Pamela Whitney and Lonna Davis, Child Abuse and Domestic Violence in Massachusetts: Can Practice Be Integrated in a Public Child Welfare Setting?, 4 Child Maltreatment 158 (1999).

Massachusetts was the first public child welfare agency in the country

to develop an internal domestic violence program to better identify and

serve families where partner abuse and child abuse overlap. This article

chronicles the development of the program, from the hiring of battered

women's advocates to the implementation of statewide domestic violence

protocols for investigators and social workers. Issues of case identification,

risk assessment and safety planning are discussed in detail. Challenges

faced by battered women's advocates in child welfare setting are presented

as well as future directions for the program.

 

The Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS), the state's public

child welfare agency, began looking at the problem of domestic violence

in the late 1980s. Susan Schechter, then program director of AWAKE, an

advocacy project for battered women at Boston Children's Hospital, urged

DSS to consider hiring a battered women's advocate to assist DSSinvolved

battered women and their children. AWAKE had worked to prevent placement

of children in domestic violence cases by helping mothers to seek safety

and support (see Schechter with Mihaly, 1992).

 

DSS was facing the rising problems of substance abuse, particularly cocaine

abuse, and domestic violence. Departmental anxiety was heightened by the

death of a small child at the hands of his mother's boyfriend. The boyfriend

was unknown to DSS at the time of the murder, and it was later discovered

that the boyfriend had seriously physically abused the mother as well as

the child. This tragedy prompted an informal screening of open case records,

which revealed a 33% domestic violence incident rate (Herskowitz, 1991).

Compounding the problem, battered women's shelters, which received the

majority of their funding from DSS in Massachusetts, blamed DSS for victimizing

women by removing their children or forcing them to flee into shelters

or seek restraining orders. DSS social workers argued that the needs of

children witnessing or experiencing violence were being overlooked by battered

women's programs.

 

In 1990, DSS moved to address the overlapping problem of domestic violence

and child abuse by making basic domestic violence training mandatory for

all new workers and by hiring a battered women's advocate into the department's

Family Life Center (FLC), a statewide, multidisciplinary assessment and

intensive family-based services model. New funding was provided to the

shelter community for services for battered women and their children.

 

INTEGRATING BATTERED WOMEN'S ADVOCATES INTO A CHILD PROTECTION SETTING

 

 

The first DSS-funded battered women's advocate focused on providing consultation

to four FLC teams comprising physicians, psychologists, nurses, substance

abuse specialists, and other staff. FLC social workers carried reduced

caseloads (4 families instead of 20) and had immediate access to the advocate

and other team members. Families referred to these teams were considered

multiproblem; there were serious abuse and neglect allegations, the case

usually lacked direction or movement, and it often bordered on court action.

The advocate provided consultation to the team and to the referring social

worker at the point of intake in an effort to identify domestic violence.

 

 

A study of the first 6 months after the introduction of a battered women's

advocate showed that 71% of the cases referred to the FLC involved domestic

violence and that 50% of those cases were not identified as having domestic

violence as a factor prior to the advocate's involvement (Graves-Roddy,

1991).

 

Beyond the identification of domestic violence, the advocate was charged

with working collaboratively with the FLC social workers to interview mothers,

assess risk to both children and their mothers, assist with safety planning,

and link families to community resources. Two important themes emerged

during these early years that have guided and sustained the department's

domestic violence initiative:

 

1. Battered women's advocates and the philosophies underlying their work

can become an integral part of child welfare practice given adequate time,

training, staff support, and resources.

 

2. Accurate identification of domestic violence can create an appropriate

framework for intervention.

 

Domestic Violence Advocates as Integral to Child Welfare

 

In the beginning, the sole advocate had to work diligently and diplomatically

to be heard. Each time a case was presented, she had to ask the same questions

in an attempt to bring to light the dynamics of the relationship between

the adult partners in the home and to uncover concerns about the safety

of family members and the intervening social worker. Child welfare workers,

who have been trained to look to psychologists and others with advanced

degrees for advice, often ignored the input of the advocate or challenged

her theoretical knowledge base. Sometimes she would be called on to gain

a battered mother's trust so DSS would know "the truth" about what was

happening in the family.

