Membership Meeting – Wednesday, May 23rd, 11:00 am-3:00 pm
Comfort Suites, Forsyth, GA
No Comments »GCADV Training: What Every Front-line Advocate Should Know
May 9, 10, 11, 2012 9:00-5:00pm
No Comments »The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote NEXT WEEK on a harmful alternative bill for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization, the Cantor-Adams bill (HR 4970). Please contact your Congressman and urge him to vote NO on HR 4970! Ask him to, instead, support a bill like the bipartisan Senate Bill (S.1925) that protects vulnerable communities and does not add additional bureaucratic barriers to victim service providers.
You can find the name and contact information for your Representative by clicking here.
HR 4970 is harmful to victims because it:
For a detailed fact sheet, click HERE. **NEW**
Based on the false notion that victim services providers are wasteful with VAWA funds, HR 4970 also burdens VAWA grant recipients with unworkable and excessive audit and oversight requirements on top of the already stringent requirements that exist in the law as it is. This will divert precious grant dollars and time from direct services to victims.
The additional oversight and audit provisions in HR 4970 have been championed by so-called “men’s rights” groups, such as SAVE, as a way to slowly chip away at VAWA and the life-saving services it provides. SAVE purports that VAWA grant recipients engage in widespread fraud and waste of government funding. This group also actively seeks to undermine the work of victim advocates by spreading misinformation about the rate of false allegations of domestic violence and sexual assault, declaring June as “False Allegations Awareness Month.”
For more detailed information about HR 4970, please visit http://4vawa.org.
Please take just a few minutes to call or email your Congressman to urge him to oppose HR 4970. Many Congressmen, unaware of the impact that these dangerous bill provisions would have, are poised to vote in favor of this terrible bill. It is up to advocates and concerned citizens to educate them about the very real harm that HR 4970 could do!
Thank you for your continued advocacy!!!
No Comments »Release: http://tiny.cc/dv2012release
Mary Kay Inc. World Headquarters Contact:
Addison, Texas 75001 Kathrina McAfee, 972-687-4355
www.marykay.com kathrina.mcafee@mkcorp.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
While Signs of Economic Recovery Persist, Domestic Violence on the Rise Nationwide
Mary Kay Identifies: Demand for Help is Up – Services, Funding and Prevention Programs are Down
DALLAS (May 1, 2012) – Though many areas of life are recovering from the economic downturn, domestic violence shelters throughout the United States report that the economy continues to significantly affect battered women and children. While shelters shine a spotlight on the widespread increase in domestic violence survivors seeking help nationwide, they also highlight a substantial decrease in shelter services, funding sources and prevention efforts to assist victims. In addition, shelters report that the abuse is getting more severe, survivors are staying in abusive relationships longer and shelters expect the situation will only stay the same or get worse in light of the economy – according to the fourth national “Mary Kay Truth About Abuse Survey.”
More than 730 domestic violence shelters across the country were recently surveyed. Detailed national findings from the 2012 “Mary Kay Truth About Abuse Survey” reveal alarming trends in light of the economy’s decline since 2008, including:
The survey’s overwhelming trends are remarkably similar in each region of the United States – Northeast, Midwest, South and West. Detailed regional findings are available upon request.
Sue Else, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence said, “Society has come a long way in the past few decades, creating more comprehensive services and ultimately reducing the rates of domestic violence. But clearly, the ‘Mary Kay Truth About Abuse Survey’ shows that much more work needs to be done.”
Katie Ray-Jones, president of the National Domestic Violence Hotline added, “Over the last four years, the National Domestic Violence Hotline has received nearly 10,000 more calls for help from survivors of domestic violence and their loved ones. The most requested service from callers is a referral to a shelter in their local community. Unfortunately, the economy has had a devastating impact on local domestic violence shelters. Many have had to reduce their capacity, reduce services and, in some instances, have closed their doors.”
