Intimate partner violence comes in many shapes and forms. But according to Tjaden Thoennes , 2000 the description of intimate partner violence utilized in the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey consists of rape, physical assault, and stalking committed by current and former dates, spouses, and cohabiting partners, with cohabiting meaning living together at minimum some of the time as a couple. The survey's definition of intimate partner violence is similar to the one formed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) because it contains violence transpiring between persons who have an existing or prior dating, spousal, or cohabiting relationship and same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. Nevertheless, it diverges from CDC's description because it contains stalking in addition to rape and physical battering.
Data from particular National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded studies on the magnitude of intimate partner violence which is often called "domestic violence" exemplifies the scope of the problem. Nearly 1.5 million women and 834,700 men are physically assaulted by an intimate partner yearly in the United States. Women are considerably more likely than men to be battered throughout an intimate partner assault (39 percent compared with 25 percent). 76 percent of the women who were raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 were attacked by a present or previous husband, cohabiting partner, or date, contrasted to 18 percent of the men. According to survey estimates, nearly 1 million women and 371,000 men are stalked yearly in the United States. Amongst women of dissimilar racial and ethnic backgrounds, the difference in the occurrence of reported rape and physical assault is statistically important: American Indian/Alaska Native women were most probably to report rape and physical assault victimization, while Asian/Pacific Islander women were least probable to report rape and physical assault persecution. Hispanic women were not as much likely to report rape persecution than non-Hispanic women. (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998)
The National Crime Victimization Survey disclosed that while the highest rates of nonlethal violence, including both sexual and physical assaults, were perpetrated against younger women, the relatively smaller percentage of victimized women over age 55 (2 percent) interprets to about 118,000 women between 1993 and 2000 (Rennison & Rand, 2003). Other investigators concluded that postmenopausal women are exposed to IPV at rates comparable to those of younger women (Mouton et al., 2004). For instance, midlife and older women may be particularly susceptible to IPV as an outcome of traditional cultural scripts around gender roles in the home (Wolkenstein & Sterman, 1998) or discussion of "private" family matters and disputes with individuals outside the family (Hightower. Smith, Ward-Hall, & Hightower, 1999). For several reasons, abused women are at increased risk of contracting HIV. Multiple studies offer evidence that IPV and distress of IPV are tortuously associated with a series of sexual HIV risk factors, including unprotected sex. (Sormanti & Shibusawa, 2008). For example, women in physically abusive relationships may be particularly susceptible to rape by their partners (Bergen, 1999). According to the American Medical Association, the prevalence of rape between assaulted women is at minimum 40 percent in some violent relationships and may happen as often as numerous times per month (Fischbach & Herbert, 1997). Similar to younger women, older women are too targets of marital rape (Peacock, 1998).
Low-income women report greater rates of Intimate Partner Violence than women of other socioeconomic clusters (Rennison & Welchans, 2000; Sutherland, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2001), and studies recommend that rates of IPV are higher amongst women on welfare than between other low-income women (Honeycutt, Marshall, & Weston, 2001; Raphael, 2002; Tolman & Raphael, 2000). Lifetime occurrence rates of physical IPV for women on welfare sort from 29 to 74% (Barusch,Taylor, & Derr, 1999; Colten, Cosenza, & Allard,1996; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999; Tolman & Rosen, 2001), while lifetime frequency rates of physical IPV in the overall population range from 22 to 31%(Collins et al., 1999; Klein, Campbell, Soler, & Ghez,1997; Straus & Gelles, 1990; Tjaden & Thoennes,2000). Studies also recommend that women on welfare are remarkably exposed to severe IPV, for instance, having been beaten, kicked, and/or intimidated with an armament (Bassuk et al., 1996; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999). Intimate partner violence makes it problematic for women on welfare to pursue, attain, and sustain employment (Lloyd & Taluc, 1999) Abusive partners utilize a mixture of tactics to disrupt women's employment potentials, for example destroying homework assignments, turning off alarm clocks, ripping clothing, physically assaulting women in noticeable areas (such as the face), not following through on consented childcare agreements, and harassment on the job (Moore & Selkowe, 1999; Raphael,2002; Tolman & Raphael, 2000).
