16

fice of the Comptroller sees that grant monies are distributed to the states and local
communities on time, and in conformity with federal financial management guide-
lines. OJP’s Office of Administration has implemented an on-line grants mani
ment system that allows states, tribes, and localities to apply for grants and ce
financial and programmatic reports on-line. OJP’s Office of Congressional and Pub-
lic Affairs works to promote the programs and activities of VAWO and to keep Con-
gress and the public informed about upcoming grant awards and the status of
VAWO grant programs. Our Office of General Counsel provides expert legal guid-
ance on grant-1 ig, regulatory activities, and compliance issues. Therefore, hous-
ing these administrative services under one OJP roof enhances the quality and con-
sistency of the financial, programmatic, and legal management of OJP’s bureaus
and program offices.

I would like to address one other concern that has been raised regarding the sta-
tus of VAWO. As you know, Mr. Chairman, under congressional direction, the De-
partment is formulating plan for the reorganization of OJP. However, this reorga-
nization plan would in no way be detrimental to the important work of VA’
Under any plan proposed by this Administration regarding the structure of OJP, the
Violence Against Women Office will continue as a discrete office to provide national
leadership and serve as the focal point within the Department for initiatives ad-
dressing violence against women and its victims.

Ta addition, VAWO will continue to work closely with the other components of
OJP and the Department, including the Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Legisla-
tive Affairs, the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and individual
U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to implement the mandates of the Violence Against Women
Act and subsequent legislation. It will continue to provide guidance to states, local
governments, and Native American tribes in addressing violence against women
issues within their jurisdictions. And it will continue to coordinate its activities with
national women’s and victims’ organizations who share its common goal of ensuring
justice for women victims of violence.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, VAWO is much more than, as some Administration
critics have charged, a grants vending machine. Under this Administration, VAWO
will continue to serve as national advocate and powerful voice on issues addressing
violence against women. The Department is grateful for your continued interest in
and support of our efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women. We
share your commitment to achieving this goal and are happy to work with you on

ese issues.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you, Ms. Stuart.

Let me begin by saying that I do not have the slightest doubt
about your commitment to this legislation, so my questions that I
am going to ask you—really, basically, one question—really go to
the efficacy of how to deliver the services, including the policy
piece.

I mean, you have been out in the field. You have done this. You
have done the hands-on work. You understand. You have seen the
fear in those women’s eyes. You have seen the relief, the way their
whole face changes, the way physically the body language changes.
You have seen that. You have felt it. You taste it. You smell it.

I do not have any doubt about your commitment. I do have doubt
about the judgment about the administration proposal, whether it
came from you directly or within the Justice Department, about
what we are about to do. So it is in that context that I am asking
these questions.

Let me say that in your statement, on page 2, you write that
every task the office performs is somehow connected to policy. And
then you seem to define it in terms of the following: solicitation de-
velopment, grant management, the administration of technical as-
sistance, and the communication to the field.

Now, these are obviously very important responsibilities in mak-
ing sure what Senator Grassley is justifiably concerned about, who
is—in addition to Senator Roth, the two men who were most con-



37

Q. You said that you were trying to talk to her?

A. Mm-mmm.

Q. And what happened?

A. She wouldn’t answer me.

Q. How did you feel when your mom wouldn’t answer you?

A. Lonely and sad.

Senator Biden, the National Agenda and its urgent call to action must _be
trumpeted and not muted, the President’s call for a Coordinated Community Re-

se and the Attorney General’s call for a change of culture, collectively compel
the government to pass your critically important legislation and create a statutory
Violence Against Women Office with the stature such a commitment deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I didn’t take the opportunity to report to you
on the impact that Violence Against Women S.T.O.P. Formula Funding has had’ on
citizens in your home state. I attach for the sub committee's review a spreadsheet
detailing each Agency which received S.T.O.P. funds, the total amount of the fund-
ing, the program description and the Delaware Implementation Committee’s view
of program impact.

‘iolence Against Women Act funding in Delaware has provided an opportunity for
both the expansion of existing programs and the introduction of innovative new pro-
grams offering direct services to domestic violence and sexual assault victims.

Violence Against Women Act funding has enhanced existing services to improve
Delware’s criminal justice system in many ways; it allows the entry of protection
orders in real time, creating a database immediately accessible to officers on the
street; it puts advanced evidence collection technology in the hands of domestic vio-
lence officers; it enables more effective prosecution of perpetrators; and it places
translation services within an immigrant community to break down barriers that
have traditionally hindered, even prevented, battered women’s attempts to leave
violent homes.

We are erasing the boundaries among agencies to provide a continum of seamless
service delivery to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault in Delaware.

We are also erasing the boundaries of our vision of service delivery for victims
of domestic violence and sexual assault in Delaware. This funding has provided in-
centive for agencies, even those that did not apply for or receive Violence Against
Women Act funding, to consider next steps and to envision potential for domestic
violence victim's service delivery and how we can reach that goal. This type of sup.
port and innovation, in addition to the core staff training, coordinated state-wide
strategic planning, and technological advancements, is critical to the forward move-
ment of treating victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as in pre-
venting future victimization in Delaware.

In addition to making it possible for Delaware to have advocacy programs in each
of the Family Courts and expanding shelter services, the funding also provides for
legal representation in civil matters and provides for a broader, case management
approach to serving victims of domestic violence.

'e fund much-needed statewide domestic violence training for law enforcement
and judicial officers. While the need for ongoing training on this issue exists, Vio-
lence Against Women Act funds enable all current state law enforcement and judi-
cial officers to have a core of knowledge about domestic violence that can more eas-
ily be augmented in the future.

‘The reaction to our training has been encouraging:

“The training was ‘nothing short of enlightening—I was on the e¢ge of my
chair.”—James G. McGiffin, Jr., Executive Director, Community Legal Aid Society,

Tne.

“The strategic planning sessions themselves have been a benefit. It has been a
great process to learn what's needed from service providers.”—Patricia M. Blevins,
Vice-Chair, Domestic Violence Coordinating Council, Violence Against Women Act
implementation Committee.

The [Violence Against Women Act] grants Delaware has received for law enforce-
ment training have united the law enforcement efforts of an entire state in com-
bating domestic violence and abuse. Every police officer, probation and parole offi-
cer, animal control, victim advocate and child protective worker has been trained
at the same time table with one common goal—save lives and hold the batterer ac-
countable.”—Sgt. Gerry Donovan, New Castle Police Department.

“T never expected the level of ality and time that was given. I thought that I
would be just a face in the crowd. I was wrong. The [Domestic Violence Advocacy
Center staff] are angels.”—Project participant, Domestic Violence Advocacy Center.

“['m so glad there are people like you there to help the abused, no matter what
type of abuse it is. Thank you so much!”—Project Participant, Hispanic Case Man-
agement Program.


33

a program sends a very powerful message to corporate America and in many in-
stances will determine their participation.

Without the prestige and access afforded an independent Violence Against Women
Office, I am truly concerned that many of these public/private initiatives will not
happen. If private industry does not get on board and become an active participant
in the efforts against domestic violence, individuals will suffer physical and financial
harm as a result.

That is why it is so critical that the Violence Against Women Office have the pres-
tige, stature and access envisioned by the Senate legislation. Both Chambers of Con-
gress have recognized that the Violence Against Women Office functions in the lead
role at the Federal level in the fight against domestic violence by voting to grant
statutory authorization.

The need goes beyond mere authorization and continued existence, however. To
assume a meaningful role in helping States and regions with developing working
agreements and worthwhile public-private partnerships, the realities of the situa-
tion demand that the Director of the Violence Against Women Office be viewed as
something more than someone with a large checkbook who reports to someone else
overseeing disparate grant programs who reports to an associate attorney general
who may, ultimately, pass ‘alone information to the attorney general.

‘We live in a day and age where one out of every three women has suffered abuse
at some time in her life. Statistics show that every year upwards of three million
children witness acts of violence by one parent or partner against another. These
times demand leadership and initiative in the struggle against domestic violence at
every level of government, from the Municipal Police Department all the way to the
Attorney General of the United States. Without a strong policy-setting arm at the
national Jevel that can be relied upon for resources and guidance, efforts to end do-
mestic violence for our children, with the same fervor that our parents stamped out
Polio for us, will suffer mightily. As we confront the dilemma of domestic violence
in the 21st century, one thing is absolutely clear, the situation calls for more leader-
ship and initiative, not less.

I can promise you that attorneys general and law enforcement officials from
around the country are doing everything in our power to end the cycle of abuse. I
would ask Congress to empower that same commitment and dedication at the Fed-
eral level by empowering a strong central voice in the Violence Against Women Of-
fice, a voice that not only spends grant dollars, but also helps the States set vital
policy in critical times. History will remember us, not by the promises we make, but

y the actions we take! No stronger action could be taken.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Senators, for the opportunity to join

you today.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, General. I want to com-
pliment you and, again, Mr. Gwinn. You guys seem to be pretty
passionate about this, whether or not there was any federal legisla-
tion. You started your unit before we even had the federal legisla-
tion. And it is good to see that.

Judge Poppiti, welcome.

STATEMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE VINCENT J. POPPITI, FAMILY
COURT FOR THE STATE OF DELAWARE, WILMINGTON, DE

Judge Popriti. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman BIDEN. I should state at the outset, so there is full dis-
closure, I consider Judge Poppiti a very close, personal friend, so
T do not want anybody to think that I was only nice to him because
he is my friend. He happens to be very good at what he does here.

Judge Poppiti. Indeed, we are, and I cherish that friendship,
Senator.

Senator the witness will take the stand. And her name is
Dejanario Alexis Wade. She is 6 years old, and she likes to be
called Deja.

When Deja was 4 years old, she and her 2-year-old brother wit-
nessed the savage murder of their mother by their father in Wil-
mington, Delaware, on October 3, 1997.


42

When VAWO moved to the Office of Justice Programs, the responsibilities of the
Office became more focused on the technical aspects of grant making and less on
the policy issues that emerge in building programs that address victim safety and
offender accountability—the cornerstones of VAWA. This trend seems to have con-
tinued under the new administration, and is cause for great concern. Although we
have made great strides in some ways, in others our work is just beginning. Our
need for a vigorous, proactive Violence Against Women Office has not diminished.

The tremendous needs and gaps uncovered by VAWA in 1994 led to its reauthor-
ization in 2000, and the work at the state and local level has become more, not less,
complex. VAWA requires the criminal and civil justice systems to work together
with community services. VAWA funds prosecutors, courts, law enforcement, victim
services, community-based assistance programs, tribal governments, and state coali-
tions. This broad range of professionals in turn serves victims and survivors living
in rural towns and large wan cities, as well as immigrant, disabled, and older vic-
tims of abuse. VAWA grants provide needed services in communities of color and
communities of faith. And all of these services are provided in the context of a com-
plex system of federal, state, local, and tribal laws.

Addressing all of these mandates, understanding all of these Jaws, and reaching
all of these communities is a tough challenge on the state and local level. Now more
than ever, we need an active, high-profile Violence Against Women Office to help
establish baseline standards for this increasingly complex work, and to provide con.
sistent interpretations as to how the mandates of VAWA are to be met.

We need an office staffed with program managers and policy analysts that have
subject matter expertise, not just grant-making skills. Three examples of VAWA
programs speak vividly to this need for the combined functions of grant-making and
policy analysis within the same office. First, the Legal Assistance for Victims Pro-
gram grantees might well call VAWO to ask for assistance in developing appropriate
screening and conflicts protocol, or for help in developing policies to implement the
new funding mandate that civil legal assistance be provided to sexual assault sur-
vivors. This new area of law requires guidance not simply on allowable expenses of
a grant, but on what the civil legal needs are of such victims, and what challenges
to expect in crafting these new programs. It takes a policy analyst. familiar with
these complicated issues to give the right answers or know how to find them. The
lives of sexual assault survivors all across the country will be dramatically impacted
by the answers to these questions.

Second, jurisdictions receiving Grants to Encourage Arrest funding need to know
how the VAWA 2000 amendments to the Full Faith and Credit mandate of VAWA
1994 will impact their program practices. For example, states must certify that its
laws, policies and practices do not require victims to bear costs associated with pros-
ecution, filing, registration or service of a protective order. This requires not just
grant managers who know the paperwork needed to meet the certification require-
ments, but policy experts who know how to craft changes in state law and policies
to come into compliance with this new requirement.

Grantees of the Grants to Encourage Arrest and Enforce Protection Orders pro-
gram must also certify that their jurisdictions do not allow the issuance of mutual
protection orders. If there is no legislative opportunity to satisfy this funding condi-
tion, grantees will turn to VAWO for expert guidance on alternative ways to be in
compliance. A policy analyst must be available to speak to the various ways this
requirement can be met, whether through changes in court rules or administrative
memorandums. What may seem a technical certification requirement is so much
more than a checkmark on a grant application. Requiring states to prohibit the
issuance of mutual protective orders as a condition of funding is about fulfilling the
intent of VAWA to make systemic changes in the way states respond to critical
issues of victim safety. We need look no farther than the recent highly publicized
protective order case in Kentucky to know the importance of such requirements.‘

Finally, the new immigration rights and procedures created by VAWA are numer-
ous and complex; grantees of all the VAWA programs need technical assistance to
help them understand when critical immigration issues arise and how grantees can
best help immigrant victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. This

In the case of Harrison v. Harrison, the judge fined a woman for having contact with her
abuser after a protective order was issued against him. In doing so, the judge erroneously ruled
that a protective order issued against an abuser can be treated like a mutual protective order
if'the victim has contact with the abuser, Such a ruling would also violate VAWA prohibitions
on the issuance of mutual protective orders. See Harrison v. Harrison, 2002-~CA~000609, Ky.
App. See also John Cheves, “Judge fines women who return to their alleged abusers,” Lexington
Herald-Leader, January 3, 2002.



10

on developing sound and reliable ways to measure the effectiveness
of the Violence Against Women Act programs.

Briefly, the point I am trying to make is, although there are nu-
merous bureaus and offices within OJP, in practice, we operate as
one entity because of the benefits we reap from working together.

Our office has made amazing, just amazing, progress since the
Violence Against Women Act passage in 1994. Where there were
only a handful of experts on violence against women, there are now
hundreds of professionals from all areas of the criminal justice sys-
tem who can educate and train others. Some of the most important
work we do today is to link these new expert resources across the
country with the projects in need of guidance.

We could also think of our office as an hourglass, if you will: in-
formation in and information out. I really believe that we provide
that resource to the communities.

I have come to value the various tools that we use to carry out
our mission and stay closely connected with the field. These tools
include, of course, our grant programs; the National Advisory
Council on Violence Against Women, which I had the honor to
serve on for 6 years; our expansive, diverse, and extremely quali-
fied technical assistance initiatives. I was totally amazed at the
depth and breadth of our technical assistance initiatives when I
came to the office. And also, we rely on the invigorating, exciting,
and continual interaction with our grantees and experts from
across the Nation.

It is this day-to-day interaction and close collaboration between.
our office and those working in research, policy, and practical that
is critical.

Their ideas, suggestions, and criticisms keep us on the right
path, keep us current on what is happening in our communities,
and offer us a fresh perspective on issues we grapple with every
single day.

We have many ambitious priorities for the coming year. Program
sustainability and building capacity and measuring program effec-
tiveness are at the top of my list.

We now require all of our grantees to tell us how they plan to
keep their programs operating and even thriving without the ben-
efit of federal funding.

Partnering with all of OJP, we are developing ways to improve
our ability to measure program effectiveness. We want to know: Do
they work? Are they producing outcomes that they were originally
intended to produce? What is the impact of the Violence Against
Women Act on communities? And are we really, are we really,
making a difference?

My commitment, the commitment of the Violence Against
Women Office, the Office of Justice Programs, and the Department
of Justice, is to ensure that the goals of the Violence Against
Women Act are fulfilled.

The Violence Against Women Office of today is much more than
a check-writing entity. Through all of our activities—through all of
our activities—we are guiding the policies that Congress set for-
ward. As we administer and manage millions of dollars of grants
that reach thousands of communities, we are ensuring that we are


70

Ms. ROSENTHAL. We mean an independent, separate office that
really has the clout of the President and the Attorney General
right behind them.

And I had the same experience as the judge. When I worked
down in Florida and I was a shelter Director at the time and
Bonnie Campbell came down to the State and met with the Gov-
ernor and met with the attorney general and there was a tremen-
dous amount of excitement. There was a sense that this was a wa-
tershed moment, that the work was really going to move forward.

And so I would say, number one, it is an issue of that clout. You
knew that she was there speaking on behalf of the President of the
United States and the Attorney General. You just knew that.

And we saw that diminish without question with this move into
the Office of Justice Programs.

Second, from a practical standpoint, probably the best example,
the single best example, is what happened with full faith and cred-
it on protective orders. You know, the law simply said that states
needed to honor each other’s protective orders, but it did not tell
them how to do it.

So I was the director of a state coalition at that time, and we
were getting inundated with calls from little law enforcement agen-
cies and big sheriff's departments, saying, “We cannot possibly do
this. Our legal People say we have all kinds of liability. It is impos-
sible, it is impossible, it is impossible.”

And what VAWA did, because it positioned in main Justice, it
worked with the Office of Policy Development and the Executive
Office of the U.S. Attorney General; it brought people together to
develop practical guidelines.

Chairman BIDEN. But it brought them together.

Ms. ROSENTHAL. It brought them together.

Chairman BIDEN. It was the thing that said there is going to be
a meeting.

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Yes. Yes.

Chairman BIDEN. There is going to be a meeting. Someone calls
the meeting, posts it on the door, says, “Everybody show up,” and
everybody knew they had to show up.

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Because of the placement of the office, the clout
of the office, people showed up.

And VAWO did not just stop there. They then brought state
teams together to provide training on practical guidelines to imple-
ment full faith and credit. And they sent those teams back home
with action plans.

So that is probably the single best example. And the problems on
full faith and credit have not gone away. We still need that kind
of very high-profile leadership on the part of the Federal Govern-
ment.

Chairman BIDEN. Well, what about the answer that the Attorne’
General could be the person to do that now? I am sure some will
say, look, okay, you have this office. It does not mean, when it gets
to it, that from within the Office of Justice Programs that voice
cannot be heard from the Director of that program calling on the
Assistant Attorney General, to ask the Associate Attorney General,
that the Associate Attorney General should effectively call that
meeting, or the Attorney General.


52

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Laurie E.
Ekstrand or John F. Moras at 200) 5128777 Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included Wendy C. Simkalo, Jared A.
Hermalin, and Chan My J. Battcher.


50

‘information from the opening to the closing of a grant award. Although the

assistant attorney general said that OJP will consider the comptroller

‘general's internal control standards in taking these steps, itis unclear

whether the new system wil include the full range and scope of

‘monitoring activities carried out by grant managers in VAWO and other
‘organizations,

—
Concems About
Evaluation Studies of
VAWO Discretionary
Grant Programs

‘We have also recently issued a report on work undertaken for Senators
Grassley and Sessions that addressed the methodological rigor of impact.
evaluations of three VAWO discretionary grant programs” During fiscal
‘years 1995 throught 2001, the National Institute of Justice (NU) awarded
‘about $4 miltion for five VAWO discretionary grant program evaluations.
that were intended to measure the impact of the VAWO programs." Our in-
depth review of the three program evaluations that had progressed beyond
the formative stage showed that all three had methodological problems
that raised concerns about whether the evaluations will produce definitive
results.

More specifically, ourreport stated that, although program evaluation is
an inherently difficult task, in all three VAWO evaluations, the effort was
particularly arduous because of variations across grantee sites in how the
Programs are implemented. Our concerns about these efforts included
problems with both evaluation design and implementation. In particular,

‘comparison
‘from other factors, in these evaluations, effective altemative methods
‘were not used. In addition, data collection and analytical problems (e.g.,

US. Genera Accounting Otc, Justice Impact Bvaluations: One Bymne Boaluaion Was
Rigorous, At Reviewed Vielence Agsinst Women Office Boaluations Were Problematic,
GAO-G2.08 (Washington, D.C: Mar. 7, 2002)

‘taper evnionare design ent ne eect of progea y comparing
‘outcomes with an estimate of what would have happened inthe absence ofthe

Pages caomneut


56

Chairman BIDEN. Doctor, am I pronouncing your name correctly?
Is it Ekstrand?

Ms. EKSTRAND. Ekstrand.

Chairman BIDEN. Ekstrand. Thank you very much.

Mr. Gwinn, again, thank you for being here. I know you came a
long way. But I also know your passion for this, so it probably was
not as long a trip as it would be for some.

STATEMENT OF CASEY GWINN, CITY ATTORNEY FOR SAN
DIEGO, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA

Mr. Gwinn. Thank you, Chairman Biden. And I bring greetings
from George Mitrovich, the president of the City Club in San
Diego, where I, actually, shook your hand a number of years ago.

Chairman BIDEN. I remember meeting you a long time ago. I
think I hold the record for speaking at the City Club more than
anybody else. George is hard to say no to.

ir. GWINN. Well, he ropes a lot of us into being members, too.
And we do not like it at the time, but we are very happy to be
there, because of the poople he brings to challenge us.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you. Good to see you again.

Mr. GwINN. Seventeen years ago, I was a new prosecutor in San
Diego and, as is true still in much of the country today, was as-
signed to handle domestic violence cases, because young, inexperi-
enced prosecutors were being given those cases in 1985.

I was approached by three feminist advocates from shelters in
San Diego, who came to my office in 1985 and said, “You do not.
know what you are doing in the handling of domestic violence.”
And the only thing that I can possibly take credit for over the last
17 years is that at that time I said, “You are right. I have no idea
what I am doing in the handling of domestic violence.”

And that became both friendships and partnerships between the
shelter movement and prosecutors in San Diego, as we began to lis-
ten to survivors of domestic violence and as we began to listen to
those who were most impacted by violence and abuse, and started
building our policies and procedures accordingly.

Over the last 17 years, what has distinguished our work and the
work of many jurisdictions around the country has been collabora-
tion and partnership. The challenge, I believe, still today is build-
ing that critical mass in social change theory; it is bringing every-
body together.

And I want to thank you, Senator Biden, for your leadership. In
1994, when the Violence Against Women Act passed, it was a mas-
sive shot in the arm for shelters and providers all over the country,
who had been working for many years without any federal funding
and desperately needed the Federal Government and the United
States Senate and Congress to say, “This matters, and this should
be at the top of our agenda.” And I want to thank you for your con-
tinued advocacy, even in this hearing today, which puts it on the
radar screen.

And sadly, perhaps in part because of the events of September
11th, this issue has not been on the national radar screen, as it
needs to be even this very day.

I am here to speak in support of virtually everything in the legis-
lation that is before you today. I strongly support the idea of a


60

agencies, and others who currently provide services to domestic violence victims. In
Phase II, within the next five years, our vision is to bring together child abuse, elder
abuse, sexual assault, and juvenile crime professionals along with researchers who
evaluate outcomes from specialized domestic violence intervention.

Our Family Justice Center clearly points us toward the greatest need of the do-
mestic violence movement. nationally—to develop multi-disciplinary approaches to
reducing family violence. Domestic violence advocates cannot stand alone. We need
to build relationships with all those who touch the lives of domestic violence plagued
families. The trend is not to isolate the domestic violence issue but to integrate it
with so many other programs that need to understand domestic violence issues in
order to address them properly.

