After a quiet period during the first months of the pandemic, when much of the state was locked down, domestic violence shelters started running at about 150% capacity during the summer months. When providers ran out of room for social distancing, clients had to be placed in hotels and fed.

It’s been a complex time, said Verano, the executive director of Safe Futures, a New London-based nonprofit dedicated to providing counseling, services and shelter to victims of domestic violence in 21 southeastern towns. Safe Futures’ budget for hoteling clients has increased steadily this year.

“Everyone is overtaxed. Everybody needs resources. The effect on nonprofits has been dramatic. It’s very challenging, very stressful.”

Katherine Verano

Throughout the state, the 18 nonprofits that make up a network of service providers for domestic violence victims are seeing a combined $350,000 gap in their budgets as of Sept. 1, primarily due to increased hotel costs, according to Liza Andrews, director of Public Policy and Communications for the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV).

“Shelter utilization has been up for everyone,” particularly in urban areas, Andrews said.

Anecdotal evidence also suggests that domestic violence incidents have been more violent during the pandemic, shelter managers say. But at the same time, the number of deaths due to intimate partner violence has dropped this year from an average of 14 a year to six confirmed and two unconfirmed as of the end of last week, state officials said.

CCADV Chief Executive Officer Karen Jarmoc is working on ways to fill the budget gap. But Andrews said nonprofits throughout the state that also have been impacted by the public health crisis are competing for the same federal funding and private donation dollars.

iStock Photo.

The 18 nonprofit domestic violence shelters are seeing a combined $350,000 gap in their budgets.

Safe Futures and the Prudence Crandall Center in New Britain racked up more than $60,000 each in hotel costs through the end of August, Andrews said. The tally doesn’t include money to feed the victims who are being housed at hotels. Interval House in Hartford has spent over $50,000 in hotel costs.

Barbara Damon, who heads the Prudence Crandall Center, is calling on private donors to help close the organization’s $70,000 budget gap.

“It’s been an interesting time,” Damon said. “Calls for our services in March, April and the beginning of May were flat or decreased, including those people who were looking for shelter.”

But as the state opened up in May, “all of that changed,” Damon said. “We have a 22-bed shelter and had 37 people who needed shelter. We had 18 in hotel rooms just to keep up.”

Damon also said that incidents appear to be getting more serious. “We’re seeing much more severe abuse and really high-risk cases,” Damon said. “These folks really don’t have any other place to go.”

Like at other shelters, calls for service at The Center for Family Justice in Bridgeport had dropped at the start of the pandemic, said Debra Greenwood, president and chief operating officer. But the number of new clients has increased by 58% since then, Greenwood said. The Bridgeport center has spent more than $20,000 for hotels and food.

“There was a point where we weren’t getting phone calls back because people were afraid to. Communication dropped by 40%. But they started coming to the front door and talking to us through the intercom.” 

Debra Greenwood

There are a couple of explanations for the decrease in the number of calls for help as families were required to stay home in close quarters during the state’s prolonged shutdown, providers said. Victims may have been unable to call because the abuser has been home due to restrictions or reduced work hours, some providers said. It’s nearly impossible to file for a restraining order online while the abuser is home every day, Verano said.

“Some people are saying things are getting worse because of the stress put on families. Financial issues are always a big trigger for an abuser who feels the need to control things,” Andrews said. “We’ve heard from others that it’s been better because the abuser feels completely in control because everyone is home.”

But Verano also thinks it was because victims were making sure to tread more carefully so as not to anger an abuser. “As a victim, I’m going to minimize me so much. I’m not going to fight back, and I’m not going to leave,” Verano said.

People were afraid to go to a shelter during the height of the pandemic since it meant a congregate living situation where the virus can easily spread, Verano said. “There were so many factors for a victim in leaving at that time,” she said.

Statewide shelters are now at 122% capacity, which is on par with the months before the pandemic. But Andrews cautioned that the $350,000 shortfall as of Aug. 31 might increase by the end of the year if the need to hotel more victims rises again, Andrews said.

Verano was still in the process of digging out from the $60,000 deficit when New London recently became a hot spot for increasing COVID-19 infections.

State officials issued an alert last Thursday asking New London residents to take extra precautions, such as limiting trips outside the house and using masks, as positive tests for COVID-19 and hospitalizations are on the rise.

Last year, from March to August, Verano spent $7,220.47 in hotel costs. This year during the same period, she spent $67,202—nearly an 830% increase.

“We’re seeing much more severe abuse and really high-risk cases. These folks really don’t have any other place to go.”

 

Barbara Damon

 

The increased hotel costs were due in part to Verano’s inability to transfer clients to other shelters throughout the state as the pandemic made its way through Connecticut. By August, when the number of COVID-19 cases had gone down, she was able to send some clients to other towns. But now she’s looking at the potential for a wave of new victims seeking shelter who can’t be placed in other parts of the state because of the uptick in cases in New London.

It’s “very concerning,” she said. “What this means is that our hotel costs will escalate once again.”

Verano has received some federal, grant and foundation funding and private donations to make up the difference and Safe Futures hosted a fundraiser recently. But it’s not going to be enough, she said.