Anne Crews, Mary Kay Inc. Vice President and The Mary Kay FoundationSM Board Member noted, “The ‘Mary Kay Truth About Abuse Survey’ represents more than staggering numbers. It signifies lives in the balance. Domestic violence shelters across the country can mean the difference between life and death, yet the economy continues to plague shelters and the women and children they serve. The truth about abuse is that survivors and their children continue to feel the negative effects of the economy in profound ways. This crime is a community issue. Individuals and businesses must get involved in efforts to educate, prevent, and eventually end, domestic violence.”
Mary Kay’s Domestic Violence Awareness and Prevention Programs
Mary Kay Inc. and The Mary Kay FoundationSM have continually been leaders in domestic violence awareness and prevention programs. In light of these survey findings, Mary Kay and The Mary Kay Foundation have been responding with the following programs:
*Available while supplies last
About The “Mary Kay Truth About Abuse Survey”
The fourth “Mary Kay Truth About Abuse Survey” polled 733 domestic violence shelters across the United States about domestic violence and the economy since September 2008, a major turning point in the U.S. economy. The study was conducted online between Feb. 7-17, 2012. Comprehensive 2012 survey findingssummarize national and regional results. Past surveys from 2009-2011 are available at: www.marykay.com/survey.
About Mary Kay
Mary Kay is one of the world’s largest direct selling companies with more than $3 billion in annual wholesale sales worldwide. Mary Kay was founded in 1963 by Mary Kay Ash with the goal of helping women achieve personal growth and financial success. Mary Kay remains committed to enriching women’s lives, and today more than 2.4 million people of all backgrounds are enjoying the advantages of being Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultants. Mary Kay’s high-quality skin care and color cosmetic products are sold in more than 35 countries around the world. To learn more about Mary Kay, visit www.marykay.com.
###
No Comments »
Please contact your U.S. Representative before May 8 and ask them to OPPOSE the Cantor-Adams proposal (H.R. 4970) and to SUPPORT H.R. 4271 for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act!
Georgia’s U.S. Representatives need to hear loud and clear that all victims should be protected and that victim service providers cannot endure additional bureaucracy.
You can find the name and contact information for your Representative by clicking here.
The backstory
The VAWA reauthorization bill – S.1925 – passed the U.S. Senate last week with bipartisan support. S.1925 was carefully crafted with based on interviews with more than 2,000 law enforcement, court, prosecution, legal services, and victim services professionals from across the country, and it includes needed protections for immigrant, LGBTQ, and Native American victims.
The U.S. House of Representatives must now pass its version of the bill before it can move to the President for his signature. H.R. 4271 is the House bill that most closely parallels S.1925.
Unfortunately, some members of the House have introduced a different bill – the Cantor-Adams bill – that weakens or deletes entirely some of the vital improvements in S.1925, including the provisions designed to increase the safety of Native women and address the needs of the LGBTQ community. The bill also contains damaging provisions that create obstacles for immigrant victims seeking to report crimes, increase danger for immigrant victims by eliminating important confidentiality protections, undermine effective anti-fraud protections, and roll back years of progress to protect the safety of immigrant victims. Finally, the Cantor-Adams bill adds additional red tape to victim service providers using these funds.
We must tell Georgia’s U.S. Reps that we strongly oppose the Cantor-Adams bill. The Cantor-Adams bill is DANGEROUS for victims because:
- Women could die from provisions stripping confidentiality for immigrant victims petitioning to keep themselves and their children safe – and we can’t support a bill that would tell an abusive partner where the victim is and what the victim is doing
- The bill allows batterers on Tribal lands to go free - and we can’t support a bill that protects batterers on Tribal lands but won’t protect victims
- The bill leaves LGBTQ victims isolated and alone because this bill thinks LGBTQ victims are not the “right” victims worthy of help
Thank you for your continued advocacy on this important legislation!
No Comments »
For Immediate Release: April 26, 2012
Contact: Brian Namey, 202-251-9039; bnamey@nnedv.org
Washington, D.C — The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) today issued the following statement in response to the U.S. Senate passing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.
“Today, we are one step closer to a victory for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking,” said Sue Else, president of NNEDV. “I want to thank our champions in the Senate including Senators Leahy (D-VT) and Crapo (R-ID), a broad cohort of bipartisan supporters, cosponsors and the 68 Senators who voted for the bill, S. 1925. I also want to
thank Vice President Biden for his longstanding and vocal advocacy for this lifesaving legislation, which he first penned nearly twenty years ago.