 

Intervention and safety planning that included the mother was viewed as

either irrelevant or idealistic. Furthermore, team discussions about mothers

often turned quickly to what the worker viewed as the woman's pathology,

her participation in her abuse, her lack of concern for protecting her

children, her repeated choice of abusive partners, and so on.

 

Over time and through the experience of sharing cases, the battered woman's

advocate became an accepted and valued team member. Team members learned

from working together that children could be protected through safety planning

with mothers. An open examination of conflicting approaches and differing

philosophies built trust. This trust helped to dispel myths about the motives

of the battered women's advocate. She was finally accepted as being concerned

about mothers and their children, not simply mothers. Social workers, armed

with additional knowledge and resources, tested newfound strategies for

helping children who were living in violent homes. They were able to approach

mothers in a more empathic manner and create an environment of trust and

mutual concern for the safety of the victims within the family.

 

Accurate Identification of Battered Women

 

Domestic violence is often overlooked in child protection cases. Once a

family is labeled as sexually abusive or neglectful, familiar labels in

child welfare practice, the presence of domestic violence is overlooked

as a critical factor causing harm or risk of harm to children. In sexual

abuse cases, mothers may be suspected of colluding with perpetrators, of

not believing children's disclosures, of being uncooperative and/or resistant

to services. In neglect cases, mothers exhibit symptoms of depression or

substance abuse; they appear overwhelmed and unorganized. Many of these

cases are chronic; they have been in the child welfare system for years

and have received a myriad of social services without any significant improvement.

 

 

Although the above indications may accurately depict neglect and abuse

case scenarios, they may also be symptomatic of domestic violence. There

are countless examples of this in practice, but the following story remains

the most poignant:

 

A married pregnant mother of 12 children had been involved with DSS for

over 9 years. Each child protection report alleged neglect of the children

by their mother. During the life of the case, several children had been

adopted, the majority of the children were or had been in foster care,

and three were left in her custody. Numerous services had been tried with

marginal success. Many social workers came and went. No worker knew this

woman was a victim of severe domestic violence. No worker knew she was

raped after every beating by her husband. No one knew this woman's children

were physically beaten with planks of wood for trying to protect her. No

one knew she was beaten with planks of wood for trying to protect them.

Ten years into the case, the mother was interviewed by a battered women's

advocate for the first time. When she was asked if she was safe in her

relationship, she replied "Why do you care about me now?" Once the domestic

violence was uncovered, the advocate was able to engage the mother in safety

planning and work with the criminal justice system to decrease the father's

access to the family. The mother left her husband and was able to regain

custody of some of her children.

 

It is important to discern whether a mother is resistant to enrolling her

children in services because she lives in fear and is controlled by her

partner, because she doesn't understand the needs of her children, and/or

because she doesn't have transportation to appointments. The worker's explanation

of the problem will inform the service plan. When domestic violence is

accurately identified, and the case is labeled as a child abuse and/or

neglect case involving domestic violence, a more helpful and effective

model of intervention can be applied that considers the safety of both

children and their mothers. Accurate recognition and assessment of the

impact of the domestic violence on family dynamics may reduce risk and,

in some instances, save lives.

 

Pilot-Testing the Ideas

 

Effective intervention in child abuse and neglect cases involving domestic

violence must combine reliable methods of practice from both the child

welfare and domestic violence fields. Battered women's advocates at DSS

realized that they couldn't simply come into the system and impose their

way of thinking onto case practice; they had to practice collaboratively

to create new strategies that would be effective within a child welfare

setting. Advocates also realized that the major barrier in working with

DSS-involved battered women was the mothers' inherent fear of the system

and its power to remove their children. The advocates worked with staff

to reframe the problem as one of concern for the safety of both mothers

and children.

