2

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t sP re p a red by:

Oliver J.Williams, Ph.D.

University ofM i n n e s o t a

a n d

C a rolyn Y.Tubbs, Ph.D.

P e n n s y l v a n i aState University

f o r

The Office ofJ u s t i c e

P ro g r a m s ,D e p a rtment ofJustice, Off i c eon Vi o l e n c e

Against Wo m e n

December 2002

This re p o rt is based primarily oni n t e rviews completed with AfricanAmerican re p resentatives from theSan Francisco/Oakland, Californ i aa rea and examines their perc e p t i o n sof domestic violence. This was ap roject of the Institute on DomesticViolence in the African AmericanCommunity (Institute). The Institutewould like to acknowledge the workof its Steering Committee membersfor developing, guiding andimplementing the nationalcommunity assessment concept:Linner Wa rd Griffin, Robert L.Hampton, Shelia Hankins, Esther J.Jenkins, Kelly Mitchell-Clark,William Oliver, Beth E. Richie, JoyceN. Thomas, Antonia A. Vann, andOliver J. Williams, the ExecutiveD i re c t o r.

The Institute would also like toacknowledge the work of the authorswho facilitated groups and workedto produce re p o rts from thecommunity assessment interv i e wsessions. Groups are listedalphabetical ly as follows: 1)Community Activists session - EstherJ. Jenkins; 2) Faith session - RobertL. Hampton (re p o rt written byC a rolyn Y. Tubbs); 3) HumanS e rvices session - Linner Wa rdG r i ffin; 4) Law Enforcement session- William Oliver; and 5) Lesbian,G a y, Bisexual , and Tr a n s g e n d e rActivists (LGBT) session - Beth E.Richie. Co-facilitators for thecommunity assessment sessions wereShelia Hankins, Kelly Mitchel l-Clark, Marilyn Smith, Joyce N.Thomas, and Antonia A. Vann.

The Institute grateful lyacknowledges John Jeffries and LoriC rowder from the Vera Institute ofJustice for supporting the pro d u c t i o nof this re p o rt by providing ongoingtechnical assistance and re s o u rc ec o o rdination. Special thanks alsogoes to Kelly Mitchell Clark of theFamily Violence Prevention Fundand the advisory committee sheo rganized for this project. Of thatcommittee, the Institute gratefullyacknowledges the participation ofR o b e rt Allen, Heru Neferah-Amen,C a rol Kennerly and Carol Russell.

The Institute is sponsored by theU.S Department of Health andHuman Services, Administration forC h i l d ren and Families, Office ofCommunity Services. This re p o rtwas supported by a subcontract ofcooperative agreement number 97-WE-VX-K002-S3, awarded to theInstitute through the Vera Institute ofJustice by the Office of JusticeP rograms, U.S. Department ofJustice, Office on Violence AgainstWomen. Points of view or opinionsin this document are those of thecommunity assessment re s p o n d e n t sand do not re p resent the off i c i a lposi tion or policies of the U.S.D e p a rtment of Justice.

Copies of the unabridged versionsof the session re p o rts are availableon the Institute’s web site atd v i n s t i t u t e . o rg.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................4

Summary of Findings ..........................................................................................6

Community Engagement Methods.................................................................8

Perceptions of Domestic Violence: Across Group Findings ..................12

Types.............................................................................................................12

Causes..........................................................................................................13

Consequences ...........................................................................................14

Barriers.........................................................................................................15

Solutions .....................................................................................................16

Session Summaries: Within Group Findings .............................................17

Community Activists Session ................................................................18

Esther J. Jenkins, Ph.D.

Faith Community Session ......................................................................20

Carolyn Y. Tubbs, Ph.D.

Human Services Session..................................................................................22

Linner Ward Griffin, Ed.D., MSW

Law Enforcement Session...............................................................................24

William Oliver, Ph.D.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered Session................................26

Beth E. Richie, Ph.D.

Conclusion ...........................................................................................................30

Policy Recommendations................................................................................32

References ...........................................................................................................34

Resource Guide ..................................................................................................35

Executive Summary

To further the understanding of theimpact of violence against AfricanAmerican women, the Office on Vi o l e n c eAgainst Women commissioned the

Institute on Domestic Violence in theAfrican American Community(Institute) to write a re p o rt oncommunity perceptions of domesticviolence in the lives of AfricanAmericans living in the SanFrancisco/Oakland, California area.

The Community Insights onDomestic Violence in African AmericanCommunities project is an ongoing,nationally focused endeavor. Includedin this endeavor were communityassessment interview sessions withre p resentatives from nine cities withhigh concentrat ions of AfricanAmerican populations . The firstassessment took place in the San

Francisco/Oakland, California area inDecember 1998, and additionalassessments have taken place withre p resentatives from Minneapolis,Minnesota; St. Paul, Minnesota; Seattle,Washington; Memphis, Te n n e s s e e ;B i rmingham, Alabama; Philadelphia,Pennsylvania; and Detroit, Michigan.Although assessments are scheduledt h rough spring 2003, the f indingsre p o rted here solely reflect perceptions ofthe types, causes, and consequences of, aswell as barriers and solutions to domesticviolence by African American communityre p resentatives in San Francisco/Oakland,C a l i f o rnia.

