Domestic Violence

"13 Violence, Victim Advocacy, and Corrections

© DAXIAO PRODUCTIONS/SHUTTERSTOCK

Learning Objectives

Critically analyze the role of the human service provider in working with survivors of intimate partner violence

Examine the complex nature of rape and sexual assault

Explore how LGBTQ+ and gender nonconforming populations respond to hate crimes

Examine the ways in which human service providers work with victims of violent crime, such as surviving victims of homicide

Explore the role of the human service provider in working with perpetrators of violent crime

Chapter Outline

Intimate Partner Violence 309

The Cycle of Violence 310

Domestic Violence Practice Settings 312

Intervention Strategies with Survivors of IPV 313

Intervention Strategies with Batterers 316

Rape and Sexual Assault 317

The Controversy Surrounding Rape 318

Why Men Rape 320

The Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault 320

Male-on-Male Sexual Assault 321

Rape Crisis Centers 321

Hate Crimes against LGBTQ+ Populations 322

Victims of Violent Crime 324

Victim–Witness Assistance Programs 325

Surviving Victims of Homicide 326

Working with Perpetrators of Crime 327

Gang Activity 328

The War on Drugs 331

Mental Health Programs in Correctional Facilities 332

Conclusion 333

Summary 334

Rick grew up in a home marked by domestic violence, which oftentimes extended to the children. Rick’s mother was chronically depressed and often resorted to using alcohol to avoid dealing with her feelings. Rick recalls days and sometimes weeks where his mother refused to get out of bed, and he was responsible for caring for his younger siblings. His father also had an alcohol problem and would fly into nightly rages where he would physically abuse Rick’s mother. When Rick got older, he attempted to intervene and protect his mother, which only resulted in his father physically abusing him.

In addition to physical abuse, Rick was also the victim of emotional abuse and neglect. Rick’s father would often call him derogatory names and humiliate him by telling him that he would amount to nothing in life and that he was worthless. It seemed as though Rick could do nothing right, and when he was about 12 years old, he promised himself that he would never allow anyone to hurt or humiliate him again.

Rick married when he was 21 and was hopeful that his life of being victimized was over. He loved his wife Sarah very much and was determined to be the best husband and father he could possibly be. He vowed not to repeat the mistakes of his parents, but deep inside he was plagued with fears that he wasn’t good enough for his wife and that she would eventually leave him.

He became increasingly jealous and accused his wife constantly of plotting behind his back to leave him, likely with another man. If Rick’s wife tried to convince him otherwise, he accused her of lying. When she became pregnant he was thrilled, but after the baby was born he became upset because his wife seemed to want to spend all her time with the baby, leaving him to fend for himself.

One day Rick’s boss called him into his office and pointed out a mistake that Rick made. All Rick could think of was the promise he had made to himself years ago to never allow anyone to hurt or ridicule him again. Even though his boss’s comments would have seemed reasonable to most people, to Rick they were a recreation of the abuse he endured as a child. He lost control of his temper, slammed his fist into the wall, and quit his job.

When he got home he told Sarah and fully expected her to sympathize with him and support his decision to not tolerate such abuse, but instead she complained that his act was selfish, particularly in light of his responsibilities as a father. Rick completely lost his temper and in a blinding rage accused Sarah of betraying him. In the blur that followed, Rick accused her of cheating on him, of caring about the baby more than him, and even of getting pregnant by another man.

In the midst of his angry outburst he shoved Sarah against the wall and knocked her down, and then began kicking her in the stomach and head. All he could think of was how this woman, who he thought was his “savior,” was really his enemy, and at that moment he hated her for allowing him to lower his guard and trust her. All the pain of his childhood, with all the hurt and humiliation, came rushing back, and he began to choke her. When his baby interrupted his rage, he screamed at his son to shut up. When his baby’s crying got louder, he picked him up and shook him violently.

Rick was arrested on charges of felony domestic violence, unlawful restraint, and child endangerment. After Sarah was released from the hospital she listened to her voicemail and heard several frantic and pleading voicemail messages from Rick crying and profusely apologizing and expressing intense fear about being in jail. The next call was from a social worker at the Victim-Witness Assistance with the local prosecutor’s office asking her to return the call so that she could provide her with information about the court case, her order of protection, and resources for counseling.

Sarah then received a call from the local domestic violence shelter. The social worker asked her several questions about her safety and whether she needed shelter. She also offered Sarah court advocacy and resources to help with her baby’s medical care. Sarah was hesitant to say too much. Mostly she was overwhelmed and felt flood of emotions – fear, sadness, confusion, and guilt.

She felt sorry for Rick. She knew he was a good person and she couldn’t stand the thought of him being in jail, alone and scared. The sound of Rick’s voice on the voicemail rang in her ears and she began going over what happened in her mind again and again, questioning her original version of the events that night. Did Rick mean to knock her down? Did he really shake the baby? Why wasn’t she more sympathetic? She really had been neglecting him lately . . . was she a bad wife?

During Sarah’s first meeting with the prosecutor and court advocate about Rick’s case she became immediately uncomfortable about the prospect of testifying against her husband. In fact, she couldn’t imagine it! She felt sorry for Rick—he’d had a horrible childhood and she felt like she was the only one he could confide in and that made her feel good. She believed in her heart that good people forgave easily, especially their husbands.

Since Rick was released on bond, and even though he was not allowed to contact her, she had been receiving almost nightly calls from him, begging for her forgiveness. This Rick was the Rick she fell in love with—the soft Rick, the vulnerable Rick, the sweet Rick, and the kind Rick. She reasoned that as awful as this incident had been, maybe it was the wake-up call their family needed to get back on track.

When the prosecutor informed Sarah that she did not have the power to drop the charges or the order of protection, she became very upset. She neither wanted nor asked for their involvement. She was certain that she could handle this matter on her own, as a family, and she wanted no part of the free advocacy from Victim-Witness or from the local shelter. She found their perception of her as a “battered wife” embarrassing and humiliating.

Despite her numerous attempts to play down what happened, even blaming herself for what happened, denying that it was “that bad,” and explaining that Rick has never kicked her and was actually trying to soothe the baby, not shake him, the prosecutor refused to budge, and in fact warned Sarah that if she allowed Rick back into the house, she too could be facing charges of child maltreatment for putting her baby at risk. Sarah left the courthouse upset and confused, feeling misunderstood, scared, embarrassed, and completely alone. She knew none of her friends and family would understand because no one understood Rick like she did and they didn’t like him. In fact, the only person she believed she could rely on was the one person who was forbidden to see her—her husband Rick.

The field of forensic human services is a multidisciplinary practice area focusing broadly on the intersects between human services, the legal, judicial, and corrections systems. Human service providers who work in practice settings dealing with domestic violence, sexual assault, gang activity, and criminal justice agencies such as police departments, probation, state, and county prosecutors, as well as within correctional facilities such as jails and prisons are considered forensic human service providers. The role and function of human service providers working in the area of forensics may vary significantly depending on the legal issues involved, but most forensic human service providers require specialized training in areas such as deviant behavior, crime victimization, crisis counseling, trauma responses, and intervention strategies, as well as developing a thorough understanding of the legal and criminal justice system.

Violence seems to have always been a part of the human existence. A question that is often debated among philosophers and social scientists is whether violence is a necessary part of human existence. Is war necessary? Certainly war has always existed, but is our existence dependent on competition for resources won through violent means? At what point does the act of war become the act of genocide? How can ordinary people live side by side peaceably for years and suddenly commit heinous acts, such as was the case during the Holocaust or the more recent genocide in Rwanda? Perhaps having the ability to respond in intense anger that manifests in violence is necessary when one is defending oneself, but isn’t it the unjust use of violence that makes this defensive response necessary in the first place?

Determining the answers to these questions lies at the heart of violence research within the social science disciplines, such as sociology, social psychology, anthropology, and criminology, as well as those who work in the applied fields of human services, social work, clinical psychology, and criminal justice. In this chapter various types of violence will be explored, such as domestic violence or intimate partner violence (IPV), rape and sexual assault, hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning/queer (LGBTQ+) populations and gender nonconforming populations, and general crime victimization. Ways in which violence impacts victims, including how victims become survivors, will also be explored, as well as how society and those within the human services fields intervene to reduce violence."

"Intimate Partner Violence

IPV involves physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression toward an intimate partner (Breiding et al., 2015). IVP can occur between current or former spouses, cohabitating partners, boyfriends, and girlfriends, dates, and sexual partners. Intimate partners can be either heterosexual or same-sex. Physical violence can include hitting, punching, slapping, pinching, shoving, and throwing objects at or near the victim, or threatening to do so, or using one’s body weight and strength to restrain someone, such as backing someone into a corner and not allowing them to leave. Sexual violence can include forced penetration of the abuser or someone else; psychological pressure or coercion to engage in unwanted sexual activity; unwanted sexual contact, such as being touching or being forced to touch someone else; and non-contact unwanted sexual activity, such as being forced to watch pornography, or being filmed while engaging in some sexual activity. Stalking involves a pattern of repeated unwanted contact or harassment that causes fear, such as phone calls or texts, driving by one’s house, monitoring one online (cyberstalking), leaving notes on cars, and showing up where the victim is present. Psychological aggression involves the use of verbal or non-verbal communication to cause another person harm, and to exert control over that person, such as name-calling, harassment, taunting, put-downs, and ridiculing, using coercion, monitoring one’s whereabouts, and using threats and intimidation to tear another person down and control him or her (Breiding et al., 2015).

