In this next section, we’ll discuss how human service professionals address specific traumas in their work. Notably, we’ll look at how state agencies and community-based organizations tackle child abuse and intimate partner abuse.

9.4.1 Interventions to Address Child Abuse

In Chapter 7 we reviewed the history of child welfare agencies. More recently, there has been a push to use evidence-based practices, services, and tools.

Child welfare agencies develop programs that prevent child abuse and neglect by strengthening families, protecting children from further maltreatment, reuniting children safely with their families, and finding permanent families for children who cannot safely return home (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2020). Child welfare systems typically take the following actions:

• investigate reports (receive and investigate reports of possible child abuse and neglect)
• support families (provide prevention services to families that need assistance protecting and caring for their children to prevent entry into foster care)
• provide temporary safe shelter (arrange for children to live with kin or foster families when they are not safe at home)
• seek to return children to their families when safety has improved or find other permanent arrangements (arrange for reunification, adoption, or other permanent family connections for children leaving foster care) (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2020)

9.4.2 Interventions to Address Violence and Abuse

Specialized services for victims of intimate partner violence did not emerge until the early 1970s. The first rape crisis line opened in Washington D.C. in 1972. The first domestic violence shelter opened in New York City in 1976. By 1980, there were over 700 shelters in the US, serving over 90,000 women (National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2008). The passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994 further strengthened the laws around intimate partner violence and funding for these services.

Today, organizations that help individuals experiencing intimate partner violence have a wide range of resources they can offer to clients. These include

• safety planning
• emergency shelter
• individual counseling
• services for children (childcare, counseling)
• legal assistance (immigration, criminal, family court)
• support groups
• financial help
• connections to social welfare services (TANF, SNAP, Medicaid) (Lyon et al., 2008)

Still, there can be barriers to survivors accessing these services. Many people may not know if what they have experienced qualifies as abuse. Even if they recognize behavior as abusive, they may not know what services are available and if they are accessible. These barriers are particularly notable for LGBTQ survivors of intimate partner violence. In many cases, they may not be aware that abuse can also take place in the context of LGBTQ relationships. And, even if they do, they may not know if local service providers serve LGBTQ clients (Robinson et al., 2020).

Personal factors may also prevent a victim from seeking help. They may feel embarrassed, afraid, or have cultural barriers that make them hesitant to seek help (Robinson et al., 2020). Victims may feel like it was ‘their fault’ that abuse occurred. Victims may be embarrassed that they’ve stayed in the relationship for as long as they did, feeling as if they allowed the abuse to continue. Because of cultural beliefs, victims may feel that divorce is unacceptable or undesirable. In some cases, victims may not realize that behavior, such as extreme jealousy, is abusive. An example of this is the cultural belief of machismo within Latino culture, where these cultural beliefs about men normalize abusive behaviors (Robinson et al., 2020).

Material resources are another barrier to victims leaving their abusers. Many survivors report being afraid they would not be able to financially provide for their children. They also cite lack of independent housing, lack of money, lack of insurance, lack of transportation, lack of childcare, and lack of education as reasons that they fear leaving the relationships (Robinson et al., 2020).

If individuals are aware of services available in their communities, they may still be unable to access them. This lack of access could be because they are too far away, do not speak English, or providers lack appropriate accommodations for those with disabilities (Robinson et al., 2020). They may also be afraid to access resources because of their immigration status, fearing that seeking help and leaving their abuser could lead to deportation.

Despite increased services to address intimate partner violence, many places in the country don’t have access to services to help victims leave an abusive relationship. These gaps are particularly an issue in rural areas. This lack of resources connects back to macro-level factors, where some groups have significantly greater access to resources than other communities.

Additionally, funding for social services is generally tenuous. Many organizations that address intimate partner violence do not have enough resources to meet the service demand. Numerous factors contribute to these shortages, including cuts in grant funding, unstable fundraising, or overworked staff.

Even when victims have access to services, it can be tough to leave an abusive relationship because of the power and control an abuser has over their victim. While it can be challenging for the victim to psychologically and emotionally break away from their abuser, they also face physical risk when leaving a relationship where there is intimate partner violence. Remember, the risk of homicide by an abusive partner is highest when someone is leaving the relationship.