I urge support for elevating the visibility of the VAWO through its statutory cre-
ation, for enhancing the final grant authority of the Office, for making the Director's
position a Presidential appointment with Senate confirmation, and for enumerating
the powers and responsibilities of the Director as described in H.R. 2215. But I urge
you not to remove the VAWO from OJP as the Senate legislation anticipates. It
would damage the very real and very positive progress that Diane Stuart is cur-
rently making in bringing together so many parts of OJP that support the work of
VAWO. L, and many others, fear that in making a strong political statement about
the importance of VAWO such a legislative enactment would undermine the power
and influence of VAWO in making positive change around the country.

Thank you for your leadership in our work against domestic violence and for your
on-going advocacy for the needs of victims of domestic violence and their children.
And thank you for your consideration of my testimony today.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you.

The entire statements from each of you as formally written will
be placed in the record, in addition to the statements that you have
made.

Let me say that, interesting enough, Case, Judge Poppiti and
you, in a strange way, perform similar functions in your commu-
nities.

In our case, much of the organizational effort has been through
Chief Judge Poppiti. In your case, much of the effort has been
through the prosecutor's office.

The Family Justice Center, I suspect, is partially your brainchild.
I do not know that for a fact, but I would assume that.

And so the reason I cite that is that what is essential, even
though there are two different mechanisms that have become the
de facto coordinating entities—and it may very well be the same
in Georgia; I do not know enough to know, General—they have one
thing in common, and that is they are focusing on abuse. That is,
as I understand it, you look out there and you look at the abused
community. In this case, it is women and children that you focus
most on.

And the consequence, as you said, Exodus 20 is a great way to
characterize it, the sins of the parents being visited upon the chil-
dren. And you are looking at it through a prism of how do we deal
with reducing, eliminating violence and/or ameliorating the effects
of it when it occurs at the hand of a man striking or worse a
woman.

And so there are so many different other aspects of the criminal
justice and social support structure that need to be brought to bear
to deal with that. There ends up being some place, whether it is
an individual in a community because of his or her passion, and
the ability to be able to use the office they hold to be the magnate
that draws all those people together, or because of some bureau-
cratic—and I do not mean that in a negative sense—bureaucratic
structure that accommodates that.



48

‘overall performance. Although VAWO officials said that they met with
grant managers weekly to discuss any grant problems or monitoring,

issues, VAWO did not (1) have an overall system to track monitoring
activities, other than site visits and (2) appear to be routinely using OJP-
wide data on late progress reports and financial reports. Furthermore, the
Jack of systematic data associated with program monitoring activities and
the documentation problems we observed raised questions about whether
‘VAWO was positioned to measure its performance consistent with the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1999. Specifically,
we pointed out that, in DOJ's Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and
Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan, DOJ failed to recognize the serious
Imitations associated with inconsistent documentation and the lack of
systematic monitoring data in measuring whether VAWO was achieving its
goals for formula and discretionary grants—especially since the Report
and Plan stated that VAWO would rely on grant monitoring data to
‘measure its performance.

‘We concluded that neither OJP, VAWO, nor GAO can determine the level
‘of monitoring performed by grant managers as required by OIP and the
‘comptroller general's internal control standards, which call for

documentation of all transactions and other significant events to ensure
that management directives are being carried out‘ We recommended that
‘VAWO review why documentation problems occurred and take steps to
resolve these problems.

‘Too Early to Gauge Efforts
to Resolve Grant.
Monitoring Problems

‘VAWO and OJP officials have acknowledged that they need to take steps
to resolve some of the problems associated with grant monitoring, but itis
too early to tell if these steps will be effective. For example; in response to
our report, the assistant attorney general said that VAWO had begun to
develop both an internal monitoring manual that would include

‘system that will eventually track the submission of progress and financial
reports, Furthermore, while we were developing our report, VAWO
officials said that they were not satisfied with the performance measures
they used to gauge their performance under GPRA because they did not
believe they are meaningful for measuring program outcomes. They said
that they are working with other OJP officials and an outside contractor to

"U's Genoral Accounting Otee, Internal Control Standards for Internal Gano in the
Federal Government, GACIAIMB-00-21.13 | (Washington, D.C: Nov. 1998)

Page 3 Ga0-02-6417


20

Who is doing these studies? You are supposed to be doing them.
The policy people within your operation are supposed to, not the
grant maker. You are the one who is supposed to be sitting there
saying, “You know, we really should take a different look at why
these stay-away orders are not working as well as they should be
working. They seem to work in the jurisdictions of California and
Oregon, but they do not work so well between California and Ne-
vada. And they are not working at all well between Illinois and In-
diana. So we should have a study. We should be the ones, out of
my office, deciding to help people with it.”

Who does that in your office, under this new approach?

Ms. Stuart. I would turn to my support, which would be the Na-
tional Institute of Justice. I would work very closely with Sarah
Hart as the Director of the National Institute of Justice, and have
her come up with exactly that kind of study, exactly that kind of
initiative. Absolutely.

I think that the technical assistance arm of our office, which as
I said in my opening statement, I was just amazed at how many
there are. I thought we have one or two. We have close to 50 dif-
ferent technical assistance providers.

So there are lawyers that are sitting down with communities.
There are individuals going out and working on specific programs
with judges, with policymakers, with leaders in government, to
help incorporate those initiatives, the workplace violence initiative.

Chairman BIDEN. But that is not your grant people, is it?

Ms. Stuart. No. It is our technical assistance arm. That still ex-
ists within the office. That is still thriving and exciting and unbe-
lievable. Those are the people.

The grant managers would be supported by that technical assist-
ance arm that exists right now. Those that were doing what we
used to call the policy teamwork, they are still doing the exact
same information. They are still providing documents, talking
points, to the White House, to the Department of State, to the De-
partment of Labor. They are still doing all that.

I am very strongly working with the Women’s Bureau at the De-
partment of Health and Human Services, for instance, and the
Women’s Bureau at the Department of Labor, to incorporate and
collaborate and communicate with those departments.

I really see policy throughout everything that we do. When
you send $200,000 to a community, $600,000 to a community, and
you tell that community, “In order to get this money, you have
to”—and you wrote it in the legislation—“you have to change your
law so that you prohibit mutual protective orders, so you discour-
age dual arrests, so you do not charge for fees,” all of that is setting
policy for the state.

I think it is intertwined with everything we do. And I think we
need to continue to do it as effectively as my predecessor has estab-
lished the foundation for it to be.

Chairman BIDEN. As my mother, who is an 86-year-old, lovely
Irish woman would say, “God love you, dear, but we are going to
try to save you from yourself.”

We are going to try to give you more than you want. I am going
to try to give you more than you want, including more money.


38

“They were there to help, listen and care for your well being. Its such a relief to
know someone cares and is willing to take a step to help.”"—Evaluation by program
participant Domestic Violence Advocacy Center.

While Delaware has been ready and willing to accept a call to action to End Vio-
lence Against Women. S.T.0.P. Formula Funding has assured our ability to do so.
The establishment of a permanent Violence Against Women Office assure that ef-
forts in our state and across the nation are carried forward over time.

When we in the National Advisory Council on Violence Aga st Women began to
develop an Agenda for the Nation we did so at the call of the Director of Violence
Against Women Office with the expectation that office did so on behalf of the Attor-
ney General of the United States Department of Justice and the Secretary of the
United States Department of Health and Human Services.

T would like to close my testimony in support of S. 570 by borrowing and para-
phrasing some words from our Agenda:

A statutory Violence Against Women Office would be a tribute to those who have
worked tirelessly to bring the issue of violence against women to our public con-
sciousness, and most especially to the victims and survivors of domestic violence,
sexual assault and stalking. A statutory Violence Against Women Office would serve
to honor those whose work in crisis programs, within the justice system, and in
health care and social service agencies helps victims recover and find safety. A stat-
utory Violence Against Women Office would serve to applaud business and labor
leaders, educators, religious and spiritual leaders, policymakers and others who
have demonstrated their commitment to ending violence against women by devel-
oping needed policies, protocols, and programs in communities throughout this coun-
try. A statutory Violence Against Women Office would serve to commend those men
and women who have taken a public and private stand against violence. A statutory
Violence Against Women Office would permit the urgent call to action necessary to
change our culture and end Violence against women; to be sounded from the highest
levels of the government of the United States of America.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you, Judge, for that very compelling tes-
timony.
Lynn, welcome.

STATEMENT OF LYNN ROSENTHAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL NETWORK TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WASH-
INGTON, DC

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the National Net-
work to End Domestic Violence, I want to thank you for inviting
us here today to share our views on the critical role of the Violence
Against Women Office.

And, Senator Biden, I particularly want to thank you for your
1992 report, “Violence Against Women: A week in the Life of Amer-
ican Women.” This report, which graphically described more than
200 incidents of domestic and sexual violence committed in just 1
week of just 1 year had a very profound impact on my personal
commitment to the work of ending violence against women.

d many times over these past 10 years, I have gone back to
that report whenever I need inspiration and guidance in continuing
this very difficult work.

So it is with this report that I begin today.

September 1, 1992, 12:45 a.m., in rural California: A woman with
five children is physically abused by her husband. He punches her
in the head with his fist. She sustains bruises. She escapes and
runs to a friend’s house for the night. She reports that she is afraid
to call the sheriff, because her husband threatens to take their 11-
month-old baby away.

What is different today for this woman and countless women all
across the country because of the Violence Against Women Act? Be-
cause of VAWA, we know that hundreds of law enforcement officers



69

This is something that I have noted the need for, for a long, long
time. One of the first cases I handled as an Assistant District At-
torney when Senator Biden was a junior in high school_—

(Laughter.]

Senator SPECTER [continuing]. Involved a woman who had a cut
from her right ear all the way down to her hip. And she came into
a magistrate’s court, where we had hearings within 24 hours, on
an event the night before and said she did not want to prosecute.
And I explained to her that it was not a matter of her discretion.
It was not a case of Mrs. Victim v. Mr. Common Law Villain. It
was e case of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and she had to
testit

‘And from that day on, as a beginning assistant DA, I saw the
need to protect women against violence. And when I became DA,
one of the initial big programs was the issue of rape, which was
not being handled properly. No photographs of women. No brush-
ing for hairs. No maintenance of physical evidence. And women
were questioned in a room about this size with 20 detective desks.
And when a woman is being questioned about had happened to her
the night before, it was like EF Hutton; everybody left what they
were doing and started to listen.

And it has been a long time in coming, and Senator Biden has
been the leader. And he suggested this legislation to me one day
on a train ride from Washington to Wilmington. As he was exiting,
T finally had a chance to say that I agree. [Laughter.]

That was one of my larger speaking roles on our frequent travels.
{Laughter.]

Chairman BIDEN. Well, do not get carried away now. [Laughter.]

Lam only joking. Only joking.

Senator SPECTER. But this is very important legislation. And I
am not on the powerful Foreign Relations Committee; I am just on
the subcommittee of Appropriations which handles the funding. So
every now and then, not the big, worldly issues, but we can do just
a little bit.

But I wanted to come by and express my support for what Sen-
ator Biden is doing here today. He is the only Senator who carries
a hearing past 1:00 when lunch is being served everywhere in the
Capitol. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much.

Let me try to get you people to lunch without too much more
time.

Lynn, you state coordinators are out there every single day, and
I imagine you get fervent pleas for everything from resources to
trying to keep people who have been burned out from getting out
of the business of helping.

You folks keep talking about the need for an independent, sepa-
rate office. I gave you my reasons. Tell me your reasons. I mean,
why is it so important to be independent?

You heard the Director say she is independent now. She believes
being within the Office of Justice Programs that she is inde-
pendent.

What do you mean by independent?


LEADING THE FIGHT: THE VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2002

U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND Drucs,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:55 a.m., in room
SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Biden (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Biden, Grassley, Specter, and Cleland.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Chairman BinENn. The hearing will come to order.

I apologize for starting almost 45 minutes late, but those of you
who fly regularly know that occasionally they cancel planes when
you are sitting in the airport waiting. They seldom do that on Am-
trak. But as Judge Poppiti, who probably came down on Amtrak
today or last night can tell you, today they canceled the train I was
on to get me here on time.

And so I am sincerely sorry, and in no way want to suggest that
we shouldn’t continue to fund. Amtrak. [Laughter.]

But let me begin as rapidly as I can here.

I want to be straight up with you all. I have called this hearing
this morning, quite frankly, to check in with the Violence Against
Women Office and to take stock of where we are going in the fight
to end violence against women.

All of us in the United States Senate and who hold congressional
seats always say, “I have no pride of authorship in this piece of leg-
islation.” I have a hell of a lot of pride of authorship in this legisla-
tion. It is the single most significant thing I have ever been in-
volved in, in my life, and the thing of which I am most proud.

I remember when we passed the bill, and Janet Reno was the At-
torney General. She came up to see us and to thank us for doing
it and said how she would take over. And I indicated, which is
maybe not appropriate, that, no, I planned on being deeply in-
volved on how it was administered as well, even though that is not
my bailiwick, except through oversight.

And so I want to hear from the Violence Against Women Office
Director and the administration about their vision of the priorities
for this office. I want to make sure that they are, as I believe they
are, committed to the spirit—I know they are committed to the

a


72

So I want to make it clear to you, because I have such great re-
spect for your effort and for your commitment for the last 17 years
or longer, that we are all on the same page in terms of the goal.

But I do not know how it happens, unless there is somebody who,
as my dad says, gets up in the morning, puts both feet on the floor,
and the first thing they think about, the first thing their job re-
quires is: “What am ? going to do today to diminish violence
against women?” That is their job. They get up, feet on the floor,
they are putting on their dress or their pants or their coat, or
maybe in each case both, and they are moving out the door.

‘hat is the place. It is an awful comparison, but it is kind of like
in a campaign. You need someone who gets up every morning and
the only thing they think about is, “How am I going to get the can-
didate from point A to point B?” And someone else is thinking,
“What is the candidate going to say when they get from point A
to point B?” That is all they are thinking about. A third person
says, “How are we going to fund this candidate getting from point
A to point B?”

I realize that is an unattractive comparison. But it is just some-
body who gets up and literally puts both feet on the floor and says,
“Okay, what am I doing today? That is my number one job.”

And I do not how that happens inside here. Someone is going to
get up and say it, the Director is going to say it, but then they have
to go to the person running that operation.

Anyway, I do not want to belabor the point. I would like to—I
was going to say ask unanimous consent, but there is no one else
to ask it of, so I am going to just say what we are going to do here,
with your permission—I do not want to overburden you. Other
committee members who were necessarily absent today—and by
the way, I am going to make a strange statement, but I look at
some of the people in the audience who have been with this for so
long, like Pat and others.

But the reason why there are not more people here is there is
not much disagreement among us here. Sometimes people do not
come for one of two reasons. Either A, they do not agree and they
think it is a waste of time, what you are doing. Or B, everybody
is on the same page and “Joe can do it,” or “Arlen can do it,” or
whatever. It is the latter here. I do not want anybody from the lack
of attendance here that there is any diminution in the support

ere.

I mean, this reorganization proposal as I proposed it passed out
of here overwhelmingly, okay? So it is not like there is not support.

But I am going to suggest that members of the committee, before
we file this report—I mean, we are going to do something off of this
hearing, and maybe we are going to have many more of these hear-
ings, by the way, on other aspects of VAWA—that they be able to
submit some questions in writing to you. I am going to make sure
that we ask each of the staff members not to have—you know, you
are all busy people, so I do not want to make work for you. But
a limited number of questions that you can submit in writing, if
it is possible. And if you cannot because you are so busy, pick up
the phone and call the staff and say, “Hey, look, here’s my answer.”
Again, you all are busting your neck; I do not want to make work
for you.


71

I mean, why will that not work?

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I was in the meeting last summer with a small
group of advocates, and Casey was there, who met with the Attor-
ney General. And we felt it was very clear that he has a very pro-
found commitment in his heart to this issue. But he also was very
honest with us and said, “Look, I have INS to deal with. I have
the FBI to deal with.” And this was before September 11th.

And so we know that, as much as he cares about this issue, that
the Attorney General calling a meeting on full faith and credit is
not likely to happen. But I highly placed Director, presidentially
appointed, confirmed by the Senate, highly placed within the office,
can call that meeting and have people attend.

Chairman BIDEN. It seems to me the single biggest advantage
that Bonnie Campbell had, beyond, I think, her prodigious ability.
I mean, I am big fan. I am the one who recommended to Clinton
that Bonnie be the one to have the job. Many others did, too. I do
not know how many others did, but I know that I was adamant
about it. And she met every expectation that I had of her.

We have reached, because of the collective advocacy of some of
the people in this room, including the people at the table, we have
reached a point where it is highly politically dangerous for a Presi-
dent and an Attorney General, a Governor, not to respond—not to
respond—to.a call for resolving an issue relating to violence against
women. So that coupled with a highly visible post, when even
though Bonnie Campbell had no authority over the FBI—I mean
Louis Freeh could have said to her, “Take a hike. I am not coming
to your meetings.” There was no responsibility.

The same with the coordinator for the Justice Department for all
the U.S. Attorneys Offices. They could have said take a hike.

But the fact that she was up there, coupled with the issues she
was dealing with, if she said, “I kind of think it is important we
have a meeting to resolve this little problem,” no one was going to
say, “No, I am not going to show up to try to resolve the issue of
honoring orders across state lines.”

And, Case, what I get back to is, I strongly support this quest.
for collaboration that you are leading in San Diego among the var-
ious domestic violence constituencies. But I do not believe that this
important goal is in any way inconsistent with my proposal for this
strong, independent office.

Indeed, I think that my proposal for creating this autonomous of-
fice, reporting to the number three official in the Justice Depart-
ment, maximizes the likelihood of that collaboration, because there
is nobody else within any of these other departments that has this
as their number one priority. They all care about it. The National
Institute of Justice cares a lot about it and is a very important
piece of it. You go down the list of all the various other groups,
they care a great deal. The Bureau of Justice Statistics cares a
great deal about it, but it is not their number one priority.

And so what I was trying to say to you before, Case, is that what
you are setting up in San Diego, whatever you call it, it seems the
number one priority is to deal with violence and this kind of vio-
lence that has this God awful impact on society, and so you bring
in all these folks.


74

on—TI don’t recall—and squeezed her hand so much, I could see her
hand turn white.

And I walked up with a smile on my face, and I grabbed him by
the neck and squeezed as hard as I can. And I said, “Hi, how are
you doing? How’s everything going?”

And this guy dropped this woman’s hand and turned around. I
didn’t push him, but he backed away and knocked down the cans.

And I said, “Can I help you at all? You are obviously having a
problem.”

And he looked at me, his eyes got about as big as ever, and all
I kept thinking to myself was, “Joe, please, don’t hit him. Don’t lose
your temper beyond what you have just done.”

d I said, “By the way, my name is—”

And after it was all over, I got in the parking lot and I prayed—
I prayed—that this guy was not going to go to the police and say
I assaulted him. I would argue I was defending this woman who
was being hurt.

Guess what? I hardly see that any more. It does not mean it does
not happen. But one thing society has done, it has moved a lot of
this out of the public view, which does not make it safer for all
women, but it does communicate to our children generically that
this is not appropriate. It is not appropriate for a husband to grab
a jvoman by the wrist and squeeze her hand until the blood is cut
of

And so the single biggest thing that has happened here, which
you all have done, is now the dirty little secret is kind of out of
the closet. And it has not solved the problem, because the dirty lit-
tle people who commit the crimes have gone even further under-
ground.

But one thing it has done, I think no longer does the public at-
large think what I believe they would have thought 24 years ago,
roughly, when this incident occurred that I referenced.

Had other people seen that walking down the aisle—not me, but
this man—they would have walked by. They would have thought,
“Well, you know, that is a husband and wife thing.” I do not think
that happens today—nearly as much, anyway.

Judge Poppiti can tell you, years ago, I ran a car up on a road
and tried to run down two guys who were beating up a woman on
the side of the street while everybody stood there and watched.

It turned out it was a woman who was a classmate of mine from
grade school. And I begged the police not to let them know that I
apprehended one of these guys.

On a talk show the next day, the cops thought they were doing
a nice thing for me and mentioned that I had done this. And the
talk shows were, “Biden risks people’s lives by driving his car up
onto the sidewalk.”

Remember that?

I do not think people would write that way anymore. I think peo-
ple have begun to understand their obligations.

And I want to thank all of you.

And, Case, what you did early on is a big deal.

And, General, your willingness to take it on, because you know
better than I do, this ain’t just poor man. This is rich man. This


31

first term as attorney general, I championed legislation in Georgia that made our
State a model in stopping the cycle of abuse. Through the efforts of my office and
dedicated members of our General Assembly, we were able to enact the Crimes
Against Family Members Act in Georgia. Our legislation provides prosecutors across
Georgia with new tools and stiffer penalties to make sure that those who commit
acts of family violence are punished for their crimes. For the first time we made
it a crime under our State’s Cruelty to Children Laws to commit an act of domestic
violence in front of a child.

Ending domestic violence and the attendant cycle of abuse is and will remain my
number one priority as attorney general in Georgia. However, the problem of domes-
tic violence is not just a crisis in Georgia; its insidious tentacles reach from coast
to coast. In response, the National Association of Attorneys General has established
its own Violence Against Women Committee, which I am honored to co-chair. This
committee has initiated several programs to address the epidemic of sexual assault
and domestic abuse against women. We have hosted programs on teen dating vio-
lence, date rape drug Brosecutions, and batterer intervention around the country.
Our committee has published a Violence Against Women Resource Manual for pros-
ecutors to use in intervention, prosecution and prevention, and we created a com-
pilation of case law and legislation from all jurisdictions on sexual assault and do-
mestic violence to provide resources to our colleagues in other States about what
works in our own jurisdiction. We have also hosted Violence in the Workplace Meet-
ings between attorneys general and the public and private sector to help find ways
to make the workplace safe for victims of domestic violence. In addition, we have
closely coordinated. with the Justice Department's Violence Against Women Office
to insure a coordinated State and Federal response.

The National Association of Attorneys General is also in the midst of preparing
a report on child witness to domestic violence. This report, in addition to pinnin,
down the scope of the problem on a nationwide basis, will also contain expert anal-
ysis and recommendations for prosecutors and law enforcement agencies across the
Nation on new and better ways to assist children that have witnessed domestic
abuse. I am proud to say that the National Association of Attorneys General is a
leader in the fight against domestic violence, strongly supporting efforts at the State
and National level to end the cycle of abuse.

To date, no one has found the magic bullet that will put this societal problem be-
hind us once and for ail. Many States, including my own, have found new and inno-
vative solutions that can help stem the rising tide of domestic violence, but this is
still a crisis that demands an ongoing commitment from every level of government
and law enforcement to make certain that the cycle of violence being created today
does not cripple our children’s society.

Let me commend Congress for the bold step it took in passing the Violence
Against Women Act, and through such action, joining the fight against domestic vio-
lence. The grant monies authorized under the Violence Against Women Act have
been a godsend to local law enforcement agencies as well as support organizations.
We now have additional dollars flowing down to the State and local level
supplementing over-stretched local moneys to ensure that needed and beneficial pro-
grams receive funding to continue their mission.

Equally important to the States was the creation of the Violence Against Women
Office in 1995. It assumed a critical role in our Nation's rally against domestic vio-
lence, giving us vision, a sense of direction, a feeling of hope. Created in response
to passage of the Violence Against Women Act, this office is recognized by govern-
ment and victim support groups around the country as a valuable resource on policy
and legal issues arising in the domestic violence context.

