| Releases & Statements
Thirteen years ago,
three committed women, Ruth Messinger, Ronnie Eldridge, and Alisa
Del Tufo, took a bold step on behalf of all the women of New York
City.
Their report, “Behind
Closed Doors,” shone a bright light on the obstacles faced
by survivors of domestic violence struggling to secure protection
from the police, justice from the courts, and assistance from
the City’s social service agencies. The report was the first
to document the many ways in which survivors were held back and
demoralized by the very system that was supposed to help them.
“Behind Closed
Doors” did more than just describe the problem. Messenger,
Eldridge, and Del Tufo proposed solutions. They set the stage
for a reform movement the effects of which have been felt in law
enforcement, the courts, the workplace, the emergency housing
system, and the child welfare system.
Make no mistake, New
York City has come a long way in the thirteen years since “Behind
Closed Doors.” The title of the new report we’re here
this morning to discuss, “Opening the Door,” is meant
to acknowledge the progress that’s been made.
Just consider for a moment what has
already been accomplished:
Last year, we saw the
opening of the Family Justice Center in Brooklyn, the first of
its kind in the nation. With a single appointment, survivors can
now meet with a prosecutor, access social services, and begin
counseling. Nearly two thousand survivors have received assistance
from the Family Justice Center to date.
Four of the five boroughs now have
Integrated Domestic Violence courtrooms where survivors’
court cases can all be heard by the same judge. All five District
Attorneys in New York City have established specialized prosecution
bureaus and victim advocacy programs in their offices.
New York State has had
a Mandatory Arrest law on the books since 1994. In 2001, the City
Council passed a law to protect the rights of survivors in the
workplace.
Since 1993, the number of emergency shelter beds in New York City
has more than doubled. And in 2004, the City settled the class-action
case Nicholson v. Scoppetta, so survivors no longer have to be
afraid their children will be taken away if they report domestic
violence.
On top of all these
successes, the City has demonstrated a firm commitment to curbing
domestic violence by creating the Mayor’s Office to Combat
Domestic Violence, one of the first such agencies in the nation
to deal exclusively with the issue.
These are important achievements. They have changed women’s
lives. The authors of “Behind Closed Doors” deserve
our deep gratitude. Their analysis and recommendations were the
groundwork for change.
Unfortunately, the purpose of this
new report and today’s conference is not to celebrate a
job well done. Many of the problems discussed in “Behind
Closed Doors” remain today.
There is still a severe shortage of
supervised visitation services for custody cases. Funding for
the organizations that offer supervised visitation is constantly
in jeopardy. Many survivors receive inadequate or no legal representation
to help them navigate the complex court system.
In addition to all the
old problems, there are new stumbling blocks on the road to reform.
Deep cuts to Section 8 housing and flaws in the City’s new
Housing Stability Plus program have made it even more difficult
for survivors to obtain safe, affordable housing for themselves
and their children.
Some problems that existed
thirteen years ago still have not been given sufficient attention.
What we call “domestic violence” can have the same
devastating impact on same-sex couples, teenagers in dating relationships,
and foster families as it has on conventional families. We are
only beginning to take stock of the unique problems these groups
face.
My object is not to be pessimistic.
There is no doubt in my mind that the system can be fixed so that
survivors of domestic violence are able to seek justice, earn
a living, and raise their children without fear. But we cannot
afford to wait another thirteen years for the next round of reforms.
Too many lives hang in the balance.
Over the past decade and a half, New
York has become one of the safest big cities in the nation. But
violence within families has resisted the general downward trend
in crime. Recently, the brutal killing of a seven-year-old girl
reminded us that the poisonous atmosphere of violence, intimidation,
and fear that used to hang over New York in the minds of so many
hasn’t entirely left the city. It has simply taken up residence
in our neighbors’ homes, still behind closed doors.
Domestic violence doesn’t begin and end with the act of
brutality itself. It traumatizes children, sends families spiraling
into poverty, and adds to the joblessness, homelessness, and despair
with which this city is already overloaded.
Domestic violence and
child abuse are casting a pall on the revival of New York City.
Here’s what Ruth Messinger and Ronnie Eldridge wrote in
their introductory letter to “Behind Closed Doors”
thirteen years ago:
“Although domestic
violence and child abuse are viewed as separate problems, the
evidence clearly indicates that where there’s one, there
most often is the other. The 1991 report of the New York City
Child Fatality Review Panel found that in 71 percent of the cases
where a child died in a homicide, the mother was also abused.”
Sadly, the link between
domestic violence and child abuse remains unbroken. Even if a
batterer does not abuse his victim’s children, those children
are still exposed to a host of indelible traumas: they may be
forced to live in a shelter or on the street because their mother
has been denied housing. They may grow up to become abusers themselves,
perpetuating the cycle of violence.
New Yorkers are clamoring
right now for the City to overhaul the child welfare system. We
need to make the case that, the better the City protects survivors
of domestic violence, the better we can protect our most vulnerable
children.
Making the case is just
the beginning. This new report is a roadmap for reform, a set
of policy prescriptions for the courts, the NYPD, the Human Resources
Administration, the Administration for Children’s Services,
and the Department of Education.
The more vigorously
the City commits to this roadmap, the more effective we will be
in responding to the challenges and dangers faced by survivors
of domestic violence and their children.
Among the most important
elements of the roadmap is a series of reforms dedicated to a
single goal: making it easier for survivors to secure and maintain
housing. In 2004, a third of the survivors who requested a place
in City domestic violence shelters were told there was no room
for them or their children. That is unacceptable.