IPV is a significant public health problem with consequences that extend far beyond the individual families involved in the violence. IPV affects the entire community in lost revenue, lost creativity, mental health problems, and uncompensated medical care. IPV is perpetrated against both men and women, but women are far more often the targets of violence in relationships. According to the most recent statistics available, over 10 million women and men experience physical violence in an intimate relationship per year in the United States (Breiding et al., 2015), resulting in over 1.3 million injuries and 2,350 deaths (Black et al., 2011).

One in five women (29 million) and one in seven men (16 million) report having experienced severe violence during their lifetimes (Breiding et al., 2015). While men are victims of IPV, women are far more likely targets of violence in intimate relationships, particularly of more severe forms of physical violence, such as intimate partner sexual assault and murder (Black et al., 2011; Johnson, 2008). In addition, compared to men, women who have experienced IPV also experience higher rates of psychological trauma and mental illness, including depression, PTSD, anxiety, worry, nightmares, memory problems, and suicidal ideation (Karakurt, Smith, & Whiting, 2014). Women also have significantly higher rates of physical health problems as a consequence of IPV, such as chronic pain, gynecological problems, HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases, gastrointestinal problems, unwanted pregnancy, miscarriage, and premature births. Because of social structures that support patriarchy, women are far likelier to be economically dependent on their abuser and may be culturally and/or socially expected to remain in the relationship and endure the abuse.

Children are often silent witnesses to IVP and can be deeply impacted by the violence for their entire lives

© MONKEY BUSINESS IMAGES/SHUTTERSTOCK

Children living in home with IPV are victims as well, even if the violence is not aimed directly toward them. For instance, children who witness interparental violence are at increased risk of experiencing a range of problems including being emotionally, physically, and sexually abused, developing emotional and behavioral problems that often extend well into adulthood, and experiencing a range of adversities in their lives, such as having violent relationships, vocational problems, and housing insecurity (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008).

Research also indicates that boys and girls who witness IPV, particularly against their mother, often respond differently, with boys externalizing their feelings by acting like “warriors” and girls internalizing their feelings by acting like “worriers” (Blair et al., 2015). Additionally, boys who witness interparent violence, where their fathers abuse their mothers, are socialized to become violent and more likely to perpetrate violence against women as adults, whereas girls in such situations are socialized to be submissive and compliant, thus are more likely to enter into a domestic violence relationship (Roberts et al., 2010).

The Cycle of Violence

Lenore Walker (1979) was the first to coin the phrase cycle of violence to describe the pattern of interpersonal violence in intimate relationships. Most abusive relationships begin in a honeymoon-like state, with the abusers often telling their new partners that they are the only people in the world they can trust—the only ones who understand them. New partners are usually swept off their feet with compliments and many promises for a wonderful future. Once the abusers feel comfortable in the relationship, a dual process occurs. The abusers begin to feel vulnerable by recognizing their partner’s power to hurt them deeply, and as familiarity in the relationship increases, the abusers often increase their sense of entitlement to have all their needs met.

Abusers, plagued with fears that they will be abandoned, taken advantage of, and humiliated (as many were in their childhoods) exhibit jealousy and possessiveness, and accusations begin. Emotional immaturity often prevents abusers from being able to separate their internal feelings from possible causes (i.e., are their feelings of jealousy caused by their own insecurities or caused by their partner’s unfaithfulness?); thus a common assumption among batterers is that if they feel bad that their partners must be doing something to cause their pain. In response to these threatening feelings of vulnerability and entitlement, and poised to be hurt once again, innocent partners often become the focus of the batterer’s mistrust, fear, and ultimate rage. Abusers often misinterpret the intentions of their partners, mentally ticking off injustice after injustice. These types of negative misperceptions and misassumptions are prevalent and are rarely checked against fact.

Most partners of batterers will sense the increasing tension brought about by the abusers’ underlying anger that is bubbling to the surface. Batterers might ask more questions, make sarcastic comments, ask why two cups are out rather than one, or question why the phone wasn’t answered more quickly when they called. They will typically have a short fuse, becoming easily frustrated often without provocation. In response, most victims do their best to walk on eggshells to avoid an explosion. But no amount of running interference or offered reassurances will help because the process is an internal one, occurring within the mind of the abuser. In fact, most abusers have an actual need to be proven correct in their fear of being hurt and humiliated again because to a batterer, being too trusting is often synonymous with being an unsuspecting fool.

Eventually the explosion occurs despite all peacemaking efforts. Abusive rages can take on several forms including frightening bouts of screaming and yelling; intimidation; and physical abuse such as hitting, kicking, scratching, grabbing, slapping, and shoving. Attacks might also include throwing objects at or near the victim, punching walls, and making threats to harm either the person or the personal property of the victim. Once batterers have experienced a violent rage, they are often temporarily relieved of their internal feelings of rage and in many respects take on the persona of a remorseful child seeking reassurance and approval. Batterers often honeymoon their partners and other family members who were victims of the abuse, promising never to repeat the abusive behavior. There is commonly a manipulative aspect to the batterer’s professions of regret and apologies, with the extent of authentic remorse being somewhat questionable. One reason for this is that the batterer’s apologies are often riddled with a series of “buts”: “I’m sorry I hit you, but you know how I hate to be awakened early in the morning.” “I’m sorry I shoved you, but you know I don’t like you talking to other men.” “I’m sorry I slapped you, but you know how stressed I get when work is so busy.”

Rarely is the batterer’s focus authentically placed on the pain and trauma caused to the partner or other family members. Rather, the honeymoon phase involves more of a panicked pleading, begging the victim not to leave, to forgive and forget, to move on quickly by minimizing the extent of the abuse. Statements intended to reframe the abuse, such as “I can’t believe you think I shoved you! I clearly remember me reaching out to you and you jerking away and tripping,” are common. This can be an immensely confusing time for victims, who usually know instinctively that the batterer needs help, though any attempt to point out a pattern of abuse or to hold the batterer accountable (particularly after the batterer gets comfortable once again and stops apologizing) will hasten the tension-building phase, something victims desperately want to avoid. Attempts to demand authentic change in the abuser often result in the batterer accusing the victim of holding a grudge, being unforgiving, and being punishing. Comments such as, “How dare you rub my face in this when I’ve already apologized! What do you want me to do? I’ve already said I’m sorry 100 times. Let’s move on!” are common.

With the hope that the honeymoon phase might just last forever, victims of IPV often comply with the dangerous demands of the batterer to relinquish their own sense of reality and accept the reality of the batterer instead—that the abuse was not that bad, that it was a one-time event, and that it will never happen again. Living in the here-and-now allows both the batterer and the victim to avoid seeing the broader pattern of abuse, which in some respects allows them both to avoid their fear of facing the truth and seriousness of the situation. But no matter how many promises the abusive partner makes or how desperately the victim wants to believe the abuse will never occur again, without intervention the cycle is destined to repeat itself.

Many women find leaving an abusive relationship very difficult, particularly because the cycle of violence means that a honeymoon is right around the corner. But there are other forces at play as well. For instance, many women remain in an abusive relationship citing their love and commitment to their abusive partner, despite the abuse (Smith & Randall, 2007). Such women often have a romanticized view of love as a powerful force that can conquer all, a belief system influenced by American culture, particularly the media (Power, Koch, Kralik, & Jackson, 2006). Many women in abusive relationships also cited a fear of being alone (and lonely) as a reason for staying, as well as a strong fear of abandonment (McWilliams, 1999).

While some dynamics place certain women at higher risk for domestic violence, for the most part women who are in an abusive relationship or have a history of abusive relationships come from all walks of life. And although there are many theories of shared personality factors, most are not supported by research. Walker (1979) theorized that many battered women shared a common orientation of learned helplessness—the tendency to see oneself as powerless in controlling life events. As such, Walker predicted that battered women would have an external locus of control (the tendency to place control of their lives and choices outside of their domain of responsibility), be more passive in relationships, and have poorer problem-solving skills, compared to women who had not experienced IPV. Research has supported aspects of Walker’s theory, but not others. Battered women do tend to have significantly poorer problem-solving skills, and they were also more passive in their relationships, but research did not support Walker’s theory that battered women had a more external locus of control (Launius & Lindquist, 1988).

Research has found connections between decisions to remain in an abusive relationship and how battered women attribute causality of the abuse. Women who attributed their partner’s abuse to personality factors, such as an inability to manage anger, a refusal to take responsibility for his behavior, or a lack of empathy, were more likely to leave the abusive relationship (Pape & Arias, 2000; Truman-Schram, Cann, Calhoun, & Vanwallendael, 2000), whereas women who attributed their partners’ abusive behavior to forces outside his control, such as work stressors or a bad childhood, were more likely to remain in the relationship (Gordon, Burton, & Porter, 2004). Research has also found that women who remain in abusive relationships long-term (six or more years) experienced far higher rates of self-blame and unreasonable guilt, often citing guilt associated with self-advocacy (such as calling the police) and a belief that they had betrayed their partners (Karakurt, Smith, & Whiting, 2014).