One of the primary functions of the office, to be certain, has been the administra-
tion of grants authorized by the Violence Against Women Act. In Georgia, grants
from the Violence Against Women Office have been used across a number of fronts
in our continuing fight against domestic violence. One grant went to establish men-
toring programs in rural Georgia to facilitate past victims’ transitions from a shelter
environment to a work environment. In the areas that were targeted, victims had
no support structure in place to assist in moving into an independent, productive
role in society. Mentors helped past victims with the adjustment from co-dependent
abusive relationships to primary bread-winner for their family a non-abusive envi-
ronment.

Another grant went to the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, which provides legal advice
and representation to victims of abuse to help that organization expand its service
to Atlanta’s booming population of non-english speaking residents. Victims in Atlan-
ta’s Asian and Hispanic communities now have access to legal assistance in seeking
protective orders that just didn’t exist before the grant from the Violence Against
‘Women Office.



17

scious of whether or not tax dollars of the taxpayers are being
wasted.

And so all of those things, in my view, relate to the overarching
concern the Senator has expressed time and again about: Are we
using the dollars effectively? Are they being administered well? Are
they efficacious in their use?

But it seems to me they do not strike me as the sort of big pic-
ture issues that Congress talked about.

I was further troubled on page 3 of your testimony with some ex-
amples that you cite as policy work done in conjunction with other
departments and agencies. You cite, for example, working with the
National Institute of Justice to measure the effectiveness of the
VAWA programs, working with the Bureau of Justice Statistics to
manage some Bureau of Justice grants, and collaborating with OJP
offices to coordinate a grant application peer review process.

Again, to me, that is not the policy I am talking about. That is
administrative.

Now, again, these tasks, all related to review of grants and moni-
toring grants and making grant payments, are a very important
components to the grant-making shop, but they do not strike me
as the sort of important policy functions that the Violence Against
Women Act ought to be doing.

Nowhere in your testimony, or anyone else’s in the administra-
tion that I have spoken to, for example, do I see the sorts of policy
descriptions that were listed in your office’s own December 2001 or-
ganizational structure document. As you know, you described the
job of the policy development division “to provide legal and Policy
analysis regarding VAWA and related legislation to the ite
House, to the Attorney General, to the DOJ components, to federal
agencies, to Members of Congress, to the general public, state and
local officials, and crime victims.”

I might add, parenthetically, that is a pretty good description of
the crucial policy role that I intended the office to play when we
wrote the legislation.

Now, do you believe the Violence Against Women Office still has
a policy role to assume and it has a pri! responsibility within
the Federal Government on legislation and policy proposals, not
merely to write checks? Where does your testimony lay out the pol-
icy piece of this?

For example, the opposition to the proposal that passed out of
the Senate, my proposal, to create an independent, separate Vio-
lence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice, like
the COPS office within the Department of Justice, the opposition
seems to relate to that there is overlap and duplication between the
Office of Justice Programs and the Violence Against Women Office,
and that both are engaged in the provision of tools to help commu-
nities deal with violence against women.

But under this analysis, the FBI and DEA would have to merge,
which I, by the way, fought for for years and finally succeeded with
another administration’s attempt to merge the two, because both
have significant roles in counternarcotics work.

Under this analysis the criminal sections of the Tax Division and
Civil Rights Division have to merge with the Criminal Division, be-
cause they both work on criminal matters.


23

similar in the way it is formatted. So it will be very much the
same.

Entities out in the field, as you well know, Senator, do not under-
stand. There is just one big “they” in Washington. And so we are
trying to help them with the process by doing our business better,
by doing our business in a more efficient and effective way, just
saying, “Yes, there is one big ‘they,’ and if you just go down this
thing, we will help you find the resources that you need to do.”

So it will have that kind of an impact on our office.

Senator GRASSLEY. To what extent have you been rebuffed?
Number one, have you have made suggestions, as this office has
gone through a reorganization, that might impact your office, that
are not being followed? Or have you raised objections about some-
thing being done, but they went ahead and did what maybe you ob-
jected to? Or aren't you far enough along in the reorganization that
that has not come up?

Ms. Stuart. Neither one of those have come up in my experi-
ence. My communication with Assistant Attorne’ neral Deborah
Daniels, and with her office, and with the rest of the bureau heads,
has been one of —

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, then let me ask you if my assumption
about the reorganization—maybe it hasn’t progressed far enough
yet. In your judgment, how far has this progressed?

Ms. Stuart. I think we are just barely into phase one.

Senator GRASSLEY. So, obviously, you have not had that because
you have not had that opportunity.

Ms. Stuart. We are not to that point.

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. Then my last question: The opinion of
some domestic violence advocates, including some of the witnesses
that are going to be testifying today, is that your office would be
better off as a separate office. In your testimony, you recommended
leaving it within OJP. As the Director, could you highlight some of
the specific benefits that will be reaped by not making the office
separate and independent?

Ms. Stuart. Thank you, Senator.

I think the biggest benefit will be that I can spend more of my
time as the Director of the Violence Against Women Office on the
issues that I need to.

Right now, I can rely on all the infrastructure of the Office of
Justice Programs. I really think that if I were a separate office, I
would have to oversee all of those infrastructures. I would have to
make sure that they are in fact doing the job that they are doing
right now.

‘he way we are progressing right now is definitely the direction
I think we need to go in. It is my personal belief.

We are asking communities, we are asking individual agencies,
to collaborate with each other, to coordinate with each other, and
to work together, because we know that is what works. I think we
as the Federal Government need to do exactly the same thing.

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you.

Ms. STUART. Thank you.

Chairman BIDEN. I have one concluding point.

Judge Poppiti, who you know, who is going to testify, in his open-
ing statement on page 3 says: I welcome the opportunity to speak


19

And guess what we found out? The vast majority of women at
that point turn around and walk out the door.

We got together every one of the emergency rooms in my State,
which is easy in my State because we are small—every one—be-
cause the judge told me the docs do not want to get involved in
this.

And guess what? We sat them all down and we said, “Look, you
have got to train you docs on how to recognize whether a woman
walked into the door jamb four times in a row or she is being beat-
en.

And they said, “Well, we cannot do much about that.”

And I said, “Well, you have the woman there. You can do a lot
about it.” You know what we can do? We can make sure we orga-
nize our State in a way that there is an attorney general’s office
that has a specific assigned attorney general. That is our general
prosecutor; we do not have DAs.

And they will show up at the hospital. The county or the State
will actually provide an automobile. They will actually physically
take the woman to her house under guard, get her stuff. We will
then actually physically have someone take that person to a shel-
ter. We will actually call a specific judge and get a stay-away order.
We will do it all in one fell swoop.

Guess what? Women decided they would do it then. Those are
policy kinds of decisions you are making.

Ms. Stuart. That is right.

Chairman BIDEN. I do not see anywhere where any of there rea-
sons you assert as to what the office is going to do relate to any
of that kind of policy judgment. So maybe you can enlighten me on
that. Who is going to do it? The grant officer is going to pick up
the phone and call the chief judge? How does this happen?

Ms. Stuart. Thank you, Senator.

I think that you really have described how it does happen, be-
cause you have talked about who they are out in the field and what
is going to happen.

yhairman BIDEN. But it is a policy person doing this. It is out
of the policy piece.

Ms. Stuart. Sometimes it is, and sometimes we call it policy-
maker. And it is very much like the coordinating council that
Judge Poppiti sits on or the cabinet council that I sat on. It is those
that make the direction and make the decisions. But more often,
it is those that are actually doing the work that carry it out.

L really believe——

Chairman BIDEN. No, they cai out. Again, I am not trying to
be—and I will end this to give Senator Grassley an opportunity

ere.

But I am not trying to be picky with you.

For example, the law that the Immigration and Naturalization
Service is dealing with relating to battered women—now, they do
not have the legal expertise; they do not have the background.
There should be someone out of your office who would be literally
sitting down with them, who is a full-blown lawyer and policy per-
son, saying, “The 17 studies we have done show you the following
things and. this is what happens. This is what we think is the way
to go about this.”


32

And on a State level, grant money from the office has been used to speed the cre-
ation of a State-Wide Registry for Protective Orders to faciliate enforcement across
all of Georgia’s 159 counties. Before this registry, enforcement of protective orders,
especially in rural Georgia, was a crap shoot at best. Now, law enforcement has the
ability to quickly pull the information necessary to protect both victims and poten-
tial victims from any abusive individual.

Tn talking with my fellow attorneys general, it is clear that similar programs pro-
viding essential services in the efforts against domestic violence depend on grants
administered through the Violence Against Women Office. In Iowa, grants from the
Violence Against Women Office funded project Picture Perfect, an initiative designed
to train law enforcement and advocates on how to document physical abuse photo-
graphically. This program, targeted for the rural areas of the state, looks to provide
invaluable evidence for both prosecutors in seeking appropriate charges against
abusers as well as advocates in seeking protective orders to prevent future abuse.

Tn North Carolina, funding for a domestic violence initiative for Wake Forest Uni-
versity was obtained through the Violence Against Women Office to implement cam-

us-wide protections for battered students. Training for University Judicial Hearing

ficers was implemented to educate those in a position to remove predators from
campus. In addition, a 24-hour a day crisis response team was set up, and resources
were allocated for shelters and alternative housing for victims of abuse.

‘A grant from the Violence Against Women Office allowed two attorneys experi-
enced in domestic violence caseworker to be administratively assigned to groups
that targeted abuse in the immigrant communities in Washington State. The exper-
tise fanded by this grant enabled victims in an under-served segment of the popu-
lation to seek the protections that would allow them to establish their financial
independence and maintain their physical well-being.

The involvement of the Federal Government has not been limited to participation
by checkbook, however. The Violence Against Women Office has also become a re-
source that Government and support organizations can turn to on policy or legal
issues arising in the domestic violence context. This leadership is worth its weight
in gold. An example that arises with increasing frequency concerns the enforcement
of protective orders across State lines. Complex issues arise when local law enforce-
ment officials take a complaint from a battered woman whose husband has followed
her across State lines. If there are no protective orders currently in place within
that jurisdiction, law enforcement is typically placed into a no-win situation of com-
petinig stories about the validity and effect of orders that may or may not exist.

gal advocates are forced to scramble to identify jurisdictions where an order
might exist and the scope of any existing orders. ‘The pressure is tremendous in
these situations when time is of the essence in giving authority and direction to
local law enforcement about what steps, if any, they can take to protect. a potential
victim.

On a daily basis, issues like these arise that may find experience, authority and
resources lacking at the local or State level. In the instance of effect and notice of
protective orders in a multi-State context, there really is no viable alternative save
a strong national presence that can reconcile bureaucratic differences between
States and even serve as a potential repository for this life-saving information. It
is critical to have a resource at the national level with the expertise and experience
in dealing with domestic violence issues that are undisputedly national in scope and
effect. A strong, national office with the resources and day-to-day expertise to co-
ordinate and insure a consistent response nationwide and provide policy and train-
ing materials for use with law enforcement and advocacy groups alike is a must in
order for victims not to fall through the cracks of uncertainty and confusion.

The value of a strong Violence Against Women Office does not end with the Fed-
eral resources and expertise that it is able to provide State and local groups. The
office has also been a valuable partner to States in helping us forge public/private
partnerships to fight domestic violence. In my opinion the fight against domestic vi-
olence requires a public-private partnership to make any significant gains. Employ-
ers are a vital component of the effort as their attitudes, policies and resources will
help determine the likelihood of identifying abuse early, the availability of support
and counseling, and the ability of former victims to support their families.

In my State, as well as every State represented on this committee here today, a
substantial number of employers are multi-State corporations that set policy for of-
fices in literally dozens of States. When State officials, whether they be attorneys
general, governors or legislative leaders approach corporate decisionmakers about
adopting model policies or altering existing policies or practices, we are often greet-
ed with, “well, what does Washington have to say on this issue?” Their response will
often be based on the importance that they think the decisionmakers in our Nation’s
Capitol are placing on the initiative. In short, the authority and prestige you afford


14

Maine, the Violence Against Women Office is creating a tool to assist grantees with
the identification and collection of data so that we have a consistent and reliable
method for analyzing the effectiveness of the programs and relaying that informa-
tion to Congress.

‘My commitment, the commitment of the Violence Against Women Office, OJP and
the Department of Justice is to ensure that the mission of the Violence Against
Women Act is fulfilled. I want to make it clear that the Violence Against Women
Office doesn’t just write checks—as some have suggested. Through every solicita-
tion, through ‘every technical assistance project, through every monitoring visit,
through every conference, through all of our activities we are guiding the policies
that Congress set forward. As we administer and manage millions of dollars of
grants that reach thousands of communities, we are ensuring that we are effectively
changing the culture surrounding violence against women. It is only when this soci-
ety truly understands the incredibi debilitating and horrendous consequences of do-
mestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, that we will have a real chance to end
violence against women. Keeping the Violence Against Women Office within OJP
will allow us to concentrate on developing the programs and policies to address
these violent crimes, while being able to rely on the effective coordination and sup-
port of these initiatives within the OJP infrastructure. Our success greatly depends
on our ability to access and effectively use the tools currently available to us. The
collaborative nature of our work requires that we reach out beyond the confines of
our office to the offices, organizations, and individuals who work with us every day
to keep women safe and hold offenders accountable for their violent actions. We look
forward to continuing this important work until that day when there will no longer
be a need for a Violence Against Women Office. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF Hon. DeBorad J. DANIELS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE
OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS, WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to testify about
both the status and the stature of the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) with-
in the Department of Justice.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and
VAWA 2000 have been and continue to be instrumental in increasing the safety of
women throughout the United States. | appreciate the leadership of this Committee
and this Congress in spearheading this landmark legislation and for all you con-
tinue to do on behalf of women victims of violence. These laws have provided the
Department of Justice with essential tools to improve enforcement of domestic vio-
lence, sexual assault, and anti-stalking laws and improve services to victims in all
areas of the country.

The Department is fully committed, Mr. Chairman, to continuing its efforts to
raise awareness of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking and improve and
expand services for victims. The Attorney General’s personal commitment to ending
violence against women is well known, and he continues to speak out across the
country at every opportunity to bring further attention to this issue. At the same
time, he has made violence against women issues a departmental priority and has
made it a point to meet with representatives of key constituent groups, making the
issue a primary focus of the Department, even in the aftermath of the September
11th attack, and the revised reality that we must face as a nation at war with ter-
rorism.

In 1994, the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) was created within the Of-
fice of the Associate Attorney General to provide leadership for departmental and
national initiatives to address violence against woman and to provide analysis and
interpretation of the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act. At the same
time, the Attorney General delegated authority to the Assistant Attorney General
for the Office of Justice ims (OJP), who established the Violence Against
Women Grants Office (VAWGO) to administer the grant provisions of the Act. While
the Violence Against Women Office at Main Justice provided a focal point for the
issues, the Violence inst Women Grants Office worked directly with the field and
responded to state and local needs. As the grant programs were implemented, it be-
came clear that the direct hands-on relationship between program and policy was
essential.

In addition, it became apparent that the separation of functions between two of-
fices was neither effective nor efficient. Having two offices diluted the impact of the
Violence Against Women Act, created confusion in the field, and resulted in a lack
of communication and focus within the Department. In March 1999, the two offices
merged within OJP, creating for the first time a consolidated office speaking with


73

It is that old, bad joke: “I am from the Federal Government. I
am here to help you,” and usually it means more work for you.

And I am going to submit about roughly three questions to each
of you that I did not ask here today, so you can actually get lunch,
and so I do not continue to perpetrate my image as a villain of try-
ing to keep people from eating.

But the one thing I know we all share on this panel, and I sus-
pect the people in this room do also, is not just a commitment to

ut a fervor for making sure that we get this right.

Reasonable people can disagree on this tactic. We are not talking
strategy. We are talking tactic.

But I think the tactic is relatively important. I think it has to
do with it.

I want the person in that office to have to be thought of—you
know why I want the confirmed by the Senate? I want the Presi-
dent to have to think about it. Everybody who has to be confirmed
by the Senate gets run by the President’s desk. I want the Presi-
dent to have to think about it. I want it on his or her radar screen.

The second reason is that I want every one of the Members of
the Congress to say, “Oh, that is right. There is that office. I have
to vote on that, for or against that.”

I want them to make sure they have staff who are going to make
sure they protect them so they do not make a dumb mistake and
vote for somebody not qualified. I want all the staff people having
to Pe and check the background of that person.

know this sounds silly, but incrementally, this all matters, be-
cause when I introduced the bill years ago, I said there is one over-
riding, overarching purpose in this bill: It is to begin to change the
culture of this country about violence against women.

It also, by the way, for the record, includes violence against men.
You can qualify under this those rare 3 or 4 percent of the cases
where men are victimized. And they occur. But it is overwhelm-
ingly violence against women.

And we have to make it clear, which I think you have done.

I will end with a story I should not tell, but the statute of limita-
tions has run.

Years ago, I was in a supermarket, as a young Senator. I can tell
the judge exactly which one it was and he would know exactly
where it is.

ie was late at night. It was a market that was open until mid-
night.

And I was with my wife, because that is the time, on Friday
nights, after events, we would go and she would do the shopping
and I would go. And I am in a different aisle, doing all the things
you are not supposed to do, putting in the cart all the things that
are not necessary.

And, literally, I walked by a guy who was having an argument
with what turned out to be his wife.

And the statute has past, but I want to be clear about this, and
why I do not see this happen much anymore.

And I was no further in the aisle with these canned goods than
from here to that table. And this man raised his hand to his wife,
and she put her hand up like this. And he grabbed her wrist. And
it was in the summer, and she had a short-sleeve shirt or dress


58
issues or whether it is how the medical community is dealing with

As.

So I believe the big question is, how do you pull everybody to-
gether to do that? And I know that very committed people disagree
about this, and it may well be that a separate office is the best way
to do that. But my personal sense is that we need to elevate the
status of this, as you are doing here, which I greatly support. This
legislation, in whatever form, will elevate the status of the Violence
Against Women Office and the priority of this issue.

But I am concerned about removing this from the Office of Jus-
tice Programs when I see how much we interact with our drug
court, how much we interact with so many other programs that are
part of Justice that need to be part of the infrastructure of what
we are doing.

So that is why I am here today, to support your focus on this
issue. I came at the request of Senator Grassley in relation to the
whole issue of accountability, which I also strongly believe we need
to be addressing, and I came in support of the notion that I believe
that we can do much of this without necessarily creating a sepa-
rate, independent office.

I deal regularly with parts of OJP as a trainer. I am connected
to the technical assistance programs. I have been in 45 states in
the last 10 years doing training on domestic violence, and I work
closely with those programs. I work with the Bureau of Justice Sta-
tistics and the National Institute of Justice. And I believe that the
National Institute of Justice, just as one example, needs an incred-
ibly close working relationship with the VAWA office, incredibly
close, because the National Institute of Justice has such power in
making statements about policy and making statements about di-
rection and doing research that tells us where to go.

And finally, Chairman Biden, I would just like to also commend
Diane Stuart. I knew Diane Stuart before she became the head of
VAWA. I knew her in Utah; I have done training in Utah. And I
can tell you that I know I echo the sentiments of hundreds and
hundreds of folks all over the country in saying that we are thrilled
to have her in the role that she is now in. She is doing tremendous
work already in reinvigorating the VAWA office and is doing tre-
mendous work in exciting us around the country about where we
are going.

So I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I have sub-
mitted written testimony, and I, too, am happy to answer any ques-
tions. But thank you for your leadership.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gwinn follows:]

TESTIMONY OF Casey GWINN, SAN DreGo Crry ATTORNEY

He was in jail for his violence and abuse of his girlfriend, His girlfriend had done
battle with alcohol and drugs during the course of their relationship. I went to his
daughter’s high school to interview her after he was arrested for abusing and then
stalking his girlfriend. His daughter was 16 and had lived with violence in the home
her entire life—first violence toward his first wife and then violence toward his
girlfriend. His daughter had witnessed it all. His daughter had at one point reported
sexual abuse and then recanted it. She was hospitalized on at least one occasion
as a suspected suicide attempt a few years after her Mom died.

_Now, I sat and tried to help her during the course of prosecuting her father for
violence, stalking, illegal weapons possession, and death threats, but she said only
one sentence at the beginning of a 45-minute meeting. She said, “My dad told me


6

Today, I’m glad to again stand with you as we look at how the Office operates and
what impact the Office is having on domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking
crimes.

Since its creation, the Office has helped communities address violence against
women issues by advancing coordinated community responses to this problem. Be-
cause the Office's work involves the local communities, I thought it was important
to hear from someone who is in the trenches fighting against domestic violence on
a daily basis, so I asked Casey Gwinn, the San Diego City Attorney to testify today.
Mr. Gwinn, it is a pleasure to have you here and we look forward to hearing your
thoughts on how we can best combat the problem of domestic violence and other
forms of violence against women.

Although I've been a longtime supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, 1
have grave concerns that the Office isn’t conducting proper oversight of the grants
they award. Again, let me restate, reducing violence against women isn’t a partisan
issue and good government shouldn't be either. Because the issue of violence against
women is so important, we need to make sure we are maximizing the tax dollars
we spend addressing it. We want the best program to succeed and we need to get
the most out of our tax dollars. I feel this way about VAWA grants, as well as every
other federal government grant.

This hearing is timely, since just within the last six months, the Government Ac-
counting Office (GAO) has released two reports detailing the accountability prob-
lems that exist at the Violence Against Women Office. I'm glad to see that we have
‘Ms. Laurie Ekstrand with us today to testify about these two reports and to give
us recommendations on how the Violence Against Women Office can improve its
grant monitoring and evaluating.

In November, the GAO reported that the Office isn’t properly documenting its
monitoring activities. In fact, the GAO found that eleven percent of VAWO awards
didn’t even contain monitoring plans. They also found that a substantial number of
VAWO grants didn’t contain all the progress and financial reports required, and
that these reports were often turned in late. The GAO report states that because
of these failures to document monitoring activities, the Office isn’t “positioned to
systematically oversee grant manager's compliance with monitoring requirements.”
‘They concluded that this “lack of systematic data for monitoring grant manager
compliance, combined with a failure to document monitoring activities could impede

. VAWO’s ability to measure their performance.”

Just last month, the GAO issued another report on the problems that exist in the
Office’s evaluations of the grants they award. They found that the three evaluations
they looked at had “methodological problems that raise[d] concerns about whether
the evaluations will produce effective results.” The report also found that the impact
evaluations were not representative of VAWO’s programs and thus limited the eval-
uator’s ability to generalize the results. Furthermore, the report found data collec-
tion and analytical problems that “compromiseld] the evaluator’s ability to draw ap-
propriate conclusions from the results.” As I said before, to get the greatest return
for the tax dollars we are spending addressing violence against women, we need to
know if the programs we are investing in are working.

Some have suggested that the Violence Against Women Office be set up as a sepa-
rate and independent office. But, because of the GAO findings, I'm not convinced
that giving the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) independence from the Of-
fice of Justice Programs (OJP) is a good idea. It doesn’t seem prudent to me to cre-
ate an entire new bureaucracy to administer VAWA grants and other programs.
Why should we expect that as an independent office, VAWO would create an ac-
countability infrastructure when the Office hasn’t complied with the accountability
measures already existing at the Office of Justice Programs? Furthermore, by cre-
ating an independent office, I think that our tax dollars would be diverted from the
VAWO mission, so that the administrative work that OJP is currently doing for the
Office could be replicated. This strikes me as wasteful and inefficient spending.