There are so many risk factors that can cause intimate partner violence. One in five women killed or harshly injured by an intimate partner hadÂ no warning:Â the fatal or life-threatening event was the first physical violence they had experienced from their significant other. A woman's attempt to leave an abuser was the triggering influence in 45 percent of the murders of women by their intimate partners (Block, 2003). Early parenthoodÂ is also can cause intimate partner violence. Women who had children by age 21 were twice as probable to be sufferers of intimate partner violence as women who were not mothers at that age. Men who had procreated children by age 21 were more than three times as likely to be perpetrators as men who were not dads at that age. (Moffitt and Caspi, 1999).Although alcohol is not the source of violence against women; an important relationship is present between male offender problem drinkingÂ and violence against intimate female partners. Severe drinking problems increase the risk for lethal and violent victimization of women in intimate partner relationships. More than two-thirds of the abusers who perpetrate or attempt homicide used alcohol, drugs, or both through the incident; less than one-fourth of the victims did (Sharps et al., 2003). Severe povertyÂ and its related stressors increase the risk for intimate partner violence-less the household earning; the greater the reported intimate partner violence rates (Carlson et al., 2000). Furthermore, researchers found that decrease in benefits from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) were correlated with an increase in intimate partner homicides (Dugan, Nagin, and Rosenfeld, 2003). Intimate partner violence isÂ connected to unemployment;Â one study found that intimate partner violence weakens a woman's ability to findÂ employment (Goodwin, Chandler, and Meisel, 2003). Another study of women who received AFDC benefits found thatÂ domestic violenceÂ was linked to a general pattern of decreased stability of employment (Meisel, Chandler, and Rienzi, 2003).Women that have experienced serious abuse face devastatingÂ mental and emotional stress.Â Nearly half of the women reporting severe domestic violence similarly meet the decisive factor for majorÂ depression; 24 percent experience posttraumatic stress disorder, and 31 percent from anxiety (Goodwin, Chandler, and Meisel, 2003).
On my honor, I have neither received nor given any unauthorized assistance on this assignment
Any Mallick 10/24/2012
Barusch, A., Taylor, M. J., & Derr, M. (1999) Understanding families with multiple barriers to self-sufï¬ciency. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Research Institute.
Bassuk, E. L., Weinreb, L. F., Buckner, J. C., Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1996). The characteristics and needs of sheltered homeless and low-income housed mothers. JAMA, 276, 640-646.
Bergen.Â R. K. (1999, March), Marital rape.Â Retrieved from http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Marital%20Rape.pdf
Block, C.R. (2003) How Can Practitioners Help an Abused Woman Lower Her Risk of Death? NIJ JournalÂ 25: 4-7, NCJ 196545.
Carlson, B.E., Worden, A.P., Van Ryn, M., & Bachman, R. (2000) Violence against Women: Synthesis of Research for Service Providers. Final report to the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 199578.
Collins, K. S., Schoen, C., Joseph, S., Duchon, L., Simantov, E., & Yellowitz, M. (1999). Health concerns across a woman's lifespan: The commonwealth fund 1998 survey of women's health. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
Colten, M. E., Cosenza, C., & Allard, M. A. (1996). Domestic violence among Massachusetts AFDC recipients: Preliminary results. Boston: University of Massachusetts Center for Survey Research.
Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfeld, R. (2003) Do Domestic Violence Services Save Lives? NIJ JournalÂ 250 20-25, NCJ 196548.
Fischbach, R. L., & Herbert, B. (1997).Â Domestic violence and mental health:Â Correlates and conundrums within and across cultures.Â Social, Science Medicine, 45, 1161-1176.
Goodwin, S.N., Chandler, S., & Meisel, J. (2003) Violence against Women: The Role of Welfare Reform. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, NCJ 205792.
Hightower, J., Smith, M.J., Ward-Hall, C.A., & Hightower, H. C. (1999).Â Meeting the needs of abused older women?Â A British Columbia and Yukon transition house survey.Â Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 11(4), 39-57.
Honeycutt, T. C., Marshall, L. L., & Weston, R. (2001). Toward ethnically speciï¬c models of employment, public assistance, and victimization. Violence against Women, 7, 126-140
Klein, E., Campbell, J., Soler, E., & Ghez, M. (1997). Ending domestic violence: Changing public perceptions/halting the epidemic. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Lloyd, S., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence on female employment. Violence against Women, 5, 370-392.
Meisel, J., Chandler, D., & Rienzi, B.M. (2003) Domestic Violence Prevalence and Effects on Employment in Two California TANF Populations. Violence against WomenÂ 9(10): 1191-1212, NCJ 202457.
Moffitt, T.E., & Caspi, A. (1999) Findings about Partner Violence from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NCJ 170018.
Moore, T., & Selkowe, V. (1999). Domestic violence in transition from welfare to work: Barriers to self-sufï¬ciency and the W-2 Response. Milwaukee, WI: The Institute for Wisconsin's Future.