 

The experience of the FLC showed that team members, including DSS social

workers, were willing to experiment with new methods of practice if they

had ongoing access to domestic violence expertise, sufficient training

and resources, and team support. But what about social workers carrying

20 or more multiproblem cases in busy offices? Or in areas with limited

supportive resources? What would they need? It was decided that a team

approach made sense as a starting place to begin to build a model of collaborative

practice that would (a) incorporate the best of child welfare and domestic

violence practice and (b) examine the impact of domestic violence at different

points in the life of a case, from intake to permanency planning. Two area

offices, one rural and one urban, volunteered to develop multidisciplinary,

interagency teams to discuss domestic violence cases. The rural office

focused on investigation, and the urban office focused on case management.

DSS cases involving domestic violence required the resources and expertise

from a variety of professional and community supports.

 

Staff from the two offices received extensive training on the dynamics

of domestic violence, its impact on women and children, risk assessment,

safety planning, community-based resources, working with the courts and

police, and so on. Representatives from the police departments, battered

women's programs, hospitals, district attorney's offices, and batterer

intervention programs were invited to participate in team case conferences.

Each office also received $10,000 to provide batterers' intervention groups

to DSS-involved men. The primary goal of the teams was to promote the safety

of mothers and children within the same household. Other tenets held by

the team included:

 

The safety and well-being of children in domestic violence cases is usually

linked to the safety and wellbeing of the mother.

 

Offenders of domestic violence must be held accountable for their actions.

 

 

No one agency can accomplish these goals alone.

 

Accurate identification of the problems and appropriate service provision

can decrease risk and prevent unnecessary out-of-home placement.

 

To some degree, all team members had to give credence to these core beliefs.

As was the case in the FLC, this did not come naturally or easily for groups

that traditionally did not work collaboratively. Battered women's programs,

perhaps because of their inherent distrust of DSS, were the hardest group

to get to the table. What did come more easily than expected was that once

the various agencies were at the table, they gained a new respect for the

challenges faced by child welfare social workers. Whether these agencies

respected DSS for trying something new and admitting vulnerability, or

whether they gained respect due to simple familiarity, is unknown. DSS

responded positively to this sense of community ownership, and ultimately,

families benefitted. The following case scenario illustrates the kind of

action planning that is possible with a strong interagency team:

 

A mother, who had formed a trusting relationship with her DSS worker, came

to the local office panicked and crying that she and her two daughters

had been raped by her boyfriend. The worker was able to comfort her and

make arrangements for the police officer on the team to go out to the home.

The police officer arrested the offender and brought the mother and children

to the hospital to receive medical attention. The social worker and the

police transported the family to a shelter for battered women and their

children. The mother readily and appropriately sought help for herself

and her children from DSS, without fear that she would be blamed for her

boyfriend's abusive actions. Beds within the overcrowded shelter network

were made immediately available. Appropriate treatment services, including

trauma evaluations and treatment for the children, were part of the service

plan.

 

The interagency teams also highlighted the importance of early identification

of domestic violence in the life of a child protection case. It was easier

to involve mothers in safety planning when their risk was identified as

a concern from the beginning. There was less resistance and distrust of

DSS's intentions. During the 10-day investigation period, the team relied

heavily on information gained from police, probation, and the district

attorney's office. When a report of child abuse was called in to the local

office, preliminary questions to mandated reporters and these other community

agencies could help ascertain whether domestic violence was present before

the actual investigation was conducted. This allowed for the investigator

to focus his or her line of inquiry and to plan for his or her own safety.

 

 

During the first 6 months of the rural team pilot project, only three Care

and Protection petitions were filed during investigation of 59 reports

(GravesRoddy, 1991). Only one child was placed in foster care.

 

ASSESSING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN CHILD WELFARE

 

The interagency team pilot projects were the testing ground for the principles

and practices that were eventually incorporated into the DSS Domestic Violence

Protocol, which was distributed to all staff statewide in 1995 as an addendum

to the agency's Assessment Policy. The Protocol includes guidelines for

staff regarding screening a report of child abuse and neglect, investigating

a report, conducting an assessment, safety planning for the family and

the social worker, service planning, and referral to community resources.

