Resource Discrepancies for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: The Effect of Different Policies and Programs Within Ohio
Loading...
Date
2018-05
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
The Ohio State University
Abstract
Introduction/Background: As per the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, "1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have been victims of [some form] of physical violence by an intimate partner within their lifetime" (2018). Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence (IPV), is defined as "a pattern of behaviors used by one partner to maintain power and control over another partner in an intimate relationship" (National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2018). IPV is a widespread, epidemic; so, professionals must advocate for these services to help combat it. Ohio House Bill 392 "extends domestic violence protection to intimate partners" (2017). This requires IPV service providers, resources, and shelters to be held responsible for serving survivors who may not be in a traditional partnership. Furthermore, the Ohio Legislative Budget for 2017, 2018, and 2019 did not allocate any funding towards IPV service providers or resources, with the exception of a couple of organizations. Without a line item in the state budget, IPV organizations may have less access to funding and resources, which may limit political advocacy and legislative change. Most existing studies focus on intersectionality's impact on access and quality of IPV services are qualitative and use personal narratives from women who navigated the reporting system and community resources, with attention to help-seeking behaviors (Keeling et al., 2016; MacDowell & Cammett, 2016). More attention is paid to survivors' experiences with the criminal justice system and why women will not leave a relationship, but the existing literature lacks information on the impact of policy on other domestic violence resources and services (Messing et al., 2015). Research is lacking, however, on how policies effect resource distribution throughout Ohio. Methods: This qualitative cross-sectional study provides firsthand accounts from IPV organizations throughout the state by conducting 30-minute phone interviews. The executive director of Theresa's Fund provided the study with data on the 93 different organizations throughout Ohio's 88 counties. An online random generator picked 30 organizations, 21 of which were emailed and 9 were contacted by an online submission form. Out of those 17 that responded, 7 interviewed, 5 declined, and 5 did not respond to follow-up emails. The 7 verbally consented to a phone interview and to being recorded. The average time interviews took was 31 minutes. Participants received no compensation and could cease interviewing or skip questions at any time. Results: After analyzing the interviews, results show that organizations were on two extremes. Some of which displayed awareness of legislation and provided policy feedback; on the other hand, others rarely following policies at the state-level and offered no policy suggestions. Organizations were also split on with some citing difficulty collaborating with other counties, whereas others claimed the opposite. Significant gaps in services include affordable housing, legal and court services, ADA compliant facilities, diverse staff, and drug treatment. The literature discussed all of those except for ADA compliancy. Conclusion: Policy implications may include creating a line item in the state budget or levies to provide a stable source of funding so that these organizations do not need to spend precious time and resources applying for grants and funding streams and can better care for clients. Organizations who have the time and resources to engage in advocacy better understand current state policies and their impacts. Practice implications may include recruiting and hiring diverse staff to ensure that there is representation. Practice implications may include a focus and training on successful collaborations with other service organizations in order to lessen the gap in services mentioned.
Description
Runner-up College of Social Work
Keywords
domestic violence, intimate partner violence, policy