“We had our walk. Unfortunately, we did not reach our goal as everyone is pretty tapped out,” Verano said.

Need to connect to a domestic violence advocate?  Call or text: 1-888-774-2900 or go to CTSafeConnect.org

This time, the safety of women has been subsumed in a strange debate about security at our country’s southern border. Amid unpaid furloughs, federal employees who are working without pay, and shuttered federal departments sits the expired Violence Against Women Act, also known as VAWA.

VAWA funding supports a variety of initiatives in Connecticut, said Liza Andrews, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence director of public policy and communications. Those include various services for survivors of sexual and domestic violence, as well as funding for advocacy and training. Nearly 40,000 Connecticut residents seek help around domestic violence every year. Shelters for women leaving domestic violence are over capacity all. The. Time.

VAWA funding was included in the recent federal budget that Congress hasn’t passed after President Donald Trump tied its passage to paying for a wall (or a fence or a series of steel slats, depending on which tweet you read) along the country’s border with Mexico.

The new Congress can either pass a budget or reauthorize VAWA—which sounds simpler than it’s been in the last few years. While activists watched in horror, the law was nudged forward (barely) by a Republican Congress when it was due to expire in September, and again in December.

This is what happens when funding is subject to the political winds of a partisan Washington. Something as important as VAWA can take a back seat.

By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

VAWA supporters demonstrate in 2013.

An example? Sen. Mitch McConnell is the senior senator from Kentucky who has emerged as a rabid Trump supporter. He was one of the original co-sponsors of the first iteration of the bill in  1991 after the contentious and disappointing Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings, but he voted against its reauthorization in 2013 when Democrats sought to include provisions for same-sex couples and immigrants, as well as expand programs for victims of sex trafficking. That reauthorization took 18 months, said Karen Jarmoc, president and CEO of Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. (Votes for two earlier reauthorizations, in 2000 and 2005, were mostly bipartisan and smooth.)

That kind of politicization “is not helpful in any way, especially when we’re speaking about such an important challenge as violence against women in their homes, in their workplaces, and in society,” said Jarmoc.

The law’s original intent, according to the Congressional Research Service, was to address “domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking,” crimes that overwhelmingly affect women. Funding addressed, among other things, revamping the criminal justice system, community and prevention. People at state organizations such as Connecticut Alliance to End Sexual Violence (CONNSACS) and Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, are counting on the shutdown ending soon. Funding for programs that come through the federal Department of Health and Human Services was approved in September, though funding from the Department of Justice, home of the Office of Violence Against Women, is tied to the new budget.

And this is important. With its passage in 1994, VAWA created a network of protections for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. According to a 2016 Department of Justice report, VAWA funding “transformed” how the criminal justice respond to sexual and domestic violence. Its importance can’t be overstated.

The act was originally part of the Violence Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a piece of legislation that was six years and multiple late-night caucuses in the making. Among other things, the law pumped money into urban areas—such as Hartford—that were being choked by gang violence. But it also created harsher (the so-called “three strikes” provision) punishment for federal crimes and President Bill Clinton, who lobbied hard for the bill, eventually apologized for the bill’s negative impact on communities of color.

Trump says he’s ready to deal on the border wall. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may be able to guide the president into something workable.

But here’s an idea. Let’s make funding for these services permanent. The protection of women should never be subject to political whims.

Susan Campbell is a distinguished lecturer at the University of New Haven. She can be reached at slcampbell417@gmail.com.

Legislators also passed a law that seeks to reduce the times police officers arrest both the victim and the aggressor on domestic violence calls, or so-called “dual arrests.” And they, in an attempt to close the gender wage gap, passed a bill that prevents potential employers from asking job applicants about salary history.

About that last one, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said, “This inequity is perpetuated by the practice of asking for salary history during the hiring process, which can disproportionately ensure that women who were underpaid at their first job continue to be underpaid throughout their careers, creating a cycle of poverty and causing real harm to families.”

But let’s give an honest grade for what happened—and what didn’t happen—in the session that ended at midnight May 9.

Connecticut legislators’ effort was a solid C for what they could do for families—or, if we’re feeling generous, maybe a C+. Too many pieces of legislations that could have made a big difference in a small state were left on the table, died in committee, or never got traction.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment was legislators’ failure to pass a paid family leave bill. They also couldn’t raise the state’s minimum wage, which stands at $10.10.

“There was no increase to minimum wage, but we raised the amount before taxes on inheritances take effect,” said Lori J. Pelletier, president of the Connecticut AFL-CIO. “So people making $10,000 a year got left behind, and people who inherit millions of dollars got a break.”

The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that doesn’t offer paid family leave, though employers can offer it at their discretion. Some states, such as New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, have gone ahead with the initiative, but not Connecticut. In those states, leaves are administered through disability insurance programs, and funded by employee payroll deductions. While Connecticut is losing its millennials, paid family leave would have been a nice incentive to stay and work in the state. But no.

Khadija Gurnah

“Connecticut MomsRising members were disappointed that our legislature failed to pass a critical paid family and medical leave bill,” said Khadija Gurnah, MomsRising campaign director.