I think we ail want the Violence Against Women Office to succeed in its goal of
stopping domestic violence. And I’m sure everyone here wants to make sure that
VAWO is doing everything it can do to support the best programs to protect women.
I look forward to hearing from Ms. Stuart on how the Office has responded to the
recent GAO reports. I’m also looking forward to hearing about her vision for the fu-
ture of the Office. So I want to thank my friend Chairman Biden for holding this
important hearing and for his leadership on this issue.

Chairman BIDEN. I am going to ask forbearance for another few
minutes from the Director.



29

ipant in the efforts against domestic violence, individuals will sure-
ly suffer physical and financial harm.

That is why it is so critical that the Violence Against Women Of-
fice have the prestige, stature, and access envisioned by the Senate
legislation.

We live in a day and age where one out of every three women
has suffered abuse at some time in her life. Statistics show that
every year upwards of 3 million children witness acts of violence
by one parent or partner against another. These times demand
leadership and initiative in the struggle against domestic violence
at every level of government, from the municipal police department
all the way up to the Attorney General of the United States.

Without a strong policy-setting arm at the national level that can
be relied upon for resources and guidance, efforts to end domestic
violence for our children, with the same fervor that our parents
stamped out polio for us, simply will not happen.

As we confront the dilemma of domestic violence in the 21st cen-
tury, one thing is absolutely clear: The situation calls for more
leadership and initiative, not less.

I can promise you, Senator, that attorneys general and law en-
forcement officials from around the country are doing everything in
our power to end the cycle of abuse. I would ask Congress to em-
power that same commitment and dedication at the federal level by
empowering a strong, central voice in the Violence Against Women
Office, a voice that not only spends grant dollars but also helps the
states set vital policy in critical times.

History will remember us not by the promises we make but by
the actions we take. No stronger action could be taken.

Thank you so much, Senator.

{The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]

SvaTEMENT OF Hon. THURBERT E, BAKER

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Senators, thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you today on the issue of domestic violence, @ matter that has been the focus
of a great deal of my time, both as a legislator and as attorney general for the great
State of Georgia.

History will remember each one of us, not so much for the promises we make,
but by the actions we take. I believe it is time for America to take very decisive
action in the fight against domestic violence. Let me explain why.

Domestic violence has, in my opinion, reached crisis proportions in our country.

Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former
spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year to 3.9 million women who are physically
abused by their husbands or live-in partners each year.? In the United States, a
woman is beaten by her husband or significant other nearly every 7.4 seconds and
42 percent of murdered women are killed by their intimate male partners. Nearly
one third of American women (31 percent) report being physically abused by a hus-
band or boyfriend at some point in their lives.*

1 Estimates range as low as 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse,
boyfriend, or girliriend per year, U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by, Intimates: Analysis
of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998.

2Estimates range as high as 3.9 million women who are physically abused by their husbands
or live-in partners each year, The Commonwealth Fund, First Comprehensive National Health
Survey of American Womien, July 1993.

In the United States, a’ woman is beaten by her husband nearly every 7.4 seconds and 42

erent of murdered women are killed by their intimate male partners. From the website http:/
leserver.org | feminism |domestic-violence.html.

‘Nearly one third of American women (31 percent) report being physically abused by a hus-
band or boyfriend at some point in their lives. The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns

Continued


65

Chairman BIDEN. Now, there is nothing in your 2001 report that
spoke about grant waste, fraud or abuse, is there?

Ms. EKSTRAND. We did not look for nor did we find waste, fraud
or abuse.

Chairman BIDEN. Okay, now, what in your report are the steps
taken by the office to address the file issue? Your report also recog-
nized that there was an explosion in the number of grants adminis-
tered by the office, a 362 percent increase, according to your testi-
mony, and that the office was not prepared for this unprecedented
growth.

Indeed, on page 2 of your testimony for today, you note that the
yearly dollar amount o discretionary Violence Against Women Of-
fice grant awards went from $12 million in 1996 to $125 million
in 2000. Is that right?

Ms. EKSTRAND. Yes. That is correct.

Chairman BIDEN. Now, as I read page 4 of your testimony for
today, it goes into a great detail about the GAO recommendations
to the Office of Justice Programs to improve its monitoring process.
That is correct, is it not?

Ms. EKSTRAND. Yes.

Chairman BIDEN. For example, you advise the Office of Justice
Programs to study its in-house file system and create a new chief
information officer position. Is that correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. We were not as specific as that. They indicated
that those are some of the actions that they would take to try to
correct the problems that we found.

Chairman BIDEN. I see. And, indeed, none of these recommenda-
tions on page 4 of your testimony are aimed at the Violence
Against Women Office. They are aimed generically at the Office of
Justice Programs, correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. Yes. But we did look at the Violence Against
Women Office specifically, and their performance in relation to
monitoring was, in fact, no better than the other offices.

Chairman BIDEN. Right.

Now, turning to your most recent report, “Justice Impact Evalua-
tion”: One Byrne evaluation was rigorous. All Violence Against
Women Office evaluations were problematic of March 2002.

Again, I want to make sure that we all understand exactly what
was under consideration and what the GAO report concluded.

In this study, your office looked at the impact evaluations by the
department of the National Institute of Justice. Is that correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. That is correct.

Chairman BIDEN. The National Institute of Justice was tasked
with examining the Violence Against Women Office grants and de-
termining the impact of the grants. Is that correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. That is right.

Chairman BIDEN. Again, to be clear, these evaluations of the
grant programs were designed and operated by the National Insti-
tute of Justice, not by the Violence Against Women Office, correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. That is exactly right.

Chairman BIDEN. Okay. What the National Institute of Justice
ran into, and what you recount in your report, are some of the in-
herent difficulties in evaluating domestic violence grants, because


67

And I would like to shift to you, in the interest of time, Judge,
if I may. Can you highlight any instances where the federal influ-
ence was critical in getting the right state leadership to the table
to tackle the issue of domestic violence?

Judge Popriti. Senator, maybe the best way to describe that is
to describe the former Director walking into a room in Washington
and having the Attorney General of the United States and the Sec-
retary of the Department of Health and Human Services have a
discussion that ultimately filtered down to the states.

Chairman BIDEN. You mean the former Director? You mean the
former person who headed the Violence Against Women Office?

Judge Poppiti. Yes. That is not to suggest that the present Direc-
tor would not have done that.

Chairman BIDEN. Right.

Judge Poppiti. But with the stature of that office, that filter pro-
vided the impetus and the backdrop for states like Delaware to say
to its doctors, “It is important for you to have a unified procedure
in emergency rooms and in dental offices.”

It helped Delaware say to its cops, “It is important for you to
have a uniform crime report for incidents of domestic violence.”

Chairman BIDEN. And these were not grants?

Judge Poppiti. They were not grants. This is the culture change
that you have called for.

It permitted Delaware only recently, expecting that the office has
not changed, and it has, to have the Governor of the State of Dela-
ware convene her Cabinet and her top-level management, and have
the Director of the Violence Against Women Office come to Dela-
ware with the expectation that those people were going to walk out
with a message from the Attorney General and from the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.

It is the stature. It is the attitude. It is the culture. And as my
new friend to my right just said, it permits us to have that kind
of conversation with the appropriate people.

Chairman BIDEN. I think that is an important point. The Direc-
tor did come to Delaware, did she not? She was completely avail-
able?

Judge Poppiti. Yes.

Chairman BIDEN. But the Governor and the rest of you in the
Cabinet Council, did they get the sense that she was able to speak
with any clarity for the Attorney General or for the Secretary?

Judge Poppiti. Well, there is a reservation now. The message, I
believe, and I say this unfortunately, it has to be different.

I saw the change in the former Director. When Bonnie Camp-
bell’s stature was diminished, you could feel it in the room. The ad-
visory council spent an inordinate amount of hours——

Chairman BIDEN. The National Advisory Council.

Judge Poppiti. The National Advisory Council spent an inordi-
nate number of hours expressing our individual and collective con-
cern about that over time.

We developed, as you know, a tool kit for the Nation. That tool
kit was not delivered on time, and I suspect one of the reasons why
it was not was we did not have the attention of the Attorney Gen-
cral gnd the Secretary, because the stature of the office was dimin-
ished.


68

Chairman BIDEN. And this is not just about this administration
versus the last administration.

Judge Poppiti. That is correct.

Chairman BIDEN. This is not about that, right?

Judge Popriti. It is not about that, Senator.

Chairman BIDEN. Now, I am going to ask you one more question.
You chair Delaware’s Domestic Violence Coordinating Council,
which is the entity in Delaware that creates policy, educates the
community, improves services for families. It is kind of the collec-
tive place without the same authority, necessarily, as I understand
what the Honorable Mr. Gwinn is talking about, and that is——

Mr. Gwinn. The Family Justice Center.

Chairman BIDEN. Yes.

But what I want to ask you is, are there specific instances where
the council that you chair in Delaware has sought out the expertise
of the Violence Against Women Office? I mean, are there any times
where you have, as the council chair, or your council decided, you
better put pen to paper or get on the computer or pick up the
phone and contact the Violence Against Women Office, seeking pol-
icy advice, not making your grant request?

Judge Poppiti. With each of these cultural changes that occurred
in Delaware, I had the opportunity on behalf of the council to have
direct contact with the Violence Against Women Office, whether it
was with Bonnie Campbell directly or with other members of her
staff.

We looked to that office for advice. We looked to that office for
counsel. We looked to that office for direction. And we looked to
that office to help us pull people from around the Nation to help
us do the collaboration that the attorney general suggested.

Chairman BIDEN. Let me shift to your capacity as a judge. Was
there any difference between the Justice Department Violence
Against Women Coordinating Council when the office was inside
main Justice, not a part of Justice Programs? Were you able to see
the kind of access that could be arranged inside main Justice to im-
plement the Violence Against Women Act?

And then I will yield to you, Senator.

Judge Popriti. Senator, maybe the best way to describe that is
that one of the first meetings I had the opportunity to have with
the present Attorney General before September 11th was to have
a discussion with the Attorney General—

Chairman BIDEN. Attorney General Ashcroft.

Judge Poppiri. [continuing]. Yes, sir—with Diane as the chair of
our leadership effort, to suggest to him that the stature of the office
was as important as the work being done by the office.

My sense is that opportunity to have those kinds of conversa-
tions, at the level of the Attorney General’s Office or at the level
of the Secretary of United States Department of Health and
Human Services, may be lost.

It is critically important that it not be lost.

Chairman BIDEN. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to stop by—I regret being so late—to signify my support
for the legislation to protect women against violence.


26

part by a 60 percent drop in domestic violence homicides over the
last 10 years in San Diego.

Thank you for your work, and I thank you for coming.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, could I apologize both to you
and the panel? I have a noon appointment that I cannot miss, and
I will not be able to be here. But I am going to submit some ques-
tions, particularly to the General Accounting Office and to Mr.
Gwinn and to the attorney general, for an answer in writing.

Chairman BIDEN. Without objection, they will be submitted. We
understand your schedule and, in light of the fact that we got start-
ed late, it is almost impossible for you to be able to stay. But we
thank you very, very much.

So let me begin with you, General, and we will work our way
across in the order you are introduced, based on nothing other than
that is the way you were introduced.

STATEMENT OF HON. THURBERT E. BAKER, ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF GEORGIA, ATLANTA, GA.

Mr. BAKER. Thank you so much, Chairman Biden and Senator
Grassley, for the opportunity to come and be with you today.

I also, before I get started, would like to thank my senior cit-
izen—senior Senator from the State of Georgia. [Laughter.]

Chairman BIDEN. See, that is the reason I do not like being the
senior Senator, because every time we get introduced, it is so easy
to say “senior citizen,” which, unfortunately, I am close to becom-
ing. But I will not tell Senator Cleland you called him senior.
{Laughter.]

Mr. Baker. He is, indeed, our senior Senator from the State of
Georgia. And we are so very proud of him. I want to thank him
for his kind words of introduction.

And, Senator, I want to take just a minute to thank you for you
do in this area. Your work in the area of domestic violence is leg-
endary. And I want to thank you for your continued support of the
issue.

Being here today gives me an opportunity really to speak on the
issue of domestic violence, a matter that has, quite frankly, been
the focus of a great deal of my time both as a legislator and as at-
torney general for the great State of Georgia.

History will remember each one of us not so much for the prom-
ises we make but by the actions we take. I believe it is time for
America to take very decisive action in the fight against domestic
violence. And I want to explain to you why.

Domestic violence has, in my opinion, reached crisis proportions
in our country today. I will not go through all the numbers for you,
the statistics; they have been provided already. But clearly, in my
opinion, those numbers and statistics suggest one thing: that we
have reached a crisis proportion in our country as it relates to do-
mestic violence.

It is my belief that this problem tears at the very fabric of our
society. It threatens to pull apart at the very glue that holds our
way of life together. That glue, of course, being the family struc-
ture.


3

When I drafted that act, I envisioned a two-prong attack: one
with new federal laws and policies on one side, and the other, a
grant program, was on the other side. Both sides are necessary,
each side, in my view, inseparable from the other. They work hand
in hand.

The act’s grant programs are just as valuable as the act’s public
policy mandates.

I am not aware of any other office at the Justice Department, in
my 29 years of being on this committee, which requires the same
broad, multidisciplinary, coordinated response as required by the
Violence Against Women Office.

The grants to encourage arrest, for example, operate simulta-
neously with public policy efforts to ensure interstate enforcement
of restraining orders. Grants for civil legal assistance work hand in
hand with public policy efforts to educate localities about the new
legal rights of battered women.

‘or example, at the front end of this process, when the act came
into being under the last administration, I went down and, whether
I convinced them or not, they became convinced that there was a
need to educate federal prosecutors with this act. They did not un-
derstand how it worked. They did not know. Very few cases were
being taken. That was the public policy part.

It had nothing to do with grants—zero, nothing, nothing to do
with grants. No one in the grants office had any expertise as to
how to train federal prosecutors how to focus on, recognize, and
pursue the violators of this act.

I am convinced that had the office only handed out grants, and
not served its critical role as both a bully pulpit and a policy coordi-
nator, the success of the Violence Against Women Act would not
have been anywhere near as drastic as it has been. I am confident
that had the bully pulpit part not been available, many American
corporations would not have made the changes they made, in order
to accommodate and help women in the workplace who were vic-
tims of domestic violence.

Domestic violence and sexual assault and stalking are com-
plicated issues, and they require discrete areas of expertise. This
is not an area for generalists or for grant administrators alone,
who I have great admiration for.

There are those who specialize in law enforcement and judicial
training, or in the intersection of child services and domestic vio-
lence. I have found very few who have compatible expertise. I have
found very few who have an expertise in both those disciplines, or
in the full faith and credit enforcement of protective orders.

We need diverse and deep expertise in the public Policy division
of the Violence Against Women Office. And I have doubts that we
can. ask grant program administrators to become general experts as
well.

Do not misunderstand me; I support the efforts to increase the
efficiency of the Violence Against Women Office to provide better
support for the grantees. I think the present Director is absolutely
correct. I am sure that she has heard from her employees, saying,
“Hey, look, I have a real problem.”

Well, the first year of the act, we had something like 54 applica-
tions. Now we are up into the thousands. Of course you need sig-


2

spirit of the law—and the letter of the Violence Against Women
ct.

I would like to hear from prosecutors and judges about the
progress they have made and what kind of help and leadership
they have received from the Violence Against Women Office. Today
we are going to hear from the top law enforcement officer in Geor-
gia, the attorney general, about his State’s collaboration with the
Violence Against Women Office.

And finally, I want to hear from those who are the most impor-
tant people in the whole process: those providing direct services,
the day-to-day lifelines for the millions of women out there who are
desperately in need of help and hope.

And the question is, what do they need from the Violence
Against Women Act? How can the Violence Against Women Act
best lead in this fight?

Since we passed that act in 1994 and created the Violence
Against Women Office, it has awarded over $1 billion in grants to
state and local entities to fight domestic violence and sexual as-
sault.

When the Violence Against Women Act passed, domestic violence
became for the first time in the history of America a federal crime.
Under the act, applications from more than 12,000 battered immi-
grant women escaping abuse and establishing their own residency
here have been made to Immigration.

Since its passage, there has been a 41 percent decrease in the
rate of intimate partner victimization of women. That is the chart
that is up there right now.

Since then, we have also seen a similar drop in the rates of
criminal rape and sexual assault during the same time frame, al-
most a 43 percent decrease.

Federal dollars, federal leadership, federal commitment, and,
most importantly, federal-state collaboration are making a real dif-
ference in the lives of women in America. And this is not the time
to scale back our efforts.

As I said about the crime bill generally, crime is like cutting
grass. You cut it on Saturday; it looks beautiful. If you conclude
that you have done a great job and you can walk away, I assure
you, by the following Saturday, the weeds and grass are back, and
3 weeks later, you have a morass in your front lawn. That is what
crime is like.

We are going through a period here where people think we have
done so well, and we have, over the last 8 years in the decrease
of violent crime and crime against women, that people are saying,
“Well, we do not”—I am not suggesting the office is saying that.
But nationally and in the debate in the administration, eliminating
the COPS program, and people here talking about how we should
have different priorities, they are missing the point, I think.

We should not be spending less money. We should be spending
more money—more money. This is not something that you do and
you fix. This is something every week you have to cut the grass.

And that is why I am concerned by reports that the Violence
Against Women Office is reconfiguring and eliminating its public
policy division.


15

one voice on the Violence Against Women Act. Staff communicates and shares infor-
mation daily. The single Violence Against Women Office has become stronger and
more effective as a result of the change.

The process works. For these reasons, as the Department has already essed
to this Committee and to the House, we oppose legislation that would establish a
Violence ;ainst Women Office that is separate from its current position as a com-

nent of .

Pegince 1999, ihe Violence Against Women Office has, through research, policy guid-
ance, technical assistance, and financial support, worked to enhance the capacity of
state and local jurisdictions to address issues relating to violence against women,
just as the many other components of OJP, for the last 30 years, have worked with
these jurisdictions to enhance the capacity of their public safety and justice systems.

The Administration believes it is important to retain VAWO within for a
number of reasons.

First, we believe that the current structure continues to provide high visibility for
violence against women issues. VAWO continues to be headed by a presidentially
appointed director. For more than a decade, VAWO’s current director, Biane Stuart,
has served as an advocate for domestic violence and other victims of crime. The At-
torney General and I know that Diane will continue to champion the rights of
women victims of violence and work to address their needs. Diane has the full sup-
port of the President, the Attorney General, and all of us within the Department
of Justice, for the important work of her office.

Moreover, as Assistant Attorney General for OJP, I will continue to use my voice
and my position to ensure that issues relating to Violence against women receive
the full attention and commitment of OJP and the Department. As a former pros-
ecutor, and later as director of a private, nonprofit 01 ization, I have considerable
experience in advocating for victims of domestic violence. As Chief Counsel to the
prosecuting attorney in Indianapolis, I supervised prosecutions of domestic violence
and sex offense cases. I also was responsible for the office’s victims’ services compo-
nent. I developed and advocated for legislation to protect domestic violence victims,
and worked with nationally renowned researchers in the field of domestic violence
to develop prosecution policies informed by applied research. Later, from a position
in the private sector, I was instrumental in creating much-needed housing for vic-
tims of domestic violence and their children. At OJP, I will continue to work on be-
half of the victims of domestic violence, stalking, and related offenses.

Second, as the Department's primary conduit of financial and other assistance to
state and local governments and national organizations, OJP serves as a focal point
for policy and program development related to state and local criminal and juvenile
justice and victims issues. For over 30 years, OJP has worked closely with state,
local, and tribal governments and national organizations to identify and address
criminal justice-related needs. Further, OJP has established various mechanisms—
such as our publications clearinghouse and use of advanced technology—for dissemi-
nating information and assistance to these constituent institutions. By retaining
VAWO within OJP, jurisdictions will continue to have a centralized source of expert
assistance and resources, not only related to domestic violence, but to other issues
related to criminal and juvenile justice.

Third, VAWO clearly benefits from its close interaction with other OJP compo-
nents and the synergy provided by their common focus and efforts. For example,
VAWO works closely with the Office for Victims of Crime to develop and support
Programs and policies affecting women victims. VAWO staff work closely with the

jational Institute of Justice to formulate research priorities under its substantial
Research Program on Violence Against Women and to assess the impact of research
results. Similarly, VAWO benefits from the statistical analyses of violence against
women data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Together with the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, VAWO reaches out to the law enforcement, courts, and correc-
tions communities. Further, VAWO and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-
quency Prevention work together to address the problems experienced by children
who are exposed to domestic violence.

Fourth, the Department is concerned that separating VAWO from OJP would di-
minish VAWO’s ability to administer its grant programs effectively and efficiently.
Congress has directed that OJP lead the states in efficiently managing federal
criminal justice grants. OJP’s specific, unique mission is to offer federal leadership
and resources to help state and local communities formulate policies and create pro-
grams that prevent and control crime, including domestic violence, sexual assaults,
and stalking.

As authorized by Congress, OJP is responsible for ensuring that federal Brants
for crime prevention and response are effectively and efficiently managed. VAWO
benefits from management and administrative support provided by ‘OJP. OP's OF



5

cel your planes—actually, they often cancel your planes, our
planes—and for any opening comments he may wish to make.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, actually, your lateness was a conven-
ience for me, because I had some things scheduled at 10:15 and

Chairman BIDEN. Well, I am delighted it worked.

Senator GRASSLEY. I would have been late anyway.

Well, first of all, thank you very much for this meeting on the
Violence Against Women Act and the office that administers it.

The creation of this office helped communities address violence
against women by advancing coordinated community responses to
the problem. And because this office’s work involves local commu-
nities, I thought it was important to hear from someone who was
in the trenches fighting against domestic violence on a daily basis,
so I asked Casey Gwinn, an Diego City Attorney, to testify.

It is a pleasure to have him here with us, and I look forward to
hearing his thoughts on how we can best combat the problem of do-
mestic violence and other forms of violence against women.

Although I have been a longtime supporter of the Violence
Against Women Act, I have expressed in the past and will again
now some concerns that I have about the office, whether or not it
is conducting proper oversight of the grants they award. Senator
Biden has heard me say that about other agencies of government
as well, so it is kind of characteristic, my bringing up congressional
oversight as well as administrative oversight of how the taxpayers’
money is spent.

Let me restate: Reducing violence against women is not a par-
tisan issue, and good government is not either.

Because the issue of violence against women is so important, we
need to make sure that we maximize the tax dollars’ use. We want
the best programs to succeed, and we need to get the most out of
our tax dollars.

I feel this way about the Violence Against Women Act grants as
well as other federal grants.

This hearing is timely since we had, 6 months ago, the General
Accountins ice releasing two reports. I am so glad to see that
we have Ms. Laurie Ekstrand here to help us today and testify
about these two reports and to give recommendations.

In November, the General Accounting Office reported that the of-
fice is not conducting proper documentation of its monitoring activi-
ties. And I know we are going to go into these, so I am not going
to go through the lengthy comments I have on those. And I think
I will put the rest of my statement in the record, Mr. Chairman,
so we can get through this meeting, considering the lateness.

Chairman BIDEN. Without objection, the entire statement will be
placed in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Justice Department's
Violence Against Women Office. In 1994, I was glad to be able to stand with you
in bipartisan support for the Violence Against Women Act, which created this


21

You know, there is an old expression I learned early on. I should
not acknowledge this, but it is true. I learned early on, from, I will
never forget, 1970, I was a young councilman. And the woman who
was the chair of NOW in my State wanted to come and see me.
And she sat down and she said, “We are about to have, whether
you know it or not, Joe, a sensitivity session.”

