Testimony (NYC)

Dear Distinguished Members of the Panel, and Allies:

We continue to watch fatalities in the headlines every day, many of which have either no history or background where the phrase ‘domestic violence’ is rarely mentioned. The press will include terms such as ‘separated couple’, ‘estranged boyfriend’ (or girlfriend), or ‘ex-partner’, though this effectively masks for the public that these are all crimes by those from abusive relationships.

There’s no established way to track if someone ended up dead, sometimes along with children, from returning to the oxymoron of ‘abusive home’ after being turned away from attempting to find shelter or safety, having found the courage to leave, many knowing the risks of doing so are great: the answer to the question ‘Why don’t they just leave?’.

The above refers to fatality reports. As many of our city’s inhabitants speak English as a second language, or are often traumatized on occasions when police officers are involved in incidents where death from attempts to escape is not yet a result, DIR’s (or Domestic Incident Reports) and police reports are written up incorrectly. Sometimes it is not disclosed or known that there was in fact an attempt to leave. Believe that it often is.

When there is some report in low percentages in contrast to the actual number of known unreported cases, the average individual filling out that form is a front line ‘first responder’, when it’s done at all, who is not a trained DVO (or Domestic Violence Officer). DVO’s, with few exceptions do not work during the most frequent times that ‘domestic incidents’ occur: evenings and weekends.

The officer often hands the supposed victim the phone number of the DVO, without filling out any report. It’s your guess how many actually call in later…, putting the children at even further risk of harm, when it is usually the mother attempting to protect them.

The alternative to not finding housing is potential or real death, in either returning to an abuser in desperation, or being found attempting to find other housing (including though not limited to abuse through the systems that have continued to fail to protect and further empower abusers).

The low number of survivors and their children placed in safe housing and high numbers of homicides or incidents of abuse that go unreported or for the largest percentages without police reports or orders of protection makes documentation requirements unrealistic and inappropriate, directly inflicting additional trauma by requirement alone to be considered 'eligible'.

Survivors seeking housing and safety in shelter and/or on PA must be referred to agencies where advocates may provide letters of their circumstances. It is most usually not possible to be misunderstood by or to misrepresent to a trained DV advocate. Police reports and DIR's do not address needs, indicate risk, or provide protection any more than Orders of Protection.

The extreme small percentage of those thought to 'misrepresent' will either not visit advocate agencies or not pass the interview or intake process, unlike the current process for making reports though 'law enforcement' (when done at all), which are often by untrained 'first responders', or between officer and alleged 'victim', reporting single incidents and not addressing DV.

Fatality reports are not representative of actual 'DV incidents', in order to 'keep the numbers down', though the headlines have also frequently mentioned no prior police involvement or no orders of protection in a number of deaths (also related to the unrealistic documentation requirements for more permanent housing).

If ‘domestic violence’ is not spelled out, it is treated as if it doesn't happen.
The deaths go up with budget cuts to preventive programs and housing options, while the ‘numbers’ ignore the realities. Is this the way the city regards our homeless families, who have been documented as 90% women and children as well as the #1 reason for their seeking shelter and housing now confirmed this year as Domestic Violence? The lambs are being thrown out for slaughter; we are all but numb from the headlines. Do you see the connection now?

For those that do survive the system, requirements for shelter and those in housing are obsolete and additionally oppressive, as if what these most always women and children have gone through weren’t enough.

The need or desire to work can be addressed by training providers or hours that do not fit a regular schedule or location. Assignments can be obtained by survivors of domestic violence who can put in work hours online or at varying locations in specific training or work situations who have been stalked by abusers or former partners seeking to find them at locations with 'normal business hours'. They can also be available to their children who have been traumatized by abuse or witnessed violence.

By providing survivors who know how to locate assignments the means to become established with an online business or flexible training or work locations and hours, we can potentially transform extremely limited resources to enable economically abused survivors a means to find their way back to safety, and even supporting themselves and their children.

The missing link is making the connection between those affected and those willing to help. This will also raise awareness to these and many other issues that are in the interest of the next generation, including seniors and extended families.

Documentation requirements repeat themselves regarding 'DV Advantage' and DV waivers in PA offices, compounding obstacles to safety for survivors and their children.

The 'boroughs of exclusion' in DV waivers, when granted, do not serve survivors or preserve their safety. They are put at further risk in any borough though current widespread technology where just having a cell phone on, unanswered, permits an abuser &/or their agents to track whereabouts, according to citywide law enforcement technical experts. Survivors have been dismissed without notice from shelters where abusers have shown up at confidential locations, without the survivors willingly or knowingly providing where they were. These practices must be eliminated; any one such incident can lead to more fatalities.

Forcing mothers to work requirements is an extension of abuse, where most are on PA either from economic abuse, shelter requirements, or both. Most are willing to work, so long as there is no additional risk to their safety or the safety of their children, though they are treated as non-cooperative and threatened with cut-offs or sanctioned when they resist practices that do not take into account safety risks without documentation, the acquisition of which can put them at even further risk or escalate threats or violence.

Addressing how mothers may keep themselves and their children safe with both housing and alternative work arrangements that allow for the 'required' number of hours while still being available to their children who have either been additional subjects of abuse or witnessed violence is critical for both safety and recovery.