Penny-Wise and Pound-Foolish: Proposed Funding Cuts for Response to Violence Against Women

@RHRealityCheck

This week, Senators Leahy and Crapo introduced a bill to reauthorize and amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a federal law first enacted in 1994.

This is mostly good news. The VAWA mandates federal funding for victim assistance and transitional housing, strengthens provisions to penalize offenders, and requires states to provide a certain level of services with a view to preventing violence from occurring in the first place.

The bad news is that the proposed bill substantively slashes the funding for the implementation of the bill, reducing the authorized funds by more than $144 million (almost 20 percent) of 2005 levels over 5 years.

To be sure, the federal government has to save quite a lot more than $144 million to overcome its spending deficit, and Senator Leahy justified the cuts by reference to heightened efficiency through the consolidation of services.  But if it is indeed possible to consolidate services and do more with less, would it not have been appropriate to ask, first, if the current funding levels adequately cover current needs?

To start with, it is clear that violence against women in the United States has not gone away these past 20 years.  The Centers for Disease Control estimate that 25 percent of women in the United States experience domestic violence some time in their lives, and that adult women experience over 5 million instances of violent assault annually.

Adolescents—even young adolescents—are also affected.  Over 70 percent of our 7th and 8th graders report they are “dating,” and in a 2009 survey published by the Centers for Disease Control about 10 percent of students overall reported being physically hurt by someone they were dating.

In addition, the economic downturn has substantially affected women’s ability to leave abusive relationships. In the best of times, women who want to leave an abusive partner worry about finding employment and housing, especially if they also need to provide for children.  During economic crises, these concerns increase dramatically and are exacerbated by the fact that governmental and non-governmental service providers usually face funding crises of their own and may have had to cut services. 

In 2008, the National Network to End Domestic Violence found that, on one day alone, almost 9000 requests for services went unmet because of lack of resources.  In 2009, that number had increased by 300.

The National Domestic Violence Hotline, set up by VAWA, reported that calls to the hotline increased by over 19 percent in the 12 months after the September 2008 market crash.

The director of the government’s Office on Violence Against Women testified before the Senate Committee of the Judiciary in May 2010 that, between the first quarter of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009, one shelter alone reported a 44 percent increase in persons sheltered, a 74 percent increase in crisis response, and a 124 percent increase in calls requesting shelter

But most pointedly, domestic violence costs society a lot more than the $144 million the introduced bill would save by downsizing responses to it.  Those 5 million assaults on women annually resulted in nearly 2 million injuries, of which more than half a million required medical attention, the Centers for Disease Control estimated in 2003.  Victims of domestic violence lost nearly 8 million work days and 5.6 million days of productivity due to violence.

In all, assaults on women cost almost $6 billion every year. Because these estimates are based on rates of violence before the current economic crisis, the true cost may well be higher today

In other words: the bill proposes to cut $144 million over 5 years from services that seek to remedy a problem which, even with the current government involvement, will cost society about $30 billion over that same period.

Some might say that estimates about the cost of intimate-partner violence are notoriously unpredictable, that the federal government truly is broke, or that the proposed cuts really do reflect a consolidation of services that will result in more efficient use of funds. But even if they were right, that would not take away from the fact that domestic violence is a continuing, costly, and consistently underserved problem.

Cutting federal funds for dealing with it is not only bad news, it is a bad idea.

How Not to Address Teen Pregnancy

This past weekend, New Zealand found itself in the midst of a loud public debate over the case of a  teenager who procured an abortion with the support of her school counselor, without  informing her parents. The parents were angry, and much was said about the ethics, propriety, and legality of the situation.

The main issue was not whether abortion should be legal there (it is) or whether the state may be justified in limiting access (it  does).  The question was whether parents have a right to interfere with (or at least know about) their daughter’s decision.  New Zealand law says they don’t.  In the United States, over 40 state legislatures and the Supreme Court have come to the opposite conclusion.

In the United States, as in New Zealand, the arguments for parental involvement laws include an assertion that they contribute to lower teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, and that they improve family communication.  There is no evidence to support this. The clearest documented impact in the United States of these laws has been an increase in the number of minors traveling outside their home states to get abortions in states that don’t mandate parental involvement or  have less restrictive laws.

Moreover, the American Academy of Pediatrics has noted that parental involvement laws don’t  promote family communication, though  they  increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.  In fact, most teenagers who seek abortions—in particular younger teens—voluntarily seek their parents’ involvement, regardless the law.  And research has shown that adolescents who are strongly opposed to informing parents for fear of a negative or coercive response tend to predict family reactions accurately.

A stronger argument for parental involvement is that an abortion is a serious medical procedure, and the child should be able to count on her family for support. This is indisputable.  What is under dispute in the recent debate in New Zealand—and what should be under dispute in the United States—is whether these laws help increase that support, or whether they can have the opposite effect.  Just because the US Supreme Court has said that parental involvement laws are constitutional doesn’t mean they are helpful either in preventing pregnancy -- or in helping a young girl who finds herself pregnant.

Many American politicians decry the US teenage pregnancy rate, which is roughly three times the rates in  Germany and France, more than four times  the Netherlands rate, and 50 percent higher than New Zealand’s. 

There are good reasons to seek to prevent teenage pregnancy. First of all, early pregnancy can have adverse physical health consequences.

And having to care for  a child affects access to education, employment, and public life for the young mother—and perhaps for her baby as well. Changes in the mother’s life from an unplanned pregnancy can be surprising and even oppressive. And teenage pregnancies are more often than not unintended.

There are plenty of good answers to what to do about high teenage pregnancy rates. They include ensuring that teenagers both know how to prevent pregnancies (scientifically based sex education) and have access to the means to do so (modern contraception).  There are also more intangible factors, such as positive body image for girls, policies that promote gender equality, and greater openness about sex. Studies have shown that countries that score high on all of these points tend to have lower levels of teenage pregnancy and in many cases abortion.

The United States has a long way to go to ensure access to age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education and modern contraception, and US teens could certainly use support in developing positive notions of their bodies, gender equality, and healthy sexuality.

But rather than investing in these areas, state legislatures are marching forward with more and more legal restrictions on access to information and abortions, including parental notification or consent,  and mandatory waiting periods and sonograms.  These laws are heavy in government intervention and  don’t deter teen pregnancies.   

US legislatures would be better off considering what policies would best protect the rights of the pregnant girl to have the health information and services she needs, to be consulted and heard in matters that concern her, and to have her best interests protected by the state. These questions were raised this weekend in New Zealand.  It is high time they are raised in the United States as well.