Violence Against Women Act Analysis

Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, is a federal law signed in by Congress in 1994. It focused on, originally, domestic violence, sex crimes, and bringing awareness to such crimes towards women. It has been revised and reauthorized several times since present to add more oppressed diverse groups; such as, sex trafficking, Indian tribes, and same sex partners including males. Other additions have included modifying sex rape kits per state, stalking, and several grant programs. The act strives to hold offenders accountable for their physical and sexual criminal acts towards women. VAWA produced new programs within the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control grant programs. These programs provided services

to victims for post care and treatment, reduction of violence towards women, and appropriate punishment towards offenders. (Sacco, 2015; “VAWA Overview,” 2012).
In 1995, the Violence Against Women Policy Office, VAWAO, was created by President Clinton. (“VAWA History,” 2012). It created grant programs under the Violence Against Women Grants Office, VAWAGO, for all states and tribes. (“VAWA History,” 2012). Along with grants, it provided a wide variety resources for victims; such as: National Domestic Violence Hotline, rape shield law, legal reprieve for battered immigrants, law enforcement on stalking and cyber stalking. In 2000, the law included two new provisions overseeing Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, authorized new programs for sex trafficking victims, reinforced federal laws, and included assistance for immigrant victims, victims with disabilities, and victims of dating violence. (Sacco, 2015; “VAWA History,” 2012).
Violence Against Women Act History documented, “In 1871, Alabama is the first state to rescind the legal right of men to beat their wives.” (“VAWA History,” 2012, p. 1). For a statement that expressed good judgement, it proved that the United States was beginning to recognize domestic violence and its severity. VAWA originated from the battered women’s movement between the 1960s to the 1970’s. (“Timeline of Battered,” 2008). This movement brought domestic violence to the forefront. The movement’s goal to protect women and women’s rights would snowball into a strong and life changing movement. The timeline of battered women’s movement in the states, in 1983, over 700 shelters were in operation nationwide. They served 91,000 women and 131,000 children per year. (“Timeline of Battered,” 2008). In 1994, the Domestic Violence Intervention Act mandated arrest for offenders, education and training court and public officers, and revision of criminal acts by offenders. (Sacco, 2015; “Timeline of Battered,” 2008). Finally, in 1993, Senator Joe Biden noticed the brutality of domestic violence and strived to bring the issue to Congress. In response, Congress signed the VAWA of 1994.
Despite the policy’s respectable purpose, there remained groups that opposed it and its funding.

Opposition of VAWA seemed to stem from the Republican Party the most. Republicans strengthened their opposition when the protection of same sex partners were added. (Darling, 2012). This includes males if they are in a sexual relationship with other males. (Darling, 2012). Others have reported to accuse the policy of being too general and spending too much money, like $455 million dollars, and not addressing real issues. (“Problems with VAWA,” 2012). The Problems with VAWA report addressed their concern by stating, “Instead of addressing the root problems of violence and ending battering, the broad definitions of violence in VAWA mean that husbands are thrown in jail based on flimsy allegations of causing “emotional distress” or “unpleasant speech.” (“Problems with VAWA,” 2012, p. 1). The debate still remains between conservative and liberals of how to properly address and help women’s issues affected by