Domestic Violence Practice Settings

One of the most common practice settings where human service providers will encounter survivors of IPV is a women’s shelter, also sometimes called a battered women’s shelter, as well as a transitional shelter (long-term housing focused on gaining permanent self-sufficiency). Such shelters typically offer numerous services, including the following:

A 24-hour hotline for immediate access to information and services

Immediate safety shelters for domestic violence victims and their children

Individual counseling for all victims

Survivor support groups

Court advocacy

Children’s programs

Teen programs

Information referral

Medical advocates who provide on-site support at hospitals

Immigrant programs (depending on the ethnic makeup of the community)

Most shelters involve communal living, where residents share their living space with other survivors. Residents are often required to participate in group counseling sessions with other residents as well as assist with the general functioning and maintenance of the shelter. Human service providers are often assigned to each shelter living space and facilitate in-house programs to maintain smooth functioning within the home, as well as among the residents. Human service providers will also be likely to engage in individual counseling, case management, and court advocacy. The focus of counseling will likely vary depending upon the needs of the residents, but most often focus on educational awareness, life skills, self-sufficiency, and learning about healthy relationships, including healthy parenting, and how to be safe.

It is particularly important for human service providers to be familiar with the Internet and social media, since perpetrators can now easily track a survivor’s whereabouts online, and may even use social media to harass and intimidate the victim (cyberstalking and digital abuse). The growing awareness of ways that perpetrators can track the online activity of victims is reflected in domestic violence awareness websites having “quick escape” buttons that pop up when the page loads. Technology can also help in the fight against IPV through online awareness campaigns, such as the No More campaign, which includes actors providing public service announcements using YouTube videos. Facebook is also being used to provide an online space for virtual support groups, such as the open Facebook group Domestic Violence Support Group.

Intervention Strategies with Survivors of IPV

Working with IPV survivors requires specialized training above generalist human services education that focuses on the unique dynamics commonly at play in abusive relationships. Most human services agencies serving the IPV survivor population require that providers and volunteers complete a 40-plus hour domestic violence training and certification program that focuses on topics such as

The history of domestic violence

The complexity of domestic violence

The impact of violence on victims

The effect of domestic violence on children

Cultural competency

Advocacy strategies for victims

Legal issues, such as orders of protection and domestic violence court

Because IPV involves an abuse of psychological, sexual, economic, and physical power in order to coerce and oppress a partner, most counseling intervention strategies are based on empowerment theory, which focuses on increasing the personal relationship and social power of victims (Goodman & Epstein, 2008). Empowerment theory is based on feminist values of social justice, self-determination (personal choice, finding one’s voice), and resiliency (overcoming abuse and oppression) (Cattaneo, Colton, & Brodsky, 2014). Using empowerment theory as the foundation of an intervention strategy relies on a strengths-based approach and focuses on helping clients increase their personal empowerment within the context of their intimate relationship.

There are several theoretical models that can be used when working with survivors of IPV that provide structure and guidance to the clinician and client. A relatively new model is the empowerment process model, developed by Cattaneo and Goodman (2015). The model focuses on clients establishing empowerment goals and taking action to achieve these goals. The actions are based on a client’s evolving self-efficacy (belief in one’s abilities), skills (concrete capabilities), knowledge (information the client must learn to achieve empowerment goals), and access to community resources (formal and informal). In this respect, the empowerment process model utilizes a psychosocial approach to self-empowerment, guiding the process of self-evolution, while connecting clients to supportive resources within their communities. The model also encompasses a process of reflection, where clients reflect on their progress and make adjustments to their goals, if necessary.

Cattaneo and Goodman stress the importance of their model as encompassing both process and outcome. Far too often clients in violent relationships are assessed (and assess themselves) based on whether they leave their abusive relationship and become self-sufficient (psychologically, socially, and economically), and yet the process of achieving interim empowerment goals incrementally are highly valuable in and of themselves. Many clients, for instance, gain a personal sense of empowerment by gaining financial literacy, long before they leave an abusive relationship.

Human service providers using the empowerment process model can work with clients in abusive relationships in every step of their empowerment journey. The various “steps” in the empowerment process are interrelated in the sense that each promotes the others. For instance, providing guidance to a client in goal-setting provides opportunities to assist clients in increasing their self-efficacy as they assess their strengths and resources. The process of gaining knowledge, such as learning about their legal rights in a divorce process, naturally leads to skill development as clients explore taking concrete steps to protect their rights, such as contacting an attorney and filing an order of protection. The reflection process can increase clients’ self-efficacy as they reflect on their progress and all that they’ve accomplished. Again, it is important to note that “accomplishments” do not necessarily mean leaving an abusive relationship, as there are numerous areas of accomplishment leading up to that point that providers can acknowledge, thus increasing a client’s sense of personal empowerment.

What is so powerful about the empowerment process model is that the authors take into account the context within which a victim of domestic violence lives, and how it is their context that creates meaning in their everyday decisions to seek safety for themselves and their children. This context is different for every client and can vary dramatically from survivor to survivor. Rather than imposing options for survivors based on a clinician’s or agency’s timeline or goals, Goodman et al. (2016) suggest using a survivor-defined approach that takes into consideration the unique situation of clients and the complexity of their lives.

Using a survivor-defined approach considers clients within the context of their environments, encouraging providers to consider factors such as the client’s cultural background, including their immigration status, their family situations, their financial status, their level of support outside the relationship, and so on. It’s the unique complexity of survivors’ lives that influences their individual goals and the path to achieve their goals (Goodman et al., 2009). Two clients can have the same goal of leaving an abusive relationship, but depending on contextual factors in their lives their decision-making may be quite different.

Consider the college-educated client who is in an abusive relationship with a husband of three years, has no children, has remained in the workforce, has a large support network, and has independent financial resources. Now consider the client who has been married for 15 years to an abusive partner, has three children under the age of 10, has been out of the workforce for over 10 years, did not graduate from high school, has few marketable skills, who is a Mexican immigrant with residency status dependent on her marital status, has very little family in the United States, comes from a family with intergenerational abuse, and has a history of substance abuse. Both women have the goal of leaving their abusive partners, but their paths will be quite different.

It’s often tempting for clinicians, particularly those working in domestic violence agencies (such as transitional shelters) to push clients along, imposing timelines and enforcing goals (this is particularly common in transitional shelters). However, such a directive approach risks the clinician becoming just another external force exerting control in the client’s life, which can have a devastating effect on the client’s self-esteem and can also discourage continued engagement in the counseling process. Using a survivor-defined approach with the empowerment process model not only acknowledges (and in many respects honors) the unique circumstances of each client’s life but also allows clients to take control of their lives, empowering them to take an active role in planning their future and their decision-making, which increases their sense of autonomy, self-esteem, and self-efficacy.

Intervention strategies can also be on a macro level with domestic violence awareness campaigns and public service announcements (PSA). The 2016 Super Bowl game featured several domestic violence PSAs, including this one called “No More: Listen” about a real 911 call from a victim of domestic violence. No More is an organization that raises public awareness about domestic violence. Why do you believe this PSA has been so successful?

ENHANCEDetext video example 13.1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_zWIVRIWk

Violence against Women Act

In 1994 the federal government passed the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) established policies and mandates for how states were to handle cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, and dating violence (including stalking). The act’s policies and mandates included encouraging mandatory arrests, encouraging interstate enforcement of domestic violence laws, and maintaining state databases on incidences of domestic violence, as well as establishing a national domestic violence database. This act also provides for numerous grants for educational purposes (e.g., the education of police officers and judges), a domestic violence hotline, battered women’s shelters, and improvements in the safety of public areas such as public transportation and parks.

VAWA was reauthorized in 2000, again in 2005 as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and again, after a fierce bipartisan battle, in 2013, focusing on the expanded coverage of the legislation. Prior to the 2013 reauthorization, VAWA did not protect all women who were victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and dating violence and stalking. The reauthorization, signed into law March 7, 2013 by then President Obama, extended protection to Native women, immigrants (including undocumented immigrants), and same-sex couples (the source of the bipartisan controversy).

The Violence Against Women Act spurred several states to pass similar legislation, which continues to change the nature of domestic violence prosecutions. With regard to current policies on the prosecution of domestic violence, it is important to note that unlike a civil case, where a plaintiff brings an action and thus has the right to subsequently drop the case, in criminal cases the plaintiff is the state and the victims are witnesses. But in the past, prosecutors have allowed victims to drop a case (typically at the urgings of the batterer). Domestic violence legislation has for the most part put a stop to this practice. Instead, domestic violence is typically treated as any other crime where the victim is called as a witness and must appear at the trial to testify on behalf of the state. This can create emotional tension for victims, who may initially want court involvement immediately after experiencing violence, but then want to resist any intervention when the honeymoon phase begins and renewed hope for authentic change seems possible. Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, incidents of domestic violence have been cut by more than half, and the national hotline handles about 22,000 calls per month.

Intervention Strategies with Batterers

Strategies for reducing recidivism rates among batterers have varied through the years, with some approaches involving punishment via the criminal justice system and other strategies focusing on court-mandated psychological intervention. In the past the criminal justice system sought traditional forms of justice for those convicted of domestic violence in the form of incarceration. However, this approach was often unsuccessful because some judges were reluctant to break apart families, and some victims of domestic violence were reluctant to testify against their partners or spouses, particularly if it meant the possibility of incarceration. In response, many states developed specialized domestic violence courts with the goal of incorporating mental health and psychoeducational approaches, such as empowerment theory anger management training, in lieu of jail. If defendants successfully completed a batterer intervention program (and any other intervention requirements) their sentences were vacated, but if they did not, or they engaged in repeated violence, their sentences were reinstated.

Many batterer intervention programs are based upon the Duluth Model—a psychoeducational program drawn from feminist theory, which posits that domestic violence is caused by patriarchal ideology that promotes the concept that men have the right to control their female partners. Many batterer intervention programs are also based upon group treatment using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and anger management training, although anger management training alone is insufficient because it does not address the underlying values of patriarchy and control (anger is not the root of the problem, but rather a tool used by the batterer). Newer programs use a multifaceted treatment design, based on the premise that battering is a complex problem encompassing a deeply rooted belief system of power and control, thus a combination of psychoeducation, CBT, and anger management in a group setting is more likely to be successful.