I said, “We are?”

And she said, “Yes.” And she said, “The way you can determine
the sensitivity of an organization to the concerns that we have is
look at the budget, look at the numbers, and look at the priorities.
If you tell me you care about women and there is not a lot of
money in the budget for women, or you tell me you care about
women and all the women make 40 percent less than the men,
then you do not care a lot about women.”

And my view is, if we take this significant, significant office and
do not have it with a separate standing, separately laying out
there, reporting to the number three person in the Justice Depart-
ment, with this whole apparatus available to it, we literally—not
intentionally, on your part—degrade the importance of the func-
tion. And things flow from that.

Again, I know I am broken record. I had the same argument
about making the drug director a Cabinet-level office. Granted, I
wrote the legislation, so people say you would expect Biden to say
that. COPS, same thing: Granted, Biden wrote it; therefore, Biden
would be that way.

But I think this is equally as important as those two functions,
and I think you read into it an organizational structure and a
budget just how much you care about it. And I think it tends to
flow when you have more muscle and more voice.

I would like to give you more muscle. I have no doubt about your
willingness to flex it. I realize you do not agree with me. And I am
grateful for your answers, but I have not changed my mind. I sus-
pect you haven’t changed yours either.

But I will yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Senator GRASSLEY. I have three questions I am going to ask, and
one in writing. The one in writing I will read to you now, so that
you can get back to us, and this is in regard to your working with
the Muskie School at the University of Maine to create a tool to
assist grantees with their data collection efforts. So please tell me
more about how that tool would help those receiving grants to
make the money more effectively used.

Ms. Stuart. I would be delighted to.

Senator GRASSLEY. My first question for answer now is the fact
that the General Accounting Office reported in November 2001 and
again in March of this year that there have been significant prob-
lems with grant management both at OJP as well as your office.
Have you taken any action to improve the situation within the Vio-
lence Against Women Office?

Ms. Stuart. We certainly have. Thank you for that.

Part of my goals while I am here is to make sure that what we
are doing really makes a difference. And certainly grant monitoring
is one of those elements that contribute to that.

We have. We have put together an internal committee of grant
managers, looking at the issue. What are we doing right? We cer-


S. Hra. 107-886

LEADING THE FIGHT: THE VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN OFFICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

APRIL 16, 2002

Serial No. J-107-72

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

ee

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-886 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003

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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

a



44

mine the level of grant monitoring performed by grant managers.
We recommended that the Violence Against Women Office assess
the causes of the problems and take steps to resolve them.

Now let me turn to impact evaluations. In March of this year, we
reported on the results of our review of Violence Against Women
Office impact evaluations. During fiscal years 1995 through 2001,
the National Institute of Justice awarded about $4 million for five
Violence Against Women Office discretionary grant program eval-
uations that were intended to measure their impact.

Our in-depth review of three evaluations that had progressed be-
yond the formative stage showed that all three had methodological
problems that raised concerns about whether they would produce
definitive results.

Specifically, Violence Against Women Office sites participating in
the impact evaluations had not been shown to be representative of
their programs. This limits the evaluators’ ability to generalize re-
sults.

Also, the lack of appropriate comparison groups or other means
to minimize the effect of factors that are external to the program
jeopardize the ability to interpret the results.

And finally, data collection problems and analytical problems
were also evident.

We recommended that the Attorney General direct the NIJ Di-
rector to review the two Violence Against Women Office impact
evaluations that were in their formative stages and to take steps
to ensure that they achieve usable results.

The Department of Justice officials have responded to our reports
on both monitoring and evaluation, indicating that they are com-
mitted to making improvements.

Both the Violence Against Women Office and the Office of Justice
Programs have cited reorganization plans and a new management
information system as a foundation for improvements in grants
management, including improvements in monitoring and evalua-
tion.

These can be valuable tools for change, but they are only as good
as the management that wields them. Commitment to improve-
ment and oversight are needed to ensure progress.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my oral statement. I have sub-
mitted my full statement for the record, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you might have.

(The prepared statement of Ms. Ekstrand follows:]


8

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you, Senator. And thank you for your
strong support for this legislation.

We are anxious to hear from the attorney general. As you point
out, he chairs the committee for all the attorneys general. So thank
you for coming here.

Now, we have two panels of esteemed witnesses with us this
morning, and I thank them for coming.

And [I would like to introduce, briefly, our first witness, Ms.
Diane Stuart.

President Bush appointed Diane Stuart to be Director of the Jus-
tice Department Violence Against Women Office in October of last
year. And, I might add, his appointment was met with strong sup-
port, including from this Senator.

Prior to assuming that office, she served as the state coordinator
for the Utah Domestic Violence Cabinet Council and director of the
Battered Women’s Shelter and Rape Crisis Center in Logan, Utah.

Among other advisory positions, Ms. Stuart served on the Wom-
en’s Advisory Council for Senator Hatch. She received her bach-
elor’s degree from the University of Pittsburgh—and I wanted to
ask her about that, because that is Senator Hatch’s hometown—
and her master’s degree in family and human development from
Utah State University.

I welcome you, Director, and, again, I apologize for having kept
you waiting. I know you are incredibly busy.

The floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF DIANE STUART, DIRECTOR, VIOLENCE
AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. Stuart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you for coming to Delaware, by the way.

Ms. Stuart. You are welcome. It was sincerely my pleasure. It
was absolutely wonderful. What a wonderful place to visit and a
wonderful group of people to work with. I am particularly grateful
to Claire DeMatteis and her help there. It was just great to be
there.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, and members of the sub-
committee, thank you, sincerely, thank you for holding this impor-
tant hearing today.

First, let me say that Deborah Daniels sends her apologies for
pot being able to be here. Her father was ill, and so she cannot be

ere.

Chairman BIDEN. I am sorry to hear that. I understand.

Ms. Stuart. And before I begin, I would like to especially ac-
knowledge and personally thank you, Senator Biden, for your un-
wavering support for violence against women issues and your lead-
ership on the development of the Violence Against Women Act.

It is strong congressional attention, as you have said, to this
issue that has enabled this country to accomplish unparalleled lev-
els of change and innovation in the areas of domestic violence, sex-
ual assault, and stalking. Thank you, sir, from the bottom of my
heart, so very, very much. And I think I speak for many, many
women across the country, victims of domestic violence as well as
those that are working in the area.


7

Senator Cleland is here to introduce the attorney general of
Georgia, although we are not going to start with the attorney gen-
eral of Georgia. I know his schedule is extremely busy, and with
the permission of the rest of the witnesses, I am going to yield to
Senator Cleland to introduce the attorney general, who will be on
the second panel.

We got started, Max, 45 minutes late, because one of my trains
was canceled, and I just got here.

So we appreciate your interest and your commitment, and the
floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MAX CLELAND, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Senator CLELAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

May I just say that it is a pleasure to be here today to introduce
my good friend, Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, who is
here to discuss measures that are being taken to prevent and com-
bat violence against women.

Attorney General Baker is also the chairman of the Violence
Against Women Committee of the National Association of Attor-
neys General. And thanks to him and the efforts of the committee,
state officials across the country are now able to share information
and develop strategies that states can use to address domestic vio-
lence.

I am a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act, leg-
islation established to aid law enforcement officers and prosecutors,
encourage arrest policies, stem domestic violence and child abuse,
establish and operate training programs for victim advocates and
counselors, and train probation and parole officers who work with
released sex offenders.

I am grateful to all of you here on the committee, who have been
very supportive of this legislation and added new programs to the
Violence Against Women Act through 2005.

In Georgia, Mr. Chairman, 62,736 crisis calls were made to do-
mestic violence shelters in 2001, which is an incredible number. It
was an increase from the 50,000 calls made in 1998. Georgia-cer-
tified family violence programs provided shelter for almost 4,000
adults and almost 4,000 children for a total of almost 175,000 shel-
ter nights in 2001.

Unfortunately, these statistics prove that there is still a lot to do
to stop violence against women and children. But Attorney General
Baker and the State of Georgia have responded to the challenge.

Georgia has established a domestic violence assessor in all coun-
ty offices of the Department of Family and Children Services, and
the State is creating a computerized registry of all temporary re-
straining orders, which is largely due to Attorney General Baker’s
efforts

Appointed by the president of the National Association of Attor-
neys General, Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall, Attorney
General Thurbert Baker has a special concern for victims of domes-
tic violence, and I am pleased that he is here today to share his
knowledge and experience with us.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.


57

presidential appointment. I strongly support the idea of Senate
confirmation for the Director of the Violence Against Women Office.
I strongly support the idea of statutorily creating the office and
making that statement. And I strongly support a lot of the lan-
guage in both the Senate version and the House version that delin-
eates the priorities and the responsibilities that should be given to
the Violence Against Women Office.

The only issue, Senator Biden, that I guess part ways with some
here on is this issue of separation. It is with great respect that I
say that I do not believe that a separate office is the end-all and
the be-all.

I believe that, nationally, we are moving more and more toward
collaboration. In San Diego last week, we just founded the San
Diego Family Justice Center. Our goal is to be one of the first com-
prehensive one-stop shops in the country to bring together all serv-
ices from all disciplines for victims of family violence.

Chairman BIDEN. What is it called?

Mr. Gwinn. It is called the San Diego Family Justice Center.

In phase one, we will have 120 professionals housed together in
downtown San Diego—all the police officers, all the detectives, all
the prosecutors, victim advocates, legal advocates, forensic medical
professionals. We are going to bring in a number of federal agen-
cies. We will have probation officers. We are bringing in 20 social
service organizations from the community and a number of bat-
tered women shelters.

The goal is to bring everybody together, to get the synergy. We
are all dealing with all the same families, and we are all dealing
with the same children. We need to be talking to each other and
communicating.

So it is both to get that synergy and it is to protect victims. We
have identified victims telling their story in our system today more
than 30 times, when they are Child Protective Services, and they
are in battered women shelters, and they are with police officers,
and they are with prosecutors, and they are in front of judges and
probation officers, and they are dealing with housing issues and
employment issues and school issues. And over and over and over,
victims have to tell their story, in a system that deeply cares, with
a lot of specialized professionals now developing, in part, out of the
Violence Against Women Act, which is providing that call for spe-
cialization, for people focusing on the issue of violence against
women and sexual assault issues.

But out of that experience of ours in San Diego has come my
strong feeling that the issue is: How do we collaborate more? How
do we bring more people together? How do we pull more people in?

Our phase two goal in our justice center is to bring child abuse
professionals and elder abuse professionals, to bring in all of those
that deal with juvenile delinquency issues, because, as the judee
and the attorney general so eloquently articulated earlier, this is

enerational violence, as you well know. This is the cycle of vio-
fence. This is Exodus 20. This is the sins of the parents visited
upon the children, to the third and the fourth generation. This is
the cycle we are battling in America. And it pops out everywhere,
whether it is homeless issues or it is juvenile delinquency or it is
child abuse or sexual assault, whether it is school performance


40

For example, in a number of grant programs, states must certify
that their laws, policies, and practices discourage the arrest of both
parties. Grantees must also certify that their jurisdictions do not
allow the issuance of mutual protective orders. These requirements
are not just check marks on a grant application. They are critical
issues related to victim safety and offender accountability, the cor-
nerstones of the Violence Against Women Act.

Although we have made great strides in some ways, in others our
work is just beginning. It is important now more than ever that the
Department of Justice provides the leadership and guidance, the
inspiration and the policy support, for the work of local and state
domestic violence and sexual assault advocates.

I want to join with others in commending the leadership of Diane
Stuart as the Director of the Violence Against Women Office. When
I first became the director of the National Network, one of my very
first trips was out to Utah to visit with Diane.

So it is not the people in the Violence Against Women Office that
we are concerned about. It is the structure that is imposed upon
those very, very, very good people.

This is really a question of moral leadership. And it is only
through this leadership that sometime in the future we will know
for certain that a week in the life of American women is no longer
a week filled with violence.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenthal follows:]

TESTIMONY OF LYNN ROSENTHAL, EXECUTIVE Director, NaTionaL NeTWoRK TO.
END DomEsTIC VIOLENCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the National Net-
work to End Domestic Violence, thank you for providing me with the opportuni
to share with you our views on the critical role of the Violence Against Women Of
fice. The National Network is a network of statewide domestic violence coalitions
around the country, who in turn represent more than 2,000 local domestic violence
shelters and programs, and hundreds of thousands of battered women and children.

In particular, ! want to thank you, Senator Biden, for your landmark report “Vio-
lence Against Women: A Week in the Life of American Women” prepared by the
Senate Judiciary Committee.! This report, a snapshot of the lives of women across
the country, graphically described 200 incidents of domestic and sexual violence that
occurred in just one week of one year. This report had a profound impact on my
personal commitment to ending violence against women, and many times over the
past ten years I have returned to this report when I have needed inspiration and
guidance to continue this important and often difficult work. It is this report that
T begin with today.

September 1, 1992 12:45 a.m.: Rural California—“A woman with five children is
physically abused by her husband. He punches her in the head with his fist. She
sustains bruises, She escapes and runs to a friend’s house for the night. She reports
that she is afraid to call the sheriff because her husband threatens to take their
11-month old baby.”2

September 1, 1992 late afternoon: Maine—“A woman in her early twenties is
thrown out of her trailer home by her boyfriend as her two sons, ages two and three,
watch. Bruised and cut she attempts to leave with her sons. The two-year old child
is taken from her by her boyfriend and she is ordered to leave and threatened with
further violence. She departs her home with one of her children, but does not con-
tact the police.”?

What might be different today for these women and countless like them because
of the Violence Against Women Act? Because of VAWA, hundreds of police officers

1 Violence Against Women: A Week in the Life of America,” Senate Judiciary Committee, Octo-
ber 1992 (hereinafter Senate Report),

21d. at 26.

Senate Report at 28.


28

needed and beneficial programs receive funding to continue their
mission.

Equally important to the states was the creation of the Violence
Against Women Office in 1995. It assumed a critical role in our Na-
tion’s rally against domestic violence, giving us, really, a vision;
giving us, Senator, a sense of direction; really giving us a feeling
of hope.

Created in response to passage of the Violence Against Women
Act, this office is recognized by government and domestic violence
support organizations around the country as a valuable resource on
policy and legal issues arising in the domestic violence context.

One of the primary functions of this office, to be certain, has
been the administration of grants authorized by the Violence
Against Women Act.

In Georgia, grants from the Violence Against Women Office have
been used across a number of fronts in our continuing fight against
domestic violence.

In talking with my fellow attorneys general, it is clear that simi-
lar programs providing essential services in the efforts against do-
mestic violence depend on grants administered through the Vio-
lence Against Women Office. The involvement of the Federal Gov-
ernment has not been limited to participation by checkbook, how-
ever. The Violence Against Women Office has also become a re-
source that government and support groups can turn to on policy
or legal issues arising in the domestic violence context.

This leadership, quite simply, is worth its weight in gold. An ex-
ample that arises with increasing frequency concerns the enforce-
ment of protective orders across state lines. A strong national of-
fice, with the resources and day-to-day expertise to coordinate and
ensure consistent response nationwide, and also provide policy and
training materials for use with law enforcement and advocac
groups alike, I think is a must in order for victims not to fail
through the cracks of uncertainty and confusion.

The value of a strong Violence Against Women Office does not
end with the federal resources and expertise that it is able to pro-
vide state and local groups. The office has also been a valuable
partner to states in helping us to forge public-private partnerships
to fight domestic violence. In my opinion, the fight against domestic
violence really requires a public-private partnership, if we are
soing to make any significant gains, Senator.

en state officials, whether they be attorneys general, gov-
ernors or legislative leaders, approach corporate decision-makers
about adopting model policies or altering existing policies or prac-
tices, we are often greeted with, “Well, what does ‘Washington have
to say on this issue?” Their response will often be based on the im-
portance that they think the decision-makers in our Nation’s cap-
ital are placing on the initiative.

In short, the authority and prestige you afford a program sends
a very powerful message to corporate America and in many in-
stances will determine their participation.

Without the prestige and access afforded an independent Vio-
lence Against Women Office, I am truly concerned, Senator, that
many of these public-private initiatives simply will not happen. If
private industry does not get on board and become an active partic-


45

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate

tent. VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN OFFICE

Problems with Grant
Monitoring and Concerns

about Evaluation Studies

Statement of Laurie E. Ekstrand, Director, Justice Issues

GA0-02-641T


27

Unfortunately, domestic violence is all too often a silent epi-
demic, eating away at families while society turns a deaf ear to the
tragedy that lies behind closed doors.

In our quest to keep up with Joneses on a material level, we miss
the fact that far too many Mrs. Joneses are victims of violence in
their own homes. No longer can we sit back and accept the argu-
ment that domestic violence is a private family matter. It is, with-
out a doubt, a very public crime that, in my opinion, offends the
very core values of this great Nation.

When this issue first came to the forefront 10 to 15 years ago,
resources to combat the problem were typically limited to marriage
counselors, battered women shelters, or the dedicated law enforce-
ment official who did not look the other way or chalk it up to the
fact that the Joneses were simply having a bad night.

The problem with these Band-Aid fixes, however, was that a
counselor often was unable to fix the root of the problem and
women lacked the resources and support to make the break after
the reprieve of a shelter stay or a night in lockup for their abuser.

Over the last decade, I have also seen a tragic consequence that
all too often is ignored in the traditional dialogue on domestic vio-
lence. I of course speak of the tragedy that results when children
witness acts of domestic violence.

The juvenile courts in Georgia are filled with delinquents who
are themselves victims, having learned how to be a bully by watch-
ing their parents. As adults, these innocent witnesses become abus-
ers themselves, having learned how to beat their wife at daddy’s

ee.

As chief prosecutor in Georgia, I have taken a strong stand
against domestic violence—both for the victims who walk among us
with physical scars and those who will carry their emotional scars
as they grow up with our children’s children.

In my first term as attorney general, I championed legislation in
Georgia that made our State a model in stopping the cycle of
abuse.

Ending domestic violence and the attendant cycle of abuse is and
will remain my number one priority as attorney general in Georgia.
However, the problem of domestic violence is not just a crisis in
Georgia. Its insidious tentacles reach from coast to coast.

In response, the National Association of Attorneys General has
established its own Violence Against Women Committee, which I
am so honored to co-chair. This committee has initiated several
programs to address the epidemic of sexual assault and domestic
abuse against women. I am proud to say that the National Associa-
tion of Attorneys General is a leader in the fight against domestic
violence, strongly supporting efforts at the state and national level
to end the cycle of abuse.

Let me commend Congress for the bold step it took in passing
the Violence Against Women Act and, through such action, joining
the fight against domestic violence. The grant monies authorized
under Violence Against Women Act have been a godsend to local
law enforcement agencies, as well as support organizations. We
now have additional dollars flowing down to the state and local
level, supplementing overstretched local monies to ensure that


64

So, Case, that is my problem. I think you and I are saying the
same thing. But I am not looking for a fight, because this is one
of those few cases where every witness is basically unified on this.
Republican, Democrat, we did not used to have it that way. Only
seven Republicans voted for this sucker when it first came up. I
will put this in perspective here, okay? Now it is everybody’s love
child, and that is wonderful. It is wonderful.

So we have a consensus now. The question is, how do we make
it work most efficiently?

I am going to start in reverse order, and I will take only about
15 more minutes of your collective time. Maybe 25. [Laughter.]

But let me start with you, Doctor.

I want to make sure I understand. You reviewed approximately
85 out of 635 files, right?

Ms. EKSTRAND. That is correct.

Chairman BIDEN. Okay. Did you look at any other office docu-
ments during your review, other than the discretionary grant files
in your study?

Ms. EKSTRAND. No doubt we had other general documents. But
related to specific grants, we looked at the files, the official files for
those grants.

Chairman BIDEN. Right. Now, did you speak to the grantees
about the adequacies of the office’s monitoring? You had the file.

Ms. EKsTRAND. No, sir, we did not.

Chairman BIDEN. I am not suggesting you should have. I just
want to make sure I understand. This is not meant as a criticism.
I just want to make sure I understand.

You know that old saw: The devil is in the details. I want to
make sure I fully understand it.

Ms. EKSTRAND. We did not interview grantees.

Chairman BIDEN. Did you speak to the office employees about
their monitoring abilities? Not just whether they checked the right
boxes; it is more than that. Did you talk to the office employees?

Ms. EKSTRAND. We spoke to a wide variety of employees at the
office, yes, as part of the job.

Chairman BIDEN. Okay. Now, in your November 2000 report,
which concluded the office was not actually monitoring grants, that
was the conclusion you reached, was it not?

Ms. EKSTRAND. We concluded that the office was not adequately
documenting monitoring activities, so it is hard to tell how much
monitoring actually goes on.

Chairman BIDEN. Right. That is the important distinction I want
to make, that this was strictly about maintaining the files, correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. It is about maintaining the files.

Chairman BIDEN. Let me put it another way, in Jayman’s terms.
It is about being able to pick up a file, look at the grant, and deter-
mine with any certainly whether or not it was monitored. You look
at the file and you can see they did not monitor. The file does not
indicate whether or not there was any monitoring.

Ms. EKSTRAND. The file does not indicate whether they are moni-
toring or not.

Chairman BIDEN. Right.

Ms. EKsSTRAND. That is correct.


4

nificantly more help. The way to deal with that is to give you a big-
ger budget, in my view.

But at any rate, I agree with getting the most for our dollars.
But I should add here that, by all accounts, the Violence Against
Women Act is a bargain. Its fiscal year 2002 operating costs were
$5.5 million. A recent report out of the University of North Caro-
lina determined that the act saved American taxpayers $14.6 bil-
lion in estimated costs associated with violence against women.

I support, as I said, the efforts by the Director to help her over-
worked staff with innovative ideas. I am not here to have some
academic debate about different business models. I am here be-
cause I am concerned the efforts to diminish the profile and the
role of the Violence Against Women Office may have—and I may
be wrong—may have negative, long-term effects on our Govern-
ment’s ability to address violence against women.

And the fact is that there is a lot more work to be done. Sadly,
we have not solved our problem. A report released this summer
found that one in five teenage girls in America becomes a victim
of physical or sexual abuse during a dating relationship. We know
one out of three women killed each year is still killed by an inti-
mate partner.

A strong, independent Violence Against Women Office should
lead the fight with a voice that has credibility, a very high profile,
and an ear to the Attorney General himself, not just to cut checks.

This is not what we need. It is not what I intended or we in-
tended when the act was passed.

A Director who has been nominated by the President and con-
firmed by the Senate has both the credibility and the bully pulpit
to travel this country and get local people to the table.

I might add, as the author of the drug director’s office, I found
the same debate and the same argument. This is equally as con-
sequential, in my view.

As a former Director of the Violence Against Women Office,
Bonnie Campbell, recently told House Members: There is a world
of difference between full participation at the highest levels of dis-
cussion of the decisions being made and being buried in a satellite
grant office in the department.

To meet this mandate to be effective, the Violence Against
Women Act should not, must not, and cannot be buried within the
grant-making bureaucracy.

In my mind, the Violence Against Women Act is a solemn prom-
ise that we made to the women of America. It is something that
we all take very seriously, including the Director. The Violence
Against Women Office is charged with keeping that promise. I
want to make absolutely certain that the office is equipped to do
that with dedication, both to grant making and public policy, and
full funding for programs, and with a profile and credibility that
it deserves.

