National Network to End Domestic Violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about organization in the United States. For other related topics, see Outline of domestic violence.
NNEDV Logo

The National Network to End Domestic Violence(NNEDV) [1] is a not-for-profit organization based in the District of Columbia since 1995. It is a network of state domestic violence coalitions, representing over 2,000 member organizations nationwide. NNEDV works in a wide capacity to address the many aspects of domestic violence. Kim Gandy has served as the President and CEO of the organization since 2012. Past presidents of NNEDV include Congresswoman Donna Edwards, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women Lynn Rosenthal and Sue Else.

Policy Work[edit]

The National Network to End Domestic Violence is well respected in his continued legislative policy work. NNEDV has been called to testified before the U.S. Congress on domestic violence issues to assist state coalitions in better serving the needs of the victim by presenting research on domestic violence issues for pending legislation. NNEDV works proactively on Capitol Hill to make ending domestic violence a national priority. NNEDV’s members are state and territorial coalitions representing domestic violence shelters and programs in every state and territory in the nation. They work closely with the state and territorial coalitions to understand the ongoing and emerging needs at the local and state level, and then ensure those needs are heard and understood by policymakers at the national level. Ensuring the funding of domestic violence programs remains a continued concern.

Annual Census[edit]

Conducted since 2006, the NNEDV Annual Census is an annual noninvasive, unduplicated count of adults and children who seek services from U.S. domestic violence shelter programs during a single 24-hour survey period. This Census takes into account the dangerous nature of domestic violence by using a survey designed to protect the confidentiality and safety of victims. It also allows for a true representation of the gaps in services, and the strain it causes upon US domestic violence shelters. [2] For example, the 2013 census, conducted September 17, had an 87% participation rate amongst identified local domestic violence programs in the United States and territories. In that 24 hour period over 66,581 victims were served. Among those 36,348 domestic violence victims found refuge in emergency shelters or transitional housing. However,among those individuals 9,641 requests were unmet, of which 60% (5,778) were for Housing. The most frequently requested non-residential services that could not be provided were housing advocacy, legal representation, and financial assistance.[3]

VAWA Implementation[edit]

NNEDV worked tirelessly for the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). VAWA closed critical gaps in funding, ensuring all domestic violence survivors receive services. NNEDV actively participated in the OVW conferral process, sharing valuable information about VAWA's impact on the field, gaps in the federal response, and challenges and successes of implementation. NNEDV also participated in stakeholder meetings about the implentation of VAWA's Campus SaVE provisions, and worked to ensure that the negoitated rulemaking committee considered, in particular, the needs of student victims of dating abuse and stalking, as well as the confidentiality and safety needs of student victims. NNEDV also communicated the same messages to the White House Task Force on Campus Sexual Assault. The Department of Education has finalized its rules, and the White House Task Force has also recently released its report-and both reflected an understanding of and a commitment to addressing student survivors' need for confidentiality and safety in steps such as reporting, and the investigation process. NNEDV continues to work on this issue by participating in a coalition of allied national organizations. Historically, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically provide protections for members of the LGBT community.[1] Additionally, NNEDV continues to work to ensure that programs such as the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVSPA) and Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) receive adequate funding.

Capitol Hill Advocacy Day[edit]

Each year NNEDV invites state coalitions from across the US and its territories to come to Washington for a powerful day of advocacy. Capitol Hill Advocacy Day is an opportunity for state coalitions to meet with their representatives and advocate on behalf of domestic violence survivors. Additionally, skills building workshops allow advocates to refresh on current issues and strategize for the meetings. Past conferences have included both Congressional representatives and corporate partners.

Appropriations & Funding[edit]

NNEDV leads the national Campaign for Funding to End Domestic and Sexual Violence. Through this work, NNEDV is at the forefront of advocating for increased funding and resources for local programs and state coalitions. As part of this advocacy, NNEDV coordinates and implements a strategic action plan that combines national level work with grasstops and grassroots mobilization around the federal budget. The primary focus of appropriations advocacy is on increasing funding under the Violence Against Women Act,the Family Violence Prevention Services Act, and the Victims of Crime Act.

Gun Violence[edit]

NNEDV has emerged as one of the leading organizations for commonsense firearms legislation, specifically an improved and expanded background checks system. The clear connection to this work-preventing domestic violence homicides- has helped to build momentum around such legislation. NNEDV advocates for closing loopholes in the background checks system and for needed improvements to data collection through NICS. NNEDV continues to work with Everytown for Gun Safety (formerly Mayors Against Illegal Guns), as well as with other national organizations, to provide critical information and targeted action alerts to the field around proposed legislation to address gun violence. Additionally, NNEDV hosted a webinar with coalitions on gun violence and conducted a thorough review of state-level domestic violence homicide data, as well as information about lethality assessment programs and fatality review teams in the states. NNEDV won a significant victory on this issue under the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Castleman, where the Court upheld a definition under the law that will continue to prohibit convicted domestic violence abusers from possessing firearms. NNEDV's amicus brief in the case, which outlined the importance of upholding this protection through a common-sense interpretation of the law, was referenced by the Court.

Safety Net Project[edit]

Founded in 2002 by Cindy Southworth, Vice President of Development and Innovation at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, the Safety Net Project provides engaging and interactive trainings, both in-person and through webinars, to enhance the ability of programs and community agencies to respond to the needs of survivors in ways that both tech-savvy and non-techie audiences can understand.[2] The project has trained more than 60,000 advocates, police officers, prosecutors, and other community agency members across the U.S. and internationally. NNEDV's Safety Net Project focuses on the intersection of technology and intimate partner abuse and works to address how it impacts the safety, privacy, accessibility, and civil rights of victims.