Programs range in duration from six weeks to one year and are often mandated by the court as a part of sentencing. Batterers are taught to respect personal boundaries, the difference between feelings and actions, and the concept of personal rights and egalitarian relationships. Dynamics of social learning theory, including modeling, are also explored so participants can discover how their violent behavior is likely patterned after a parent or some other influential person in their lives. Participants also learn how to identify their personal triggers and learn strategies for managing their anger, including how to control impulses and how to use “I” statements to avoid getting caught up in making accusations.

Most batterer treatment programs have similar goals, including increasing awareness of violent behavior and encouraging the batterer to take responsibility for violent behavior. Common program philosophies include the following beliefs:

Violence is an intentional act

Domestic violence uses physical force and intimidation as coercive methods to obtain and maintain control in the relationship

Using violence is a learned behavior and as such can be unlearned

Many participants make authentic changes not only because of the curriculum but also because of the built-in accountability that a group setting provides. Ironically, it is the other group members who often challenge those participants who refuse to engage or who consistently blame the victim for their own abusive behavior. Unfortunately, at least an equal number of participants do not authentically change while in a program. Some batterers fail to complete the program, and others are reluctant to change because they actually love the adrenaline rush and power they get from feeling intense anger (Pandya & Gingerich, 2002).

Whether batterer intervention programs actually work is a question that remains unanswered for the most part. A 2003 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) found little support for the success of batterer intervention programs with regard to recidivism rates, or attitudes toward domestic violence. The only significant difference found was in the re-offense rates of men who completed programs 26 weeks or longer. Yet, while these men had significantly lower recidivism rates, their attitudes about domestic violence did not appear to change much. For instance, men in the experimental group (the batterer intervention program) viewed their partners only slightly less responsible for the battering incident than men in the control group.

The study’s authors cited numerous limitations of the study, which may have been responsible for the results, including a high drop-out rate among participants and questionable validity of the attitudinal surveys. Based upon these limitations, the authors recommended that batterer intervention programs be allowed to continue to evolve (since they are a relatively new tool in the fight against domestic violence), but in a manner that was responsive to the increased knowledge that is being gained about the nature of IPV, including common risk factors for becoming a batterer. A follow-up study on the Duluth Model in 2014 found that about one-third of participants eventually reoffended, and those who completed at least 24 weeks of treatment experienced the most positive outcomes among all participants, defined as decreases in physical and verbal aggression (Herman, Rotunda, Williamson, & Vodanovich, 2014).

Recent research on the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs has focused on participants’ readiness to change—a batterer’s personal motivation to effect a meaningful change in their attitudes and behaviors about violence and control in intimate relationships. Motivation to change was assessed through motivational interviewing (MI) assessments, as well as through the manner in which a participant entered a program (court-ordered vs. self-referral). The studies found that participants who were ready to change had far higher success rates after completing a batterer intervention program than those who had little motivation to change (Bowen & Gilchrist, 2010; Zalmanowitz, 2012). While these results may not seem surprising, they can be helpful for practitioners and other professionals working in the area of domestic violence in terms of assessing high-risk perpetrators, making sentencing decisions (based on assessments of who is most amenable to treatment), as well as exploring ways of increasing clients’ motivations and readiness to change.

ENHANCEDetext self-check 13.1"

"Rape and Sexual Assault

Another form of violence against a person is the act of rape or sexual assault. Sexual assault involves forcing some form of sexual act on another person without his or her consent. Determining the rate of sexual assault in the United States is difficult due to dramatic variations in the way sexual assault is defined. Although both men and women can be raped, women are victims of rape far more often than men. Approximately one in five women in the United States have been raped sometime during their lifetime, and more than half of them were raped by intimate partners (Black et al., 2011).

For the first time since 1927, the legal definition of forcible rape has been changed. According to the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), the former definition was: “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina. The new definition is: “[t]he penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This is an important victory for advocates since this expanded definition now includes rape of both genders, rape with an object, and sexual acts with anyone who cannot give consent due to mental or physical disability.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) there were 150,420 victims of rape or sexual assault (attack or attempted attack, including unwanted sexual contact) in 2014 (compared to 173,610 in 2013 and 118,700 in 2012), of which only about one-third were reported to police (Truman & Langton, 2015). About 75 percent of all women who were raped were assaulted by perpetrators they knew and about 25 percent were assaulted by strangers. African American women are raped at a higher rate (relative to the population) than White or Hispanic women. And indigenous populations (Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, Hawaiian Natives, and Pacific Islanders) are two-and-one-half times more likely to experience violent sexual assault in their lifetimes.

The Controversy Surrounding Rape

There is considerable controversy surrounding rape statistics though, including the methodology used to collect data, how questions are phrased, and even how rape and sexual assault are defined. Consider, for example, that according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, about two million adult women were raped in 2011. Compare this statistic to the U.S. Department of Justice NCVS, which estimated that there were 238,000 rapes and sexual assaults reported in 2011 (note that this does not mean that 238,000 individual women were raped, but that there were this many incidences of rapes and sexual assaults reported) (U.S. Department of Justice, 2011). Why is there such a difference in estimates? Critics cite gender bias, such as questions designed to elicit an affirmative response from women but a negative response from men (Young, 2014).

Consider that the CDC definition for rape or sexual assault against women is quite broad, whereas for men, it is quite narrow. For instance, the CDC survey includes incapacitated sexual acts—defined as sexual activity when the respondent was too intoxicated to consent—for women only. Incapacitated sexual acts constituted two-thirds of all reported rapes on the CDC survey, and yet did not include instructions to rule out instances of voluntary sex while intoxicated. Further, the CDC defined rape of men as forcible sexual activity by another man, but did not include instances where men were too incapacitated to consent to sexual activity with women, or instances where men were forced to penetrate a woman, or receive or give oral sex to a woman (rather these were included as “other sexual violence”).

In other words, if a man reports being forced to have sexual intercourse with a woman, the CDC classifies that not as rape, but as “sexual coercion” or “other sexual violence,” but if a woman reports being forced to have sexual intercourse with a man, or having sex while intoxicated (voluntarily or involuntarily), that is considered rape. Are the differences in definitions fair? Do they factually represent qualitative differences in sexual experiences where men have more power in society than women? Or do they reflect gender-based stereotypes where men always want sex (regardless of who it is with), and women are not responsible for the choices they make, even the foolish ones? Does presuming women are always victims and cannot be perpetrators of violence accurately capture the culture of rape and patriarchy in our society, or does it rob women of their free choice and agency? Some critics of the CDC approach believe that the latter is true, and that such an attitude trivializes the problem of female-perpetrated assaults on men (Young, 2014). Treating sexual assault in a gender-neutral manner may sound good on the surface, but the question must be asked whether this approach trivializes the long-standing problem of violence against women in our society. If this is the case, then perhaps relying on gender-contextualized definitions of rape and sexual assault is the most effective way of reflecting longstanding and deeply rooted gender power disparities in society. What do you believe?

The problem of sexual assault on college campuses, particularly incapacitated sex, has gained considerable attention, as well as generated controversy, in the past few years, in large part due to several high profile on-campus rape allegations. The attention was warranted because of the alarming rate of sexual assaults on campuses across the country, particularly incapacitated sex, and the perceived general indifference on the part of many college administrators.

Several researchers have reported that one in five women are raped while in college, but the variation of sexual assaults and misconduct across universities has put that estimate in question. The Association of American Universities (AAU) conducted a survey of 27 public and private universities across the United States and found that the rate of sexual assault ranged significantly across universities depending on the type of sexual violence or misconduct. The survey found that overall, about 23 percent of undergraduate female college students reported having been sexually assaulted by physical force, coercion, or while incapacitated since starting college. The rate of sexual assault ranged by year in college, with freshmen reporting the highest rate and seniors reporting the lowest (11.7 percent). Some universities reported rates as high as 30 percent, exceeded only by sexual assaults of transgender, genderqueer, and other nonconforming or questioning students (TGON). Additionally, the survey found that the distribution of female undergraduate students who reported having been subjected to sexual harassment ranged from an alarming 49 to 74 percent (Cantor & Fischer, 2015).

Gallaudet University students, faculty, and staff use their phones as a light source as the power temporarily went out during a rally and protest against sexual violence on April 7, 2015 in Washington, DC. The university is promoting the “It’s On Us” campaign, a White House-led initiative that asks men and women across America to make a personal commitment to be a part of the solution to combat campus sexual assaults

© RICKY CARIOTI/THE WASHINGTON POST/GETTY IMAGES

Unfortunately, there have been a few high-profile cases involving false allegations, such as the Rolling Stone story of “Jackie,” the college student from University of Virginia who alleged being gang raped by a group of fraternity members (Coronel, Coll, & Kravitz, 2015a). Jackie’s story did not stand up to scrutiny and Rolling Stone magazine ultimately recanted the story, leading to a flurry of accusations and counter-accusations regarding definitions, allegations, and narratives (Coronel, Coll, & Kravitz, 2015b). Despite controversies regarding how rape is defined, how statistics are calculated, the role of gender bias against women and men, and the nature of campus policies and their effectiveness, the problem of rape and sexual assault in the United States, and particularly on college campuses, is very serious and in need of continued attention.