The protocol lists questions to ask women, children, and men and gives

some guidance on how to understand possible responses.

 

Assessment of risk is the most constant and important practice in child

protection work. Many pieces of information must be collected, linked,

and understood. Delineating risk factors in domestic violence cases, such

as severity of injuries, access to weapons, and extent of control exerted

over the family, is only a part of the overall assessment. These discoveries

of dangerousness can usually be established through past documentation

and/or interviews with the victims (both mothers and children).

 

A comprehensive assessment of domestic violence includes: the indicators

of danger, the impact of the domestic violence on the children, the mother's

response to the violence, the mother's history of seeking help, and the

community's (formal and informal) response.

 

As previously mentioned, an analysis of serious danger should include a

history of assaults and injuries, the offender's access to weapons and

the extent of his control over the family, mental health issues, substance

abuse and threats to harm or kill self or others, and so on. The impact

on the children should include a consideration of psychological and behavioral

factors, physical consequences, and the effects on relationships among

family members. The mother's response should explore her past and present

coping mechanisms, her beliefs and cultural/religious values, her past

efforts at seeking help, and the responses she received from various potential

help ers. Informal (friends, family) as well as formal (police, courts,

clergy, social service agencies) attempts to seek help should be considered

as well as the appropriateness of the helper's response. The first two

parts of the assessment appear to come more naturally to social workers.

The last section, the mother's response, requires considerable training

and ongoing technical assistance. If we do not understand what has been

tried in the past, we are likely to increase risk by recommending a course

of action that may have caused an increase in the level of violence or

control by the offender in the past.

 

For example, consider this case:

 

It is learned through a criminal offender check that an offender has been

charged several times with assault and battery on his wife, but each time,

the case has been dismissed. The mother has had several temporary restraining

orders, but presently there is no active order. The offender is living

out of the home but harassing the mother through phone calls and unexpected

visits. The mother is beginning a new relationship with another man whom

we have not learned much about. The children are having behavior problems

in school and in the neighborhood (e.g., fighting with other children).

 

 

Is this enough information to formulate a plan for the case? Is it enough

to plan an intervention strategy? Or does it require further examination?

The questions that remain unanswered are these: What prompted the end of

the relationship with the batterer? How long had they been together? Were

they married? Are they divorced? What was the level of injury? Were threats

made? What were the nature of the threats? What prompted her to file for

past temporary orders of protection? How did he respond to her doing that?

Were they ever violated? Why did the court dismiss the charges? Is she

afraid? Depressed? Apathetic? Using alcohol or drugs? Is he the father

of the children? What did the children witness? Were they ever directly

harmed? When did they start acting aggressively? Do they worry about safety?

Does the mother have supportive friends? Or family? What are they telling

her to do? How do the children view their mother? How do they view the

offender? Who is the new boyfriend ? Is the relationship her attempt at

protection/companionship/love?

 

Without a more complete picture and some comprehension of the meanings

attached to the behaviors, helpers may recommend inappropriate services

and sometimes dangerous ones as well. For example, a social worker might

advise this woman to get a temporary order of protection. This court order

is seen as something concrete and measurable that she can use to protect

herself and the children. In many cases, it can be an effective part of

a broader safety plan. However, its effectiveness in increasing the safety

of the mother and children should be evaluated on a caseby-case basis.

Information about how past court involvement affected the batterer's behavior

and what the consequences were for the woman and children should be obtained

before choosing this intervention. If a mother is "forced" to get an order

but does not see the benefits, is it a real safeguard? Whenever possible,

battered women should be included in planning safety strategies for themselves

and their children.

 

TAKING IT STATEWIDE: CHANGING THE SYSTEM

 

Changing practice in a large bureaucracy, with staff turnover, inadequate

funding, constant public scrutiny, and shifting political agendas, is no

small feat. Standardized domestic violence training and written information,

such as the Domestic Violence Protocol, are only the foundation. Training

raises awareness and helps engender sympathy for victims of domestic violence.