So today I would like to talk about the office’s mission, how it
is helped, what it would be without a dedicated public policy divi-
sion, and why should it be independent if, as I believe, it should

e.

I now turn to Senator Grassley, with both my apologies for delay-

ing this, because they canceled my train, like they occasionally can-


18

Under this analysis, the Independent Office of Community Rela-
tion Services would have to merge with the Civil Rights Division,
because both deal with civil rights matters.

Isn’t it true that there is an inevitable overlap between many of
the arms of the Justice Department? Isn't it also true the Office of
Justice Programs already provides significant administrative sup-

ort, the very functions you cite as reasons for the Violence Against
Women Office to remain within OJP?

For example, they provide that same support for the COPS pro-
gram. They do the same exact thing for the COPS program that
you are saying that you have to be within OJP to get. OJP provides
that administrative help and service to the COPS program.

Also, there is a precedent for this independent office. The COPS
program exists outside the Office of Justice Programs even where
there is a certain overlap between the jurisdiction of them and
other offices.

That is a very long question that basically says: I do not under-
stand why the Violence Against Women Office is any different than
the other offices I have mentioned, unless we conclude that it is not
as important as these other offices.

When I initially introduced this legislation years ago, the initial
argument against it was, there is nothing unique about violence
against women. I used to hear the argument: “If we have a Vio-
lence Against Women Office, why don’t we have a Violence Against
Men Office? Why don’t we have an office relating to bank rob-
beries? Why don’t we have an office relating to whatever?”

And the argument I made—and others, particularly the women’s
groups, who were such an incredible help in this regard, and prob-
ably you from the field at the time—was that, hey, look, this ain’t
the same animal. We are talking about millions of women. We are
talking about the need to change the mindset of America. We are
talking about the need to change the way we think about this
thing.

Judge Poppiti, who has been the single most responsive guy, I
would argue, in the country, is heading our Family Court. The day
after this act passed, I called him. I asked him if he could get to-
gether in our State Capital everyone involved—everyone involved—
administratively in violence against women.

So he brought down—I do not remember, Judge, but I think
there were several hundred people, including the clerks in the
Family Court—including the administrator of the Family Court, in-
cluding the providers of services, including the judges, everyone.
And we brought in the violence against women folks and we found
out little, simple things.

And I will end with this, which I call policy.

Other states had learned, for example, that when a woman walks
in after being beaten and battered and makes that God awful dif-
ficult decision that she is going to do something about it, and she
walks into whatever in this particular state is the appropriate ju-
risdiction—in our state, the Family Court—she walks into the
Family Court and walks up to the clerk and says, “I get beaten up
by my husband, and I need some help.” And the clerk goes, “What
did you say? Your husband did what? Huh?” And literally, that is
how it works.


55

Appendix III: Dollar Amount of VAWO
Discretionary Awards, Fiscal Years 1995-2000

TEEEETL

1005 Yeek tee woe to0e 2000
Feca Your

‘Note:The awe srtounts for each flaca yar are adhted to constant Maca year 2000 dlrs,
‘Sourca: OUP OMe of he Comptote.

comm Page 10 Ghorsur


62

You cannot do that. There are certain things you do not do in a
bureaucracy as big as the Justice Department or any other bu-
reaucracy.

The person who is buried in a chart in your office and you have
a big office, General, is not going to be able to walk, figuratively
speaking—if you just take a look at the numbers, this is how these
charts would sort of line up, okay? They kind of line up like this,
if you look at all the boxes, okay?

This person here, which is the Violence Against Women Office,
which finds itself in this box here, which finds itself in this box
here, cannot, figuratively speaking—picture it like you are walking
pe steps. You cannot walk that high up in the building to get to

ere.

But guess what? If you are sitting right here, and you have got
gne step, two steps, you can get to the door. You can get to the

loor.

That is why I fought so hard for the COPS program to be in a
different spot.

By the way, every administration has the same instinct, okay?
Although I think that the last administration, mainly because of
the woman who ran it, it was in her gut—and I am not suggesting
John Ashcroft does not care as much. He does. He does care about
violence against women. I served with John for a long time. I do
not doubt it for a second.

But my problem is that it matters where you are in the chart.

Now, the Office of Family Justice Center, you may not have the
Violence Against Women Office running that, but it is all about fo-
cusing on abuse. That is the whole purpose of setting that office up.
And it is about specialization.

This is the opposite of specialization. This means that you do not
have specialists within this office being the ones who are deciding
whether or not we maybe should take a different direction. Maybe
a study comes out of Florida State——

[Laughter.]

Chairman BIDEN [continuing]. Maybe a study comes out of lesser
universities, like Yale——

[Laughter.]

Chairman BIDEN [continuing]. Maybe a study comes out of—I
mean this sincerely.

Think of all the independent work that is being funded. Think
of all of the foundations that are now getting it.

The attorney general talked about public-private partnerships.
Because of the women’s movement in this country embracing this,
they are going to everyone from the Ford Foundation to the Rand
Corporation and saying, “Hey, take a look at this.” Now where does
that go?

Where does that go? It goes into this office, which is in these
bunch of boxes. Then that gets fitted into this box in this office.
And that gets fitted into this box in this office.

I sound like I am trying to make fun of this. I am not. I am real-
ly not. That is the last intention I have.

But I have found—maybe I have worked in this town too long.

Let me summarize this and then go to specific questions.


35

ney General will solidify policy within the Department of Justice
that noncriminal justice services—including civil legal remedies
and enforcement, nonlegal victim advocacy services, and other pro-
grams—will be an integral part of a coordinated community re-
sponse.

Moreover, when Attorney General Ashcroft released the Web-
based Tool Kit to End Violence Against Women, created as part of
our agenda for the Nation, he said: As you know, to end violence
against women, we must change our culture, and all facets of soci-
ety need to play a role.

Attorney General Ashcroft was correct; ending violence against
women will require a cultural change and will demand a coordi-
nated community response. I respectfully suggest that the stature
of a statutory, independent office is essential to establishing this
coordinated community response and policy development.

Mr. Chairman, my good friend Senator Biden, as we speak, in
Wilmington, Delaware, a statutorily composed Fatal Incident Re-
view Team is reviewing the murder of Deja’s mom.

“What was your mom doing?”

“She was screaming.”

“Then what did you do after he stabbed your mom?”

“IT stayed in my bed.”

“Did you see your mom?”

“Mm-hmm.”

“Where was she?”

“She was lying down on the floor dead.”

“How did you know she was dead?”

“Because I kept on saying, ‘Mom, mom, answer me,’ and she
wouldn’t answer.

“You said that you were trying to talk to her?”

“Mm-hmm.”

“And what happened?”

“She wouldn’t answer me.”

“How did you feel when your mom wouldn’t answer you?”

“Lonely and sad.”

Senator Biden, the national agenda and its urgent call to action
must be trumpeted and not muted. The President’s call for a Co-
ordinated Community Response and the Attorney General’s call for
a change of culture collectively compel the government to pass your
critically important legislation and create a statutory, independent
Violence Against Women Office with the stature that such a com-
mitment deserves.

I have submitted the rest of my remarks for the record.

Thank you so much, sir.

[The prepared statement of Judge Poppiti follows:]

TESTIMONY BY CHIEF JUDGE VincENT J. Popprtt, FAMILY Court, STATE OF
DELAWARE

The witness will take the stand her name is Dejanario Alexis Wade—she’s six (6)
years old, and she likes to be called Deja. When Deja was four (4) years old she
and her two (2) year old brother witnessed the savage murder of their mother by
their father in Wilmington, Delaware, on October 3, 1997.

Q. Deja, you said [your mother] tried to hide?

A Mm-mmm.

Q. What happened after she hid under the bed?

A. He pulled her out by her—by her arm.


75

is poor man. This is doctors, lawyers, assembly line workers, pickle
packers. It does not matter; it goes across the board.

And I apologize for keeping you so long, but, Lynn, I tell you
what, if there are any angels in heaven, they are the men and
women who do the job that you do. I do not know how you do it.
I have trouble going there. I have trouble sitting there, just like I
know the judge has trouble sitting there presiding over these cases.
And it is incredible what you do. It is incredible.

And there are thousands of women like you out there, not with
the same degree of talent and breadth you have in this area. For
real, there are not. But there are thousands of women out there.

d so, we are changing the culture. My one, overwhelming ob-
jective here is—and, again, I may be wrong about exactly how to
do it—but the higher the profile of this office—were I the Presi-
dent, were I the Attorney General, I would think of even elevatin;
this office, because of the volume of crime it involves, to the leve
of the Associate Attorney General.

But I cannot get that done. And the bottom line is that I think
it should be at least directly under the Associate Attorney General,
like the COPS office.

We are going to continue fighting this fight. But the good news
is, folks, the President is committed to this. The Attorney General
is committed to this. Everybody in this administration, Repub-
licans, and Democrats are committed to it.

And, boy, that is a long way from where we were, Pat, years ago.

So let’s not despair, even if we do not get this done. But I think
we can get this done.

Tam going to submit questions, as I said, from other Senators.
And within a couple weeks, if you could get them back to us?

And, Doctor, thank you for your valuable input. It is valuable.
We want to make sure that what we are spending the taxpayers’
dollars on is actually efficacious, because if we do not, public sup-
port will begin to wane.

So far, so good.

Thank you, all. And again, I apologize for starting late and end-
ing late.

[The prepared statement of Senator Cantwell follows:]

STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL

Thank you Senator Biden for calling this important hearing today. Sadly, while
our country has committed the necessary resources to address terrorist attacks from
abroad, the women of our country continue to face terrorism within our borders, on
our streets, and in their own homes. I am talking about the terrorism that takes
the form of sexual assault and domestic violence and will directly impact over one-
third of American women in their lifetime.

According to the Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a women is raped
every two minutes. The Centers for Disease Control and prevention reported that
1 in’6 women in the United States has experienced an attempted or completed sex-
ual assault. In my home state of Washington the number of sexual assaults is even
higher. According to the Washington state Office of Crime Victims Advocacy 38 per-
cent of women in my state have been sexually assaulted.

‘These statistics are wholly unacceptable. In 2000, the Senate signaled its commit-
ment to eradicating this type of Vidlence by unanimously passing the reauthoriza-
tion of the Violence Against Women Act. However, without an independent office
and full funding of the critical programs authorized under VAWA this commitment
remains nothing more than an empty promise. ;

In 2001, VAWA funding provided my home state with $11.3 million for victims’
programs including emergency legal services. Through funding by the Rural Domes-


36

Q. And then what happened?

A. He stabbed her, started stabbing my mom.

Q. What did you do?

A. I yelled “stop.”

Mr. Chairman—distinguished members of the Subcommittee,

* On behalf of the over three (3) million children each year who witness these
horrific lesions of violence learning its terrible lessons and carrying its seeds
into the next generation; and

¢ On behalf of the over one (1) million women who are battered each year
by their husbands or partners;

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of S. 570, which would establish
a permanent Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice. My
friend and former colleague on the National Advisory Council on Violence Against
Women, Director Stuart and I, along with other members of our leadership group
participated in the preparation of a document entitled “Establishing a Permanent

ffice to Address Violence Against Women.”

We believed then and I conclude now that:

« A permanent statutory Violence Against Women Office and its Director will re-
flect the importance that Congress and the Administration place on making the
elimination of violence against women a priority for the United States government
and for the country.

‘We believed then and I conclude now that:

* The establishment of the Violence Against Women Office will assure that suc-
ceeding Administrations continue to embrace and fully implement the provisions of
the Violence Against Women Act—-honoring the urgent call to action issued by the
National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women in July of last year—namely,
“We Must End Violence Against Women.”

We believed then and I conclude now that:

« The Violence Against Women Office under the direct supervision of the Asso-
ciate Attorney General will solidify policy within the Department of Justice that
non-criminal justice services (including civil legal remedies and enforcement, non-
legal victim advocacy services and other programs) will be an integral part of a Co-
ordinated Community Response.

Moreover, when Attorney General Ashcroft released the web-based Tool Kit to
End Violence Against Women—created as part of our Agenda for the Nation—he
said, “As you know, to end violence against women we must change our culture, and
all facets of society need to play a role,”

In President Bush's letter accompanying his proclamation declaring October 2001
as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month he stated—specifically citing sta-
tistics involving violence against women—“As a Nation we must prioritize address-
ing the problem of domestic violence in our communities each day of the year... . .
We can and must radically reduce and work to eliminate this scourge from our land.
an Referencing efforts on the part of federal, state and local governments; com-
munity leaders, health care professionals, teachers, employers, friends and neigh-
bors, he said, “These collective efforts will contribute to peace in our homes, schools,
places of work and communities and will help ensure the future safety of countless
children and adults.”

We believed then and I conclude now that:

« The establishment of the Violence Against Women Office will fulfill one of the
yet. unrealized expectations of Congress-articulated in the Report, “Safe Streets,
Safe Homes” released by the Chair in September of 1999.

‘Attorney General Ashcroft was correct, ending violence will require a change of
culture and will demand a Coordinated Community Response, and I respectfully
suggest that the stature of a statutory office is essential to establishing this Coordi-
nated Community Response and policy development.

Mr. Chairman as we speak, in Wilmington, Delaware a statutorily composed Fatal
Incident Review Team is reviewing the murder of Deja’s mom.

Q. What was your mom doing?

A. Screaming.

Q. Then what did you do after he stabbed your mom?

A. I stayed in bed.

Q Did you see your mom?

A. Mm-mmm.

Q. Where was she?

A. Laying down on the floor dead.

Q. How did you know she was dead?

R. How did you know she was dead?

A. Because I kept on saying, “Mom, mom, answer me,” and she wouldn’t answer.


51

related to statistical tests, assessment of change) compromised the
evaluators’ ability to draw appropriate conclusions from the results.

‘We concluded that, despite great interest in assessing the results of OP's
discretionary grant programs, it can be extremely difficult to design and
execute evaluations that will provide definitive information. We further
concluded that, given that NIJ spends millions of dollars to evaluate OJP
‘grant programs, including those within VAWO, more up-front attention to
the methodological rigor of these evaluations will increase the likelthood
that they will produce meaningful results for policymakers. We
recommended that the attorney general direct the NUJ director to assess
the two VAWO impact evaluations still in the formative stage to address
any design methodology and implementation problems and, on the basis of
that assessment, initiate any needed interventions to help ensure that the
evaluations produce definitive results. We further recommended that the
irector of NIT be instructed 10 assess its evaluation process to develop
approaches to ensure that future impact evaluation studies are designed
and implemented to produce definitive results. The assistant attorney
‘general commented that she agreed with the substance of our
recommendations and has begun or plans to take steps to address them. It
is still too early to tel whether these actions will be effective in preventing
or resolving the rroblems we identified, but they appear to be steps in the
right direction.

In summary, since its inception, VAWO has grown substantially both in
terms of the number of discretionary grants awarded and dollars ewarded
for those diseretionary grants—increasing the importance of ensuring that
its grantees are achieving intended results. Unfortunately, the lack of good
data from monitoring activities and impact evaluations leaves us with very
little basis to assess prograin results. Both VAWO and OJP have indicated
a commitment to making improvements, citing reorganization plans and
the anticipated management information system as the foundation for
improved grants management, including improvements in monitoring and
‘evaluation. But, reorganization and management information systems are
‘only toots and are only as good as the management that wields them.
Commitment to improvement and oversight are needed to ensure
progress.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, I would be pleased

to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee
may have.

raged Gaoarear


24

in support of S. 570, which would establish a permanent office in
the Department of Justice. My friend and former colleague on the
National Advisory Council of Violence Against Women Act, Diane
Stuart, and I, along with other members of our leadership group,
participated in preparation of a document entitled, “Establishing a
Permanent Office to Address Violence Against Women.” I believed
then and I conclude now that—and he lays out what it is.

But I want to make it clear to you that I do not cite that to you
as evidence of any change. You work for the President of the
United States; you work for the Attorney General.

Ms. Stuart. But I also still believe in a permanent office.

Chairman BIDEN. So what you signed on to, to establish a per-
manent Violence Against Women Office, you stil—

Ms. Stuart. It is where we are located that I think is the dif-
ference.

Chairman BIDEN. Got it. I see.

Okay, thank you very, very much. I appreciate your testimony.

Ms. Stuart. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman BIDEN. If there is anything you would like to conclude
with, you are welcome to.

Ms. Stuart. Only that I am so grateful for all the work that you
are doing. Your opening statement just shows such depth and
breadth of the understanding of this problem. If we could clone you
and take you all across the United States, I would love to do that.

Chairman BIDEN. Well, thank you. I am willing to go with you.

Ms. Stuart. I am not sure about the cloning, but do you want
to just go? [Laughter.]

Chairman BIDEN. No, we are not allowed to clone, and I think
it would be a real disaster for the United States to have two of me.
({Laughter.]

Ms. STuarT. Okay. You want to just go?

Chairman BIDEN. And my wife would not like it at all. [Laugh-
ter.]

But I thank you very, very much. I appreciate it very, very much.

Chairman BIDEN. Our second panel is made up of four very dis-
tinguished Americans.

The attorney general of the State of Georgia, who was introduced
by Senator Cleland, Thurbert Baker: He has been attorney general
of the State of Georgia since 1997. In 1999, he led the effort to
enact legislation to increase penalties for domestic violence offend-
ers and made it a crime to commit an act of domestic violence in
front of a child.

Attorney General Baker serves as chairman of the Violence
Against Women Committee of the National Association of Attor-
neys General and as an adviser to the Harrell Center for the Study
of Domestic Violence at the University of South Florida.

He holds degrees from the University of North Carolina and the
Emory University School of law.

And I welcome him here today.

Mr. Baker. Thank you.

Chairman BIDEN. Vincent J. Poppiti has been Chief Judge of the
Delaware Family Court since 1992 and since 1993 has served as
the chair of the State’s Domestic Violence Coordinating Council.


54

Appendix I: Number of Yearly VAWO
Discretionary Awards, Fiscal Years 1995-2000

rnb of Aare

p

eee ae ee ae)
aoa Ye

‘Soures: OJP Otca of he Compra.

Page oa0-02-6uT


63

Remember you said, Casey, when you got in the office and you
all of a sudden headed up in your attorney general’s office—is it
attorney general or DA?

Mr. Gwinn. It is actually the City Attorney’s Office.

Chairman BIDEN. The City Attorney’s Office. And all of a sudden
you had the violence against women, because you were the least
experienced guy.

Just like, as a public defender, I got to defend the Black Pan-
thers right out of the box. I mean, that was a great start, you know
what I mean? You know, no one else wanted it, right? And when
you work for the big law firms and before we had the Legal Aid
Society and we had the public defenders office, used to be, as the
judge will remember—we are contemporaries—that the large of-
fices would take a turn, round-robin, taking the criminal cases for
indigents. And they would go to the least qualified guy in the of-
fice—me, a member of the bar two days—and get complicated
cases. Well, you did the same thing in a different context.

Now, as a young Senator, I had the same experience. I got here.
I was 29 years old, got sworn in a couple days after, a month after,
I turned 30. And there was a big fight going on—it was on the
front pages of every newspaper in America—at the White House.
And it was about Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman. It had noth-
ing to do with Watergate. It had nothing to do with Watergate.

It had to do with who was going to get the office closest to the
President—literally, not figuratively. It was not a joke. And there
was this great fight.

And I remember thinking to myself, as a young, idealistic Sen-
ator, newly elected and eschewing not bureaucracy but probably or-
ganization charts—I came out of that generation which we thought
that was a burden, which I was wrong about.

But any rate, I remember looking at that and saying, “How ridic-
ulous. This is one of the reasons I ran. These guys down here are
so hidebound.”

And now I am chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and
I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee. And guess what I
found out? Whoever is the last guy the President speaks to is the
single most powerful person in the government. And it matters, if
you have the office next to the President. I promise you. I guar-
antee you.

Why are National Security Advisors so much more important, in
terms of influencing the President, than the Secretaries of State,
who are generally more qualified or higher profile? Their office is
in Foggy Bottom. Every morning, every morning, the National Se-
curity Advisor walks in and talks to the President.

Think of your own office. Whoever is the person closest to you
may not be the single most informed person, but when you are
about to make the decision, you have 6,000 things on your plate,
the last person you see has a tremendous impact.

Well, not only figuratively but literally speaking, if you do not
have the clout to walk across the hall, to walk up one floor, to
make the case, if not to the Attorney General, to the Deputy Attor-
ney General, the number two person, or at least the Associate At-
torney General, then you don’t get very far.




43

work must be done very carefully. The lives of whole families are in danger—this
really is a matter of life and death.

It is more important than ever that the Department of Justice provides leadership
and guidance, inspiration, and policy support for the local and state work on domes-
tic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Now, more than ever, states need a strong
Violence Against Women Office. It is only through this leadership that we one da)
will know for certain that week in the life of American women is no longer a weel
filled with violence.

Chairman BIDEN. Thank you very much, and I thank you for all
your work, Ms. Rosenthal. You have been doing it a long time.

Welcome. We are anxious to hear what you have to say, and the
floor is yours, Ms. Ekstrand.

STATEMENT OF LAURIE E. EKSTRAND, DIRECTOR OF JUSTICE
ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON,
DC

Ms. EKSTRAND. Thank you very much. These are very tough tes-
timonies to follow.

Chairman BIDEN. They are, but I just want to make it clear that
your testimony is very important, because all of our collective hard
work to gain public support for the expenditure of the monies,
which I thank Lynn for pointing out is the least important part—
important, but the least important part—of this, will not be sus-
tained unless we are doing it in a efficacious way. So we are anx-
ious to hear what you have to say.

Ms. EKSTRAND. Thank you very much. I appreciate being invited
to testify today about our recent work concerning the Violence
Against Women Office. This work is specifically related to the Vio-
lence Against Women Office discretionary grants program and is
part of a recent body of work concerning monitoring and evaluation
of grants by a number of units within the Office of Justice Pro-
grams.

Let me start with our findings concerning monitoring. Monitoring
activities are intended to help ensure that the funds awarded to
grantees are being spent as intended. As Senator Grassley indi-
cated, we reported in November 2001 that grant files for discre-
tionary grants awarded by the Violence Against Women Office
often lacked the documentation necessary to ensure that the re-
quired monitoring activities occurred.

Our recent review of a representative sample of grant files active
in fiscal years 1999 and/or 2000 showed that, first, grant files did
not always contain requisite grant monitoring plans, and when the
plans were present, little evidence was in the file to show that the
plan was followed.

In addition, a substantial number of grant files did not contain
progress and financial reports sufficient to cover the entire grant
period.

And finally, grant files did not always contain the required close-
out documents.

This lack of monitoring documentation hampers the Violence
Against Women Office’s ability to systematically determine staff
compliance with monitoring requirements and, perhaps even more
important, to measure overall performance.

In short, we concluded that neither the Office of Justice Pro-
grams, the Violence Against Women Office, nor GAO, can deter-


41

have been trained in the dj ics that keep women trapped in violent relation-
ships. These officers now leadership roles in efforts to end domestic violence
within their communities. Because of VAWA, legal assistance is available for women
fécing devastating fear of losing custody of their children to perpetrators. Because
of VAWA, more women are reaching out for help, seeking shelter, obtaining protec-
tive orders and are being treated with dignity and respect by law enforcement offi-
cers and others in the system. It was VAWA’s critical focus on victim safety and
offender accountability that brought about these important changes in our culture.

