The work to end domestic violence in the U.S. started in the 1970s by survivors and advocates as a grassroots movement rooted in communities. Initially referred to as the Battered Women’s Movement because of its focus, it has made significant strides in changing the landscape of the response to violence against women.

Beginning with shared stories from battered women, the movement created grassroots shelters, safe spaces, and advocacy. These early spaces provided much-needed physical relief, emotional and psychological support, and fierce advocacy. These early victims and advocates modeled the work on feminist ideologies of collaboration and empowerment. Many of these early programs held that bureaucratic structures were patriarchal and oppressive, and noted that empowerment was the key to change. Survivor-defined practice was the norm, allowing survivors to take charge of their own lives based on their reality, needs, and choices.

Beginning in the late 80s, advocacy focused on changing government response. As advocates gained political ground, they successfully forced government, legal systems, and other providers to respond effectively. As the movement became more inclusive, terminology also changed, and the work focused on many different aspects of violence. Major local, state, and federal legislation changed the landscape and stabilized funding for many of the providers.

Landmark federal legislation included the Family Violence Prevention Services Act and the Violence Against Women Act. Both acts not only enabled systems’ professionals to ensure victim safety but also funneled much-needed dollars to programs. It also shaped the landscape of collaboration between government systems and local service providers.

Emerging Practices and Promising Models

The best-known and earliest of all the collaborative models was the Coordinated Community Response (CCR) Model, pioneered by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Minnesota. Initially, advocates focused on bringing together law enforcement agencies, the prosecution, and advocacy groups in a jurisdiction to work together and find ways to address opportunities and challenges.

As it gained momentum and research showed positive outcomes, other systems began to be incorporated into the model, such as the civil legal system, family courts, child welfare, healthcare, and others. Out of the CCR models emerged the Family Justice Centers (FJC) (focused on co-location of services in one space), and the Domestic Violence High Risk Teams (specially focused on identifying and monitoring high-risk cases only).

As funding stabilized, numerous domestic and sexual violence programs developed in the nation along with state coalitions that addressed public policy issues within the state. Many culturally specific organisations dedicated to working with specific communities were created. This included many South Asian organisations also, designed to provide safety and support to South Asian immigrant women as well as those from the diaspora.

As these local programs flourished, many other promising practices were established over the next two decades. These included a variety of innovative responses within the legal system involving child custody and support, model codes for legal systems to approach gender based violence, risk tools to assess danger and lethality, and the Blueprint for Safety (a tool kit for all criminal legal systems to operationalise processes to support victims).

Besides all the programmatic developments, the understanding of the impact of trauma, coercive control, the impact on children, and the adverse impact of domestic violence all contributed to a burgeoning field that enhanced safety for victims while holding offenders accountable.

With so many different response methods now available, advocates and survivors ensure that the core principles of intervention are maintained. These include a) always responding to the needs of the victim, not the program or the system; b) addressing the context of the violence; c) avoiding responses that further endanger the victim; d) centering the lived experience of the survivor; and e) recognizing the differential impact on different survivors and communities. In the U.S., the changes wrought over the past four decades are the result of a push by survivors and advocates. Advocacy remains the cornerstone of the work that was and is guided by survivors.

Adaptable Models for India: From Standalone Approaches to Coordination

The FJC and Domestic Violence High Risk Teams are models worth emulating and adapting to Indian systems.  

• The FJCs are defined as “multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder or dependent adult abuse, or human trafficking from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children” (Kehoe, n.d.).
  
  The FJCA initiative is designed to centralise access to services offered by both governmental and non-governmental agencies, reducing the risk of re-traumatisation for survivors and enabling more effective case management through streamlined processes and strengthened interdepartmental coordination (Duncan et al., 2021). Services can be availed either in person or by calling 311 to get information pertaining to the nearest FJC. This coordinated approach can be a solution for resource constraints in the form of staff, reducing duplication as well as being more survivor-centric.

• Domestic Violence High Risk Team (DVHRT) Model is a nationally recognised domestic violence homicide preventive framework in the U.S. accepted by the Office on Violence Against Women and practised in many states in the country. The core principles of the framework include early identification of the dangerous cases through evidence-based risk assessment, increased access to services for high-risk survivors, enhanced monitoring of offenders, and a coordinated response to high-risk cases through a multi disciplinary team.
  
  Being a victim-centric model, the team is led or co-led by no governmental agency working against domestic violence, along with law enforcement, prosecution, probation, parole, and corrections. If required, court-ordered offender intervention programs also participate. The model strongly believes that a coordinated approach gives better results compared to working in silos.

In India, however, coordinated responses in the VAWG model are rare. The Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP) Model of Telangana, the Mahila Suraksha Salah Kendra of Rajasthan, and the Kudumbasree model of Kerala are all standalone models. While One-Stop Centres (OSCs) in some states are run through NGOs, the coordinated response system worked to an extent, even if there were flaws. The recent direction by the Central Ministry of Women and Child Development to take over OSC operations from NGOs is again bringing the whole set of efforts to a siloed approach. It is time to think about the current frameworks and approaches to help survivors.

 Dr Sujata Warrier is the Chief Strategy Officer, Battered Women Justice Project (BWJP), U.S.A.

Views expressed by the authors are personal and need not reflect or represent the views of the Centre for Public Policy Research (CPPR).

Dr Sujata Warrier

Chief Strategy Officer at Battered Women Justice Project (BWJP), USA | [email protected] |  + postsBio

Sujata Warrier is the Chief Strategy Officer for the Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP), U.S.A. For many years, she was associated with Manavi, a pioneering South Asian organization in New Jersey, and served on many boards, including the Asian Pacific Islander Institute on GBV. She has also trained extensively at the local, state, national, and international levels on the issues of intersectionality, culture, and cultural competency for various professionals, delivering numerous keynotes.

She received her Ph.D. from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. She has written and published numerous articles. She has received numerous awards, including the Rev. Cheng Imm Tan Visionary Award, AWAKE Award for South Asian Women’s Advocacy, the Indian Chamber of Commerce Award honoring Women Achievers, and the New York 30 Women Leaders Award. She recently served, after being appointed by the Attorney General, on the Federal Department of Justice, Office on Violence against Women’s Advisory Board.

This author does not have any more posts.