Some male college students have complained about many universities’ policy of expelling the accused before a criminal investigation, stating that it is unfair and biased because such policies rob them of due process. After watching the video on the lawsuit filed by two male college students against the University of Texas, write down three arguments in support of the male students’ claims and three arguments in support of the university. What did you learn from this exercise?

ENHANCEDetext video example 13.2

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDDThO586LY&nohtml5=False

Recognizing the role patriarchy has played in creating a culture that stigmatizes female victims and makes excuses for male offenders does not negate the existence or seriousness of female-on-male rape. Sexual assault is a complex social problem that involves an abuse of power, most often targeting members of the population that lack power within society. Thus, while all forms of sexual assault warrant a serious response, rape and sexual assault targeting populations that have historically lacked power in society is at the core of sexual assault advocacy for women.

Why Men Rape

An important factor in prevention is understanding why men rape women, which includes being able to distinguish fact from myths. One of the more common myths of why rape occurs includes blaming the victim by asserting that the victim wanted it, liked it, or in some way deserved the sexual assault because she provoked the assailant (by dressing or acting provocatively, etc.). Myths about rapists include assertions that men just cannot control their sexual desires and thus are not responsible for sexually assaulting women (Burt, 1991). The damage done by the proliferation of these rape myths is plentiful because they blame the victim while exonerating the perpetrator, which undermines societal prohibition against sexual violence.

In fact, a 1998 study at University of Mannheim in Germany (Bohner et al., 1998) found that such myths actually encourage sexual assault by giving rapists a way of rationalizing their antisocial behavior. In other words, although Western social customs may claim to abhor rape, popular rape myths provide rapists a way around such social mores by encouraging the belief that victims in some way asked for it and that men simply cannot control themselves, and thus they really haven’t done anything wrong, or at least nothing that many other men haven’t done as well.

The Psychological Impact of Sexual Assault

The physical and psychological impact of sexual assault is serious and long-lasting and may include PTSD, depression, increased anxiety, fear of risk-taking, development of trust issues, increased physical problems including exposure to sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS, chronic pelvic pain, gastrointestinal disorders, and unwanted pregnancy (CDC, 2005). In 1975 Lynda Holmstrom and Ann Burgess coined the term rape trauma syndrome (RTS), a collection of emotions similar to PTSD, commonly experienced in response to being a survivor of a forced violent sexual assault.

RTS includes an initial phase where the survivor experiences both psychological and physical symptoms such as feeling extreme fear, persistent crying, and sleep disturbances, as well as other reactions to the actual assault such as the common fear of being killed during the assault. Survivors in subsequent phases avoid social interaction, experience a loss of self-esteem, feel inappropriate guilt, and in some cases, develop clinical depression. Many survivors minimize their feelings and reactions to the assault and avoid seeking treatment because they do not want to be stigmatized, which can contribute to RTS. In fact, one of the primary reasons most rape crisis advocates refer to clients as survivors rather than as victims is to reduce this stigma by focusing on the strength it takes to survive sexual violence.

Male-on-Male Sexual Assault

Men are also victims of sexual assault, in the form of child sexual abuse, same-sex date rape, male-on-male stranger rape, prison rape, and female-on-male rape. Research on male-on-male sexual assault is sparse with the exception of some early efforts to identify the nature and dynamics of male rape. The reason for the lack of studies in this area may be related to the belief that male rape is rare, at least outside prison walls. In fact, historically, the legal definition of rape does not even account for the possibility of men being victims. Due to the stigma associated with being a victim of male-on-male sexual assault, most incidences of rape go unreported, and thus it is impossible to accurately assess incidence rates. Even rapes that occur in prisons often go unreported, not only because of the fear of retaliation, but also because of the shame men feel in response to being victimized in this manner.

Treating men who have been sexually assaulted is similar in some respects to serving the female survivor population except that the shame men feel, although equal in intensity, tends to be more focused on their gender identity as males. Heterosexual men who were victims of male-on-male rape reported questioning their sexual identity and orientation because they were unable to fight off their attackers. Men also have a greater tendency to turn toward alcohol and drugs in response to the rape. Men also experience sexual dysfunction and problems getting close to people, particularly in intimate relationships. In addition, as is the case with female victims, some male victims become sexually promiscuous after a sexual assault or abuse (Mezey & King, 1989).

More studies need to be conducted on both female-on-male rape and male-on-male rape, particularly on the differing dynamics of sexual assault in ethnic minority populations. What research there is on ethnic minority populations seems to indicate that victims of sexual assault who are Caucasian and have higher levels of academic education tend to seek mental health counseling more often than victims of color or those with less education (Ullman & Brecklin, 2002; Vearnals & Campbell, 2001). This certainly has practical implications for human service providers who through assessment or advocacy have the opportunity to reach out to survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

Rape Crisis Centers

Human service providers working in any practice setting will likely encounter a victim of sexual assault at some point in their careers. This might involve a recent victim seeking support services on the heels of an assault, but it is far more likely that rape victims will present for counseling at some point long after an assault, perhaps even years later, and might not even connect the problems they are currently experiencing with a past sexual assault.

Human service providers who work directly with victims of sexual assault usually do so at a rape crisis center or sexual assault advocacy organization. Many states require that each county have at least one rape crisis center that offers a wide range of services including a 24-hour hotline, around-the-clock on-site advocacy during medical examinations and investigative interviews, and crisis counseling, as well as long-term individual and group counseling.

Many human service providers who work with sexual assault victims receive from 40 to 50 hours of specialized training focusing on the history of the rape crisis movement, the nature of crisis counseling, the dynamics of RTS, rape myths, and the dangers of gender oppression. Training also includes information on normal child and adult developmental stages and how these stages are affected by sexual violence and trauma.

ENHANCEDetext self-check 13.2"

"Hate Crimes against LGBTQ+ Populations

Historically, individuals (primarily men) who were considered to be “homosexual” were considered sinful and immoral, committing “unnatural acts,” called either sodomy or buggery. Men who were suspected of engaging in “homosexual behavior” were often subjected to inhumane and unscientific examinations of their anuses in an attempt to determine if sexual intercourse with another man had occurred (this type of examination is still occurring in some parts of the world). In fact, not only were same-sex relationships criminalized in the United States, they were considered a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) until 1973.

Many of the hateful acts committed against members of LGBTQ+ populations can be better understood if viewed through the lens of homophobia—the irrational dread of, hostility toward, and prejudice against members of the LGBTQ+ populations. Although the term “homophobia” is now perceived as somewhat limiting in the sense that it does not capture the totality of oppression and discrimination that the LGBTQ+ community has experienced, considered in a broader context, it can be useful in better understanding anti-gay attitudes rooted in stigma and sexual prejudice (Herek, 2009).

Despite increased acceptance of LGBTQ+ populations, hate crimes are on the rise in the United States. In fact, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), hate crimes against those perceived to be gay or lesbian, or those with nonconforming gender expression, increased to over 20 percent of all documented hate crimes in the United States in 2011. This increase makes sexual orientation the second most common target of hate crimes in the United States, more common than religion, ethnicity/national origin, and disabilities (race remains the largest target of hate crimes in the United States).

In addition to an increase in the number of hate crimes in the United States, according to research the level of violence of crimes targeting sexual orientation and gender-nonconformance is considerably higher when compared to hate crimes targeting other types of differences (Dunbar, 2006). For instance, the majority of hate crimes committed against members of the LGBTQ+ populations, or those perceived to be LGBTQ+, are against the person, not property, and include physical assault, harassment, and intimidation. Also, most hate crime murders committed in the United States are committed against members of the LGBTQ+ and gender non-conforming populations.

Members of the LGBTQ+ population are acutely aware of the risks they face, and even if they haven’t personally been targeted, the high number of hate crimes targeting this population can lead to a sort of vicarious trauma. This dynamic is reflected in a recent Gallup poll, which found that over 50 percent of LGBTQ+ populations reported being concerned about becoming victims of a hate crime, and of these, about one quarter report being extremely concerned. This percentage becomes even more meaningful when compared to that of the general population, where only about six percent of people reported being concerned about becoming a victim of a hate crime, and over half of the general population reported no concerns at all about hate violence (Marzullo, Libman, Crimes, Lesbian, & Ruddell-Tabisola, 2009).

After watching the film about Matthew Shepard’s murder, produced by the Matthew Shepard Foundation, describe what you believe is at the root of anti-gay hate crimes.

ENHANCEDetext video example 13.3

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOsgy7CYnMI&nohtml5=False

On October 6, 1998 at around 8:00 p.m., a 21-year-old gay Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard was kidnapped by two men, driven to a remote area, tied to a fence, beaten ruthlessly, and left for dead. The perpetrators, both 21-year-old locals, saw Shepard in a bar and pretended to be gay in order to gain Shepard’s trust. They targeted him because he was gay and their attack and ultimate murder of him was an intentional act.

The two men could not be charged with a hate crime because at the time, sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity were not protected classes in existing hate crimes legislation. In response to this heinous crime and the work of social justice advocates, in October 2009 then President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (P.L. 111- 84).

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act makes it a federal crime to assault individuals because of their sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity. The passage of this somewhat contested legislation has been lauded by civil rights organizations as a significant step forward in the fight for equality and protection of the LGBTQ+ populations. However, far more must be done, particularly since hate crimes against LGBT people tend to be grossly underreported, particularly crimes that are highly violent (Human Rights Campaign, 2013).