However, when that battered woman is also a mother and the social worker

is back in the office struggling with any number of pressing cases, it

is easy to revert to the traditional view of the mother as "failing to

protect" or asking for trouble. We place responsibility on a mother to

protect herself and her children when we, as a society, are often unable

to stop the abuser. We revert to easy "cookbook" solutions, such as forcing

women to enter a shelter or face the loss of their children. We are terrified

that a child might die. Social workers do not refer to their policy manuals

or protocols when there is an emergency or when they are out on a home

visit. There is little time or support for social workers to keep abreast

of current research in the field. Supervision varies depending on the skill

of the particular supervisor. Again, building on the early lessons of the

FLC and interagency team pilot projects, having battered women's advocates

work alongside child protection workers seemed to be the most promising

strategy for improving outcomes for children in domestic violence situations.

For example, a review of cases receiving services from joint child protection

and domestic violence specialist teams showed such cases to be closed in

about one third less time than the state average (Hangen, 1994) .

 

THE ROLE OF THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SPECIALISTS

 

With enormous support from the community, especially Governor William Weld,

Commissioner Carlisle, and the Massachusetts Coalition for Battered Women's

Service Groups, the Massachusetts DSS was able to secure legislative support

to fund a domestic violence program in 1994. The Domestic Violence Program

is currently composed of 14 battered women's advocates (domestic violence

specialists), 2 coordinators, a clinical supervisor, a half-time policy

analyst, a batterer's intervention specialist, a shelter program monitor,

a training coordinator, and a director. Each domestic violence specialist

covers between two and three local area offices (sometimes spanning 50

miles). Their days are spent nurturing relationships with DSS direct service

and management staff, offering their expertise and skill through case consultations,

home visits, direct advocacy with women and children, and networking with

community agencies. They are responsible for local area training and act

as liaisons to the broader community of domestic violence service providers.

 

 

The specialists receive referrals for consultations in several ways. Any

DSS staff person (e.g., investigator, assessment worker, lawyer, supervisor,

adolescent worker, family resource worker, etc.) may request help on a

particular case. Their questions span a continuum, from something as simple

as, "Where are the local support groups for battered women?" to something

as serious as, "Should we remove the children from the home?" Requests

also come from community programs seeking technical assistance, usually

in regard to mandated reporting or training on the overlap of domestic

violence and child abuse. Finally, a small number of requests come from

DSS-involved battered women who have heard about the program through word

of mouth. In the first 3 months of 1998, the 11 specialists provided 1,519

consultations involving 1,210 families, of which 670 were new families

to the CPS caseload.

 

The specialists act as their own gatekeepers and are trained to assess

requests for help before making recommendations. The specialists' primary

goal is to educate and support DSS staff to make the most effective interventions

possible on behalf of children witnessing or experiencing domestic violence

and their mothers. Each consultation presents a unique challenge depending

on the question at hand and requires varying degrees of involvement depending

on the complexity of the case, the skill of the social worker, and his

or her willingness to use the advice of the specialist. The specialist

gathers pertinent information about the case and works collaboratively

with the social worker to plan the direction of the case, focusing primarily

on risk assessment, safety planning, and service provision. If the worker

is willing and able to proceed alone, the specialist provides advice but

doesn't become directly involved with the family. If the worker or the

specialist feels strongly that an interview of one of the family members

by the specialist would greatly benefit the case, the specialist will conduct

the interview with the worker present for training purposes. In some instances,

the specialist works directly with the mother and children without the

worker.

 

It is a constant struggle for the specialists to provide consultation rather

than direct service. In the beginning, when the domestic violence program

was attempting to gain acceptance by area staff, it was important for specialists

to make home visits and share the burden of the workload. In addition,

the specialists are sometimes seen by social workers as a service to DSS

clients, often being added to the list of service plan tasks (e.g., Ms.

Jones will meet with the domestic violence specialist monthly). Following

up on case recommendations is also difficult for the specialist. Social

workers hold final decision-making authority and may decide not to follow

the specialist's recommendations.