In retrospect, Congress conceived a brilliant formula for successful implementa-
tion of VAWA. Congress provided the states with critical funds and policy direction
through the state formula grants and discretionary programs such as the pro arrest
grants, rural, tribal, legal assistance to victims, research and training and technical
assistance programs that collectively comprise the Violence Against Women Act.

But there is another partner to thank in this work, a partner who often works
quietly but tirelessly to ensure that intent of Congress and the needs of victims are
never forgotten as the day-to-day work in the field continues. That partner is the
Violence Against Women Office.

First established as a high-level Office in Main Justice with full access to the pol-
icy-making and implementation functions of the Department, VAWO and its expert
staff created a national awareness about the impact of violence against women that
had never existed before. Within weeks of being appointed as the first director of
VAWO, Bonnie Campbell was inundated with requests for help and technical exper-
tise from the national and international leaders. Governors called, asking VAWO to
help them plan statewide strategies for addressing domestic violence, sexual as-
sault, and stalking. Leaders in government from other countries asked VAWO to
share the U.S’s groundbreaking legislation and methods with them. The Director
of VAWO was a leader of the U.S. delegation to the U.N. World Conference on
Women in Beijing.

These images of leadership greatly inspired the work of those of us on the
frontlines, many of whom had been struggling for many years with limited resources
and lack of public attention to the bruised and bleeding women we were seeing in
our programs every day. The vision of a Presidentially appointed, highly placed
spokesperson galvanized the work at the state and local level. State and local legis-
lators and policy makers were impressed with the strong commitment shown by the
Department of Justice to ending violence against women, and were inspired to be-
come leaders themselves in this battle.

The work of advocates at the state and local level was made easier and more ef-
fective because VAWO took on the equally important challenge of coordinating the
interagency work that VAWA mandated. Congress’ vision for ending violence
against women was broad. VAWA created numerous grant programs in DOJ that
required coordination with the grant programs in HHS, created new federal crimes,
established new federal immigration rights, required states to honor each other's
protection orders, established standards for the local issuance of protection orders
and arrests of perpetrators of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, and

wired state and local communities to come together in multidisciplinary efforts
to develop policy and strategies for dealing with violence against women.

The number of agencies and offices required to carry out these substantive re-
sponsibilities is stunning. VAWA’s mandates im the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the
INS, the FBI, HHS, the Civil and Criminal Division of DOJ, even parts of HUD,
Labor, and the Department of Defense. Leadership was needed to coordinate these
far-reaching implementation efforts, and VAWO stepped ably into that role, con-
vening the National Advisory Council (an unprecedented public and private partner-
ship of business, government, and public service sectors) and working with the var-
ious federal entities charged with the work of implementing VAWA. If VAWO had
not been there, it is hard to imagine how the demand for federal and state coordina-
tion, leadership, and policy guidance could have been met.

When VAWO was housed in Main Justice, the director and her staff were able
to work with other components of DOJ and other federal agencies to develop com-
prehensive policies regarding the implementation of VAWA. For example, the Full
Faith and Credit Provision of VAWA 1994 simply said that states shall Honor pro-
tective orders across state lines, The plain language of this provision did not explain
how a state would know another state's protective order is valid, nor did it say
whether or not a state must establish a protective order registry to implement this
law. These are the practical concerns of turning a visionary law into a reality.
VAWO led a collaborative effort that included the DOJ Office of Policy Development
and the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys to develop practical policy guidelines
that make it possible for all states, territories and tribes to make good use of the
Full Faith and Credit Provision of VAWA.



66

there is no appropriate comparison group and each grant location
is unique. Is that correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. That is right.

Chairman BIDEN. And to that end, your report recommends that
the National Institute of Justice reexamine its methodologies. And,
in fact, none of the report’s recommendations are aimed at the Vio-
lence Against Women Office. Is that correct?

Ms. EKSTRAND. In relation to evaluation, the recommendations
are for NIJ.

Chairman BIDEN. Yes. Okay, now, let me shift quickly, and I am
delighted that the single biggest supporter of this legislation just
walked in the door. I might point to all of you, even when we were
at a point where we were cutting budgets, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania was the guy in his capacity on the Appropriations
Committee that made sure, in the subcommittee he runs, that we
did not fail to fund what the act called for. And I thank him for
that. So I do not want to take a lot more time.

But let me move to you, if I may, General. Can you give me a
sense of what kind of help Georgia gets from the Violence Against.
Women Office, both in terms of grants and public policy?

Mr. BAKER. Well, obviously, the money side is of tremendous sup-
port to us. We get grant money from the VAWA office. We use
those dollars to support essential programs at the State level,
whether they are support programs to help victims of domestic vio-
lence and sexual assault or whether they are dollars to support
training of law enforcement. We use those dollars in a very, very
meaningful way.

But I would tell where we have seen the most help, and it is sort
of an intangible, and that is, when we see the support and the di-
rection and the leadership coming out of the national office, it has
a tremendous impact on what we are able to do at the State level.

Chairman BIDEN. One of the things that the Senator and I—and
he was a leader in this, Senator Specter—in a completely different
area, talking about juvenile justice, we talked about this notion of
repeat offenders. He has been way out in front of this for two dec-
ades or longer, three decades.

Senator SPECTER. Four decades.

Chairman BIDEN. Four decades. Well, I was not here for the
fourth of those decades, but three of the four of I was hanging out
with him.

Senator SPECTER. I became an assistant DA in 1959, when you
were in high school. [Laughter.]

Chairman BIDEN. That is exactly right. I was a sophomore going
into my junior year, and I was delighted you were doing the work.

But all kidding aside, here is where we were. We found, for ex-
ample, that we wanted a national office. We concluded that the one
thing the Federal Government can do better than any single state
is gather up all the resources around the country, bring in the best
people, examine the problem, and make recommendations that
states could pick and choose from as to whether or not they are ap-
plicable.

That is one of the functions that I have always pictured the Vio-
lence Against Women Office providing, that policy piece.


11

effectively changing the culture surrounding violence against
women.

It is only when this society truly understands the incredibly de-
bilitating and horrendous consequences of domestic violence, sexual
assault, and stalking that we have a real chance to end violence
against women.

Keeping the Violence Against Women Office within the Office of
Justice Programs will allow us to concentrate on developing the
programs and policies to address these violent crimes, while being
able to rely on the established, effective OJP infrastructure.

The collaborative nature of our work requires that we reach out
beyond the confines of our office to the offices, organizations, and
individuals who work with us every day to keep women safe and
hold offenders accountable.

We look forward to continuing this important work until the day
comes when there will no longer be a need for a Violence Against
Women Office.

And I thank you, Senator. And I am happy to take any questions.
1 ine prepared statements of Ms. Stuart and Ms. Daniel's fol-

lows:

STATEMENT OF DIANE STUART

Mr. Chairman, Senator Grassley, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you
for holding this important hearing today. In particular, Senator Biden, I want to
thank you for your strong leadership, your unwavering support and your commit-
ment on violence against women issues. Your work, and the dedication of other
Members of this committee, including Senator Hatch, have been instrumental in ac-
complishing unparalleled change and innovation in the areas of domestic violence,
sexual assault, and stalking.

T am Diane Stuart, Director of the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), which
currently administers 11 grant programs, provides related training, and a wide
range of technical assistance. In addition to grants management, VAWO staff serve
as expert resources on violence against women for the Office of Justice Programs,
the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies.

Our mission is to provide federal leadership in developing the nation’s capacity
to:

Reduce violence against women.

« Administer justice for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking.

2 Strengthen services to all victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and
stalking.

In other ‘words, our mission is exactly what Congress intended when it passed
VAWA and VAWA 2000.

Currently, there is a growing debate on just where the Violence Against Women
Office should be located. Some people tl that it should become an independent
entity within the Department of Justice. Others think it is more effective to kee
it within OJP. I am here to tell you that the Violence Against Women Office should
remain within OJP. It is not where the office is located that deserves our attention,
it is whether we have the structure, resources, and support necessary to help us
achieve our goal: to end violence against women. Let me tell you why.

The Violence Against Women Office currently has a budget of almost $400 million
and manages more than 1,200 active grants. As you can imagine, it is critical to
have the right resources in place to keep our operations running smoothly and effi-
ciently. And fortunately, due to the strong OJP infrastructure, we are able to do just
that. We rely heavily on the expertise of OJP’s su, offices, such as the Office
of the Comptroller for financial management, the Office of Budget and Management
Services for budget analysis, the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs for grant
notifications, and the Office of General Counsel for advice, counsel, and support in
carrying out our legislative mandates. Without the benefit of this infrastructure, we
would lose the seamless communication and collaboration that we currently enjoy.
Let me also explain it this way: the Violence Against Women Office currently has
43 employees. By being part of OJP, we essentially increase our person-power expo-



53

Appendix I: OJP Organization Chart

[
‘ca ofthe
Incian SAlaska |]. Agsieeant
an Sxtomey
Natve Afairs <7 Atormay
Beak
Giiew of Poice
(Corps & Law
Enforcement
‘Eduealion
L
fice of
‘onal
Puss
‘fais
1
‘Ofce for
Miata of
Came
‘oe: Te ergarzaon chart w curv ancl March 2002,
Soues: Prepared by GAO nated on OUP soeuartaon.
caooneaT


59

you would be coming.” After that, no matter what the question, the only visible re-
Sponse was one tear rolling down her right cheek as a counselor and social worker
tried to get to her to talk about all she had seen and experienced. By then, the fam-
ily was dealing with Child Protective Services, the Juvenile Court, hospital emer-
geney room personnel, psychologists, school authorities, the Criminal court, the Po-
fice Department, the Sheriff's Department, the Probation Department, a host of so-
cial service agencies, and countless coaches, teachers, friends, and neighbors.

T prosecuted him last summer and came away more determined than ever to pur-
sue multi-disciplinary efforts against domestic violence that bring together prever
tion and intervention professionals to address not just domestic violence but child
abuse, weapons possession, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, juvenile deli
quency, social service protocols, court protocols, medical protocols, prosecution po
cies and procedures, and law enforcement policies and procedures. The need for the
domestic violence movement to work closely with so many related professionals was
never clearer to me than it was after recently handling the criminal prosecution of
Michael Shields in San Diego, California.

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the pending legisla-
tion before you today. I am here to support the growing need for coordination, col-
laboration, and multi-disciplinary partnership in addressing domestic violence pre-
vention and intervention issues across the country. I strongly support the spirit of
both the Senate and House resolutions regarding the Violence Against Women Of-
fice (VAWO). On behalf of many in San Diego and around the country, thank you
for your advocacy and leadership over many years in the effort to stop ‘domestic vio-
lence. Senator Biden, I bring greetings as well from my dear friend, George
Mitrovich, the leader of the City Club in San Diego.

Over the last 17 years, I have been honored to be a part of the national domestic
violence intervention and prevention movement. I began prosecuting domestic vio-
lence cases in 1985 and ran one of the largest specialized domestic violence prosecu-
tion units in the nation from 1986-1996. be 1993, the National Council of Juvenile
and Family Court Judges chose the San Diego City Attorney's Domestic Violence
Unit as the model prosecution unit in the nation for the handling of domestic vio-
lence cases. Since 1986, I have been privileged to serve on the faculty of the Na-
tional College of District Attorneys and have trained police officers, prosecutors,
judges, and advocates in 45 states and two American Territories. Through the col-

laboration of many, San Diego has seen a 75 percent drop in domestic violence
homicides over the last 15 years. We now have one of the lowest domestic violence
homicide rates of any major city in America. And we have been greatly encouraged
over the years by the support of the Violence Against Women Act and all that has
followed from it.

Tam here this morning to support every aspect of both the House and Senate
version of the Department. of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, except tak-
ing the Violence Against Women Office out of the Office of Justice Programs. There
is a tremendous need to elevate the status of the work of the VAWO and to reinvigo-
rate a national focus on the importance of domestic violence issues. The legislation
before you today, with minor changes, will move us forward in that effort and the
House version can assist as well in that effort. But I do not believe that isolating
the VAWO away from the many related programs within the Office of Justice Pro-
grams will be beneficial in any way.

It is fair to say that today, across the country, those of us in the domestic violence
field are moving toward greater and greater inter-disciplinary coordination with law
enforcement, with the medical community, with juvenile justice programs, with re-
searchers in the field of domestic violence and with social service agencies working
in neighborhoods where domestic violence is often reported. Each of these types of
collaborations is facilitated within the current structure of the Office of Justice Pro-

ams. I know I speak on behalf of many who have nothing but praise and Support
fr the work of Diane Stuart since she became the Director of the VAWO. She is
building relationships within a structure that allows her to collaborate with so many
others who are crucial to the success of the domestic violence movement.

Last week, in San Diego, we founded the San Diego Family Justice Center, one
of the first comprehensive “one stop shop” approaches in the country to providin,
services to battered women and their children. One vision is to bring together al
those who provide prevention and intervention services to victims into one location.
The goal is to save victims countless hours and pain in traveling from agency to
agency for support services while increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of our
intervention work through the close collaboration of all those who work with victims
of family violence and their children. In Phase I, our vision is to bring together do-
mestic violence professionals including police officers, detectives, prosecutors, legal
advocates, victim advocates, medical professionals, probation officers, social service



13

services than every before. For example, in FY 1999 and 2000 alone, STOP fundin;
supported 4,370 separate projects, and 43 percent of all victims served with STOD
funds were in groups that were Previously underserved.

We are seeing innovation and collaboration that reflect the spirit of the Violence
Against Women Act. More interdisciplinary teams of law enforcement, advocates,
corrections, judges, and prosecutors are being developed throughout the country. In
my home state of Utah, STOP funds are used to provide a medical response team
that accompanies victims to the hospital. In California, experts from the sexual as-
sault field were added to the state’s STOP Task Force. In Ohio, state subgrantees
are required to target underserved populations, and now reach the hearing im-
paired, migrant workers, and Amish, as well as victims in rural Appalachia and the
African-American community in urban centers. And, the grant funding set-asides
have allowed us to expand services to so many Native American women.

‘These are but a few of the hundreds of ways in which our programs are beginning
to change women’s lives and the response of the criminal justice community to vio-
lence against women.

Second, the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women. The Na-
tional Advisory Committee was established in 1995 to provide guidance on imple-
menting VAWA. The Committee is chaired by the effective team of the Attorney
General and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and
is comprised of experts in the fields of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalk-
ing. I was Privileged to serve on this Committee as we developed a comprehensive

lan to end violence against women—Ending Violence Against Women: An Agenda

for the Nation. We also developed the Toolkit to End Violence Against Women, a
Web-based guide to assist communities and individual engaged in activities to end
violence against women. The charter for the Committee was recently renewed.

Third, Technical Assistance. VAWO’s Technical Assistance (TA) Program plays an
essential role in implementing VAWA. It is not a \ program that was created by stat-
ute, but one that we created first to provide all VAWA grantees with the expertise
and support they need to develop and implement successful projects. Our technical
assistance also allows us to reach the entire criminal justice system—law enforce-
ment, prosecutors, judges, courts, and state attorneys general—to provide them with
an ‘understanding ‘of the complexities of violence against women issues and the
knowledge to effectively respond to victims and enforce the laws. We consider TA
providers to be extensions of our staff. The TA Program helps to build the capacity
of local communities and national organizations to respond to and address these
horrendous and difficult crimes.

Fourth, Interaction. The day-to-day interaction of our staff with individuals within
OJP, within the Department of Justice, with other federal agencies, and with those
in the field is essential to presenting a comprehensive picture of how the Violence
‘Against Women Act is being carried out across the nation. Through all of these rela-
tionships, we gain knowledge that allows us to determine where our efforts should
be directed and to identify what programs are and are not working. Interaction with
individuals in the field, whether it be at a conference, during a phone call, or during
a visit, is infinitely valuable in the work we do and provides us with some of our
most useful information. Their ideas, suggestions, and criticisms keep us on the
right path, keep us current on what is happening in our communities, and offer us
a fresh perspective on issues we grapple with every day. This close collaboration be-
tween our Office and those working in research, policy, and practice, is in direct
support of the philosophy and spirit of the Violence Against Women Act. It is critical
to our mission.

We have established many ambitious priorities for our Office during the coming
year to help fulfill that mission.

Program sustainability is one of our priorities. Many of our grantees depend solely
upon VAWO funding to keep their Programs in operation. There will never be
enough money to support all current and future grantees. Therefore, it is imperative
that grantees begin thinking of ways in which their programs can continue to exist,
and even thrive, without dependence on federal funding. We now require all our
grantees to submit a sustainability plan in their proposals. In the near future I plan
to hold a focus group with practitioners in the field to discuss innovative ways in
which grantees can ‘think smarter about sustainability.

One of my priorities, which is strongly supported by Assistant Attorney General
Daniels, is to develop ways to improve our ability to measure the effectiveness of
VAWA grant programs. We want to know: Do they work? Are they producing the
outcomes that were originally intended? What is the impact of VAWA on commu-
nities? Are we really making a difference?

To this end, we have embarked on a special initiative to find the answers to these
questions. In conjunction with the Muskie School at the University of Southern



CONTENTS

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington ..
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa

WITNESSES

Baker, Hon, Thurbert B., Attorney General for the State of Georgia, Atlanta,
orgia :
Cleland, H a U.
Ekstrand, Laurie 'E., Director, Justice Issues, General Ac
Washington, D.C.
Gwinn, Casey, City y for go, San Diego, Californi
Poppiti, Vincent J., Chief Judge, Family ‘Court for the State oi
ilmington, Delaware
Rosenthal, Lynn, Executive Director,
Violence, Washington, D.C. .
Stuart, Diane, Director, Violence Against Women Office, Office of Justice
Programs, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

fational Network ‘To End Domestic

«ny

and
ode

26
43
56
33
38


34

“Deja, you said your mother tried to hide?”
“Mm-hmm.”

“What happened after she hid under the bed?”
“He walled er out. He pulled her out by her arm.”
“And then what happened?”

“He stabbed her. He started stabbing my mom.”

“What did you do?”

“T yelled ‘stop.’”

Mr. Chairman, and to the distinguished members of the sub-
committee, on behalf of the over 3 million children each year who
witness these horrific lesions of violence, learning its terrible les-
sons, and carrying its seeds into the next generation, and on behalf
of the over 1 million women who are battered each year by their
husbands or partners, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf
of this important piece of legislation.

This legislation will establish a permanent, independent Violence
Against ‘omen Office in the Department of Justice.

fy friend and former colleague on the National Advisory Council
on Violence Against Women, Director Stuart, and I, along with
other members of our leadership group, participated in the prepa-
ration of a document entitled “Establishing a Permanent Office to
Address Violence Against Women.” We believed then and I con-
clude now that a permanent, independent statutory Violence
Against Women Office and its Director will reflect the importance
that the Congress and the administration place on making the
elimination of violence against women a priority of the United
States Government and this country.

In President Bush’s letter accompanying his proclamation declar-
ing October 2001 as National Domestic Violence Awareness Month,
he stated, specifically citing statistics involving violence against
women: As a Nation, we must prioritize addressing the problem of
domestic violence in our communities each day of the year. We can
and must radically reduce and work to eliminate this scourge from
our land.

Referencing efforts on the part of federal, state and local govern-
ments, community leaders, health care professionals, teachers, em-
ployers, friends and neighbors, he said: These collective efforts will
contribute to peace in our homes, in our schools, in our places of
work, and communities, and will help ensure the future safety of
countless children and adults.

We believed then and I conclude now that the establishment of
an independent Violence Against Women Office will fulfill one of
the yet unrealized expectations of Congress, articulated in the re-
port “Safe Streets, Safe Homes” released by you, Senator, in Sep-
tember of 1999.

We believed then and I conclude now that the establishment of
an independent Violence Against Women Office will assure that
succeeding administrations continue to embrace and fully imple-
ment the provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, honoring
the urgent call to action issued by the National Advisory Council
on Violence Against Women in July of last year, namely: We must
end violence against women.

We believed then and I conclude now that the Violence Against
Women Office under the direct supervision of the Assistant Attor-


76

tic Violence and Child Victimization grant program, my state has trained state and
tribal judges ‘on how to identify and responsibly address cases of domestic violence.

While these programs represent successes, there is still much to be done. One of
the leading causes of hopelessness is domestic violence and, in the last two years,
the Seattle area has seen an average 16 percent increase in hopelessness. The Na-
tional Coalition Against Domestic Violence estimates that over 295,000 women—
women who had the courage to flee abusive homes—were turned away by shelters
in 2000 due to insufficient space, We must address this critical shortage and provide
these brave women and their children with safe and accessible housing.

We must devote the resources necessary to help domestic violence and sexual as-
sault survivors and prevent future violence against women. This is why I signed
onto Senator Biden’s request to fully fund these critical VAWA programs and it is
why introduced S. 2055, the Debbie Smith Act.

‘he Debbie Smith Act addresses the issue of sexual assault in two ways: by pro-
viding law enforcement the tools to track and convict sexual assailants and ensuring
that rape survivors are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

S. 2055 helps law enforcement by authorizing funding to carry out analysis on
crime scene samples and cross-reference DNA information with crime databanks.
And it ensures sexual assault survivors get top-quality care by funding training for
Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner or SANE nurses. I look forward to discussing this
important piece of legislation with my colleagues in the near future.

ain, I want to thank Senator Biden for chairing this hearing today and I look
forward to hearing expert testimony from our illustrious panel of witnesses.

(Whereupon, at 1:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

ie)


22

tainly went to the GAO report and took the lessons from that par-
ticular report. But what are we doing right? What are we doing
wrong? What can we do better?

That is part of the reorganization of our office, so that different
units—the arrest unit, for instance, would have more people look-
ing on that particular issue.

d grant monitoring is not so much—it is, of course, how a
grantee is utilizing the funds. Are they utilizing it in the way they
should? Are they accomplishing what they intended on doing? It is
really: Are the victims getting the services that they need? Is it ac-
complishing what was basically intended?

So it goes all the way down to the level of a victim. We are look-
ing at how we do business that way. Are we recording the kind of
monitoring that we do? Do we have to do a site visit for everyone?
Can we do a visit over the phone? Can we do another kind of visit?
Can we coordinate with the Office of Victims of Crime, for in-
stance? And as they do a site visit, they could take a look at our
grantee. And very often, they are the same grantee.

So there are many things that we are doing. We are also putting
together a database, so we can track where things are and who has
been seen and has not been seen and who has contacted.

So those three elements—coming up with an internal committee,
trying to look at the issues, coming up with a database to track
what is actually happening—and then the new configuration of
how we are doing business in the office, having more individuals
working on a particular program, are all three areas that I think
are going to improve what we are concerned with.

Senator GRASSLEY. My second question deals specifically with the
process that OJP is going through, of reorganizing to improve effi-
ciency and effectiveness of its entire program, not just the grant
part of it, as my first question applied to.

How will the reorganization impact your office? And what role
have you played in the development of the reorganization plan?
And, basically, how will it impact your office?

Ms. Stuart. I have been involved in many of the discussions re-
garding the reorganization of OJP. The impact will benefit us in
many different ways. We will stay as an independent office within
the Office of Justice Programs, so how we do business will pretty
much be the same, but we will receive the benefits of the abilities
of the entire organization to look at the streamlining, and grants
is a big part of it, how do they go through the system. Do we have
a uniform way?