The vulnerability of LGBTQ+ populations to marginalization, injustice, and violence due to their sexual orientation and gender identity expression is magnified considerably with increasing levels of vulnerability. The interaction between multiple aspects of identity, such as gender, race, class, and sexual orientation, and their impact on social inequality is often referred to as the intersectionality of vulnerability (McCall, 2005). In the context of sexual orientation, the theory of intersectionality posits that societal oppression in the form of various types of social injustice, such as racism, sexism, ableism, ageism, and homophobia, do not act independent of one another, and in fact interact creating increasingly magnified forms of social oppression depending upon the number of vulnerabilities an individual possesses.

NYC, October 19, 1998: Candlelight vigil for slain gay Wyoming student Matthew Shepard

© EVAN AGOSTINI/HULTON ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES

While all women experience some form of gender bias, an economically disadvantaged African American woman will experience more social oppression than a middle-class Caucasian woman, because of the two identity categories of vulnerability (racial minority and poverty). However, add sexual orientation, a complex identity category, and the intersection of race, gender, sexual orientation, and perhaps gender identity expression and gender nonconformance will significantly increase this individual’s vulnerability to social oppression, injustice, and bias-based violence (Meyer, 2012). In fact, a recent report revealed that transgendered women of color were disproportionately targeted in hate crimes (Chestnut, Dixon, & Jindasurat, 2013).

Human service providers working with a diverse population may not be aware of the sexual orientation or gender identity of their clients, but can more effectively advocate for them if they remain open to disclosures and remain aware of the vulnerability of LGBTQ+ populations to marginalization, micro-aggressions, and violence. Clients may or may not disclose whether orientation and gender identity initially arise due to fear of stigmatization, thus developing cultural competence in working with these populations is vitally important, as a provider’s awareness and sensitivity will increase the likelihood that clients will feel more at ease disclosing any negative experiences.

Hate crimes targeting populations perceived as different in some way remain a serious problem, despite attempts to stop them through awareness campaigns and legislation. LGBTQ+ populations remain targets of hate crimes, which can have a lasting impact on those who are victimized, as well as their family and friends. Even if a member of the LGBTQ+ community is not personally a victim of bias-based violence, research shows that many within this population are afraid they will be; thus the experience of vicarious trauma is common. Creating an accepting environment and incorporating trauma-informed therapies into the counseling of LGBTQ+ and gender non-conforming populations can have a positive effect on clients who have experienced hate crimes and other types of violence.

ENHANCEDetext self-check 13.3"

"Victims of Violent Crime

In 2014 there were approximately 7.4 million violent and serious violent crimes committed in the United States (compared to just over 8 million in 2013). Although violent crime has declined in recent years, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, serious violent crime has increased slightly between 2013 and 2014, particularly serious violence involving a weapon and stranger violence (Truman & Langton, 2015). Human service providers work with victims of violent crime in a variety of capacities and settings, providing advocacy and counseling, as well as engaging in advocacy on a micro and macro level.

Historically, victims of crime had virtually no rights in criminal proceedings because the U.S. criminal justice system is based on the presumption of innocence. Because defendants charged with a criminal offenses are innocent until proven guilty, legally there can be no victims until after a verdict is rendered. If there are no victims prior to a defendant being convicted, then there are no rights to enforce. In addition, in criminal proceedings the case is considered an action committed against the state, and thus other than being a witness, historically, victims of crime have had no special status. This logic, which is consistent with the U.S. criminal justice system, is completely backward for most victims and victim advocates.

The victims’ rights movement gained momentum in the 1980s when victims of crime came together along with advocates in the human services fields to secure both a voice within the criminal justice community and some basic rights in the criminal justice system. The victims’ movement is based not on the desire to lessen the rights of criminal defendants, but rather on the desire to increase the rights of victims. Rights include being notified of court hearings, appearing at all legal proceedings, making a statement at sentencing, and being kept apprised of the incarceration status of the perpetrator. Most crime victims and victim advocates state that a primary goal of the victims’ movement is to ensure that crime victims have a voice within the community, specifically within the criminal justice system (Mika, Achilles, Halbert, Amstutz, & Zehr, 2004). How that voice gets heard is certainly up for debate. Whether through direct face-to-face meetings with criminal justice officials or through the active involvement in victim-sensitive training of police personnel, prosecutors, and judges, victims advocacy groups continue to work toward a system that sees victims as a central aspect of the criminal justice process (Quinn, 1998).

In response to the victims’ movement and subsequent federal legislation (42 U.S.C. § 10606[b]), all states now have a Victim’s Bill of Rights ensuring certain basic rights to victims as well as protection for victims of violent crime. Although there is some variation from state to state, most states ensure that victims of violent crime be afforded the following rights:

The right to be treated with dignity and fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy

The right to be reasonably protected from the accused offender

The right to be notified of court proceedings

The right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the offense, unless the court determines that testimony by the victim would be materially affected if the victim heard other testimony at trial

The right to confer with the attorney for the government in the case

The right to restitution

The right to information about the conviction, sentencing, imprisonment, and release of the offender (Victim’s Rights Act of 1998)

Victim–Witness Assistance Programs

In response to federal legislation and Victim’s Bill of Rights, state prosecution units within prosecutors’ offices (state’s attorney, district attorney, and attorney general offices) developed specialized units called Victim–Witness Assistance, designed to enforce victims’ rights and provide support for victims through the criminal justice process. Human service providers working within these departments offer the following services:

Crisis intervention counseling

Referrals to coordinating human services agencies, such as rape crisis centers, battered women’s shelters, and crime victim support groups

Referrals to advocacy organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), who have a presence in court to ensure enforcement of victims’ rights

Advocacy and accompaniment in court proceedings

Special services or units for victims of domestic violence, child victims, older adults, and victims with disabilities

Case status updates including notification of all public court proceedings

Foreign language translation

Assistance with obtaining compensation, such as reimbursement for counseling and medical costs

Assistance in preparation and writing of victim impact statements to be read by the victim at the sentencing hearing

Victim–witness advocates may have a master’s degree in any of the applied social science disciplines (social work, psychology, general human services), but often work at the bachelor’s level with some specialized training in the dynamics involved in violent crime victimization. Advocates must also be familiar with the inner workings of the criminal justice system because victims of violent crime often feel revictimized when they must endure the often confusing labyrinth of the prosecution system.

The average person may not be familiar with the differing duties of a local police department and a state prosecuting office, nor with how a criminal case proceeds toward prosecution. Those individuals who have become victims of a crime must be quick studies so they can be prepared for what is going to happen next. Victim–witness advocates can help crime victims understand the process of a criminal trial and the importance and value of each step within the prosecution process.

If a case goes to trial the victim–witness advocate will work closely with the victims to help prepare them for testifying. The clinical issues involved depend on the nature of the crime and victimization. For instance, if the defendant is the victim’s spouse who is charged with domestic battery, the clinical issues will likely involve fear of retaliation and guilt in response to testifying against a spouse, particularly if there is a possibility that the defendant might have to serve time in jail or prison. If the defendant was charged with sexual assault, the victim will likely experience feelings of shame, embarrassment, and fear. A victim of home invasion might experience intense fear of retaliation once the defendant becomes aware of the victim’s cooperation and testimony. In each instance the victim–witness advocate will work with community human services agencies and advocates to provide support and assistance to the victim in preparation for trial.

Watch the video of Lizzi Marriott’s mother, Melissa, delivering her victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing for her 19-year-old daughter’s rapist and murderer, Seth Mazzaglia. What skills do you believe human service providers must develop in order to effectively assist survivors of violent crime to prepare a victim impact statement?

ENHANCEDetext video example 13.4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt0fF_sA8n0

Once a defendant is found guilty, either through trial or a plea arrangement, a sentencing hearing is scheduled. In a sentencing hearing both sides have an opportunity to advocate for a sentence they believe is appropriate. It is the responsibility of the victim–witness advocate to assist victims in writing their victim impact statements, which are often read in open court before the judge, jury, and defendant. Although the statements are written in the words of the victims, they have a dual purpose—giving victims a voice in court and assisting the prosecutor in obtaining the desired sentence. Thus, it is important that victims receive guidance in writing their statements. This also serves as another opportunity for victims to express and work through their pain, and thus it is often an effective clinical tool.

Surviving Victims of Homicide

Some of the most emotionally intense and difficult cases for victim–witness advocates are homicide cases, particularly when the primary victim is a child. The victim–witness advocate must develop a high threshold for dealing with another’s emotional pain because the pain of losing a loved one through violence is often unlike any other loss. Revictimization through the criminal justice process is almost a certainty as surviving victims of homicide are forced to balance their desire to represent their loved one in court by being present at all hearings with the trauma inherently involved in having to hear about the gruesome details of the crime, including how their loved one suffered.

Research strongly suggests the importance of providing supportive counseling services and advocacy in the weeks immediately following a homicide. Surviving victims of intrafamilial homicides, where one family member kills another, are particularly prone to psychologically complex reactions involving both internal and external stressors. Most experts suggest the use of crisis counseling immediately following the crime, focusing on the concrete needs of the surviving victims. This approach is important in light of research, which suggests that surviving victims of homicide are most likely to utilize advocacy services during the initial crisis phase (Horne, 2003).

The needs of surviving victims of homicide are complex, particularly in the weeks and months after the murder. Surviving victims of homicide must cooperate with various law enforcement agencies and attend court proceedings at the same time they are planning a funeral and contending with the effects and belongings of the murdered victim. This can be quite overwhelming during a time when they are dealing with the paralyzing shock of losing a loved one in a sudden and violent manner.