“On behalf of statewide coalitions, victim advocates and millions of survivors and their children, thank you for taking this crucial step forward. We very much look forward to working with the House to ensure full passage as swiftly as possible.”
# # #
No Comments »Some harmful VAWA substitutes and bad amendments to S.1925 could be debated on the Senate Floor as soon as Wednesday, April 25! Call Senator Chambliss and Senator Isakson today with this message:
“I am/the members of my organization are constituents and we need Senator Chambliss/Senator Isakson to vote for S. 1925. S. 1925 is the real VAWA and has protections and services for ALL victims. A vote for any other bill or unfriendly amendment is a vote AGAINST VAWA.”
S. 1925 protects victims and must pass. A vote for any other bill or a vote for any amendment is a vote AGAINST VAWA. (See a recent Washington Post article that outlines key provisions in S. 1925.)
A harmful substitute bill – the Grassley-Hutchison substitute – will likely be offered up as an alternative to S.1925. This substitute bill includes damaging and unworkable provisions that will harm victims, cost money, and create new bureaucracies and unnecessary inefficiencies that would divert precious dollars from services. It was drafted without input or consultation from the thousands of professionals engaged in this work every day. You can learn more about this substitute bill HERE.
The real VAWA – S. 1925 – was carefully crafted with new provisions and refinements based on interviews with more than 2,000 law enforcement, court, prosecution, legal services, and victim services professionals from across the country. S. 1925 builds upon the past successes of VAWA, increasing its effectiveness and reaching more victims, while decreasing the total amount of federal funding by 20%, eliminating 13 programs and streamlining another ten programs into three. You can learn more about the real VAWA reauthorization bill – S. 1925 – HERE.
Thank you for your continued advocacy! We will keep you posted!
No Comments »My daughter is a senior at the University of Virginia. She lives off campus in an apartment with two other classmates who are also young women. She fortunately, has never been sexually assaulted. However, she leaves a pair of my old shoes outside of her apartment door to give the appearance that a man is present. Why is that?
In the United States a man will rape or sexually assault 1 out of 5 women. 75% of those women (and girls) are between the ages of 16 and 25. A man will physically assault 1 out of 3 women. Women and girls in our life must do many things throughout their day in the attempt to reduce their risk of being harmed by men. If you were to ask the women in your life if they too do things to help them feel safer, they would say things like, “I don’t work late, I park where my car is clearly visible (and in well lit areas), I carry mace” and countless other survival tactics.
While only about 15% of men are violent toward women, sexual assault and domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States. How is it that this small number of men can wreak so much havoc within our neighborhoods, our communities, our schools and our workplaces?
While it is true that most men are not violent (approx 85%) we are silent about the violence and abuse of other men. That silence is adding to the problem and it is our time to raise our voices along with women. If you are a man or young man and are as appalled as we are then join us and other men by saying NO MORE. Get Involved! www.NOMORE.org
No Comments »For months after Kristina Ponischil was raped at a party in her off-campus apartment, her life at Western Washington University was hell. Police wouldn’t act, as often happens in college towns with “he said, she said” accounts of alcohol-influenced student encounters behind closed doors. Despite a restraining order, she kept running into her assailant on campus, prompting panic attacks.
Once, the man who’d raped her brushed up against Ponischil in the bookstore, then smirked.
“I was just constantly worried that I would run into him again,” Ponischil said.
But if the criminal justice system let Ponischil down, Western Washington did not. When she finally told an administrator what happened, the school sprang to action, offering her the support she needed. Perhaps most importantly, the campus judicial system, using a lower standard of proof than criminal courts, suspended her assailant, removing him from campus until she graduated in 2009.
“I was able to start healing,” she said. “When I was constantly afraid, there was no healing. It was just constant fear.”
The college’s response wasn’t just a moral obligation; it was also a legal one.