Mouton, C., Rodabough, R., Rovi, S., Hunt, J., Talamantens, M., Brzyski, IL, & Burge, S. K. (2004).Â Prevalence and 3-year incidence of abuse among post-menopausal women.Â American Journal of Public Health, 94, 605-612.
Peacock, P. (1998).Â Marital rape.Â In R.K. Bergen (Ed.), Issues in intimate violence (pp.Â 225-235).Â Thousand Oaks, CA:Â Sage Publications.
Raphael, J. (2002). Keeping battered women safe during welfare reform: New challenges. Journal of American Medical Women's Association, 57, 32-35.
Rennison, C., & Rand, M. (2003).Â Nonlethal intimate partner violence against women.Â Violence Against Women, 9, 1417-1428.
Rennison, C. M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence, Bureau of justice statistics special report (NCJ 178247). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Sharps, P., Campbell, J.C., Campbell, D., Gary, F., & Webster, D. (2003) Risky Mix: Drinking, Drug Use, and Homicide. Â NIJ JournalÂ 250: 8-13, NCJ 196546.
Sormanti, M. M., & Shibusawa, T. T. (2008). Intimate partner violence among midlife and older women: a descriptive analysis of women seeking medical services.Â Health & Social Work,Â 33(1), 33-41.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Sutherland, C. A., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2001). Effects of intimate partner violence versus poverty on women's health. Violence against Women, 7, 1122-1143.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998) Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the national violence against women survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Ofï¬ce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Tolman, R. M., & Raphael, J. (2000). A review of research on welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 655-681.
Tolman, R. M., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving welfare: Mental health, substance dependence and economic well-being. Violence against Women, 7, 141-158.
Wolkenstein.Â B. H., & Sterman, L. (1998).Â Unmet needs of older women in a clinic population:Â The discovery of possible long-term sequelae of domestic violence.Â Professional Psychology:Â Research and Practice, 29, 341-348.
Yoshihama, M. M., Hammock, A. C., & Horrocks, J. J. (2006). Intimate partner violence, welfare receipt, and health status of low-income African American women: a life course analysis.Â American Journal of Community Psychology,Â 37(1/2), 95-109.
Any, You do a nice job of pulling together a lot of research and painting a picture of IPV in general. You were able to provide definitions and explanations of the risk factors and a portrait of who is affected. As I stated in the beginning, however, the purpose of this paper was to provide a foundation for looking at a specific social problem that is addressed by the policy. I would recommend narrowing your focus or else the policy analysis is going to be difficult. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Clear identification of and definition of general and specific social problem that the policy is addressing, using research
Description of scope and impact of problem, using research to substantiate points
Overall use of scholarly research integrated into paper
Overall writing- clarity organization
Citations & references
The high frequency of violence against women is reason for distress in the United States. Starting in the 1980s, many individual states actively tackled domestic violence via legal restructurings incorporating deï¬ning domestic violence as felony, pro- or mandated arrest guidelines, enlarging the deï¬nition of intimate partners to incorporate couples that live together and same sex couples, and presenting civil protection orders (Burt, Dyer, Newmark, Norris, & Harrell, 1996). For the purpose of policy analysis this paper will mainly focus on Violence Against Women Act 1994 but the author of this paper will also touch on reauthorizations of this act. In 1990, U.S. Senator Joseph Biden presents the first Violence Against Women Act. (Office on Violence Against Women, 2012a). In 1993, U.S. Senator Joseph Biden and the majority staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee completed three-year investigation into the affects and outcomes of violence against women.Â In his introduction to Violence Against WomenÂ -The Reply to Rape: Diversions on the Path to Equal Justice report, Senator Biden states, "Through this process, I have become convinced that violence against women reflects as much a failure of our nation's collective moral imagination as it does the failure of our nation's laws andÂ Â regulations. We are helpless to change the course of this violence unless and until, we achieve a national consensus that it deserves our profound public outrage". (Office on Violence Against Women, 2012a). InÂ 1994, legislation called Violence Against Women as section of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was sponsored by U.S. Senator Joseph Biden. The bill passes with dual-party support of 226 sponsors in the House and 68 in the Senate. In September 13, 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was signed into law. (Office on Violence Against Women, 2012a).