Regardless of the nature of the crime committed, victims of violent crime all have basic needs that can be addressed by the human service providers working with them in treatment (Courtois, 2004). Common treatment goals include:

Building formal and informal social support systems

Reinforcing ways to regain a sense of safety

Teaching victims how to manage their emotions, such as anger, sadness, and fear

Achieving physical and psychological stability

Building skills that will help victims regain a sense of personal power and control over their lives

Educating the client on the nature of the crime victimization so they know what to expect

Reconditioning victims to minimize negative triggering of the traumatic incident

Helping victims through the mourning process

Seeking resolution and closure which leads to personal growth and allows the victim to regain the confidence and strength to trust people once again

By focusing on these core issues, as well as addressing the factors and needs specific to each type of crime victimization, the human service provider will be instrumental in fostering healing and growth in victims of crime so they can begin the process of seeing themselves no longer as victims but as survivors.

ENHANCEDetext self-check 13.4"

"Working with Perpetrators of Crime

The human services profession has a long history of association with the criminal justice system, most notably working in jails, prisons, government probation departments, police departments, and agencies offering services to recently released offenders. Human service providers working within the criminal justice system may be employed as prison or correctional psychologists who conduct psychological evaluations on recently charged defendants or who provide assessment or counseling to offenders within the prison system.

Human service providers working with perpetrators of crime may be licensed social workers who provide counseling and facilitate support groups focusing on various forms of violence designed to reduce recidivism. They may be probation officers charged with the responsibility of coordinating treatment and supervising the offender’s compliance with the conditions of probation (e.g., entering a drug treatment program, obtaining counseling, attending an anger management program, or completing community service), or they may be bachelor’s level correctional treatment specialists or case managers who provide general counseling to the prison population, assisting them in preparing for release and reentry into society. They may also be aides or volunteers working with youth gang members in an after-school diversion program.

Human service providers may also work on a community level advocating for prison reform such as the development of mental health courts, substance abuse treatment programs in prisons, or increased mental health services for mentally ill prisoners. Thus, although this field of service is broad, the clinical issues are specialized, requiring training focusing on the common issues facing offenders both within prison and on release.

Gang Activity

Gangs consist of groups of individuals who actively participate in criminal activities on an organized or coordinated basis. Gang activity has become an increasingly severe problem in recent years, not only with regard to the number of gangs in operation within the United States (estimated to be somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000 nationwide), but also with regard to the type of violent activities in which many gang members participate. Gang activity remains primarily a big-city phenomenon, with some of the larger cities having more than 30 gangs operating at one time (National Youth Gang Center, 2005). Smaller towns and rural communities also experience gang problems, but these tend to be relatively sporadic with gangs that are loosely organized.

Gang members commit crimes such as theft, drug trafficking, assault, and intimidation. When gang members engage in turf wars where one gang is in conflict with another, gang fights often ensue, involving both serious assaults and homicides. In some urban communities, such as Chicago and Baltimore, drive-by shootings are a way of life, and parents respond by keeping their young children off the streets and away from windows. And even that doesn’t keep some children safe, evidenced by the alarming number of children who are shot inadvertently by bullets that crash through living room windows.

Most gang members are between the ages of 13 and 25, but some studies found gangs that have members as young as 10. Most gang members come from backgrounds of poverty and racial oppression, live in high-crime urban communities, and live in neighborhoods with high gang activity (Vigil, 2003). Although there has been a recent increase in female gang activity (Chesney-Lind, 1999), most gangs are still primarily comprised of males.

Every year the FBI releases a report on gang activity in the United States called the National Gang Report (NGR), which provides an assessment of gang activity across the country. The report is based on surveys of law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. The report categorizes gang activity into four categories: (1) street gang activity (neighborhood gangs and national gangs), (2) prison gang activity, (3) outlaw motorcycle gang (OMG) activity, and (4) cross-border gang activity (gang activity between the U.S./Mexico border). This year’s report shows an increase in the size of all gangs in the past two years, as well as increases in gang-related crime (National Gang Report, 2015).

Neighborhood gangs pose a threat to residents, industry, and law enforcement. Prison gangs pose a threat to prison efficiency and the safety of both staff and other prisoners, as well as to the community in general since there remains a strong connection between prison gangs and street gangs. Gangs in general are increasing their criminal activities as well as the seriousness of the crimes they are committing. For instance, gangs consistently engage in drug trafficking crimes (e.g., manufacturing, trafficking, distribution), intimidation (e.g., threats, assaults, murder), and financial crimes (e.g., identity theft, credit card theft, money laundering). More recently street gangs have been increasingly involved in sex trafficking (international and domestic) and prostitution and have formed alliances with other gangs across the country and international sex trafficking rings to increase sex trafficking across the country. Activity between U.S. gangs and gangs and cartels in Mexico, referred to as Mexican Transnational Criminal Organizations (MTCO), has also increased significantly in the last two years, with prison gangs often facilitating the connection between the two. Threats against law enforcement, while remaining stable in numbers, have increased in boldness and level of violence (National Gang Report, 2015).

According to the FBI, gangs have two primary goals: to make money and increase their power. They accomplish both goals through criminal activity, the former through trafficking and robbery, and the latter through intimidation and violence. The NGR (2015) also reports that street gangs and OMGs have increased their power and reach by seeking employment in law enforcement agencies, the military, and other government institutions, as well as coordinating with other criminal organizations, such as international sex trafficking rings and MTCOs.

Another interesting trend is the dramatic increase in gangs using social media for recruiting new members, communication between gang members and other gangs, the targeting of rivals, the facilitation of criminal activity, and circumventing law enforcement. Social media has also been used to make threats to law enforcement. The most popular social media sites used by gang members are Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter. Additionally, prison gangs use smuggled cell phones to communicate with street gangs and new recruits via social media sites such as Facebook. In 2014 alone, the California Department of Corrections confiscated close to 15,000 cell phones from prisoners, many of which were smuggled in by corrupt prison staff in exchange for cash and sex (National Gang Report, 2015). In response to the dramatic rise of gangs using social media, law enforcement agencies are now actively monitoring social media as a part of their surveillance of gang activity.

Risk Factors of Gang Involvement

There are several theories regarding why people (primarily men) join gangs. Most sociological and anthropological theories focus on the sense of solidarity and feelings of belonging that gangs can provide members, particularly disenfranchised youth. Identifying risk factors is important so that effective intervention strategies can be developed and implemented.

A comprehensive study facilitated by the DOJ evaluated the gang membership and backgrounds of over 800 gang members from 1985 to 2001 in an attempt to identify some of the reasons why adolescents join gangs. This study, referred to as the Seattle Social Development Project, confirmed that the majority of gang members are men (90 percent) and that gang members came from diverse ethnic backgrounds including Caucasian (European American), Asian, Latino, Native American, and African American, with African Americans having the highest rates of gang membership. Interestingly, the study found that the majority of gang members joined for only a short time, with 70 percent of youths belonging to a gang for less than a year (Hawkins et al., 2003).

The study identified multiple risk factors for gang membership, including living in high-crime neighborhoods, coming from a single-parent household, poverty, parents who approved of violence, poor academic performance, learning disabilities, little or no commitment to school, early drug and alcohol abuse, and associating with friends who commit delinquent acts. The study’s authors recommended early prevention efforts that target youth with multiple risk factors. Programs need to focus on all aspects of the adolescent’s life, including family dynamics, school involvement, peer group, and behavioral issues such as drug and alcohol abuse as well as any antisocial and delinquent behaviors.

What this study seems to underscore is that for youth with multiple risk factors gang membership may be less an option and more a way of life. Adolescents who are fortunate enough to have cohesive families, where high-functioning parents work hard to maintain structure, provide accountability, and keep teens engaged in positive activities, can often avoid the temptation to join a gang. This is particularly true for black youth living in large urban areas (Walker-Barnes & Mason, 2001).

Adolescents without the benefit of such positive influences, including those who have neglectful and uninvolved parents, often face a reciprocal pull into gang life where they are targeted by existing gang members who recognize the existence of these risk factors. Many adolescents are drawn to gang life because of the benefits gangs appear to provide such as a sense of belonging, a life of excitement, and the feeling of empowerment. The NGR referenced aggressive attempts on the part of many gangs to recruit adolescents as young as 11. One example of recruitment tactics using social media include gang members posting rap music on YouTube in an attempt to engage interested youth and convince them to join their gang. Another example included a gang member who contacted a middle school student using an online chat platform and not only told him to join the gang but also demanded that he provide names of other middle school students.

Intervention Strategies with Gang Members

Human service providers who work with youth gang populations may do so on school campuses, in agencies that target at-risk youth, in faith-based outreach agencies, at police departments, or within the juvenile justice system. Most outreach programs target adolescents who live in large urban communities where gang activity is prolific and violent behavior a fact of life, especially those who come from single-parent homes, have poor academic histories, and have shown early signs of delinquent behaviors. Human service providers also target social conditions on a macro level, such as poverty, racism, and the lack of opportunities in urban communities, because these factors contribute to the development of gang activity.

The L.A. Bridges Program is an early gang prevention program that targets middle schoolers with the goal of keeping them from joining gangs. The middle schoolers enjoy a recognition ceremony for their participation and completion of the program

© LAWRENCE K. HO/LOS ANGELES TIMES/GETTY IMAGES

Many human service programs that target at-risk adolescents operate after-school programs or evening community programs that give adolescents a place to go to socialize other than the streets. This is particularly important for youth who are in search of a sense of cohesion, security, and social belongingness, elements that might be missing from their home life. In light of the research indicating that most gang members have relatively loose, short-term affiliations with gangs, these types of programs have the potential of being successful in steering even active gang members away from gang life. Finally, human service programs committed to reducing the gang problem must be willing to engage in active and aggressive outreach efforts, maintain a highly visible presence in the community, coordinate services with other gang intervention programs, and be willing to engage at-risk adolescents and their family on multiple levels.