June marks the 40th anniversary of Title IX, the federal gender-equity law that has made headlines mostly on the sports pages. But over the last decade or so, through a series of court rulings and more recently controversial guidance published by Obama administration, Title IX has shifted onto a different patch of contentious terrain — sexual assault on college campuses. It is transforming how colleges must respond to allegations of sexual violence.
The reasoning: Title IX’s key language, running barely 30 words, forbids sex-based discrimination that denies access to educational opportunity. It’s long established that sexual discrimination and harassment can create an atmosphere that denies women their right to education. What’s newer is applying the logic to even a single episode of sexual assault.
Typically, colleges enjoy wide leeway in responding to student misconduct, whether that means using a disciplinary board to enforce their own rules or simply punting the matter to law enforcement. But as Title IX is now interpreted — and would be reinforced under a new version of the Violence Against Women Act awaiting a Senate vote — colleges must respond if a sexual assault is reported, even if prosecutors refuse to get involved. Moreover, they face often precise instructions from the government for conducting their investigations and proceedings, and even the standard of proof to use.
Victims’ advocates welcome what they call an overdue push for colleges to take seriously a problem they’ve long swept under the rug. The latest Title IX guidance also requires colleges to train staff, and develop and publicize policies to help sexual assault victims, or risk large legal judgments. And they must remediate the harm to victims, for instance by providing counseling.
More broadly, these advocates contend Title IX is also reframing the entire discussion about sexual violence on campus, away from blaming victims and toward the big issue at stake: their right to an education.
But Title IX’s expanding role in campus sexual assault cases has proved contentious, on a variety of fronts, even among victims’ advocates.
Some argue channeling sexual assaults to campus proceedings lets the criminal justice system off the hook. Others argue the problem is colleges can’t or won’t hand down tough punishments. Still others oppose some of what the government now requires of colleges. For instance, schools may be required to pursue a case even if the victim wants to drop it, and they cannot offer absolute promises victims’ anonymity will be protected.
Virtually all college administrators agree it would be wrong to ignore sexual assault reports, but some feel unequipped to handle such cases. Regardless, they face suits from both sides — under Title IX for failing to act forcefully enough to ensure their campuses are safe for women, and by accused assailants claiming they were treated unfairly.
But the most vigorous criticism has come from civil libertarians, who argue the Obama administration’s guidance undermines the rights of the accused. They’ve focused on the requirement that colleges use a “preponderance of evidence” standard in such cases — essentially a belief guilt is more likely than not, and a much lower standard than defendants enjoy in criminal court.
Illustrating the dangers, they say, are cases like that of a former North Dakota college student who was found responsible for sexually assaulting a fellow student by a campus disciplinary board. Later, police investigating the incident cleared him and brought false-reporting charges against his accuser. Still, he struggled to clear his name and has yet to return to school.
Title IX, these critics claim, is a blunt legal weapon for addressing sexual assault on campus. They too see a threat to access to education — but for the accused.
———
Studies vary in their findings of how common sexual assault is at American colleges. None, however, paint a reassuring picture. An often-cited 2007 study estimated one in five college women were victims of an attempted or completed sexual assault. A national telephone survey estimated 20 to 25 percent of women would experience a completed or attempted rape in college.
A 2003 Justice Department study of violent crime calculated a lower rate: about six college women per 1,000 per year, or roughly 3 percent overall during a college career.
“It’s disgusting how much this goes on and how unaware people are of it,” said Susannah Johnson, a freshman at Wheaton College outside Boston, whose account of being raped by a former boyfriend on campus last year went viral, prompting nearly 200 e-mails to her from women at other area colleges sharing their own stories.
Fewer than 5 percent of attempted or completed rapes are reported to law enforcement or campus authorities. That endangers others, because most campus rapes are committed by serial offenders (though usually not strangers).
Last April, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent colleges a “Dear Colleague” letter, explaining its interpretation of Title IX and outlining the steps it believes colleges must take in response to sexual assault on campus. The 19-page letter carries over from past guidance that has been in force since the Clinton administration. But it was the first such guidance to address directly how Title IX applies to sexual violence, not just harassment.
The letter reminds colleges they must provide “due process” for the accused, such as giving both complainant and accused timely access to relevant information. But the focus is protections for the accuser. Schools must act promptly to investigate, not waiting for a criminal case to proceed. If necessary, they must take interim steps to protect the complainant before a verdict is reached, such as separating the accused and accuser in classes and dorms. In such cases, the burden of inconvenience should fall on the accused.
They also must offer immediate support to victims, and ensure cases are resolved before perpetrators graduate. Historically, some advocates say, colleges trying to avoid messy cases have simply “run out the clock.” That’s no longer an option.
The case for these strong measures lies with women like 24-year-old Ally Clendineng, who contends she was driven away from Northern Iowa Area Community College by a 2006 rape and the college’s inadequate response. Clendineng was fumbling for her keys after an evening out with friends when a guy she vaguely knew let her into a dormitory. He’d been drinking, and she brushed him off, but he followed her to her door. For reasons she says she can’t explain, she agreed to hang out with him in his room for a few minutes. She sat on his bed, and soon he lay down beside her and pulled her toward him.
“He kept me pinned,” Clendineng recalled. Eventually, “I just stopped trying to stop it because I couldn’t stop it,” she said.
“I remember at one point, he was like, ‘This would be so much easier if you’d help me out here.’” A resident adviser took her to the hospital, but when she talked to police she couldn’t remember the order of events. Police filed preliminary charges, but they were dropped.
On campus, she says, a dean told her the assailant had rights, too. He was told to stay away from her, but she encountered him almost daily.
“It made me unable to focus, to concentrate on anything other than making sure nothing like that ever happened again,” she said.
Clendineng began abusing painkillers and her schoolwork fell apart. Eventually, she dropped out. She’s now trying to finish a degree online.
“I should have been able to finish school long before now,” she said. She believes she could have “had there been more support from the school, had they done more to tell him to stay away, had the dean not essentially blamed me for it happening.”
A NIACC spokeswoman, Michele Appelgate (CQ), provided with a summary of Clendineng’s account, said it did not accurately reflect the college’s response in that case. She also provided a statement from president Debra Derr describing a series of changes and improvements, made under new leadership four years ago, to the college’s sexual assault response policy.
Only recently, Clendineng said, did she become aware Title IX might apply to a case like hers. At the time, she had no idea of her rights or the obligations it places on colleges to act and help victims.
To read more, click here: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-21/title-ix-campus-sexual-violence/54456812/1
No Comments »The last presentation of the Interbrand conference was about an important innovation about to be introduced in the fight against domestic violence and sexual abuse. Three impressive women: Anne Glauber (EVP Ruder-Finn), Maile Zambuto (CEO, Joyful Heart Foundation), and Jane Randel (SVP, Liz Claiborne) presented a new mark against domestic violence that will function much like the pink ribbon that represents breast cancer. This NO MORE mark will act as an umbrella for the many efforts and organizations that work to eliminate violence against women (and other intimate violence). It is supported by several corporations, including Avon.
The presenters asked the audience to provide strategic ideas about how to begin this important new effort. Daniel Diez, who led the discussion from Interbrand, summed up by saying that the conference attendees would be engaged in a dialog over the next twelve months to help advise the No More group as they begin to get their effort off the ground. I look forward to watching this dialog unfold.
The conversation about No More was attended by some important discussion about the relationship of domestic violence to corporate life. Rose Kirk, president of the Verizon foundation, which has an extensive program against domestic violence, had presented in an earlier session. Here, she offered observations that supported Randel, Glauber, and Zambuto’s arguments that, since domestic violence is known to affect a high percentage of workers, it needs to become a focal point for companies across the board. However, many in the room nodded when Rose spoke about how difficult it was to get the leaders of companies to confront the fact of such violence.
It was good to see the support this initiative had from the audience at the Interbrand conference. Violence is the central means, worldwide, for perpetuating gender inequality. But it is the one thing we have trouble naming and admitting as a feature of our own culture. Easy enough to point the finger at bride-burning and honor -killing in other places, but few are willing to acknowledge that violence is equally present, in different forms, in the developed nations. I hope the No More effort will help foreground this important issue.
