervention. Standardization around definitions
of domestic violence, assumptions around appropriate interventions
and general inflexibility in practices characterize mainstream models
and add to their ineffectiveness for API populations. While some
conjectured that existing models perhaps work for white, heterosexual,
middle-class, non-immigrant, able-bodied population, others questioned
even that presumption. |