R e p resentatives were chosen because oftheir expert ise in and knowledge ondomestic violence, and their commitmentto eradicating domestic violence in theSan Francisco/Oakland area. Since thecommunity re p resentatives assisting withthe community assessments re p resent onlya few of the many voices knowledgeableabout domest ic violence in the San

Francisco/Oakland area, it is not assumedthat they speak for all members of thevarious African American communitiesthat exist in the San Francisco/Oaklanda rea, nor is it assumed that they speak forall those who work to eradicate violence.The purpose of this re p o rt is to share theinsights provided by these re p re s e n t a t i v e s .Their voices provide a starting point in ane m e rging conversation on how theAfrican American community, as a whole,can be a catalyst for change.

The family violence literature containsv e ry little information pertaining to howAfrican Americans view domesticviolence. Data focusing primarily onincidence and prevalence rates, tre a t m e n tcompletion rates, recidivism, pro g r a mutilization, and consumer needs tell thes t o ry of clinical outcomes, but do little toa d d ress the perceptions and cultural needsof African Americans experiencingdomestic violence. More import a n t l y,such data has traditionally focused onspecific individual’s or specific families’responses to domestic violence rather thancommunities perceptions of and behaviorst o w a rd domestic violence. Health andcriminal just ice data provide somerelevant indications of patterns, but oftenhave methodological shortcomings inre g a rd to presenting a clear picture ofp revalence, completion rates and pro g r a mutil ization (Bent-Goodley, 2001;Hampton, 1991, Joseph, 1997; Sullivan& Rumptz, 1994; West, 1998; Wi l l i a m s& Becker, 1994; Wilson, 1987). In allt h ree bodies of l iterature, AfricanAmericans are often compared to otherracial and ethnic groups of vary i n gsocioeconomic status without a fulla p p reciation of the complexities in whichviolence flourishes in their communities.Even more, data does not exist on AfricanAmericans’ perceptions of domesticviolence in their communities and itsa ffects on their lives.

Oliver J. Williams,Ph.D.Oliver J. Williams,Ph.D.

In an eff o rt to address some of the gapsin the literature and to better understandthe perceptions of African Americans inthe San Francisco/Oakland area as itp e rtains to the impact of domestic in theircommunities, the following five groups ofinformed community representatives wereinvited to meet in their respective aff i n i t yg roups as part of the communityassessment process: 1) CommunityActivists, 2) members of the FaithC o m m u n i t y, 3) the Human Serv i c eC o m m u n i t y, 4) the Law Enforc e m e n tC o m m u n i t y, and 5) advocates for theLesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Tr a n s g e n d e r(LBGT) Community. Thirty-eight (38)community re p resentatives participated infocus group interviews, which took placein December 1998 in Oakland. Thei n f o rmation provided in this re p o rtre p resents findings across the groups andwithin the groups. Although the Instituteconducted the assessments, this re p o rtre p resents a description and interpre t a t i o nof community re p resentatives’ voices,rather than any stated or unstated agendaof the Institute.

It is important to note that at many levelsin society, African Americans are viewed asa monolithic cultural group possessing asingular heritage and worldview. Thisre p o rt does not seek to perpetuate thism i s p e rception in its eff o rt to publicize andamplify the voices of the re p re s e n t a t i v e swho have participated in the communityassessment process. There f o re, when theissue of cultural sensitivity presents itself inthis re p o rt, we want to alert the reader tothe fact that the concept of “culturalsensitivity” at times serves as a proxy formany characteristics that distinguishAfrican Americans from the broader U.S.society (i.e., race and ethnicity). Howeverat other times, and more import a n t l y, inthe context of this re p o rt, the concepts e rves as a proxy for the multiple attributesthat mark ever-shifting, but import a n tdistinctions within the “African Americanc o m m u n i t y.” Hence, re f e rences to culturalsensitivity may be punctuating issues ofrace, ethnicity, social economic status,

sexual orientation, religious orientation orpoli tical affil iation. All of thea f o rementioned characteristics (exceptrace) shape and give identity to themultiple sub-communities of AfricanAmericans that exist within any onegeographical location. References tocultural sensitivity may also be moren a rrowly focused on the belief that thepotential of African American-re l e v a n tinsti tutions (such as the spiritualc o m m u n i t y, faith-based organizations, orcommunity-based organizations) top rovide services to the African Americanswhom they serve should be maximized.

For p r a c t i t i o n e r s, this re p o rtp rovides insights into thre ea reas: 1) community planningand education activities, 2)p e rceived gaps in serv i c eavai lability in terms ofg e n d e r, age, and culturalsensitivity - notably sexualorientation, and 3) developinganti-violence messages andidenti fying the groups towhich those messages shouldbe targeted. P o l i c y m a k e r swill find this re p o rt helpfulwith respect to the bro a ds t rokes of domestic violencepainted by the hands of thecommunity assessment gro u p sas a whole, and the narro w e rs t rokes sketched individuallyby each group. As a re s u l t ,policy and funding mandatesg rounded in the perc e p t i o n sof those living in andcommitted to the communitymove into greater focus. Inthis re p o rt, re s e a rc h e r s w i l lfind the beginnings of questionsw a rranting additional study, using eitherbasic or applied re s e a rch. Forpolicymakers and re s e a rchers this re p o rtre - e n f o rces the unquestionable need fortheir presence in the restorative pro c e s sand the necessity for all stakeholders’ inputin the development of solutions withAfrican American community members.