HRA must increase the number of units
in Tier II transitional shelters so survivors who have reached
their time limit in emergency shelters but have not found permanent
housing are no longer forced to make the impossible choice between
living on the street and returning to an abusive household.
Of course, shelters
are not the ultimate solution for survivors trying to protect
themselves and their children. The City needs to put permanent
housing within their reach.
The New York City Housing
Authority could make this city safer for survivors and their children
tomorrow just by easing the unnecessarily stringent documentation
requirements for survivors seeking priority status for NYCHA housing.
Despite the fact that
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development encourages
housing authorities to accept “a broad range of evidence
as proof of domestic violence,” NYCHA only accepts multiple
recent police reports and current orders of protection. There
is no justification for the City setting such a high bar for women
who are running for their lives.
I have been pushing
the administration to make this simple policy change for a long
time. This week, Commissioner Jiminez of the OCDV assured me that
the message has gotten through and we can finally expect to see
revised documentation requirements in the coming months.
Perhaps the most daunting obstacle
to survivors seeking permanent housing is the City’s new
Housing Stability Plus program. To the women who are shut out
of HSP or expected to keep their head above water while their
subsidy dwindles by 20% every year, that name—Housing Stability
Plus—must have a bitter sound.
As it currently stands,
HSP is like something out of Alice in Wonderland. Most survivors
are able to obtain employment and increase their earnings over
time, but it is completely unreasonable to expect them to do so
fast enough to cover the rent as their subsidy dwindles. How many
of us get a 20% raise from year to year?
The most maddening part
is that a woman who did increase her earnings at that pace would
most likely become ineligible for public assistance and therefore
lose her HSP subsidy. Did I say Alice in Wonderland? I should
have said Catch-22.
Judging by HSP, the
City believes its responsibility towards New Yorkers in need is
to nudge them just over the poverty line. This attitude is bad
enough when it’s directed at the typical low-income New
Yorker. But when it’s directed at a survivor trying to move
herself and her children beyond the reach of an abuser, it constitutes
reckless indifference to suffering.
Part of the problem
is that the State controls half the funding for HSP and it has
been unresponsive to requests for an increase. I told Commissioner
Jiminez that I’m ready and willing to go with her to Albany
to demand more money from Governor Pataki.
But we can’t just sit by and
wait for the State to come through. If the City is serious about
stopping domestic violence and protecting at-risk children, it
will do what it takes to change this regressive approach to housing.
The Housing Authority
isn’t the only agency that needs to reform its policies.
The Department of Education needs to institute a uniform protocol
in the schools for handling teen relationship abuse. There are
a number of measures a school can take to protect a teen domestic
violence survivor from her batterer. The most important is a school
transfer policy that requires the transfer of batterers who attend
the same school as their victims, rather than forcing victims
to request safety transfers for themselves.
The NYPD needs to start
keeping track of domestic violence cases in which both parties
are arrested. As a result of the mandatory arrest law passed in
1997, more victims of domestic violence are being arrested for
physically defending themselves against their attackers. Unintended
though they may be, the consequences of an unjust arrest can prove
devastating. Survivors can lose their jobs or custody of their
children. But until the NYPD starts tracking dual arrests and
making the data available to advocates and City officials, we
won’t know how to solve the problem.
Perhaps the single greatest
fear of survivors of domestic violence is that their children
will come to harm. We have undoubtedly come a long way since the
days when it was common practice for the City to punish the victims
of domestic violence by taking their children away from them.
Unfortunately, though,
children who do end up in the care of the Administration for Children’s
Services are not beyond the reach of family violence. ACS routinely
removes children from homes that it deems unsafe without ensuring
that their new homes are actually safer. According to the agency’s
own records, in fiscal year 2004 alone, over 400 New York City
children in foster care were reported abused or neglected.
If New Yorkers are looking
to direct their outrage at a specific failing on the part of ACS,
this is an ideal candidate. And if ACS really wants to prove that
it’s getting its act together and strengthening its resolve
to keep children safe, it should work with the State to screen
all potential adoptive and foster homes against the State Domestic
Violence Registry to make sure they’re violence-free.
I understand that not
every piece of the roadmap is as simple or practical as screening
potential foster homes for domestic violence or loosening the
documentation requirements to obtain priority status for NYCHA
housing.
We need more family court judges in
New York City, more certified court interpreters to help survivors
with their cases, more attorneys at legal services organizations
who specialize in domestic violence, and more supervised visitation
programs. All of that means more funding—a lot more funding.
The best intentions and firmest resolve in the world are no guarantee
of an immediate windfall.
But difficult problems don’t mean we should lower our expectations.
“Maybe next year” is not good enough. New Yorkers
can wait years for a Second Avenue Subway and the Olympics, but
survivors of domestic violence can’t wait for even days
or hours for help escaping their batterers. Children exposed to
domestic violence can’t wait for a safe place to live.
We can’t allow the wheels of government to turn at the same
old slow pace while our neighbors live in fear and their children
grow up with threats and violence. We can’t be satisfied
with incremental change. We have a roadmap in front of us, we
know what the City must do to protect survivors and their children.
I will work with the
Mayor and the City Council to see that the changes I’m recommending
get made. I want to look back and say that the elected and appointed
officials of our city acted swiftly and decisively on behalf of
families devastated by domestic violence.
I want the next comprehensive
report on this issue to say that the call of “Behind Closed
Doors” and “Opening the Door” has been answered,
the work completed. We can call that one “Door Wide Open.”
Thank you.
-#-
|