 

In addition to their formal job functions, the specialists fill other important

roles. The social worker is provided with a forum to share his or her concerns

and feelings. These may involve anxiety about the safety of a child or

mother, anger at the criminal justice system or battered women's shelter

network, and/or fear about her own intimate relationship. The specialist

may not agree with the worker's assessment of the case and may not feel

similarly about the actions of other systems, but by understanding and

validating the worker's feelings, she is able to be helpful. The specialist,

through empathic listening, models for the worker what we hope the worker

will model with the battered women and children.

 

Another less obvious but valuable function of the specialist is her interest

in the social worker's safety. Child protection staff have always had to

deal with risk and safety issues. Young and/or inexperienced social workers

go into neighborhoods and residences where they are often uninvited and

unwelcome. DSS has a reputation in neighborhoods as the agency that removes

children from their parents. In addition, the accurate labeling of a case

as one involving domestic violence may increase risk. The batterer may

threaten the worker or tighten control over the family. Specialists help

workers think about their own safety by offering concrete advice, such

as holding interviews of offenders in the office, carrying a cellular phone,

and/or teaching conflict diffusion skills.

 

Massachusetts DSS has approximately 22,000 open child protection cases

statewide. It is estimated that 40% to 60% of these families could benefit

from the domestic violence specialist involvement. A recent survey found

high awareness among child protection workers of domestic violence protocols

and use of specialists for consultations. For example, it found that 62%

of the child protection supervisors surveyed had consulted with a domestic

violence specialist five or more times (Heller, Gyurina, & Rosenbaum, 1997).

 

 

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Protective Intake Policy

 

The Massachusetts child abuse and neglect statute (Chapter 119, 51A) does

not mention domestic violence as a condition for abuse and neglect. There

is no legal definition of the relationship between child abuse and domestic

violence. Given this vacuum, reporting and protective intake practice fluctuates

widely. Mandated reporters, such as school personnel, police, physicians,

and hospital employees, are filing child abuse and neglect reports in many

domestic violence situations. DSS area offices are screening reports based

on varying thresholds for risk assessment; some offices automatically screen

all child abuse reports involving domestic violence, and others assess

the severity of the allegations and the impact of the domestic violence

on the children in the home. Although all agree that domestic violence

has a negative impact on children, there is a danger in equating witnessing

domestic violence with child abuse. As we already know, battered women

may be deterred from seeking help for fear of losing their children, and

all families do not require the level of intervention provided by the child

protection system.

 

The DSS Domestic Violence Program is participating in the revision of the

agency's protective intake policy to require, at a minimum, (a) universal

screening of all child abuse and neglect reports for domestic violence,

and (b) a framework for determining which reports warrant child protection

intervention. In writing this revised policy, it became very clear how

difficult it is to develop exact criteria that determine which families

require protective services. The more we learn about the emotional and

physical impact of domestic violence on mothers and children, the more

we err on the side of caution and screen reports. The danger in opening

the "front door" is that DSS is not equipped to handle the volume of cases.

Many of these families could be better served at the community level, if

there were a seamless system of varying supports beyond shelter and the

criminal justice system. In addition, a legal and clinical mind-set must

shift toward holding offenders accountable. No amount of safety planning

can be successful if the offender has continued access to the family.

 

Our proposed protective intake policy requires that the effects of domestic

violence on children meet the current definitions of child abuse and neglect.

When children are physically hurt in an incident of domestic violence,

no matter the cause, we will screen it in as a physical abuse investigation.

Likewise, if children are affected by the batterer's severe control and

isolation and/or deprived of basic needs such as medical care, food, or

education, we screen it in as neglect. The screening decision gets murky

when there is an incident of domestic violence and the children were not

home or witnessed the event but seem to be doing well in other aspects.

Because witnessing domestic violence has finally received attention as

being harmful to children, child witnesses to violence may fit into the

legal definition of emotional abuse. However, the child welfare field has

long struggled with defining emotional abuse and sometimes debating it

as emotional neglect. Again, as previously stated, DSS cannot possibly

serve all of these families appropriately. In child abuse reports that

document children witnessing domestic violence, the screener will be required

to gather enough information to assess a "substantial risk of abuse or

neglect." This will be done by calling law enforcement agencies and other

collateral contacts to ascertain levels of danger. These danger indicators

include: the child's age, threats to children or parent, stalking, destruction

of property, throwing property in a way that disregards the safety of children

and/or the parent, access to weapons, extent of control over family, past

injuries, substance abuse, mental health issues, and any other past criminal

involvement.

 

Batterer's Intervention

 

In Massachusetts, the child protection system has little authority to hold

batterers accountable for the harm their actions may cause their children.

If the batterer is not living in the home and is not a caretaker or the

father of the children, it is impossible to "name" the batterer as the

perpetrator and to require that he receive services. Batterers often resist

contact with social workers and refuse to be interviewed. Their behavior

is sometimes threatening and frequently manipulative. Social workers focus

on assessing mothers and their parenting skills because they are available,

because they are more likely to cooperate, and because they are usually

the primary caretakers. A mother's parenting skills are definitely crucial

and should be evaluated. However, her skills are often not the subject

of the allegations in a domestic violence situation. We focus on mother

for lack of access to the batterer, for fear of the batterer, out of our

sense of our lack of authority, and perhaps out of a deep belief that it

is the mother's responsibility to protect her child unconditionally. The

ultimate authority of the child protection system (DSS and the courts)

rests in its ability to remove children and terminate parental rights.

Sadly, this often hurts the mother (and often the children) more than the

batterer.

 

In an attempt to shift the focus of practice to hold offenders accountable,

the DSS Domestic Violence Program hired a batterer's intervention consultant.

Social workers constantly seek help for how to intervene with batterers.

They need training on offender assessment, interviewing techniques, and

options for intervention at different points in the case. They need to

be increasingly mindful of their own safety. They need to better understand

how to use the resources of the police, courts, probation, parole, and

batterer's programs. The consultant will train the domestic violence specialists,

provide case consultation to staff through the specialists, arrange for

evaluations of batterers in dangerous or complex cases, develop an addendum

to the Domestic Violence Protocol and an agencywide training plan, link

area offices to certified batterer's intervention programs, and provide

expert testimony in court. The availability of an expert to assist the

specialists and the staff, who require support to work with these often

dangerous clients, is seen as a valuable and necessary addition to the

program.

 

Community Partnerships

 

Raised awareness of domestic violence has increased the burden on all systems

designed to protect and support victims. The battered women's shelter network

is strained to the breaking point by the sheer number of referrals, as

well as by the complex needs of the families being referred. Welfare reform,

unless corrected, will cause additional economic hardship for women seeking

long-term safety and independence from battering relationships. The child

protection system sees the most tragic domestic violence cases: cases where

families face extreme isolation and poverty; have generational histories

of abuse and trauma; and struggle with substance abuse, mental health problems,

and cultural and linguistic barriers to service.

 

No one system is equipped, nor should it be held responsible, for meeting

all the needs of victims of domestic violence. The DSS Domestic Violence

Program plans to move in several directions to mount an integrated, community-based

response, where a woman and her children would receive help regardless

of their point of entry. The first direction involves exploring family

support models of service that are prevention focused and are resident

rather than professionally driven. For example, community policing and

neighborhood crime watch efforts could provide help to families who have

active restraining orders. The community can send a strong message that

violence in the home will not be tolerated. In addition, informal family

support services such as mother's clubs, transportation, parenting respite,

drop-off child care, and so on, would be extremely useful to battered women.

 

 

The second direction involves working to refine the criteria by which we

determine which system is responsible for services. The most lethal domestic

violence cases should be the responsibility of the criminal justice and

child protection systems. After DSS implements its new protective intake

policy, we will have a better sense of which families warrant immediate

protective intervention and which families would have benefited more from

community-based help. A new system may be needed to assess families prior

to referral to child protection, perhaps through a model that pairs battered

women's advocates with police and/or other helpers. Families that could

be helped by less intrusive interventions would be referred to a network

of community service providers, including battered women's programs, batterer's

intervention programs, mental health clinics, settlement houses, health

clinics, schools, day care centers, and so on.