The War on Drugs

Many people might be surprised to learn that violent crime in the United States has steadily declined since the early 1990s. Homicides, rapes, assaults, robberies, firearms-related crimes, and even violent juvenile crimes have all plummeted in recent years; yet the population in prisons and jails across the country has skyrocketed. In fact, the United States has the highest prison population of any country in the world (Walmsley, 2003). So what is to account for this seeming contradiction? Why, when virtually all forms of violent crime are on a downhill slide for many years, is the nation’s prison system experiencing such a dramatic increase in population? Many social scientists agree that the primary reason for prison overcrowding relates to the U.S. war on drugs. In fact, approximately 55 percent of all federal prisoners are incarcerated for drug-related offenses (Harrison & Beck, 2003) and 80 percent of the increase in prisoners in the federal prison system between 1985 and 1995 is related to increased convictions of drug-related offenses (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004).

The U.S. war on drugs might seem like good policy on the surface. Certainly no one would argue that the using and selling of illicit drugs is good for the American public. But many argue that the federal government’s aggressive policies related to the prosecution and punishment of drug offenders unfairly targets poor, young ethnic minorities, many of whom are serving extremely long prison sentences due to minimum federal sentencing guidelines (sometimes 20 years to life), despite not committing any violent crime (Human Rights Watch, 2000a).

Human service providers should be concerned about any governmental policy that either directly or indirectly targets a certain segment of the population. The war on drugs appears to do just this, evidenced by the significant overrepresentation of ethnic minorities, particularly African American men, within the federal and state prison system (Human Rights Watch, 2000b). Human service providers working within the U.S. criminal justice system must be aware of potentially unfair political policies to develop a truly objective perspective of social conditions leading to the overrepresentation of minorities in correctional facilities. In addition, they must understand the reasoning behind sentencing guidelines for various criminal offenses, identifying social influences that tend to hold one behavior in a particular era as socially acceptable, only to criminalize it several decades later. For instance, determining what drugs are socially acceptable and which ones are not is influenced by constantly shifting social mores.

During the Prohibition era the use and sale of alcohol was considered criminal, yet today it is considered socially acceptable within legally prescribed limits. Marijuana was once considered a gateway drug, and its use and sale was punishable by jail or prison sentences. In the last few years though there has been a movement to legalize marijuana, and currently 23 states have new laws that legalize the use and sale of marijuana in varying capacities (e.g., medical, recreational, etc.). Thus, there is a temporal aspect to the criminalization of certain behaviors, and it is important that human service providers recognize this dynamic.

Watch the ABC News video on women behind bars. What are your thoughts on the situations of the women featured in this news feature? What prevention strategies do you believe might be effective in addressing the issues explored in the film?

ENHANCEDetext video example 13.5

www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRuTgdGEDj4

Mental Health Programs in Correctional Facilities

The issues confronting human service providers working within the criminal justice system, particularly within a correctional facility, will vary depending on the demographics of the population and type of crime committed by the defendant. A key goal of the criminal justice system is to reduce recidivism. Therefore, “success” in terms of treatment is often focused on whether a prisoner, once released, reoffends and returns to prison. Behavioral programs within prisons can focus on many clinical issues, some related to criminal behavior and some related to other issues the inmates might be experiencing. Programs related to criminal behavior typically focus on issues such as drug abuse, sexual violence, domestic violence, anger management, and the development of social skills (for prisoners with antisocial tendencies). Programs designed to address psychosocial issues not directly related to criminal behavior typically focus on grief and separation issues, sexual abuse victimization (particularly for female inmates because a large proportion of the female inmate population has been the victim of sexual violence at some point in their lives), self-esteem, and issues related to the impact of being incarcerated.

Female inmates are often incarcerated for non-violent offenses related to drug addictions, and while African American women are overrepresented in the female prison population, the number of Caucasian women who are incarcerated for drug offenses, often pharmaceutical drugs, is increasing at an alarming rate. Advocates are concerned about the long prison sentences many women are receiving for nonviolent offenses, as well as the high rate of prisoners who struggle with mental illness and have histories of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Women who are pregnant or parenting when in prison often have to rely on the county foster care system for the care of their children during their incarceration (Siefert & Pimlott, 2001). Human service providers working in a female correctional facility will likely encounter women who are grieving over the loss of their children or are anticipating their loss once they give birth. One of the roles of human service providers is to work with outside agencies that can arrange to transport children to see their incarcerated mothers to maintain the mother–child bond. Parenting issues are often explored with the goal of maintaining close family ties and reducing the incidence of prenatal damage and infant mortality related to drug use during pregnancy.

Amanda Lyles, a prisoner in an Indiana Women’s prison, holds her baby girl while in her prison cell as a part of a prison family preservation program. In the last two years the program has expanded to include the Wee Ones Nursery, which allows eligible offenders who deliver while incarcerated at IWP to reside with their infant at the facility for up to 18 months or the mother’s earliest possible release date, whichever is sooner

© SHAUL SCHWARZ/REPORTAGE ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES

Some prisons have grant-funded programs that provide intensive prenatal care, nutrition counseling, substance abuse treatment, and individual and group counseling. One such program is called Women and Infants at Risk (WIAR), which helps mothers break intergenerational cycles of abuse, giving infants the best start in life possible. This is particularly important in light of how the “cards” are already stacked against infants who are born behind prison walls (Siefert & Pimlott, 2001).

Another significant issue often confronting both inmates and human service providers involves the high rate of infectious diseases that exists within the prison population, made worse by the ongoing problem of sexual assaults. Diseases such as hepatitis B and hepatitis C are prevalent in some prisons, and HIV/AIDS remains a serious concern among prisoners and correctional staff alike. A 2002 report by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) indicated that the incidence of AIDS in the U.S. prison population is five times that of the general population, and the primary method of transmission is sexual assault (Robertson, 2003).

The fear of being raped is the number one fear among men serving time in prison. Although no one is certain of the exact number of male-on-male sexual assaults within the prison system, it is estimated that between 7 and 12 percent of the male prison population have been victims of sexual assault while incarcerated, although the actual number is presumed to be far higher (Human Rights Watch, 2001), with many prisoners suffering multiple rapes throughout their incarceration.

A common complaint among mental health providers in correctional settings is the underfunding and understaffing of mental health programs often experienced in many jails and prisons across the country. Developing effective and comprehensive mental health services within correctional facilities is an important aspect of efforts to reduce recidivism rates among the prison population. However, the U.S. criminal justice system is punitive in nature and not based on a rehabilitation model, thus mental health programs are often not a priority within the criminal justice system, evidenced by a consistent lack of funding, understaffing, and limited outreach.

Yet even in prisons that have sufficient mental health services, barriers still exist that often prevent prisoners from accessing these services. A 2004 study surveying prisoner attitudes about mental health services identified several perceived barriers to service, including being uncertain how or when to access counseling, a belief that mental health services are for “crazy” people, the lack of confidentiality involved in the counseling relationship with a fear that the information shared would later be used against them, a fear that other prisoners would believe they were a snitch, a belief that people should deal with their own problems, a preference for talking with friends and family rather than a professional counselor, and having had a past bad experience with counseling (Morgan, Rozycki, & Wilson, 2004).

Human service providers need to be aware of these common perceptions held by prisoners so that strategies can be designed to overcome both real and perceptual barriers to seeking mental health counseling. Although many of these negative perceptions held are common among the general population as well, many are related to being in custodial care where prisoners’ personal rights are extremely limited by necessity.

ENHANCEDetext self-check 13.5"

"Conclusion

Working within the criminal justice system offers rich opportunities for human service providers at all education levels. The opportunity to interact with several other advocacy organizations and to coordinate services with agencies offering complementary services provides the human service professional with a broad range of professional experiences. Human service providers facilitate counseling and case management and advocate on behalf of victims and offenders, thus making a difference in the lives of the members of society most in need.

Victims of violent crime such as domestic violence, sexual assault, hate crimes, and other violent crimes need advocacy and counseling to turn tragedy into triumph and powerlessness into empowerment. Human service providers are on the front lines of bringing issues formerly kept in the dark out into the open, removing stigmas, and creating change that is meaningful and long-lasting.

Criminal activity and subsequent incarceration leaves long-lasting scars on the families of offenders, often plunging them into a cycle of poverty and social isolation. This process significantly increases the likelihood of creating an intergenerational pattern of incarceration. Thus, some of the most important work that forensic human service providers do involves working with the family members of prisoners, particularly children who not only feel abandoned by their incarcerated parents but often are forced to enter the foster care system if no family members are available to care for them.

Rehabilitation offers the most hope of lowering recidivism rates among the prison population, yet a correctional philosophy that incorporates rehabilitation is controversial because in the eyes of many in the general public, counseling and other mental health programs feel too much like a luxury, not deserved by those who have committed crimes. However, not only are prisoners a heterogeneous group (i.e., many prisoners have been incarcerated for relatively minor offenses), but those who have committed the most serious offenses are in many cases those who need mental health services the most. Unfortunately, mental health programs are often the first to be cut from state and federal budgets because on the whole the prisoner population does not garner much sympathy within the general public. For this reason it is imperative that human service providers advocate for the basic rights and needs of prisoners, as they do with all vulnerable populations."