VAWA act of 1994 was intended to enhance criminal justice responses to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and to expansion the obtainability of services for victims of these crimes. VAWA act of 1994 obliges a coordinated community response (CCR) to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, urging jurisdictions to bring in players with various credentials together to reveal information and to utilize their distinctive positions to better community responses to violence against women. These players involve, but are not restricted to: victim advocates, police officers, prosecutors, judges, probation and corrections officials, health care professionals, leaders within faith communities, and survivors of violence against women. The federal law takes an inclusive approach to violence against women by merging tough new penalties to prosecute offenders while applying programs to help the victims of such violence. (Office on Violence Against Women, 2012b). Violence Against Women Act 1994 is toughens federal sentences for repeat sex offenders and consisted a federal "rape shield law," which is aimed to prevent offenders from utilizing victims' past sexual behavior against them throughout a rape trial. Office on Violence Against Women, 2012a). The VAWA act of 1994 concentrates on six different parts: safe streets for women, safe homes for women, equal justice for women in the courts, stalker and domestic violence reduction, protection for battered immigrant women and children and provisions for improving existing laws. The VAWA act of 1994 merges almost all of states' legal reforms taking action to domestic violence and was anticipated to efficiently facilitate and strengthen existing state policies to reduce and intervene in domestic violence. The VAWA does this by means of grants, education and training programs, and pro-arrest policies. (Cho & Wilke, 2005). Under VAWA act of 1994, there are three grant programs. The grant programs include DOJ, HHS, and CDC grants. DOJ: The STOP (Services Training Officers Prosecutors) Violence Against Women Formula Grant Program, the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies Program, the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Assistance Grant Program, and the STOP Violence Against Indian Women Discretionary Program (designed from a statutory set-aside of STOP funds for Indian tribal governments). HHS: VAWA approves funds to launch the National Domestic Violence Hotline and to sponsor battered women's shelters, rape prevention education, and coordinated community responses to domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. VAWA act of 1994 constructs legal relief for battered immigrants that made it more problematic for abusers to utilize immigration law to stop victims from calling the police or looking for safety.Â (Office on Violence Against Women, 2012a). Â Â
The American Violence Against Women Act was not only concerning women. However, American request that politicians be hard on crime paved the way for the path of the Act. In actual fact the first form of VAWA was part of an omnibus crime bill, and later forms are also conjoined with other law-and-order proposals like the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (2000). (Dragiewicz, 2008). VAWA was reauthorized and enlarged in 2000 and also in 2005. Every time the legislation passed out of the Senate through undisputed consent. (Dragiewicz, 2008). The overpowering popular support that VAWA has obtained means that regardless of symbolic signs of disapproval, like efforts by members of Congress to assign unpassable amendments branded as "poison pills" to the legislation (American Civil Liberties Union, 2005), and President Bush's appointment of anti-VAWA activists to the National Advisory Committee accountable for managing its application (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2002), public support is too strong for VAWA to be openly criticized. Never before have had elected officials exhibited such eagerness for a bill that focus on women's needs and interests. (Dragiewicz, 2008).
President Bill Clinton signs the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (VAWA 2000) into law which is Division B part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000).VAWA 2000 highlights supporting immigrant victims, elderly victims, victims with disabilities, and victims of dating violence. VAWA 2000 funds new Violence Against Women Policy Office (VAWO) programs: legal aid for victims; grants to state alliances; grants to tribal organizations; grants to educate law enforcement, prosecutors and courts on elder abuse, neglect, mistreatment and violence against individuals with disabilities; grants to offer supervised visitation and safe visitation exchange; and grants to tackle the need for services that are accessible to victims with disabilities. VAWA 2000 inserts "dating violence" to the purpose areas of four VAWO grant programs. VAWA 2000 authorizes STOP funds to be applied to train sexual assault forensic medical personnel examiners. It increased interstate stalking laws to consist of interstate cyber stalking and added entering or leaving Indian country to the regional domestic violence and stalking crimes created by VAWA. (Office on Violence Against Women, 2012a).
VAWA 2005 reauthorizes vital existing VAWA programs and included the development of new services that respond to evolving community needs. The Violence Against Women Act of 2005 makes the Sexual Assault Services Program, which is the first federal funding stream devoted to direct services for victims of sexual assault. VAWA 2005 delivers housing resources to prevent victims from becoming homeless and ensure that victims can contact the criminal justice system without endangering their present or future housing. "VAWA 2005 provides for the training and education of health care providers and strengthens the health care system's response to victims". (National Network to End Domestic Violence, 2012, p. 2). VAWA 2005 establishes a National Resource Center on Workplace Responses to support employers to create a safe work environment and more valuable while assisting their employees who are being victimized. VAWA 2005 makes technical corrections to current immigration law, solving contradictions in the eligibility for immigrant victims. (National Network to End Domestic Violence, 2012). Exactly, the new programs of VAWA 2005 consist of the Court Training and Improvements, Child Witness, and Culturally Specific programs. (Office on Violence Against Women, 2012b).
On my honor, I have neither received nor given any unauthorized assistance on this assignment
Any Mallick 11/21/2012