 

Sustaining the Program

 

The DSS Domestic Violence Program has sustained itself over the course

of almost a decade, through the administration of four commissioners and

two governors, as well as budget cuts and shifting agency mandates. The

program has operated both informally, with neither official sanction to

be a unit nor state funding, and formally. It has remained committed to

the basic philosophy that the best interests of children are inextricably

linked to the best interests of their mothers. The program director and

the first battered women's advocate, now the clinical supervisor of the

program, have provided continuous leadership.

 

Other states wishing to replicate the model should be certain there is

a high-level child protection manager willing to take ownership of the

initiative who can advance the program's goals both internally and with

the public. Of equal importance is the hiring of strong battered women's

experts who have the talent and diplomacy to bridge the gulf between the

child welfare system and the battered women's movement. It has been difficult

to find qualified battered women's advocates who are willing to work within

the child welfare arena, where their motives and philosophies are constantly

challenged (by both fields) . The specialists who have been the most effective

are those who felt confined by the battered women's advocacy role within

shelters or courts. They saw the needs of children going unmet, the needs

of women as ineffectively compartmentalized, and/or the need for systems,

such as child protection, to work collaboratively with shelters and criminaljustice

on behalf of victims. The specialist role allows them to expand their purview

and continue to do antiviolence work. They are the heart of the initiative,

and social workers experience them as incredibly helpful and supportive.

 

 

Another word of advice to states wishing to replicate the Massachusetts

model concerns the targeting of middle managers. The Massachusetts model

attempted to bring about systems change by building external support for

the work among the battered women's programs, the statewide battered women's

coalition, community providers, and the executive office; and by creating

a need for the specialist's help among direct service staff. Less attention

was paid to creating an understanding of the value of the work among area

office directors and program managers. This "bottom up" and "top down"

approach to change left a major gap in support for the program, which is

presently being addressed.

 

Over the past 10 years, we have seen many exciting changes in the department's

practice. Awareness of the overlap between domestic violence and child

abuse has increased dramatically, case identification rates have soared,

domestic violence specialists and social workers have developed new methods

for working together to better protect children, and community agencies

more fully understand the value and limitations of the department's involvement

in domestic violence cases. As one battered women's advocate working in

a Boston-based shelter recently declared after an interagency team meeting,

"It is as if the department has become radicalized. . . they are a new

voice for battered women and their kids."

 

REFERENCES

 

Graves-Roddy, M. ( 1991) . Review of Massachusetts Department of Social

Services Files. Boston: Massachusetts Department of Social Services.

 

Hangen, E. (1994). DSS Interagency Domestic Violence Team Pilot Project:

Program data evaluation. Boston: Massachusetts Department of Social Services.

 

 

Heller,J., Gyurina, C. H., & Rosenbaum, M. (1997). Survey of Department

of Social Services social workers, supervisors, and area program managers

on the use of the domestic violence specialists, domestic vio

 

lence protocols, and understanding of domestic violence in DSS caseloads.

Boston: Massachusetts Department of Social Services. Herskowitz,J. (1991).

Research and evaluation report. Boston: Massa

 

chusetts Department of Social Services. Schechter, S., with Mihaly, L.

K (1992). Ending violence against women and children in Massachusetts Jamilies.

Boston: Massachusetts Coalition for Battered Women Service Groups.

 

Pamela Whitney received an MSW from Boston University School of Social

Work in 1981. Since 1986, she has worked at the Massachusetts Department

of Social Services, where she cofounded (with Lonna Davis) the department's

domestic violence units

 

Lonna Davis is clinical supervisor of the Massachusetts Department of Social

Services' domestic violence unit. She received her MSW from Salem State

College in Massachusetts in 1996.