The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization this year. And like previous years, VAWA is currently caught up in a partisan cross-fire with dueling versions of the law: Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S. 2843 and Sen. Joni Ernst’s S. 2920.

Part of the problem is that VAWA has become caught up in a broader political and ideological debate. If we want to curb domestic violence and sexual assault, we need to start with a factual understanding of the problem. These are four key facts to help resolve the current political stalemate:

1. THREE MAIN CAUSES OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Extensive research points to three main causes of domestic violence:

1. Substance abuse[1]
2. Mental health problems[2]
3. Marital separation:[3]

2. PARTNER VIOLENCE RATES HAVE FALLEN DRAMATICALLY

The federal Centers for Disease Control does an annual survey known as the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey – NISVS. In 2011, the NISVS reported 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women had been on the receiving end of partner aggression in the previous 12 months.[4]

By 2018, these numbers had dropped by about half – 3.8% of men and 2.9% of women reported being domestic violence victims in the previous year.[5]

3. NO EVIDENCE THAT VAWA HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THESE DECLINES

Persons who have examined the trend-lines conclude that VAWA-funded programs cannot take the credit for declines in partner abuse:

• “Between 2000 and 2010, rates of domestic violence actually fell less than the drop in the overall crime rate – at a time when VAWA was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the criminal system.” — Leigh Goodmark, University of Maryland Law School
• “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” — Angela Moore Parmley, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

It’s not difficult to identify the reasons for VAWA’s lack of effectiveness. The language of VAWA does not say a word about addressing the causes of intimate partner violence: substance abuse, mental health problems, or marital separation.[6]

4. MEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS

Take a second look at the NISVS numbers shown under Number 2. above. In 2011, domestic violence was essentially an equal opportunity problem between the sexes. Then look at the numbers from the 2018 report – a 3.8% male victimization rate versus a 2.9% female victimization rate

In short, men now are 31% more likely to be victims than women.

LIKELY EFFECTS OF CURRENT VAWA BILLS ON OVER-CRIMINALIZATION

Many persons believe that VAWA has contributed to the problem of over-criminalization in America:

1. Overly broad definitions of domestic violence
2. Restraining orders issued without due process
3. Exclusive reliance on mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution policies
4. Limited role of diversion programs

With the key facts in mind, let’s look at the two bills being considered in the Senate from the over-criminalization perspective:

Feinstein Bill, S. 2843

Good provisions:

• Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
• Adds new section on alternative criminal justice response that would encourage use of restorative justice approaches (Sec. 102)
• Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)

Bad provisions:

• Expands the definition of domestic violence to include verbal, psychological, economic, and technological abuse. Does not provide a definition of verbal or psychological abuse.
• Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
• Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: The bill’s support for alternative criminal justice response is a welcome step. The most troubling aspect of S. 2843 is its expanded definitions of domestic violence. Although the language of the bill states the verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse definitions only apply to victim services, it is likely that such definitions will “bleed” into state-level definitions, especially for issuance of restraining orders.

Ernst Bill, S. 2920

Good provisions:

• Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
• Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)
• Recognizes value of addressing substance abuse and mental health problems (Sec. 501)
• Defines due process rights of defendants in Indian courts (Sec. 804)

Bad provisions:

• Expands definitions of elder abuse (Sec. 204)
• Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
• Does not mention use of alternative justice approaches
• Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: Definitions are more constrained than S. 2843, but the bill’s other provisions do not satisfactorily address the problem of over-criminalization.

Citations:

[1] “Substance abuse has been found to co-occur in 40-60% of IPV incidents across studies.” https://www.asam.org/resources/publications/magazine/read/article/2014/10/06/intimate-partner-violence-and-co-occurring-substance-abuse-addiction

[2] Dutton MA: Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. J of Interpersonal Violence, 2006.

[3] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf.

[4]http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

[5] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[6] SAVE: How Effective are Domestic Violence Programs in Stopping Partner Abuse? http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse