[Senate Hearing 111-977]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-977
THE INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT IN A TIME OF
ECONOMIC CRISIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 5, 2010
__________
Serial No. J-111-89
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-328 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN CORNYN, Texas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Matthew S. Miner, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 48
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1
prepared statement........................................... 61
WITNESSES
Carbon, Susan B., Judge, Director, Office on Violence Against
Women, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.............. 3
Gelles, Richard J., Ph.D., Dean, School of Social Policy &
Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania................................................... 20
Ulloa, Lolita, Managing Attorney, victim Services division,
Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota...... 18
Watersong, Auburn L., Economic Justice Specialist, Vermont
Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Montpelier,
Vermont........................................................ 16
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Susan B. Carbon to questions submitted by Senator
Sessions....................................................... 29
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Carbon, Susan B., Judge, Director, Office on Violence Against
Women, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, statement... 36
Gelles, Richard J., Ph.D., Dean, School of Social Policy &
Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, statement........................................ 49
Sargent Shriver National Center on Policy Project, Wendy Pollack,
Director Women's Law and Policy Project, Chicago, statement.... 63
Ulloa, Lolita, Managing Attorney, Victim Services Division,
Hennepin County Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota,
statement...................................................... 66
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), Janice Shaw Crouse, Austin,
Texas, statement............................................... 73
Watersong, Auburn L., Economic Justice Specialist, Vermont
Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Montpelier,
Vermont, statement............................................. 78
Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, Lisalyn R. Jacobs, Vice
President of Government Relations at Legal Momentum, and Maya
Raghu, Senior Staff Attorney at Legal Momentum, articles....... 101
THE INCREASED IMPORTANCE OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT IN A TIME OF
ECONOMIC CRISIS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J.
Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken,
Sessions, and Hatch.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Now that we have settled all the problems
of the world, up here are Senator Franken and Senator
Klobuchar, Senator Sessions, and Senator Hatch. Glad to have
you here, and we will begin soon, of course, with the Director
of the Office on Violence Against Women, Susan Carbon, and I
thank you for being here.
We all know that the Violence Against Women Act, or VAWA,
was a watershed piece of legislation. It was enacted 15 years
ago, with the support of many of us on this Committee, and it
is just as crucial now as it was 15 years ago. It has provided
critical, sometimes life-saving, assistance to countless
survivors of domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking. The legislation shed light on the national problem of
violence against women and marked a bipartisan commitment to
confront and end domestic and sexual violence. Those of us on
this Committee who have been prosecutors know how important it
has been.
Now, since that time, we have responded with better laws,
social support, and coordinated community responses. I was
proud to work on the original VAWA bill. I am pleased with what
it has accomplished. Our communities and families are safer
today because of the law. And as we begin to reconsider the
reauthorization of the law, it is important to note that, for
all we have accomplished, there is more to be done.
Unfortunately, the problem of domestic and sexual violence
persists, and in times of economic crises, the victims become
even more vulnerable.
The Violence Against Women Act has transformed our criminal
justice system. It has improved legal and law enforcement
response to the complex issues of domestic and dating violence.
It cannot be clearer than it is today as our country copes
with a troubled economy. The economic pressures of a lost job
or home or car can add stress to an already abusive
relationship. As victims' needs grow, state budget cuts are
resulting in fewer available services, including child care,
counseling, transitional housing, and so on.
Unfortunately, these services can sometimes mean the
difference literally between life and death for some victims. I
advocated for increased funding of VAWA programs in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I was pleased that the
Recovery Act included $50 million for transitional housing
assistance.
But I think we have to go further. We have to prioritize
our response to the high rates of violence experienced by
Native American and immigrant women. We have to think of new
and better ways of doing these things.
Senator Murray, a long-time supporter of VAWA, has
introduced a bill I am proud to cosponsor to provide victims
with unpaid leave for legal and medical appointments,
eligibility for unemployment insurance, and protection from
employment and insurance discrimination. These policies make
good sense, and I know in my own State, the Vermont Network
Against Domestic and Sexual Violence is at the forefront of
these innovative approaches. They have leveraged private
resources with Federal, State, and local financial support, and
the Vermont Network does a great deal. It helps survivors with
a variety of needs from budgeting to credit repair to
employment counseling, and I could go on and on about the way
they do help.
So we are going to hear today from Judge Susan Carbon, the
Director of the Office on Violence Against Women. Judge Carbon
has led efforts to combat domestic violence at the State and
national level. I look forward to hearing her perspective.
Judge, after you turn we will hear from Auburn Watersong,
an Economic Justice Specialist at the Vermont Network Against
Domestic and Sexual Violence, and we are going to hear from
Lolita Ulloa of the Victim Services Division at the Hennepin
County Attorney's Office. I have a feeling why she was invited.
And then we will hear from Richard Gelles, Dean of the School
of Social Policy & Practice at the University of Pennsylvania.
I apologize that the pollen in my voice is affecting me.
That may be an advantage.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. Senator Sessions, I yield to you.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We thank you,
Judge, for being with us, and it is good that we look at this
program. We need to make sure that it is fulfilling its
mission, and you will be, I know, getting into the challenge of
that. I just believe from my experience in the Federal
Government and working with various different agencies that you
need periodic re-evaluations and new excitement and
recommitment to the basic mission. So I hope that you can bring
that leadership to the effort.
I think that there is much that we know about violence
against women, much we know that works in reducing it. There
are some things we do not know. I believe strongly that the
primary function of our Federal response should be first to
make sure that people throughout the States who carry out so
much of this work are fully informed on the practices that are
effective and that they, when there are things we do not know,
help them find the information because they are constructing
their own policies and procedures to deal with the tragedy of
violence against women. Police officers and probation officers
and others need to be informed on what is the best way to
handle these situations. A lot of research has been done, but
we still do not know as much as we would like to know.
So I hope that you will take the lead in that in making
sure that we properly inform our people throughout the country
as to what the best policy should be.
Thank you, and, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the
hearing. I do have some conflicts this morning, and I may not
be able to stay with you the whole time, but thank you for
conducting the hearing.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Judge Carbon, please go ahead, and, again, thank you for
being here.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SUSAN B. CARBON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE ON
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON,
DC.
Judge Carbon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. And I will also tell Judge Davenport in
Vermont the nice things you said about her.
[Laughter.]
Judge Carbon. Thank you. She is absolutely wonderful. Good
morning, Chairman Leahy and Senator Sessions and members of the
Committee. I am privileged and honored to be here this morning,
and I thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the
vital role that the Violence Against Women Act has played in
our efforts to end violence against women, and especially to
highlight the importance of VAWA programs and policies in times
of economic stress.
The resources that are authorized by VAWA have never been
more important than they are today. As our Nation confronts
serious economic challenges, everyone is affected, particularly
victims of domestic violence who are so often isolated.
In the best of economic times, a victim worries about
finding a job and shelter for her children. During an economic
downturn, these obstacles and problems intensify. Indeed,
victims may face additional obstacles leaving a dangerous
environment.
Organizations that often constitute the lifeline for
victims are confronting economic crises of their own, resulting
from reduced State and private funding. On one day alone in
September of 2008, over 8,900 requests for services went unmet
due to a lack of resources. Just a year later, that number had
increased to nearly 9,300 unmet requests.
I commend Congress, I commend all of you, for your
leadership in recognizing these issues and in providing
additional funding through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided OVW with an additional
$225 million to assist victims of domestic violence, dating
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This funding has filled
critical gaps in services.
The Violence Against Women Act has made a real difference
in people's lives. Since 1995, over $4 billion have been
awarded to States, territories, local governments, tribal
governments, and nonprofit organizations to develop innovative
strategies to respond to violence against women. Of particular
note, VAWA brings together people from diverse backgrounds to
improve community and systems responses.
In my two decades on the bench, I have seen firsthand how
we can better fulfill our own responsibilities if we work in
concert with other professions. Effective issuance and
enforcement of protection orders, for example, are greatly
enhanced when advocates, law enforcement, judges, and
prosecutors work together to ensure that our systems are
seamless and, indeed, this in turn translates into enhanced
safety for victims and their children.
With VAWA funding, communities are forging effective
partnerships among Federal, State, territorial, local, and
tribal governments and among civil and criminal justice systems
and victim advocates. VAWA-funded services reach hundreds of
thousands of victims every year. In the first 6 months of last
year, 2009, our OVW grantees reported that over 125,000 victims
received over one quarter of a million (253,000) services.
The Violence Against Women Act has been instrumental in
changing the way our country perceives and addresses violent
crimes against women. We are in the middle of a Department-wide
commemoration of the passage of the Violence Against Women Act
over 15 years ago. The goals of this anniversary campaign are
three-fold: to raise public awareness, to build and renew
coalitions among public and private sectors, and to end once
and for all stalking, sexual assault, domestic violence, and
dating violence for men, women, and children all across the
country. We view this campaign not only as a vehicle to honor
the accomplishments of the past 15 years, but as a platform for
continued and expanded call to action.
Although we can be rightfully proud of our accomplishments,
we must also recognize that there is much to do. Historically,
OVW has focused on intervention, and that is to say, providing
services to victims and holding offenders accountable. VAWA has
been successful at focusing on intervention after a violent
crime has occurred, and clearly the need for services
continues.
As a judge, however, I have seen all too often the
destructive cycle of violence play out through generations. If
we are ever going to break the cycle of violence that plagues
communities all across the country, then we need to broaden our
focus and incorporate prevention strategies in all that we do.
Congress has consistently demonstrated its commitment to
assess what is working and to confront emergent challenges. As
we consider the reauthorization of VAWA, we need to think about
what steps we can take to prevent violence in the first
instance so that we can avoid its serious aftermath.
I cannot stress enough how important it is for Congress to
reauthorize VAWA to sustain, strengthen, and enhance our
Nation's efforts to end violence against women. I look forward
to working with all of you to consider how reauthorization can
help us respond to the many challenges that lay ahead.
I want to thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, for your commitment and for your time this morning,
and I welcome the opportunity to address any questions that you
might have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Carbon appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Judge, as we reauthorize VAWA, the Violence Against Women
Act, we have expanded it beyond just being a criminal justice
response. As we have learned more about it, we have added some
things to it. We have added ways to address more broadly the
needs of victims, to become more comprehensive--I hate to use
the term ``holistic,'' but sort of a holistic approach. Has
that worked? Have we had successes doing that kind of
expansion?
Judge Carbon. Senator Leahy, we have had enormous progress
and success in meeting needs through much of the work that we
have done over the past 15 years. I think one of the greatest
accomplishments of the Violence Against Women Act in its first
instance has been to raise public awareness about the extent
and the breadth and the complexity of the problem. We have
expanded the services through what we characterize as a
coordinated community approach to addressing domestic violence,
sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. And through
these efforts to reach out to the public by engaging
professions and community leaders in working together, we are
able to address not only the criminal justice system but the
civil justice system and expand our reach to understand the
importance of providing a breadth of services to victims.
We know next to achieving safety that victims need economic
stability so that they may have a range of services provided to
them. And being able to provide legal assistance, housing, and
a breadth of other services is critically important.
We know also that this is an area where our need exceeds
our ability to provide all of the services, and we are hopeful
to work with Congress as we look at reauthorization to broaden
that scope.
Chairman Leahy. Well, we put extra money in the Recovery
Act, we put $225 million. I had argued strongly for that. We
had a number of other leaders in the Senate who did. Has that
had a good effect, or should we have done that?
Judge Carbon. You absolutely should have done it, and we
are so grateful that you did, and I want to thank all of you
for your leadership in doing so.
The Recovery Act funding, the $225 million, reached victims
all across the country. We were hearing, and continue to hear,
frankly, that there still remains great unmet need, and the
National Victimization Survey has documented that information
for us. But through the Recovery Act, we were able to provide
further funds through our STOP grants to reach out through
coalitions across the country, to fill jobs, to keep shelter
services in place, to keep advocates in place, and be able to
service the needs of victims both within local communities and
in tribal communities as well. This has been extremely
important.
Chairman Leahy. You know, now is the time to look at where
the needs might be, where there are some things that we should
be looking at if we are going to be reauthorizing. This has
always been a bipartisan effort up here in the reauthorization.
Are there needs currently unmet? I am thinking of not only
domestic violence, but dating violence, stalking. Some of these
things are--one especially on the front page of the papers even
today. Do we have to make legislative changes or funding
changes? What would you--if you could just write the
legislation--and I realize that it is a long way from that--
what are some of the things you want to do?
Judge Carbon. We have lots of things we would like to do,
and we are going to look forward to working with all of you to
develop what that will look like. There are lots of priorities
that we have around the unmet needs of victims, and in
particular, as I mentioned in my statement, I think we need to
not only provide services for victims, but I would like for us
to be able to step back a bit to try to prevent violence in its
first instance.
So we have lots of priorities that I would classify first
around prevention efforts so that we can reach out and stop
this cycle of violence. Ultimately, in an ideal world, if we
could stop violence, we would not need to worry about the next
steps toward intervention. But the intervention services will
remain critical, and in particular, as we look at housing
assistance and economic stability for victims, that will be
important. But our efforts around prevention I think are
critically important.
A second area that we will focus on, because it is a
priority for the entire Department, are services around sexual
assault. We have expanded our realm of domestic violence
services in particular for the past 15 years. We believe that
issues around sexual assault are also critically important and
want to expand that. As you know, in the most recent iteration
of VAWA, there were expanded services for sexual assault, and
we would like to continue to expand that realm because the
needs are so great. So we will be working and hope to work with
all of you on expanding those resources.
Chairman Leahy. Well, the idea of stopping it before it
happens is so important. I still see so clearly a victim in the
emergency room of our hospital in Burlington, Vermont, when I
was a prosecutor, at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and the
victim telling me who did it, and then dying. And when we
unraveled everything, the warning signs had been there. If
there had been any place that person could have turned to for
help, it never would have happened.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Judge, as a State judge, you have a good
perspective, and I guess the reality of these issues as a
family judge particularly, you have seen it. Do you envision a
fundamental alteration in the understanding we have already
always had that the State and local jurisdictions should be the
primary front-line entities who deal with violence against
women?
Judge Carbon. In my experience, Senator Sessions--that
you--as a State court judge, a family court judge, the
resources provided by the Violence Against Women Act have
enabled us on the ground to reach victims and children----
Senator Sessions. No, I am just asking you fundamentally.
Do you still envision or do you have a different view about the
role of the Federal Government as an aider, assister, enabler
of State and local programs? Or do you view that we would move
more to a Federal kind of program?
Judge Carbon. I would envision that we would retain our
current framework. I think it has been very effective.
Senator Sessions. How many jurisdictions throughout our
Nation--if you would just hazard an opinion or give me a quick
view--how many of these jurisdictions throughout our Nation
effectively deal with violence against women--that is, have a
protocol, a program, shelter homes, or trained probation
officers, judges who understand that all crimes are not the
same and have different needs and appropriate responses? Do you
have an opinion of how well our State and local jurisdictions
are performing?
Judge Carbon. My belief is that they are performing very
well. We have done, the office has done a great outreach to
judges, prosecutors, advocates, law enforcement, shelter
services all around the country.
Having said that, we have turnover all the time, and there
is a continuing ongoing need to train and educate people about
good practice. One of the things the office has done
particularly well is to promote and promulgate best practices
for all of the different professions and for the community
service providers. That to me is a hallmark of our effort and
one which we will continue to do.
Senator Sessions. I thank you. That is correct. You may
have a good program working in a community, and some of the key
players go or leave, and you are back to not effective as you
would like to be. And as the Chairman said, properly
intervening can be the difference between life and death. There
is just no doubt about it. But we need to do that wisely.
Now, there was as proposal a few years ago, in 2008, to
consolidate a number of the Violence Against Women Act programs
administered by your Department, and a hearing, I think, was
held in the House on that. The stated purpose was to reduce the
time grantees spent in applying for grants to eliminate
earmarks and formulas and allow multiple needs to be addressed
based on the needs of the jurisdictions.
I know OJP Director Ms. Laurie Robinson has advocated in
the past for more consolidation and more streamlining under the
theory that you can get more money quicker directly to the
people in need and actually reduce violence by better systems
than would otherwise be the case.
Are you open to those kind of reviews? She said she
believed in that when she was confirmed. Are you open to those
kind of reviews? And will you give it your best ideas how to
help that local jurisdiction of which you used to be a part
know where to apply, have simpler applications and a quicker
response?
Judge Carbon. Thank you, Senator Sessions. Having been a
grantee myself and having been at the other end writing grants
and administering grants, I can appreciate from the public
standpoint how important it is to have a streamlined grant
process. So I can bring that perspective to the office.
I can also share with you that we have been looking at
whether we should and can consolidate different programs
because there is some duplication, if you will, of purpose
areas, but we do not want to lose and not be serving everybody
whom Congress has intended that we serve.
So we are looking at that very carefully to see if we can
streamline and how that might happen, but it is an issue that
we are looking at. We are certainly----
Senator Sessions. I think our Members of Congress sometimes
are quite proud of some proposal or program that they develop,
but I think if you lead you might find there is real success in
some of the streamlining and consolidation, and there might be
some pushback at various places. And I know you want to respect
Congress' view, but I think you should not hesitate as the
person on the ground handling these issues to tell us what you
think would make the program better. And I think you might find
some things are accepted even though maybe you will have
objections to others. But I hope you will do that, and thank
you for your leadership.
Judge Carbon. Thank you so much, Senator.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. We are going to go to Senator
Klobuchar, and I am going to put a statement by Senator
Feingold in the record. We will, of course, leave the record
open for the rest of the day for any other Senators who want to
put in statements.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Chairman Leahy, for
holding this important hearing. Thank you for being here as
well.
As we know, our economy is starting to rebound from the
devastating job losses and the housing crisis that it has
experienced over the past 2 years, and our States have likewise
faced crises, budget crises, and we have seen drastic spending
cuts across the board almost uniformly beginning with social
services such as funding for domestic violence shelters or
social work.
This is very important for me. I headed up the county
attorney's office. In fact, our next panel will feature someone
who is a great leader nationally, Lolita Ulloa, in this area.
And so we have been through cycles before, but my concern here
is that we do not cut back on some of the services that we need
the most for our victims to put themselves back in the job
market and really break the cycle not only by prosecuting
offenders but by actually making sure that they have a chance
to succeed.
And so one of the things, as we talk about this cycle, I
noticed in your testimony was this idea of the cycle of
children exposed to violence. And I think I have mentioned this
to you before, but the idea was that kids that grow up in
violent homes are much more likely to commit violence
themselves. I remember we had a poster in our office when you
walked in that was a picture of a Mom with a Band-Aid on her
nose holding a baby, and it said, ``Beat your wife, and your
kid will go to jail.''
So could you talk about the Attorney General's initiative
and what role you think your office can play in reducing
violence in the future in terms of kids growing up in these
homes?
Judge Carbon. Thank you, Senator. You have touched upon one
of the most critical areas, in my view, and that is, children
exposed to violence. And as you have said, it is an enormous
problem for children being exposed to violence in homes
because, as a judge, I have seen the experience of children in
court, I have seen the experience of battered mothers bringing
their children and trying to access services for them.
We do know and the research shows that if children are
exposed to domestic violence or other types of violence in
their home, they will, as you say, grow up and suffer in any
number of extraordinary ways. Their own development, their own
psychological development can be arrested. Their ability to
succeed at school can be affected. Their socialization can be
affected. Their ability to form the important attachments to
loving, caring parents can be affected. And so as they grow up,
there is a tendency for them as well to become future victims
of domestic violence or themselves as well to become
perpetrators even within their own family. So it is an issue
that we need to address and one of the reasons why the Attorney
General is so committed to making this one of his signature
items as Attorney General.
We have recently issued a solicitation that is open, I
believe now, until June 1st to invite jurisdictions to apply to
become a demonstration site and also for some other grant
opportunities to see how we can bring a holistic approach to
serving the needs of children, in part to understand better
research about how children are affected by domestic violence,
what most appropriate services we can put in place for them,
and how we can reach within communities to provide the holistic
approach that children will need so that we can cut that cycle
and stop that from continuing on.
We will be looking at this and making this a departmentwide
initiative for us, and we foresee our office working with other
components within the Department to focus on the prevention
activities around children exposed.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Another area you
mentioned was homicide prevention, and I think people sometimes
are startled by this fact that 45 percent of all female
homicide victims in 2007 were killed by a partner. We just saw
this recent horrible incident in the college in Virginia.
I know that when you were a judge, you worked with the New
Hampshire Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee--we have
a similar one in Hennepin County--which reviewed domestic
violence-related deaths. Is that a model you think that other
States can follow where you actually do like a hospital would
do and look back at what went wrong in a surgery and try to
identify the problem spots?
Judge Carbon. Homicide prevention is a critical part of the
overall prevention efforts that I foresee us looking at. In my
view, having chaired that Committee and worked with other
fatality review committees across the country, I can tell you
that it is a very illuminating way to look at your systems,
where gaps might have been, and then develop policies and
protocols for preventing future homicides. It is a great way
and a quintessential example of a collaborated, coordinated
community response to domestic violence.
The statistics would show us that between this morning and
the time that we all go to bed tonight, three more people will
die from a domestic homicide. It is an extreme problem, and if
this approach that we know works, we would like to see this
expanded.
Senator Klobuchar. [Presiding.] Well, thank you very much,
and I will put some questions in the record. I am going to turn
this over to Senator Hatch about the work that you are doing
with the full faith and credit and enforcing protection orders
across State lines, which I know is always a frustrating piece
for prosecutors of our business.
Judge Carbon. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. Senator Hatch.
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar, and thank you,
Judge, for being here and for your good work in this area. I
remember back when I was Chairman of the Committee and we
decided to do the Violence Against Women Act, it was not nearly
as popular as it is today, but it is popular because of people
like you, and many others, thousands of others across the
country who really have done what is right with regard to not
just women but young girls and children as well.
As you know, it is a comprehensive legislative package
designed to end violence against women, and I am really pleased
to work with my colleagues to make sure we get this
reauthorized and that this Committee continues its support of
these legislative remedies. Again, let me thank you for
appearing before us today. You have an important job in my
eyes, and I am here to assist you and the Department of
Justice.
Although economic crisis does not cause domestic violence,
it may increase existing violence in the home. Studies have
shown that financial strain and unemployment are correlated to
an increase in continuing domestic violence. Now, I have
concerns that the current economic crisis and its effect on
domestic violence not only impact every one of my fellow
Utahans, but also victims of domestic violence across this
Nation. The current economic downturn directly impacts victims
of domestic violence who are seeking help to rebuild their
lives.
Now, is the Department of Justice accumulating data that
tracks economic factors as a contributing factor to domestic
violence?
Judge Carbon. Thank you, Senator Hatch. We are looking at
all of the elements that we can through research and through
hearing from our grantees and from our TA providers about the
extent to which the unmet needs exist and how we can better
frame and provide services to track any trends in the increase,
if there is, and what we can do about it to provide better
services so that we are ensuring that we are able to meet those
needs.
Senator Hatch. My home State of Utah is considered by some
a rural State. Rural areas are especially hard hit by the
current economic downturn. In some rural communities, rape
collection kits are not always subsidized. On some occasions,
victims have to pay for their own rape kit.
This is also becoming a growing trend in urban communities
as funds for rape kits and DNA testing begin to dry up. I think
we are all familiar with the horror stories of rape kits that
contain good DNA samples sitting unprocessed in police evidence
lockers. Now, these kits will sometimes sit for years while the
perpetrators of sexual assaults remain free to target
additional women for sexual assault.
Let me just ask you, how is the Department of Justice
ensuring that DNA samples and rape kits are being processed and
suspects are being identified?
Judge Carbon. Senator Hatch, thank you. This we recognize
is an enormous problem. We need to understand the breadth and
all the full component of what the issues are concerning why
there is such a backlog and what we can do about it. The
National Institute for Justice, which is a part of the
Department of Justice, is going to be hosting an educational
forum next month to look at the issue of the rape kit backlog,
why it exists, whether it is from lack of resources for
testing, lack of funding, or lack of quality. And we want to
try to understand the nature and the breadth so that we can
avoid those problems of people continuing to perpetrate sexual
assault on women when the rape kits have not been completed.
We also know that it is something which will take good
research and good work, and we are anxious to work with
everybody together to see what can be done to address that
problem.
Senator Hatch. A few years back, I was just appalled that
some of these rape kits that had been collected sat idle for
over 20 years, and the minute they started going into them,
they started finding people and stopping some of the things
that were going on. So we need to do a better job there.
Judge Carbon. We could not agree more. Thank you.
Senator Hatch. The need for services for victims of
domestic violence is especially acute in rural communities. In
certain communities, medical workers are thrust into the
situation as the first-line detector of domestic violence.
What training and resources are available to rural law
enforcement and rural health care providers to assist them in
detecting and reporting domestic violence in these communities?
Judge Carbon. Thank you, Senator. We actually, through the
Violence Against Women Act, have a separate funding stream that
is dedicated to rural programs to reach out through local
communities to address the unique nature of rural violence.
Even if parts of the country which may not be designated as
rural jurisdictions, there are major rural areas within
jurisdictions. So this is a problem that is incumbent upon us
to address to make sure that we can provide necessary resources
and training through both the rural grant and through our STOP
grants, our formula grants, to make sure that we can provide
training and technical assistance to the grantees so they will
know how best to reach and make sure that we are, in fact,
connecting with as many victims as possible.
Senator Hatch. Well, I want to thank you for the work that
you are doing. I really appreciate it personally as the father
of three daughters and what some people think are countless
granddaughters and great-granddaughters.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hatch. We are very concerned about what you are
doing. I want to make sure that you have the resources and that
you have our backing fully, because the work you are doing is
really, really very important, as far as I am concerned, and I
am sure everybody on this Committee. So I want to thank you for
the work that you are doing.
Judge Carbon. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate it.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. And anyone who has seen
Senator Hatch's holiday card will know that there are, in fact,
a lot of daughters and granddaughters.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Judge Carbon, thank you also for your work. You cited the
numbers from a survey conducted by the National Network to End
Domestic Violence. On just 1 day in 2009, over 9,000 requests
for services made to domestic violence organizations were unmet
because of lack of resources. My wife and I went down to
Rochester, Minnesota, and there was a shelter there for women
and their children, victims of domestic violence. It
essentially was two houses put together. I think they could
serve nine women and their children at one time--families. And
they had 98-percent capacity or something, and women from the
Rochester area could use it, but if they could not get in
there, they had to go somewhere else. And sometimes they had to
go pretty far away and could not maintain their jobs.
I was wondering what are we doing to address this kind of
lack of resource and to make sure that women, especially when
we talk about the economic impact of all of this, that they can
stay in their community, do their job, you know, keep their
jobs, and get these kind of services.
Judge Carbon. Thank you, Senator Franken. You have
addressed a couple issues here which are critically important.
The first is through our working through your reauthorization
of VAWA in 2005, you looked at part of the economic issue
through the transitional housing programs and through a new
program for a resource center, a national resource center on
workplace responses to domestic violence. And through that
program, we are working with a number of national technical
assistance providers to develop a system so that there are
resources for employers so that they will know what good
policies and practices are to help employers address victims
who may be experiencing domestic violence in their homes but
then come to work and are trying to ensure they can retain
their jobs and what employers can do to assist them.
We know that in a poor economy if victims lost their jobs,
regaining employment will be critically important and difficult
to do, and so we want to provide resources necessary for them
to ensure that employers understand what their role would be in
helping victims to retain their positions.
We are also looking at other areas concerning transitional
housing and the services that can be offered through that
program. The Recovery Act, as I mentioned before, was very
helpful in filling some of this gap in services, so both
housing and security in jobs will be critically important.
Senator Franken. In his testimony in the next panel, Dr.
Gelles writes, ``It is difficult to determine with precise
accuracy where monies and resources should be directed in
reference to violence against women or family violence in
general.'' I was wondering if you, Judge Carbon, have any ideas
where monies and resources could be directed in reference to
violence against women and family violence.
Judge Carbon. I think Congress has done an extraordinary
job of reaching out and providing services to victims in many
different venues. It is critically important that advocacy
services continue to be funded, that resources concerning
employment security be looked at, that housing assistance be
provided. One area in particular that I would like to highlight
is the need for legal assistance for victims. We have a legal
assistance funding stream, but we know that 70 percent of
victims still do not have access to an attorney, even for
protection order hearings, let alone the subsequent work
regarding custody, other economic support which they are in
dire need of.
That is one of the most popular, if you will, grant
programs which we have. Regrettably, we can only fund a third
of the applications that come in through our requests for legal
assistance. So we are looking at ways that we----
Senator Franken. That is an area where we could direct more
resources.
Judge Carbon. Absolutely.
Senator Franken. We all know too well that Indian women are
victimized more than any other population. In fact, according
to Amnesty International, one in three Indian women has
reported being raped in her lifetime. When VAWA was
reauthorized in 2005, money was set aside to help tribal
governments address violence against Indian women.
Have you seen results from these programs? Do they need to
be changed? Do they need to be expanded?
Judge Carbon. Thank you, Senator. As you pointed out, on
the VAWA 2005 reauthorization, it created a separate title for
addressing domestic violence in Indian country, and so we have
been following that guidance and have created a new position
within our office, the Deputy Director for Tribal Affairs, and
we have also worked to ensure that tribes all over the country
have access to all of the funding streams which are available
through the Violence Against Women Act.
In the past few years, we have distributed $95 million to
tribes across the country, and this is, as you have pointed
out, the need for a departmentwide priority. So we are
committed to ensuring that we can reach out and provide
resources.
In the President's budget, there is an increased request
for assistance to tribal communities, and that will continue to
be a priority area for us because the need is so great.
Senator Franken. I am very glad to hear that.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Klobuchar. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and welcome,
Judge. Thank you for being here and thank you for your great
work.
This has been such an important office for a long time, the
Domestic Violence Unit, and my Attorney General's office back
in Rhode Island existed because of VAWA support and funding.
And I would simply highlight a few of the points that some of
my colleagues have already made. The prompt and proper
processing of evidence is critical, and particularly when
municipal budgets are stressed, trying to make sure that there
is adequate funding for DNA testing and so forth is very, very
important, and, frankly, I think a great cost saver in the long
run from all the delays. But I would encourage you to work on
that, as Senator Hatch suggested, and I am delighted to see in
your testimony your emphasis and Attorney General Holder's
emphasis on the effect of violence on children who are witness
to it. I think that can actually be a valuable tool in getting
through to the abusers and in empowering Moms--it usually is--
to make the right decision about getting away from abuse and
protecting their children.
In that light, I just want to hear your thoughts for a Mom
who is in the situation of being subjected to domestic
violence--the decision to leave home and seek protection is a
really wrenching one. It is personally very difficult. It is
painful. And it, unfortunately, is accompanied by enormous
logistical hassle and challenges. And if people are already
stressed just from their work life and the bad economy and
things like that, that early stage where you may have to think
about putting your kids in different schools and all the
logistics related to that, you have to find your own new place
to stay, you have to deal with the old bills so you do not lose
your credit, at the same time you may have to pay new bills.
You have to deal with lawyers and protective orders, and it all
just kind of comes in at once, and it can be overwhelming.
And so I think there is a really important period where
women in particular need a great deal of support as they work
through that, all those logistics when they make the decision
to seek refuge and shelter. And I would encourage you to be as
proactive in taking the best models of that around the country
and deploying them as you could.
Judge Carbon. Thank you very much. We certainly will do
that. That is critically important, and we are very committed
to doing that. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
Chairman Leahy. [Presiding.] I have no further questions,
and we will keep the record open in case others do.
Thank you very much, and I would ask--if you want to add
something here, Judge, feel free.
Judge Carbon. Let me just thank you all again for your
time. The issues that you have raised this morning are
extraordinarily important, and we very much look forward to
working with you on the next reauthorization. So thank you
again for your time this morning. It is a pleasure to be here.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. We will set up for the
next panel.
Chairman Leahy. I think we should probably introduce all
the witnesses at once. The first one will be Auburn Watersong.
She is an economic justice specialist of the Vermont Network
Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. She has worked in the
field for almost 15 years, is very well respected in the State
of Vermont. She lives in Montpelier, Vermont--not totally
coincidentally my birthplace. She has worked statewide to
develop programming to address the long-term economic needs of
victims of domestic and sexual abuse. She has worked with
direct service providers to implement a plan for sustained
safety that creates opportunities for victims to live lives
free of violence, to economic stability and support. She
received her bachelor's degree from Earlham College. She is
currently enrolled at the Episcopal Divinity School in
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Senator Klobuchar, I would turn to you to introduce our
next witness.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Well, thank you. I am proud
to have Lolita Ulloa here on the panel. Lolita has been a
managing attorney for the Victim Services Division of the
Hennepin County Attorney's Office in the past 9 years. Prior to
that, she was the director of the Domestic Abuse Service Center
for 7 years, and she now sort of does both jobs, and I was
proud to have promoted her onto my management team, and she
remains on the management team to this day.
Originally from Ecuador, Ms. Ulloa grew up in Massachusetts
and received her law degree from the Suffolk University Law
School, and she has just become a national leader on these
issues and certainly taught me everything I know about this
topic. So I am really honored to have her here, and she cares
so much about the victims of domestic violence and really
passes that on to the entire office and has made a difference
not just in our office but through the county and through the
State. So thank you for that, and thank you for being here.
I think she is also maybe a hockey Mom. Is that right?
Ms. Ulloa. There are other hockey Moms.
Chairman Leahy. Do they play hockey in Minnesota?
Ms. Ulloa. We do play.
Senator Klobuchar. They play a little hockey. We do have
the world's second largest hockey puck in Minnesota.
[Laughter.]
Senator Klobuchar. The first largest is in Canada.
Chairman Leahy. There are so many things going through my
mind that I am just going to--so far as these are televised, I
will leave well----
Senator Klobuchar. I do not know if Senator Franken maybe
wanted to say a few words, too.
Chairman Leahy. Senator Franken. Another Minnesotan.
Senator Franken. Well, welcome. And I know that Senator
Klobuchar, as the attorney for Hennepin County, worked so
closely with you and has nothing but the highest praise. And
we, of course, have met on a number of occasions, and I admire
your work. Thank you for being here today.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
The other witness will be Dr. Richard Gelles. He is the
dean of the School of Social Policy & Practice at the
University of Pennsylvania. He is also the current director for
the Center for Research on Youth and Social Policy and co-
director of the Field Center for Children's Policy Practice,
and Research, widely published on the issue of domestic
violence. I recall him working with the Congressional leaders
in 1997 on the adoption of the Safe Families Act. He received
his undergraduate degree from Bates College and his master's
from the University of Rochester and his doctorate from my
neighboring State, the University of New Hampshire.
So we will begin with Ms. Watersong. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF AUBURN L. WATERSONG, ECONOMIC JUSTICE SPECIALIST,
VERMONT NETWORK AGAINST DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE,
MONTPELIER, VERMONT
Ms. Watersong. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
Chairman Leahy and distinguished members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the tremendous
importance of the Violence Against Women Act in these
challenging economic times.
The Vermont Network is a statewide coalition of 15 domestic
and sexual violence programs providing life-saving services to
victims and their families. VAWA-funded programs are an
essential part of our work in Vermont. These programs are all
the more critical in light of the current economic crisis. I am
here today to discuss the importance of expanding economic
supports in the upcoming VAWA reauthorization.
The survivor stories that I will share with you are true
stories of victims whose names have been changed out of respect
for their privacy and safety.
Domestic and sexual violence can have a tremendous economic
impact on victims, regardless of the state of the global
economy. In the current economic crisis, however, the impact is
even more dramatic. Although an economic downturn itself does
not cause sexual or domestic violence, it can exacerbate the
factors that contribute to violence, and it can reduce victims'
ability to achieve safety and healing.
Almost 50 percent of sexual assault survivors either lose
their jobs or are forced to quit in the aftermath of the crime.
When sexual or domestic violence occurs within a context of
economic insecurity, getting help and moving forward with life
often competes with very real basic life needs, such as putting
gas in the car, paying bills, or keeping a roof overhead.
Homelessness in Vermont has increased by 25 percent in the
past 2 years. The lack of safe, affordable housing across
Vermont and the Nation exacerbates the challenges faced by so
many victims seeking safety. Ninety-two percent of homeless
mothers reported physical or sexual abuse during their
lifetimes. No victim should ever be left to choose between
violence and homelessness. This is no choice at all.
We are seeing an unconscionable gap between the desperate
need of victims and the resources available to the direct
service programs that support them. Not only do individual
victims and families suffer, but the economy suffers through
higher health care costs, higher costs to the criminal justice
system, and more strain on underresourced social service
systems.
Abusers intentionally use tactics to limit and control
victims' access to finances, transportation, housing, and
banking. Victims report abusers interfering with their
employment and running up debt to ruin their credit.
Victims in Vermont and across the Nation face enormous
economic hurdles. Given the rural nature of our State, lack of
transportation and geographic isolation also present huge
obstacles for many survivors, especially for those who may live
hours away from life-saving services or law enforcement.
Over the past 16 years, VAWA programs have done much to
alleviate the immediate pressures that victims face. Since
then, we have learned that despite our successes in triage and
intervention, long-term sustainable safety depends largely upon
economic self-sufficiency.
With the assistance of private funding from the Allstate
Foundation in collaboration with the National Network to End
Domestic Violence, the Vermont Network has developed innovative
collaborations in an effort to support victims and survivors in
rebuilding their lives. This past year, we forged a creative
partnership with a community credit union, a State agency, and
a local community action program in order to develop a matched
savings program for domestic violence survivors. This program
promotes habitual money management skills development. It
provides financial literacy training, credit counseling, and
ultimately a 3:1 financial match for participants to use toward
expenses such as medical debt, utility bills, car maintenance
and repair, and rent.
This matched savings program has proved incredibly
promising. It has allowed the coalition to train our member
programs who work with survivors on basic financial literacy
skills, credit repair and reports, and pre-employment supports.
According to our most recent mid-year report, of the 490
victims served by this grant, at least 76 percent have
increased their long-term economic security. VAWA
reauthorization should include this type of programming to help
ensure that victims move toward economic self-sufficiency.
Maria was unemployed when she sought safety at a shelter in
Vermont. Despite her master's degree, Maria required the skills
and empowering support of the economic advocates and the
knowledge of community financial educators to assist her in
reaching her economic goals. With help, Maria has developed a
detailed business plan and established a base of references and
formed promising business contacts.
Jane arrived at a Vermont shelter with her five children.
Having just been beaten by her partner, Jane's immediate need
was safe shelter, yet the domestic violence shelter was full.
With the assistance of an economic advocate, Jane and her
children were able to find immediate safety in a motel, but
were unable to find affordable housing. Jane returned to her
abusive partner, but maintained her connection with advocates
who helped her with housing applications, credit repair, and
budgeting skills. Through those efforts, I am happy to report
that this past weekend Jane and her five children moved into a
safe and affordable apartment, and she is working with
advocates to improve her credit score and gain her financial
independence.
These successes are possible through the support of VAWA
funding and important financial commitments of partners like
the Allstate Foundation and NNEDV. Through these creative
collaborations, Vermont has been able to build critical
programs and partnerships to help survivors on the road to
economic empowerment.
This model could be replicated nationwide given adequate
resources. With this VAWA reauthorization, we have the unique
opportunity to further broaden the scope of VAWA programs and
protections by providing greater economic supports to victims
and survivors. Congress right now has a unique opportunity to
help victims become lifelong survivors by reauthorizing VAWA
with strategic improvements which focus specifically on
economic resources.
In order to eradicate domestic and sexual violence and
stalking, victims need a full range of economic supports behind
them. Their safety requires long-term advocacy, accessible
financial resources, workplace protection, unemployment
compensation, supportive education, microenterprise
opportunities, alternative savings programs, credit counseling,
and knowledgeable community partners. Every victim deserves a
chance at sustainable lifelong safety. This is their chance.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Watersong appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ulloa, how badly did I mispronounce your name?
Ms. Ulloa. Senator Leahy, it was actually quite good
compared to some of the other pronunciations I have had.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. I have so much respect for Senator
Klobuchar and Senator Franken, and I love going to Minnesota,
and I do not want to get the names of any of their constituents
wrong, or they will not allow me to come out there.
Ms. Ulloa. We will still let you come out.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF LOLITA ULLOA, MANAGING ATTORNEY, VICTIM SERVICES
DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, MINNEAPOLIS,
MINNESOTA
Ms. Ulloa. My name is Lolita Ulloa, and as the managing
attorney for the Victim Services Division of the county
attorney'S office, I supervise victim witness services. I also
oversee the Domestic Abuse Service Center that was mentioned by
Senator Klobuchar. This is a one-stop center for victims of
domestic violence.
Although our county makes up approximately one-quarter of
Minnesota's population, this office helps victims obtain 50
percent of all of the restraining orders in our State.
I want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee for
inviting me here. I especially want to thank Senator Amy
Klobuchar for her continued unwavering support, her work, and
her focus on these issues both as a Hennepin County Attorney
and now as a Senator.
As County Attorney, Senator Klobuchar always supported
victims of domestic violence in her management of DASC, and she
strengthened the work of the county attorney's office in the
prosecution of domestic violence cases. She clearly understands
the unique and tragic issues that face victims of domestic
abuse.
DASC was created in 1994 under the current County Attorney
Mike Freeman. His vision led to a one-stop service center for
victims of domestic violence that has now been replicated
nationally--through the Family Justice Centers--as well as
internationally. DASC allows victims to access criminal
processes, Orders for Protection, advocacy services, plus
economic assistance, child protection, and probation staff,
along with other services.
DASC's goals were very simple: easy access to services, in
a safe, inviting environment, and holding abusers accountable.
Collaboration is key to this success.
This collaboration is even more important in times of
economic crisis. We know that one of the main reasons women do
not leave abusive situations is because they are financially
dependent on their abuser. This reality is exacerbated during
an economic downturn. Suddenly, women who need to leave abusive
homes may face additional struggles because they have lost
their jobs, had to sell their cars, or only have health care
through their abuser.
I have been a public service lawyer for 25 years. I have
been involved with domestic violence issues for the majority of
my legal profession. I know how the climate has changed since
VAWA was enacted. There was finally Federal recognition that
crimes of domestic violence and sexual assault and stalking
against women would not be tolerated any longer.
There was a shift in how violence against women is
addressed in criminal justice offices and in the community, and
for that I am thankful.
Funding criminal justice offices remains, I believe, a
critical need, especially when criminal justice offices forge
partnerships with community agencies and social service
programs. One way that VAWA has impacted the issue of domestic
abuse is by offering trainings where States can discuss the
varied approaches they use in their prosecution, probation, law
enforcement, and advocacy work. Sharing best practices and
protocols have resulted in these trainings being models that we
have all used in our work.
One particular area is how we treat women who have been
strangled. Trainings have been the most valuable in emphasizing
culturally competent services to victims from diverse
communities. Understanding community-specific hardships,
language barriers, religious values, and cultural assimilation
plays an important role in effective intervention. This was a
huge step that clearly demonstrates that the creators of VAWA
understood the many dynamics of domestic violence.
VAWA has done so many good things. I want to take this
opportunity to focus on the work that is left to be done. I
recently spoke with Liz Richards, who is the director of
programming for our Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, and
we discussed the following issues that impact victims who are
trying to leave, particularly during economic downturns.
In many States--and even in Minnesota, which has been a
leader on domestic violence issues always--child support is not
always addressed in an Order for Protection hearing, and they
are not consistent. The absence of financial support while the
victim is trying to leave her abuser and make plans to care for
herself, as you all have mentioned, and her children, is
dangerous. Funding should be made available to district courts
to work with community agencies in order to provide training
and education for lawyers and advocates about the importance of
addressing child support issues at the same time that Orders
for Protection are issued. We must ensure, at least on an
emergency basis, that victims have financial stability. This is
critical.
Recently, a woman came to DASC to obtain an Order for
Protection because the father of her children had pushed,
grabbed, and kicked her. She had a job and was also starting
school, and her abuser had been providing child care. There was
not a shelter opening. The next day the victims indicated that
she wanted to drop the Order for Protection because she did not
have any money to pay for child care. The victim had to work to
stay in school. The abuser had a long criminal record and was
not working. He already had a child support order. Financial
independence, simply put, can make the difference in whether a
woman stays or leaves.
Another way that financial dependence can manifest itself
in domestic violence cases relates to medical care. We have
identified some long term issues such as medical complication
that can follow the victim for the rest of their life.
Collaboration is necessary between emergency medical
professionals and also those that provide follow-up services.
Ensuring that victims have access to long-term medical care and
that different medical providers talk to each other is
critical.
Recently, the Minnesota Coalition hosted a ``Camp Sheila''
for battered women--named for Sheila Wellstone. Battered women
were asked how long their divorces had been going on. Most
cases were still in progress, even after 7 to 14 years.
Usually, there was abuse of the Mom and the kids. The abuser
used the court system repeatedly to manipulate and threaten the
victim. The threat of losing the custody of their children was
ever present. Imagine being forced to co-parent with someone
who had beaten and terrorized you. Many of these women have no
money for legal representation. This is another focus area.
The huge impact of VAWA will never be fully captured
because the success is marked by individual victims who have
found a way out, and those voices may never be heard. The cycle
has been broken. They are safe and that is the most important
part of their lives. It is what we all hope and work toward
every day.
Thank you for the invitation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ulloa appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gelles.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD J. GELLES, PH.D., DEAN, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL
POLICY & PRACTICE, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Gelles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman and members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you this morning on this
important and yet complex question of the impact of the current
economic downturn on violence against women.
I would add two things to your introduction: one, the
caution that researchers are by our very nature contrarian; and
then the second addition I do not have to add now, and that was
I spent 25 years at the University of Rhode Island.
A year ago, there was a spike in familicides, primarily
males who killed their female partners and their children. This
happened in the midst of the economic downturn, and our
research team decided to see whether this was a ``canary in the
mine shaft'' event that foreshadowed increases in child
maltreatment and domestic violence.
The answer to that question, as I say in my testimony, is
elusive primarily because Federal data on child maltreatment,
homicide, and violence toward women lag by 1 to 2 years. So the
most recent data we have now for child maltreatment and
violence toward women only cover up to the very beginning of
this economic downturn.
Prior to the economic downturn, the rate of intimate
partner violence had dropped 50 percent between 1993 and 2005,
almost completely uninterrupted by any economic downturns in
1990-91 and 2000-01. There has been a more shallow decrease in
homicide of women at the hands of intimate partners. It is
important to point out that in the same trend data, a small but
significant number of male victims have remained flat, so there
has been no impact either of the economy or Government
programming or community efforts on a small but significant
number of male victims.
The impact of the Violence Against Women Act is likely to
have played a role in that 50-percent downturn, and many of the
statements made by the witnesses this morning speak to the
importance of providing community services and the importance
of changing the cultural attitude regarding violence toward
women.
I did not put it in my testimony, but the first time I
testified before Congress on violence toward women was 1978,
and when we got in the elevator, someone who was affiliated
with a Congressperson but not a Congressperson said--assuming I
was not in the elevator--``If you cannot beat your wife, who
can you beat? '' One does not hear such a thing in public or in
private anymore.
Chairman Leahy. I tell you, if I ever heard that from
somebody on my staff, they would be fired on the spot.
Mr. Gelles. No one said anything, and the elevator was
full. Things have changed enormously, and I suspect that that
cultural attitude plays an enormous role in support for the
Violence Against Women Act and the decrease.
However, the Violence Against Women Act is unique as a
piece of Federal legislation in that it is rather narrowly
constructed, located primarily in the Justice Department, with
a goal of protecting women through a relatively narrow
continuum of care. So if it is time to revisit the Violence
Against Women Act, I would argue strongly from the point of
view of the research community that the Violence Against Women
Act should profit from 16 years of research that have gone on
since the Act was first enacted and to develop a broader, more
evidence-driven bill and funding that could be even more
effective than the funding that has been in the initial
iterations of the bill for the last 16 years.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you this
morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gelles appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, and I think there have been a
lot of changes in attitude since the time of that. But I think
we can all agree we still have a long way to go.
I am going to yield to Senator Klobuchar, who has to go to
a press conference, and then I will yield to Senator Franken,
who has been here patiently all through this, and then I will
wrap up. Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank all of you.
I just wanted to clarify one thing, and first of all, thank
you, Dr. Gelles, for pointing out this cultural shift. But one
thing--either of you can answer on the front line, Ms.
Watersong or Ms. Ulloa, and that is, in his testimony Dr.
Gelles discussed the fact that a broader assessment of VAWA is
that not only did VAWA ignore services and resources for male
victims of intimate partner violence, but the law is unique in
terms of Federal legislation aimed at the problem of violence
and abuse in families. So just to point out, do you also serve
male victims of domestic violence or do you turn them away?
Ms. Watersong. Thank you, Senator. In Vermont, we do serve
male victims as well, and in last year alone, we provided more
than 300 men with supportive program services, and we safe-
housed or sheltered 16 men in Vermont. So, yes, we do serve----
Senator Klobuchar. Has that been changing over the years?
Do you think there has been more male victims?
Ms. Watersong. I cannot say that I have the statistics on
that, but I know that I have been working in this for 15 years,
and since the very beginning we have always accepted male
victim calls and always worked with them, just as we have with
women.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Ms. Ulloa.
Ms. Ulloa. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. In our office and
in our State, I think we do a very good job and are very
proactive in making sure that victimization of anyone is
addressed. And in particular, when there is a male that calls
our office, we provide the same type of services and full range
of services, including advocacy services for those individuals.
I think VAWA has done a great deal of work in ensuring that
the programs that are recipients of their money make sure that
all of the services that are provided to women and to the
children are also provided to male victims.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. You mentioned in your
testimony, Ms. Ulloa, that as we look at this economic issue--
and, again, I think I liked what Ms. Watersong said about how
it is not necessarily that an economic downturn creates more
domestic violence, but we do not really have those facts right
now, but what we have, as Dr. Gelles pointed out, we do know it
is harder for them to get back on their feet because there may
not be a job or there may not be the resources out there.
You talked specifically about child support orders. How do
you think we could do a better job to ensure that women get
their child support as soon as possible and integrate that into
how we focus on domestic violence?
Ms. Ulloa. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. I think one of the
things that would be critical is supporting the work that VAWA
has done previously in trainings in different areas, either the
medical or the prosecution. Now I think there is an area where
we need some improvement and some enhanced services, and that
is, training in the child support area, whether it is the
district court staff, the judges, which we have done a lot of
training around with the judges, but also advocacy service to
ensure that the protocols and procedures that are in place now
are being viewed when you have a domestic violence victim, and
that is different, and ensuring that that is a priority when we
are setting child support orders, because that financial
stability for that woman can allow her to make different
choices and different choices for her children.
Senator Klobuchar. One other thing that you raised--and I
cared a lot about this when I was in the office of the county
attorney--was working on police training. And I know one of the
things we learned is that sometimes the police did not know
what the lawyers want and the lawyers were not clear with the
police, and it created a lot of issues and we tried to work
those out by going around to every police department, not just
with domestic violence but finding out exactly what the issues
were. And I think we saw some improvement, and you raised this
issue about police report writing, and you have testified that
you have seen the quality of these reports improve recently.
What are some of the problems? How could we address this
with training as we look at the reauthorization of VAWA?
Ms. Ulloa. Senator Klobuchar, thank you. I think that we
are at a place, at least in Minnesota, where we have some very
good and devoted law enforcement partners, and one of the
things that we have done with the prosecutor's office and
advocacy groups in general is providing some--and strengthen
and support our law enforcement partners in ensuring that when
they are looking at arriving at the scene of a domestic
violence crime, that their documenting that they are--and I
mentioned this in my testimony--that they ensure that the
parties are separated, that we look at the medical needs, that
the children as witnesses are also a focus of their
investigation. And I think part of what happens is that we have
built on what preliminarily started as good police report
writing, and now we have another layer, and that is, ensuring
that we have all the witness testimony, we get all the good
investigation, we have the capturing of evidence which is
critical for the prosecution of the cases.
In addition to that, it is the response of the police
officers themselves to the victims at the scene which has
changed, and many times for women who are in these situations
for a male officer or a female officer, a person of authority
to tell them that they do not deserve to be beaten or treated
this way can go--is beyond what they expect. And they have
mentioned that when the response is that way, and I think that
is the part that has changed with all the VAWA funding and the
training.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all
the witnesses.
One of the things that I am interested in is prevention and
sort of the cycle of violence. It kind of brings me to divorce
proceedings. And any of you can speak to this.
One of the ways that men maintain power over women is
repeatedly challenges the terms of divorce, fighting for
custody, this sort of thing. And I am wondering what the
prolonging of all that--I heard Judge Carbon talk about cases
that have gone on for 12 years or something--what effect that
has on the kids.
Ms. Ulloa. Thank you, Senator Franken. Well, our experience
has been that what the Mom is going through is reflected many
times in what the children are going through. When legal
representation in order to advocate for--really the safety of
the Mom is the safety of the children in legal proceedings. And
when there is a failure of legal representation--and the abuser
many times has legal representation--I think the balance of
power in the courtroom is completely changed. And I think one
of the things that women typically tell us is that they will
concede in many areas in the divorce as long as the custody of
the children and the parenting time is addressed so that the
children are safe.
So you have unequal bargaining at divorces because you do
not have legal representation, and such an emotional issue--and
not only emotional, but there is a fear. We have many women who
do not want to go to a court proceeding because of the fear of
seeing their abuser, even though there are sheriff's deputies
there and the courtroom is secure. Just the fear alone will
stop them. If they had a legal advocate, had legal
representation to do much of this work without appearing in the
courtroom, this would facilitate their ability to move forward
with the divorce.
Senator Franken. So that is one place where you could use
resources, probably.
Ms. Ulloa. Absolutely.
Senator Franken. What is the research on this? What
percentage of abusers were abused themselves as kids or
witnessed abuse of their Mom when they were kids?
Mr. Gelles. I can answer that, but it has to be answered
two ways. The answer to that is 100 percent. But that does not
tell you as much as what percentage of abused children or what
percent of children who witnessed abuse grow up to be abusers.
And the answer to that question is about 30 percent. That does
not seem like a lot, except that the overall rate of abuse in
our country which most people cite is about 3 percent, or 1 in
22. So you have a difference between 3 percent and 30 percent,
which is an enormously big difference.
The driving force behind it is partially the abuse,
partially the economy. Individuals grow up and who have their
needs met really do not carry on that cycle of abuse. And then
the third component, which actually speaks to your question
about divorce, is the individuals who do not repeat the pattern
of violence tend to have stable, long-term relationships with a
parent or relative or a counselor. So that you need someone in
your life who is there for you in an unrestricted, non-
qualified relationship.
Going back to your question about divorce, a divorce that
goes on for 12 years, no matter how much violence is in it,
robs the children of that stable caregiving, and there is
absolutely--divorce proceedings where there are allegations of
abuse and counter-allegations, one of the problems besides
resources is that is the epicenter of junk science. People are
allowed to provide expert testimony about whether someone is
abused or someone is not abused or the fictitious parental
alienation syndrome. Much of that should be barred from any
courtroom and judges should be making decisions based on what
is truly in the best interests of this child so this child does
not grow up and be part of the 30 percent and is directed to
the 70 percent.
