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.