violence.
VAWA proposes aid for innocent victims of brutal crimes. Despite the ongoing common brutality of women, this law took a long time to pass in the United States. Women were an oppressed group for far too long. It took too many victims to bring domestic violence to social consciousness. At the beginning of the VAWA of 1994, it only focused on domestic violence and grant programs to aid in such acts. However, over time, legislation has revised this law over several years to add different minority groups, grant programs, education and training, several different sex crimes, and violent acts within intimate same sex partners. It’s ever changing to make others mindful of battered individuals and enforcing appropriate action to punish its offenders.
In the United States, there remains an epidemic of violence against women and girls of all ages, battered immigrants, trafficking victims, victims with disabilities, lesbians, and gay males. The VAWO has increased education and training law enforcement for battered persons, especially women. Many developments have increased overtime; such as, safety programs and institutions, reduction of crime rate, reformed stricter laws towards offenders. (“VAWA Overview,” 2012). One of the laws in constant debate with VAWA is that of gun control. Guns are a common weapon involved in domestic disputes. (Price, 2014). Price identifies this violence by stating, “Domestic assaults involving firearms are 12 times more likely to be fatal than those not involving firearms.” (Price, 2014, p. 1). The debate remains if it is better to take away the guns or focus on educating ignorance and women’s rights. Domestic violence is a common crime continually fought in the United States. Gender-based brutality does not discriminate across culture, race, status, age and so forth. Presently, the fight against gender-based violence has increased and become more specified.
There has been a struggle globally to create the same protection towards oppressed groups. (Treuthart, 2015). The goals of the VAWA are to prevent crime, account for the victims’ needs, provide proper education and training, research on effectiveness, provide grant programs in victims’ aid, and alter public opinion on gender-based crimes.
After the policy’s establishment, the Department of Justice, DOJ, and the Department of Health and Human Services, DHHS, were two major department funding the VAWA made up of grant programs. (Boba & Lilley, 2008). The DOJ provided grants for law enforcement and prosecution, child abuse programs, and resource for victims of domestic violence. (Boba & Lilley, 2008). The DHHS provided grants for shelters, rape prevention, domestic abuse hotline, reducing sexual abuse in youths, and research and data collection. (Boba & Lilley, 2008). VAWA started the Violence Against Women Office which helped create more jobs and spread grant funds for the victims. This led to more jobs for shelters, rehabilitation programs, and so forth. In 2000, two more large programs were added; such as, Services Training Officers and Prosecuters, STOP, and Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of protection orders, also known as ARREST. STOP focused primarily on law enforcement, research, and data collection. (Boba & Lilley, 2008). ARREST focused primarily on state, federal, and tribal laws in becoming stricter on battered persons. Presently, there was an urge to resolve issues with the rape kits within the states. SANE, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, was then created to just that while also increasing victim safety, offender accountability. (Boba & Lilley, 2008). This was established through health care and forensic evidence collaboration. Boba and Lilley documented a study performed at Muskie School that showed, “Muskie School conducted research and found more than 1.2 million victims received services.” (Boba & Lilley, 2008, p. 2). The funding in grant programs resulted in significant positive results in counseling and crisis intervention, legal enforcement and prosecution, victim advocacy and overall response to domestic violence.
Senator Joe Biden endorsed the important issue of domestic violence. He felt compelled to change the social consciousness on domestic violence and seek help for its’ victims, including the victims themselves and their families. He was successful because it was later recognized by congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. (Sacco et al., 2015). The biggest power houses supporting this law was the Democratic party. On a more specified level was former President Clinton to the present President Barack Obama. Recently, President Obama signed in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 to add more specified groups; such as trafficking victims and Indian tribes to the policy. It also brought revisions to rape kit backlogs. From the Republican side, President George W. Bush also supported the law and added the PROTECT Act. This authorized funding for VAWO’s Transitional Housing program. (“VAWA History,” 2012). Despite his efforts of support, recently the republican party has brought more ramifications towards the policy due to the revision of intimate same sex partners.
There was a strong representation of the policy’s beneficiaries, women.

Research has shown that there is a growing positive outcome of advocacy, law enforcement, prevention, intervention, resources, and protection. (Sacco et al., 2015). While grant programs have been utilized and resulted positively for battered women, it also has been made known that no one wants to be against battered women. (“Problems with VAWA,” 2012). Some opinions remain that there are underlying issues not being resolved while still spending immense amounts of money. The ongoing effort to strengthen victim advocacy and expedite helpful resources is ever growing. Since 1994, the policy has continued on a journey of helping battered women, their families, and a broader basis of sexual offenses to enforce with more appropriate punishment. It has acknowledged modern day ideals of including other minority oppressed groups; such as, trafficking victims, immigrant victims, Indian tribes, and same sex intimate partners. The policy presently includes many avenues for battered persons and families to gain resources and strength to rehabilitate from violence and also enforcing stricter laws for appropriate punishment towards its offenders. I hypothesize that the reauthorization of this act will continue to grow, make revisions, become more diverse, and change the social consciousness towards battered persons and their

families.