Coming from a State, in the organization I was in way back, we
had, for instance, a Violence Against Women Act grant and we also
had a Victim of Crime grant. And both of those entities required
us to do different things at different times. Well, the OJP restruc-
ture will help us. “Okay, maybe I can just make one general type
of application, and then go this way with what I need here and this
way with what I need here.” So streamlining the application proc-
ess right there.

When I look at a solicitation, if I am going to go for the one for
the Violence Against Women solicitation, gosh, will it be anywhere
like the one for BJA or OVC or somebody else? Yes, it will be very


COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin. JON KYL, Arizona

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky

Bruce A. COHEN, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
SHARON Prost, Minority Chief Counsel
MaKaN DELRAHIM, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, lowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Mlinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky

GEORGE ELLARD, Majority Chief Counsel
Rira Lar, Minority Chief Counsel

aD


46

‘Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

‘Thank you for inviting me to testify about our recent work conceming the
Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). This work has specifically
focused on monitoring activities and impact evaluations related to VAWO's
discretionary grant programs and is part of a body of recent work
‘concerning monitoring and evaluation of grants by a number of Office of
Justice Program's (QJP) bureans and offices. Monitoring and evaluation
‘are the activities that identify whether programs are operating as intended,
‘whether they are reaching those that should be served, and ultimately
‘whether they make a difference. In other words, these are major elements
of assessing results. Our recent work has shown a.need for improvement,
in VAWO grant monitoring and in the evaluations that are intended to
assess the impacts of VAWO programs.

Background

‘VAWO was created in 1906 to carty out certain programs created under
the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.’ The Victims of Trafficking and
Violence Prevention Act of 2000 reauthorized most of the existing VAWO
programs and added new programs. VAWO's mission is to lead the
national effort to end violence against women, including domestic
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWO programs seek to improve
criminal justice system responses to these crimes by providing support for
law enforcement, prosecution, courts, and victim advocacy programs

across the country. In addition, programs are to enhance direct services
for vietims, including victimn advocacy, emergency shelter, and legal
services. VAWO also addresses violence against women issues
internationally, including working to prevent trafficking in persons. VAWO.
{s one of seven program offices and five bureans in OJP?

‘VAWO's discretionary grant programs have grown substantially since its
inception in 1995. Data provided by OJP showed that, between fiscal years

‘de TV ofthe Violent Crime Control and Taw Enforcement Act of 1904 PL. 103-822)
*P. 10086,
‘ovr’ fie bureaus are Bure of astice Asistance, Bureau of Justice Satis Naoral

Page? oxoo2sar


30

Domestic violence is primarily a crime against women and their children. Women
are 5 times more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than men.® Ap-
proximately 4.8 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpet-

against U.S. women annually compared to approximately 2.9 million intimate
partner physical assaults against U.S. men each year.* Domestic violence is not a
respecter of age, race, or income. Two thirds of elder domestic abuse and neglect
victims are women.”

‘The toll on our Nation’s health care system is astounding. Hospital emergency de-
partment data show that women are about 84 percent of those seeking hospital
treatment for international injury caused by an intimate assailant.® One out of 3
women in the hospital emergency rooms at any given time are there because of do-
mestic violence.Y Every year, domestic violence results in almost 100,000 days of
hospitalizations, almost 30,000 emergency department visits and almost 40,000 vis-
its to a physician."

‘Another victim of domestic violence is our Nation's economy. A survey of battered
women who were working at the time that their abuse occurred found that 56 per-
cent of the women surveyed reported that their partners had harassed them at work
hy telephone andor in person.!!

Tt is my belief that this problem tears at the very fabric of our society. It threat-
ens to pull apart the very glue that holds our way of life together, that glue being
the family structure.

Unfortunately, domestic violence is all too often a silent epidemic, eating away at
families while society turns a deaf ear to the tragedy that lies behind closed doors.
In our quest to keep up with the Jones’ on a material level, we miss the fact that
far too many Mrs. Jones’ are victims of violence in their own homes. No longer can
we sit back and accept the argument that domestic violence is a private family mat-
ter. It is, without a doubt, a very public crime that offends the core values of this
great Nation.

When this issue first came to the forefront ten to fifteen years ago, resources to
combat the problem were typically limited to marriage counselors, battered women’s
shelters, or the dedicated law enforcement official who didn’t look the other way or
chalk it up to the fact that the Jones’ were simply having a bad night. The problem
with these band-aid fixes, however, was that a counselor often was unable to fix the
root of the problem and women lacked the resources and support to make the break
after the reprieve of a shelter stay or a night in lock-up for their abuser.

Over the last decade I have also seen a tragic consequence that all too eften is
ignored in the traditional dialogue on domestic violence. I speak of the tragedy that
results when children witness acts of domestic violence.

The juvenile courts in Georgia are filled with delinquents who are themselves vic-
tims, having learned how to be a bully by watching their parents. As adults, these
innocent witnesses become abusers themselves, having learned how to beat their
wife at Daddy's knee.

As Chief Prosecutor in Georgia, I have taken a strong stand against domestic vio-
lence, both for the victims who walk among us with physical scars and those who
will carry their emotional scars as they grow up with our children’s children. In my

Across a Woman's Lifespan: The Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May

1999.
“Domestic Violence is primarily a crime against women and their children. Women are 5
times more likely to be victims of intimate partner violence than men. From the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, Female Victims of Violent Crime, December 1966.

© Approximately 4.8 mullion intimate partner rapes and physical assaults are perpetuated
against U.S. women annually compared to approximately 2.9 million intimate partner physical
assaults against U.S. men annually. Shepard, M. & Pence. E. (1998). The Effects of Batiering
on the Employment Status of Women, Affilia, Vol. 3. No.2. P. 58

i Two thirds of elder domestic abuse and neglect victims are women. From Violence by Lnti-
mates, Bureau of Justice Statistics Factbook, 1998.

*Hospital emergency department data indicate that women are about 84 percent of those
seeking hospital treatment for intentional injury caused by an intimate assailant, From
Rennison, C & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate Partier Violence. U.S. Department of Justice, Of-
fice of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. May, p. 2

One out of 3 women in the hospital emergency rooms at any given time are there because
of domestic violence. From the website Attp:/ /www.hsph.Harvard.edu ats/Aug11/. From Nancy
Issac and Pualani Enos’s report Medical Records as Legal Evidence of Domestie Violence

10Every year domestic violence results in almost 100,000 days of hospitalizations, almost
30,000 emergency department. visits and almost 40,000 visits to a physician. From National Coa-
lition Against Domestic Violence, 1993.

11 survey of battered women who were working at the time that their abuse occurred found
that 56 percent of the women surveyed reported that their partners had harassed them at work
by telephone and/or in person. From the Family Violence Prevention Fund, 1998,



39

have been trained in the dynamics of domestic violence. Because of
VAWA, we know that legal assistance is available to victims who
have had that devastating fear that they may lose custody of their
children. Because of VAWA, more women are reaching out for help,
seeking shelter, obtaining protective orders, and being treated with
dignity and respect by law enforcement officers and others in the
system.

It was VAWA’s critical focus on victim safety and offender ac-
countability that created this dramatic change in our culture. And
it was also the very important role played by the Violence Against
Women Office.

The Violence Against Women Office was first established as a
high-level office within main Justice. And within weeks of being
appointed as its first Director, Bonnie Campbell was inundate:
with requests from national and international leaders, state and
local government officials, to come out to their states and to their
communities and help them with their strategies to end violence
against women.

These images of leadership greatly inspired those of us on the
front lines, because we had been working for many years with lim-
ited resources and lack of public attention to the bruised and bleed-
ing women sitting in front of us every single day.

VAWA also took on the equally important challenge of coordi-
nating the interagency work that VAWA mandated. The truth is
that Violence Against Women Act was never about just the money.
It was never about just the money. It created new federal crimes.
It established protections for battered immigrant women. It re-
quired states to honor each other’s protective orders. And most im-
portantly, it brought people together to the table who had never

een together before to create multidisciplinary responses to end
violence against women.

The number of agencies and offices required to carry out these
responsibilities is stunning. VAWA’s mandates encompass the U.S.
Attorneys Office, the INS, the FBI, the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Civil and Criminal divisions of Department of
Justice, even HUD, Labor, and Department of Defense.

If VAWO had not been there in the beginning in this high-profile
status, it is hard to imagine how implementation of the Violence
Against Women Act ‘would have even begun.

When Violence Against Women Office was housed in main Jus-
tice, the Director and her staff were able to work with other compo-
nents of the Department of Justice and other federal agencies to
develop comprehensive policies for implementation. Providers in
the field and on the front lines welcomed this leadership.

When Violence Against Women Office moved to the Office of Jus-
tice Programs, the responsibilities of the office became more and
more focused on the technical aspects of grant-making and less on
the policy issues that emerge in these complex programs. This
trend seems to be continuing, and it is a cause for great concern
among advocacy groups.

If you remember that the services provided by the Violence
Against Women Act operate in the context of a complex system of
federal, state, local, and tribal laws, it is easy to see why policy de-
velopment i is just as important as grant-making.


25

A judge in Delaware since 1979, he holds degrees from Fordham
University and the University of Virginia. He is a trustee of the
Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware and a member of the
Leadership Committee of the National Advisory Council on Vio-
lence Against Women.

Among various other awards, Judge Poppiti received the first an-
nual William H. Rehnquist Award for Judiciary Excellence from
the National Center of State Courts and the Award for Excellence
for Health, Betterment and Prevention of Youth and Family Vio-
lence from the Delaware Public Health Association.

I want to thank you for joining us, Judge.

Judge Popriti. Thank you, Senator.

Chairman BIDEN. And since January of 2000, Lynn Rosenthal
has served as the executive director of the National Network to
End Domestic Violence, a membership organization that advocates
on behalf of the State’s domestic violence coalition that serves
2,500 local service providers. At the same time, she serves as the
director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence Fund,
which provides training, technical assistance, and resources to
those organizations.

A former director of the Florida Coalition on Domestic Violence,
she has helped to develop two innovative service delivery models
for rural legal assistance. In 1988, she received the Governor's
Peace at Home Award, given to an advocate who has made a dif-
ference in the lives of battered women and their children.

She holds degrees from Florida State University. And we worked
with one another before, and I welcome her here.

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you.

Chairman BIDEN. Laurie Ekstrand has worked for the General
Accounting Office for 17 years, with 7 years on justice issues.

Her professional career also includes several years as a consult-
ant and a year at the World Bank. She holds a B.A. from the Uni-
versity of Maryland and a M.S. and Ph.D. from Florida State Uni-
versity.

Florida State is well-represented here today. [Laughter.]

Florida generally is represented here today.

And she has taught program evaluation at American University
and internationally.

We look forward to her testimony as well.

Last but not least, Casey Gwinn has been the attorney general
of the City of San Diego—my favorite city outside of Delaware—
since December of 1996.

It is my favorite. New Orleans is the only city in America out of
America that I like that well. But San Diego is a magnificent city.

Prior to his election, he headed the city’s domestic violence unit
for 9 years, receiving recognition from the Governor's Office for ag-
gressive prosecution, even when victims were unable or unwilling
to participate.

In 1989, he was instrumental in founding the San Diego Task
Force on Domestic Violence.

His record in law enforcement reflects a commitment to inter-
vening when offenses are at the misdemeanor level, in hopes of
preventing more serious crime. That effort has been rewarded in


Chairman BIDEN. Thank you.

Ms. STUART. As you have said, my name is Diane Stuart, and I
want you to know how proud I am to be currently serving as the
Director of the Violence Against Women Office. VAWO, as it is af-
fectionately referred to, currently administers 11 grant programs
today, provides related training, and oversees a wide range of tech-
nical assistance.

In addition to the grants management, the VAWO staff serve as
expert resources on violence against women in many ways for the
Department of Justice and for other federal agencies. Our mission
is to provide federal leadership in developing the Nation’s capacity
to reduce violence against women, and to administer justice and
strengthen services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault,
and stalking.

In other words, I think our mission is exactly what Congress in-
tended when it passed Violence Against Women Act and Violence
Against Women Act of 2000.

As you have said, there is a growing debate on just where the
Violence Against Women Office should be located, and this hearing
is appropriately about that discussion, and I am grateful for it.

May I clearly tell you that the Violence Against Women Office,
I believe, should remain within the Office of Justice Programs in
the Department of Justice.

I strongly believe that it is not where the office is located but
whether we have the structure, the resources, and the support nec-
essary to help us achieve our goal, ultimately, to end violence
against women.

As you have said, the Violence Against Women Office now has
a budget of almost $400 million and manages more than 1,200 ac-
tive grants. So it is really critical to have the right resources to
keep our operations running smoothly and efficiently.

Fortunately, due to the strong OJP, Office of Justice Programs,
infrastructure, we are able to do just that. We rely heavily on the
expertise of OJP’s support offices, such as the Office of the Comp-
troller for financial management, the Office of Budget and Manage-
ment Services for budget analysis, the Office of General Counsel for
advice, counsel, and support in carrying out our legislative man-

ites.

Let me also explain it this way: The Violence Against Women Of-
fice currently has 43 employees. But, as part of OJP, we have di-
rect support of nearly 300 staff employees.

Policy, as you have said, is the common thread woven into abso-
lutely everything that we do: through our solicitation development,
through our grant management, through the administration of
technical assistance, and through communication to the field. Much
of this work requires close collaboration with other Office of Justice
Programs bureaus and other federal agencies, such as the Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services and the Department of De-
fense, to help design programs and policies that support violence
against women issues.

For example, we are currently working closely with the Office for
Victims of Crime on the development of trafficking-in-persons solic-
itation. We also work closely with the National Institute of Justice


61

I want to make it clear: My concern with the Office of Justice
Programs is, their primary responsibility is to deal with things that
Dr. Ekstrand has to look at for us. And that is, is the money they
distribute being properly awarded, monitored, and efficacious? And
they have a whole bunch programs within their division.

The organizational chart—I thought we had these blown up, and
I apologize.

Do we have any extra copies of these? Bring them down and
hand them to the witnesses, if you have them.

If you look at the OJP organizational chart, there are all these
boxes in here. Now, there are a lot of very important functions.
There is the American Indian and Alaskan Native Affairs Desk.
There is the Equal Employment Opportunity Office. Then, under
the Office of Assistant Attorney General, is the Violence Against
Women Office, Corrections Program Office, Drug Courts Office.

And I am going to make a case here. I am the guy that wrote
the law on drug courts federally, which we copied from the State
of Florida and other states. I am not making the case that drug
courts should be in a different category. Just so you all know, not
everything that I had something to do with am I suggesting be
standing out here as a separate entity.

Also is the executive office of Weed and Seed, the Office of Do-
mestic Preparedness, the Office of Police Corps and Law Enforce-
ment Education, the Office of Budget and Management Services,
the Office of Administration, the Office for Civil Rights, the Office
of the Comptroller, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Con-
gressional and Public Affairs, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Of-
fice for Victims of Crime.

Now, they are all within that same OJP organizational chart.
Now, I do not care how brilliant and how good and how profound
the leader of that office is. That is an awful lot.

As we have all been saying, one of the important pieces of this
is to make sure that the profile of violence against women is up
there with the drug fight we are fighting, up there with law en-
forcement effort we are making in terms of the number of cops in
America, et cetera. It has got to, in my view, the profile piece.

I was not being facetious when I said I learned a long time ago—
and it applies not just to women’s issues; it applies to every issue—
if you want to know how important a thing is, show me where it
is in your organizational chart. Show me where it is. Show me
whether or not this is the thing that makes your heart beat. Show
me this is the thing that really makes it move.

And my problem with this is not the caliber of the people here,
but the ability, for example, when you are within this office, one
of the things you cannot do in this town, as a Director of the office,
and I agree the Director is first-rate, and I am not being solicitous.
I sincerely mean that.

She cannot now, like she could in the previous administration,
walk down the hall and knock on the Attorney General’s door and
say, “General, what the hell are we doing here? Why are we doing
this? What the heck are we doing? Why are we doing this?”


47

1995 and 2000, the yearly number of VAWO discretionary grant awards

increased about 362 percent—from 92 in fiscal year 1996, the first full year
of funding, to 426 in fiscal year 2000. In addition the yearly dollar amount
of VAWO discretionary grant awards increased about $40 percent—from
Just over $12 million in fiscal year 1996, the first full year of funding, to
‘about $125 million in fiscal year 2000. Appendix It shows the number of
yearly VAWO discretionary grant awards for fiscal year 1995 through fiscal
‘year 2000, Appendix {ff shows the doliar amount of VAWO discretionary
grant awards, adjusted to constant fiscal year 2000 dollars, over the same
period.

Problems with VAWO
Discretionary Grant
Monitoring

"The monitoring of grant activities is a key management tool to help ensure

reported that grant files for discretionary grants awarded by VAWO often
lacked the documentation necessary to ensure that the required
monitoring activities occurred.‘ Our review of grant files for a
representative sample of VAWO discretionary grants active in all of fiscal
‘years 1999 and/or 2000 showed that:

+ VAWO grant files did not always contain requisite grant monitoring
plans, When monitoring plans were in the files, grant managers did not
consistently document their monitoring activities, such as site visits,
according to the plans they developed.

+ A substantial number of VAWO grant files did not contain progress and
{financial reports sufficient to cover the entire grant period, contrary to
‘OJP guidelines, Furthermore, VAWO grantee progress and financial
reports were often submitted late by grantees, These reports are art
important tool to help managers and grant monitors determine if
grantees are meeting program objectives and financial commitments.

+ VAWO grant files did not always contain the required closeout
documents—key documents by which OJP ensures that, among other
things, the final accounting of federal funds have been received.

‘We also found that, because documentation about monitoring activities
‘was not readily available, VAWO was not positioned to systematically
determine staff compliance with monitoring requirements and asses

“US. General Accounting Office, Justice Disoretionary Grants: Byrne Program and
Violence Against Women Office Grant Monitoring Should Be Better Documented,
GA0-22-£25 (Washington, D.C. Nov. 28, 2001),

Page Ga0-02-881T


49

develop new measures and hope to have them available for the fiscal year
2003 performance plan.

It is also important to note that VAWO's efforts to address grant
‘monitoring problems need to be viewed in the context of OJP efforts in
this area. Our recent related reports discussed grant monitoring problems
at other OJP organizations, such as the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BIA)
and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (OJJDP),
and pointed out that, over the last few years, we and others, including OJP,
have identified various grant monitoring problems among OJP bureaus
and offices, We discussed how OJP had begun to work with bureaus and
offices to resolve some of the problems it and others have identified,
including OJP efforts to develop an automated grants management system
28 a way to standardize and streamline the grant process.

(Our report concluded that OJP efforts to automate the grant management
process, particularly in regard to grant monitoring, holds some promise if
OJP takes steps to ensure that all monitoring activities are consistently
recorded and main‘ained in a timely manner. We also sald that current and
future efforts will be futile unless OJP and its bureaus and offices, such as
‘VAWO, periodically test grant manager compliance with OJP requirements
and take corrective action when needed to enforce thase requirements,
We recommended that OJP (1) study and recommend ways to establish an
approach to systematically test or review grant files to ensure consistent
documentation across OJP and (2) explore ways to electronically compile
and maintain documentation of monitoring activities to facilitate more
consistent documentation, more accessible management oversight, and
sound performance measurement.

In January 2002, in response to our report, the assistant attomey general
said that OJP agreed that It needs to develop more

documentation of monitoring activities. She said that among other things,
(OGP has created a chief information officer position charged with planning
‘and implementing an agencywide grant management system. According to
the assistant attomey general, the new system is envisioned to produce
reports in response to informational requests, provide information
pertaining to grantees and all resources provided by OJP, and maintain

{S.Gerara Acrunting Offs, noni Justo: OAIDP Raortng Requires fr
Discretionary and Formula Grantees and Concerns About Evaluation Studies, GAO-02-
28 (Washington, D.C: Oct 80, 2001)

Page 4 caoeaT


12

nentially. As an office that manages an extraordinary number of discretionary
grants (as opposed to formula grants), which adds to the complexity of our oper-
ation, we consider this support to be a true benefit of remaining within OJP.

Much of the work conducted by our office is what may be considered “policy”
work. I have recently renamed that unit in our office, “the Communication and
Analysis Unit,” which I think more accurately describes the work we do there. “Pol-
icy” is the common thread that is woven into everything that we do: solicitation de-
velopment; grant management; the administration of technical assistance; and com-
munication to the field. Much of this work requires close collaboration with OJP and
other federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Department of Labor, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense to
develop and enhance programs and policies on violence against women. For exam-
ple, we are currently working with our OJP partner, the Office for Victims of Crime
(OVC), on the development of OVC’s trafficking-in-persons solicitation, a project that
requires frequent contact and consultation between our two offices. We also work
closely with the National Institute of Justice on developing sound and reliable ways
to measure the effectiveness of VAWA programs. At the same time, NIJ depends
on us to provide expert feedback on their violence against women research initia-
tives. We are currently working wit e Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention on the OJP reentry initiative, to help determine the role that violence
against women issues play in the return of offenders to the community after incar-
ceration. We will also work with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) with man-
aging some BJA grants involving development ‘of domestic violence programs.

‘AWO also collaborates with other OJP offices and bureaus to coordinate the grant
application peer review process and to implement the President’s faith-based initia-
tive. The point I am trying to make is that, although there are numerous bureaus
and offices within OJP, in practice, we operate as one entity because of the benefits
we reap from working toget er.

The Violence Against Women Act established coordinated, community responses
to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking crimes. Based on the results we
are seeing in the field, there is no doubt that a coordinated community response is
the best approach for achieving lasting and effective results. Strong partnerships
and vigorous coordination must be present at the federal, state, local and tribal lev-
els in order for real change to occur. We also believe this is true for the Violence
Against Women Office and OJP. OJP’s primary goal is to provide the tools to en-
hance communities’ ability to respond to local crime problems. Therefore, it makes
perfect sense for the Violence Against Women Office to continue working under the
auspices ‘of OJP where the complementary nature of our missions and goals can be
further enhanced and promoted.

The Violence Against Women Office has made amazing progress since the passage
of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. Where at one time there were onl
handful of experts on violence against women, there are now hundreds of profes-
sionals from all areas of the criminal justice system who have the expertise to edu-
cate and train law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, advocates and others in the
field on how to respond to domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. VAWO
staff are no longer the only experts, instead, we are increasingly able to link other
expert resources with projects in need of guidance. Groups such as the Battered
Women’s Justice Project, Praxis International, and the National Training Center on
Domestic and Sexual Violence provide the hands-on training to states and localities
that need assistance to get new programs off the ground. Organizations such as the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the American Probation and Parole As-
sociation, and the National District Attorneys’ Association have created initiatives
to help their members develop specialized knowledge on topics such as police re-
sponse to domestic violence, batterer intervention, and the creation of domestic vio-
lence courts. The Violence Against Women Office serves as the national vehicle for
coordinating these pivotal resources and offering guidance and consultation on
promising practices.

We use various “tools” to carry out our mission and stay closely connected with
the field. These tools include our grant programs, the National Advisory Committee
on Violence Against Women, our technical assistance initiatives, and frequent inter-
action with our grantees and myriad experts across our nation. I'd like to explain
each of these tools in greater detail.

First, VAWA Grant Programs, VAWO currently administers 11 grant programs.

ugh our grant programs, funds are provided to various organizations and state
and local government agencies to create and enhance services and training on do-
mestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Though these programs are all quite
new, with STOP having the longest funding history—eight years—the programs
have already produced remarkable results. We are reaching more women with more