Senator Franken. Thank you. I want to get one last question
in. I know I am running out of time. Are there prevention
models--I know there is a thing in Minnesota, Code of Healthy
Families, where basically pediatricians and obstetrician/
gynecologists and social workers identify parents that are at
risk while the mother is pregnant and start a voluntary system
of, first of all, prenatal care, but then also once the child
is born, house visits and those kind of things. And what I have
heard is that those programs pay for themselves basically in
the reduced amount of child abuse.
Do we have good models of prevention of abuse in the
family?
Mr. Gelles. You are speaking about David Olds' Nurse-Family
Partnership model, which Congress funded in the stimulus bill
and was viewed by the Office of Management and Budget as a
cost-neutral program because it saves as much on the back end
as it costs on the front end.
Unfortunately--and that is a secondary prevention model. It
identifies high-risk individuals and intervenes with them. It
is not a broad-based primary prevention model.
In David's research, the unfortunate part of the research
was that when there is domestic violence in the home, it
mitigates the effect on the children. So we do not yet have--
and I would personally say it is one of the shortcomings of
VAWA. VAWA did not in its implementation implement a research
and demonstration project----
Senator Franken. I think I am actually talking about a
different program, one that was adopted in Minnesota.
Mr. Gelles. It is called Healthy Families.
Senator Franken. Well, this is by Dakota County.
Mr. Gelles. It is a version of David's model, although you
use--he uses nurse practitioners and Minnesota uses a wider
range of professionals and paraprofessionals. But it is
essentially the same model that has been tested since 1976.
There is no such secondary prevention model tested, evaluated,
and effective for domestic violence.
Ms. Ulloa. Senator Franken, I think that any venue where
you are bringing inventory services, whether it is medical or
criminal justice or advocacy groups, is critical to a woman. In
Minnesota, what we do really well is--for instance, I will give
you an example. The Hennepin County Medical Center, which is a
high-trauma area right in downtown Minneapolis, has an advocate
and has social workers who are trained in the work of domestic
violence. So when somebody comes into the hospital, either in
the emergency room or other areas, there is somebody that they
can call, and typically they call and do the crisis work and
then call our office to provide an advocate. And many areas and
many hospitals have advocates onsite, and I think in the
medical area where we see high-trauma coming in right away,
right after the assault, that is critical.
The advocacy services are always going to be the spoke of
the wheel to provide the right services to let the woman leave
the home. So advocacy services in the medical arena is
critical.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator Franken.
You have all given us so much for thought. I think it is
easier to say we all want to do the right thing. The idea is
finding out what is the right thing, what works best.
Let me, Ms. Watersong, direct you more to the idea of rural
areas, and every State has rural areas, so it is appropriate.
But I think of the problems you have in your program and the
problems that law enforcement has. Can you speak to that,
especially how do survivors in rural areas like Vermont achieve
financial independence? What are some of the specialized
problems they have?
Ms. Watersong. Thank you, Senator Leahy. When I think about
the rural challenges for domestic and sexual violence survivors
in Vermont, I cannot help but think about one particular case,
a woman that I worked with years ago when I worked as a direct
services advocate. I will never forget the day that she showed
up when I was working at a local program, and she had survived
a horrific all-night physical and sexual assault by her
partner. The next morning he left her in their home with no
phone and no car in the back woods of Vermont. Disoriented and
in shock, bruised and bloodied, she walked barefoot for 8 miles
on a hot summer road into town to our program seeking respite
relief and healing. Within 3 weeks, she was in safe and
affordable housing and managing newly accessed resources. She
succeeded in leaving that desolate isolation and horrendous
violence because she was supported by a responsive criminal
justice system. But she stayed safe because that program was
able to provide her with the full breadth of economic supports.
Chairman Leahy. And another question that sort of begs the
answer, but if the program was not there----
Ms. Watersong. Right, right. What does she face?
Chairman Leahy [continuing]. She would not have had----
Ms. Watersong. Yes, she faces geographic isolation,
isolation from her community.
Chairman Leahy. I also find that in very rural areas, very
small towns, we also have a problem where people do not even
want to speak about being a victim of abuse.
Ms. Watersong. Right.
Chairman Leahy. You somehow feel you have to keep that
hidden. Or am I wrong?
Ms. Watersong. That it is private--well, I think VAWA has
really helped bring that a long way toward just increasing
domestic violence awareness and even one of the examples that
Mr. Gelles shared about the elevator, that cultural change that
is happening is largely due to all of the great things that
VAWA has done up until now. And I think even in rural
communities we are seeing that change. We are seeing folks
realize that being just a silent bystander is not the best
option anymore. But it is still a challenge because they are so
far isolated.
Chairman Leahy. And there are also still some attitudes
that have to change. You talked in your written testimony about
a victim who had been hospitalized for several days and then
had to go off to court for a day to testify and got fired
because of losing work. Is that correct?
Ms. Watersong. Right. And we appreciate what VAWA has done
to this point to support them. I would encourage looking at
VAWA as far as workplace protections go for victims because
victims such as the one I discussed in my testimony really need
unemployment compensation, they need unpaid sick leave, they
need anti-discrimination laws, all of those things to make sure
that they can keep their job, they can be assured that they
will be able to take care of their own needs, the needs of
their children and families, their court needs, all of that and
still remain employed.
Chairman Leahy. And, Ms. Ulloa, I listened to what you
talked about, what is available in Hennepin County. I have got
to tell you, I wish that had been available, those things had
been available when I was State's attorney and we were trying
to--we actually cobbled things together. I remember my wife and
I actually paying for a motel for somebody to stay to hide out,
buying meals for the kids and all. There were just no programs.
Now they are a lot better, and thank you for mentioning Sheila
Wellstone, one of the all-time saints in my estimation.
Tell me, if you had to put your finger on some of the
biggest differences in handling these kind of cases since VAWA
passed, what are they?
Ms. Ulloa. Thank you, Senator Leahy. I think one is the
response by law enforcement after training. I think also the
view that judges take on the bench, whether it is in the civil
arena or the criminal arena on how they view domestic violence,
that educational component. I think the value of VAWA has been
greatly supporting the advocacy work, those programs that
pretty much have nothing and do everything for victims,
recognizing the expertise, the passion, the need that women
have to have holistic services in order to get through the
criminal process and the civil process. VAWA has done all of
that.
In particular for me, I think one of the most wonderful
areas that I am incredibly proud--and we have supported VAWA
through this--is the response to culturally specific programs--
--
Chairman Leahy. The response to?
Ms. Ulloa. Culturally specific programs--Not every victim
stands the same way, and so much of her isolation really
depends on where she is from, sometimes her language
proficiency, her educational proficiency. VAWA has done an
exemplary job of recognizing, defining, allowing services to go
specifically to those communities, underserved communities, and
I think that has been just incredible.
In my personal experience, from my community, which is one
of those underserved communities, a Latino community, it has
saved lives.
Chairman Leahy. I know in our State we have had refugees
from other cultures. They come to Vermont, which is kind of an
entirely different thing. We are a predominantly white, Anglo-
Saxon State, and suddenly you find entirely different cultures
and everything else. And we have seen outreach into those
communities, and that I think we are becoming more--at least
the stories I hear around the country, we are becoming more
aware of that. It is sometimes easier in a large culturally
diverse community, but I am glad you raised that point.
Doctor, I am glad you raised the points you did. This has
been helpful. Again, I wish I could wave a magic wand and
violence against women would end and we could just repeal all
these laws because they would be unnecessary and you could all
go off and do other things. Unfortunately, that is not a
reality. That is not going to be a reality anytime soon. So you
have all been very helpful, and I thank you very, very much.
Incidentally, I will keep the record open so after you get
your testimony back, if you say, you know, I should have added
this or added that point, we will make room for you to do it.
Again, I apologize for the voice. Thank you.
Ms. Watersong. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Ulloa. Thank you, Senator.
Mr. Gelles. Thank you.
Chairman Leahy. We stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 66328.098