“While we’re disappointed, we won’t give up,” Gurnah said. “We’ll keep working to ensure that all Connecticut families have access to paid family and medical leave.”

Paid family leave would ease a big burden on strapped families trying to live in expensive Connecticut, said Kate Farrar, executive director of the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), which pushed hard for the bill.

“Every day women are forced to choose between their paycheck and caring for a sick child or relative or battling their own illness,” Farrar said. “Every day women face harassment in their workplaces. Economic security for women in our state is critical to the well-being of our workforce and prosperity of our state’s economy.”

“I think that this is not a stellar grade this session,” said Karen Jarmoc, president and CEO of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. “I think that there is absolutely more work to do.”

Jarmoc’s organization celebrated the passage of a law that eliminates the state’s 30-year-old “dual arrest” policy, where police can arrest both the victim and the perpetrator in domestic violence incidences. According to a 2017 ProPublica report, since the passage of the law, Connecticut’s rate of dual arrests had risen to about 18 percent, compared to a national average of 7.3 percent. (The rate was even higher, ProPublica said, in towns such as Windsor, where “dual arrests accounted for 35 percent of intimate partner arrests in 2015.” Ansonia’s rate was even higher at 37 percent.)

Jarmoc’s organization also was able to push through an increase in the marriage surcharge. People who apply for marriage licenses will pay $35 as opposed to $20, said Liza Andrews, the coalition’s director of public policy and communications. The extra money will generate roughly $646,000 for 27 domestic violence agencies around the state, Andrews said.

Lori J. Pelletier

And those Affordable Care Act benefits the legislators codified are vital and include emergency services, maternity and newborn health care, mental health and substance use services, prescription drugs, preventive and wellness services, chronic disease management, contraceptives, and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

“I don’t think they failed,” Pelletier said. “But I don’t think they achieved what they could have. They could have tried harder.”

Susan Campbell is a distinguished lecturer at the University of New Haven. She can be reached at slcampbell417@gmail.com.

Lori Gellatly had filed for and obtained a temporary restraining order because she said her husband was abusive. She was just a day shy of a hearing for a permanent order against her husband, who also seriously wounded Lori Gellatly’s mother.

Lori Gellatly’s husband (I am tired of naming shooters) has since pleaded guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder, and he’s due back in court in November for what could be a 45-year sentence.

Lori Gellatly died during what advocates and researchers say is a particularly vulnerable time, when an accused offender could react violently to being subject to a temporary restraining order.

Rep-Am.com

Lori Jackson Gellatly.

According to Liza Andrews, Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence (CCADV) director of public policy and communications, Connecticut law prohibits possession of a firearm by people who are the subject of a long-term restraining or protective order. But before that, when a woman files for a restraining order, a judge can immediately issue a temporary order—an ex parte order—which it did in Lori Gellaty’s case. The temporary order is meant to protect the woman during the two-week period it takes to get a hearing for the longer-term restraining or protective order.

But under that two-week temporary order, there are no state prohibitions against possessing a firearm, and it was during that two-week period that Lori Gellatly was killed.

Federal law prohibits possession of a firearm if a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence. At least 20 other states (such as California and New Jersey) have tightened their laws to restrict firearm possession for people subject to temporary restraining orders.

Connecticut, too, needs to close that loophole.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and research says that when guns are involved in domestic violence, women die. In fact, research from Johns Hopkins University—one of the few medical entities researching gun violence—says that women are five times more likely to die when a firearm is involved in a domestic violence incident. Despite the NRA’s nonsense about how “locked and loaded ladies” are defending themselves with firearms, a gun rarely protects the woman in the house. Instead, it’s more often the weapon used to wound or kill her.

The potential for carnage is significant. The state judicial branch says that last year there were 8,669 applications for restraining orders, of which 4,409 were approved. After full hearings, 2,445 permanent restraining orders were granted. (The relatively low numbers come in part, say advocates, strictly because some people who file don’t meet the criteria of intimate partners.)

A study published last year in the Annals of Internal Medicine says roughly 35 to 29 percent of American households claim to own firearms. Another study of women in domestic violence shelters said that when women previously lived in homes where guns were present, two-thirds of those women had guns used against them. The annual rate of firearm-related homicide in the United States—7.1 homicides for every 100,000 people—is the highest among high-income countries. Guns in the home put everyone at risk. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine says that the presence of a gun in the home increases a person’s risk of dying by homicide from 40 percent to 170 percent. (That same study says that living in a home with a gun increases the risk of suicide from 90 percent to 460 percent.)

According to the CCADV, Connecticut averages 14 intimate partner homicides annually, and most of those deaths occur because of gun violence.

During a month when we’re awash in sad statistics and sadder stories, a little common sense would go a long way. This isn’t about standing in the way of any one’s constitutional right to own a gun. It is, instead, taking guns out of the hands of bad guys. Surely we can agree on that.

Susan Campbell is a distinguished lecturer at the University of New Haven and the Robert C. Vance Chair for Journalism and Mass Communication at Central Connecticut State University. She can be reached at slcampbell417@gmail.com.