One of the big critiques of our response to intimate partner violence and sexual violence is the lack of accountability and consequences for those who commit these acts. The mechanisms within the criminal justice system to hold perpetrators accountable are rather weak and incomplete.

Police may lack the training to respond appropriately to intimate partner violence and sexual assault calls. Even when police have training on these issues, they often fail to properly handle calls where there are suspicions of intimate partner violence or sexual assault. The Gaby Petito and Brian Laundrie case was a well-known example of this. In this case, officers came under fire for not adhering to department protocols for domestic violence situations. At the same time, many police do not see addressing social issues as a central part of their job. They see themselves as enforcers of the law rather than a professional intervening in the relationships of others.

In addition, while the courts may grant you a restraining order against someone who has abused or assaulted you, they cannot effectively enforce these orders. Many abuse survivors tell stories of continuing to be harassed or stalked by their abuser even after they got this protection order. In other cases, the restraining orders are only temporary because there is not enough evidence of misconduct for permanent restraining orders. Suppose the situation escalates to pressing criminal charges against the perpetrator. Even so, there is no guarantee that prosecutors will pursue the case or hold the perpetrator accountable in a way that a survivor finds meaningful.

If a case gets in front of a judge, the trial process is not easy. Many survivors of sexual violence feel uncomfortable testifying and facing their attacker. Survivors of intimate partner violence may not want to be involved or have conflicting feelings about being involved in the court process, especially if they still love or want to be with their abusive partner. Even if convicted, punishment is punitive and often not focused on repairing damage or helping survivors heal. Not all survivors are unhappy with how domestic abuse or sexual assault trials resolve. It is the case, though, that many survivors feel that the criminal justice system does not sufficiently repair harm or bring justice to their experiences.

The barriers to effectively addressing these kinds of violence are complex and not easily fixed within our current system. Consequently, what role could alternative systems play in addressing these problems? For instance, restorative justice has become a central part of discussions about reforming the criminal justice system. Restorative justice centers on the survivor, considering what they need to experience healing. It also involves the perpetrator’s participation, requiring them to recognize the harm they did in holding them accountable. More recently, the Center for Court Innovation published a report on the state of nationwide restorative justice approaches to intimate partner violence. Examples of restorative programs noted in this report include peacemaking circles, family group conferences, and support circles.

These programs are very different from a criminal justice approach. One of the reasons that groups have begun these practices is due to the inadequacies of the traditional criminal justice system in resolving these issues (Cissner et al., 2019). Unlike the court system, restorative justice centers on the survivor rather than the state. It recognizes the agency of survivors and their need to feel safe in the wake of these forms of violence. It also acknowledges that healing can look different to different people. At the same time, restorative justice requires the perpetrator to participate actively and engage in an accountability process. More broadly, restorative justice engages communities in their efforts to address intimate partner violence by shifting the culture around intimate partner violence.

Participation in restorative justice interventions is voluntary and may not be appropriate in all situations, especially if this is not the survivor’s wish. Even so, restorative justice provides an alternate framework, which is worth considering as a means to address some common complaints with the criminal justice approach to intimate partner violence.

9.4.3 References

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2020). How the Child Welfare System Works. Children’s Bureau. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/cpswork.pdf

Cissner, A., Sasson, E., Hauser, R. T., Packer, H., Pennell, J., Smith, E. L., Desmarais, S., & Burford, G. (2019). A National Portrait of Restorative Approaches to Intimate Partner Violence. Center for Court Innovation. https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2019/Report_IPV_12032019.pdf

Lyon, E., Lane, S., & Menard, A. (2008). Meeting Survivors’ Needs: A Multi-State Study of Domestic Violence Shelter Experiences, Final Report (No. 225025). National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/225025.pdf

National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence. (2008). Timeline Of The Battered Women’s Movement. NYC Human Resources Administration Department of Social Services. http://www.ncdsv.org/images/nychradss_timelinebwm_2008.pdf

Robinson, S. R., Ravi, K., & Voth Schrag, R. J. (2020). A Systematic Review of Barriers to Formal Help Seeking for Adult Survivors of IPV in the United States, 2005–2019. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1279–1295. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1524838020916254