Testimony on Capitol Hill[edit]

On February 8, 2006 Southworth testified before the Senate Consumer Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance subcommittee. The hearing focused upon pretexting and phone records. Southworth focused upon the necessity of keeping domestic violence survivor's information confidential. As Southworth said, "All companies that collect and retain personal information about their customers should enhance the security and privacy options available to consumers, and create levels of security that are not easily breached from within or from outside of the company. Given the creative and persistent tactics of perpetrators, companies must work with consumers to identify the methods of security that will work best for general consumers, as well as methods for consumers in higher-risk situations, including victims of domestic violence and law enforcement officers." [3] On June 4, 2014 Southworth, representing both NNEDV and the Minnesota Council for Battered Women, testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law. Southworth testified in support of Minn. Senator Al Franken's proposed legislation, The Location Privacy Protection Act of 2014. The bill seeks to ban these stalking apps and would require companies to inform consumers when their information is being used and what for what purpose.[4] Southworth testified that these apps are not covert in their marketing. Calling attention to apps such as HelloSpy, Southworth showed screenshots from the website showing women in various domestic violence situations. In one picture, under the section advertising the importance of catching cheating spouses, a man stands holding a woman's arm tightly while her face shows clear abrasions. This is a pattern among the majority of these alleged spy applications. Southworth testified that "consent is critical...and a reminder that the user's location is being tracked is critical." Southworth also provided additional recommendations on behalf of the organization, and stood in firm support of the legislation.[5]

Amicus Briefs[edit]

Commonwealth v. Claybrook[edit]

In February 2013 NNEDV signed onto an amicus brief filed in the case Commonwealth v. Claybrook. This case involved the sexual assault of a college freshman by three men in her dorm room. A Pennsylvania jury convicted the men, and the trial court denied their motions for judgment of acquittal and/or a new trial on the charges. However, the Superior Court overturned these convictions. The advocates’ amicus brief argued that the Superior Court's decision was based on misconceptions and myths about sexual assault, including the victim's supposed insufficient resistance, which was long ago removed as a requirement in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and remanded the case.

Souratgar v. Fair[edit]

This case involves the question of whether to remove a child from the custody of his mother and return the child to the custody of his father in Singapore, in a circumstance where the father had been physically and verbally abusive toward the mother, including in the presence of the child. The district court held that the child was not in “grave risk of harm” in living with his father. The advocates amicus brief argued that this conclusion runs counter to the weight of evidence that children exposed to domestic violence are themselves at serious risk of harm and that both mother and child were continuously abused post-separation from the abuser (and that this abuse must be taken seriously).

Cromeartie v. RCM of Washington[edit]

This case involves a woman who was fired for “allowing” her abusive partner to enter the worksite in violation of workplace rules. The case asks whether or not this firing constitutes a separation from employment “due to domestic violence” subject to unemployment compensation. This is the first case requiring interpretation of D.C. Code Section 51-131 in the District of Columbia; it is also the first case in the country on this subject to reach a court of appeals. The advocates amicus brief argues that her allowing her partner onto the worksite was not truly voluntary but was rather a product of the pattern of coercion and power exerted by her abuser and characteristic of domestic violence.

Positively Safe[edit]

Developed in 2010 this special project addresses the intersection between HIV/ Aids and domestic violence. Together with the National Domestic Violence & HIV/AIDS Advisory Committee, NNEDV developed a curriculum to train service providers in both fields. The curriculum has a large focus on building collaboration to address the intersection and prevent HIV and domestic violence. The project continues to expand, and is currently developing a tool kit which will be made available to coalitions in their HIV awareness trainings. In 2013, NNEDV was able to present its curriculum to the President’s Working Group on the Intersection of HIV/AIDS, Violence against Women and Girls, and Gender-Related Health Disparities. Because of NNEDVs on-going commitment to these issues, the project was funded to provide trainings to select groups on the intersection.[6]

Transitional Housing[edit]

In partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), NNEDV provides comprehensive, specialized technical assistance and training to state and territorial domestic violence coalitions, local domestic violence programs, other nonprofit organizations and local and state agencies. The Housing Project helps organizations create best practices in housing, transitional housing and related services for victims, and strengthens programs' response to victims with an emphasis on survivor-driven, empowerment-based services.[7] Additionally, NNEDV closely monitors legislative measures impacting federal housing policies. The Transitional Housing Program also provides a free tool kit [4] for coalitions to enhance their work with transitional housing clients.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Document at California State Library
  2. ^ "NNEDV Projects the Safety Net Project". National Network to End Domestic Violence. June 2014. Retrieved 2014-06-14. 
  3. ^ "Maryland Council of Directors of Volunteer Services Southworth Testimony". NCDVS.org. February 2006. Retrieved 2014-06-30. 
  4. ^ "Witnesses Say Apps Increase Stalker Capabilities". Minnesota CBS News. June 2014. Retrieved 2014-06-30. 
  5. ^ "Judiciary Senate Hearing on Location Privacy Protection Act of 2014". Judiciary Senate Subcommittee Hearing. June 2014. Retrieved 2014-06-30. 
  6. ^ "NNEDV Positively Safe Campaign". June 2014. Retrieved 2014-07-01. 
  7. ^ "Transitional Housing Program". June 2014. Retrieved 2014-07-01. 

External links[edit]