5

6

S u m m a ry of Findings

Findings from the communityassessment sessions indicated that:

• A high level of domestic violence wasbut one of many disturbing trends inviolence that occur in the AfricanAmerican community. A f r i c a nAmericans in the SanFrancisco/Oakland area werec o n c e rned about the pre v a l e n c e ,rather than the type, of violence intheir community. Domestic violencespilled into the community andcommunity violence forced its wayinto residents’ neighborhoods andfamilies’ homes.

• Domestic violence was part of acontinuum of violence that links thecommunity to the family. D o m e s t i cviolence in the home did not occur inisolation, and its prevalence almostm i rro red the various forms ofcommunity violence. To part i c i p a n t s ,this parallel evidenced the coexistenceof violence inside and outside thehome, highlighted linkages betweens t ressors inside and outside the home,and connected violence witnessed toviolence committed.

• Many participants noted thatthe prevalence of domesticviolence in the AfricanAmerican community flowedd i rectly from the deficit ofleadership, in general, andpositive models for non-violence, specifically, in theAfrican Americanc o m m u n i t y. Too, the lack ofleadership highlighted theabsence of cre d i b l eindividuals, families, andAfrican American sub-communities who practicedand exemplified the culturalprinciples valued by manyAfrican Americans, such asthose celebrated duringK w a n z a a .

• Racism and social oppression wereinextricably linked to violence anddomestic violence in the AfricanAmerican community. Whether in thef o rm of restricting economico p p o rtunities, marginalizing theunique cultural aspects of AfricanAmericans’ lives, or perpetuat ingnegative racial stereotypes, socialo p p ression and racism fueled ahopelessness that contributed toviolence in the community.

• Community deterioration andnegative intergenerational impactsw e re the inevitable outcomes of theongoing, pervasive, and unaddre s s e dviolence and domestic violence in theAfrican American community.Violence has eaten away atcommunity life by decimating theranks of leadership and creating acommunal sense of helplessness.Domestic violence has added to thisdisintegration by isolating those whoa re directly involved in the violencef rom those who witness it, ignore it orfeel impotent to stop it. Thei n t e rgenerational impacts of violenceand domestic violence alienated theyoung from the elderly, and AfricanAmerican children from their familym e m b e r s .

• Compet it iveness between thosee n t rusted with the task of addre s s i n gdomestic violence was a major barr i e rto mounting an effective communityre s p o n s e . O v e rw h e l m i n g l y,p a r ticipants cited the AfricanAmerican community’s inability tomount a collective response to theissues of domestic violence as a majorb a rrier to addressing the issue. Inp a rt, competitiveness was based onlack of a common vision and limitedfunding stre a m s .

Domestic violence was

p a rt of a continuum ofviolence that

links the community to

the family.

• Inadequate re s o u rces were also ab a rrier to mounting an eff e c t i v ecommunity response to domest icviolence. Succinctly put, inadequatere s o u rces produced inconsistent andh a p h a z a rd services. An important are aw h e re the lack of re s o u rc e ssignificantly impacted the AfricanAmerican community was in the are aof culturally-specific services, for bothvictims and batterers.

• Solutions to domestic violence in theAfrican American community must besystemic and hol istic. C o l l e c t i v ecommunity response begins with acommunity commitment to action.Systemic solutions bring together themajor stakeholders important to theissue of addressing domestic violence,o ffer multiple strategies, as well asintegrate a life course perspective.

Holistic solutions respect ands t rengthen the African Americani d e n t i t y.

7

I n t ro d u c t i o n

Cu rre n t l y, very little is known aboutthe voices within the African Americancommunity and the perspectives they holdabout the issue of domestic violence in allits forms. (“African Americancommunity” is re f e rred to as a singleentity throughout this document for easeof reading, but the reader should notethat African Americans are not amonolithic group. As noted in theExecutive Summary, any one group ofAfrican Americans may be categorizedinto subgroups based on ethnicity, socialeconomic status, sexual orientation,religious orientation, or politicala ffiliation.) Battered women, domesticviolence victim advocates, and otherpractitioners in the field have shapedmuch of what the field offers in serv i c e sto all ethnic groups. Although suche ff o rts have saved the lives of manys u rvivors and held perpetratorsaccountable for their behavior, manyp revailing models for service delivery inre f e rence to domestic violence have beenunsuccessful with African Americans.P rograms and services, whose constituents

a re primarily African American, aref requently developed without adequateinput or broad re p resentation fro mAfrican American men and women. Theintersection of culture, social context,c o m m u n i t y, sometimes povert y, and othercompeting challenges, shapes how menand women from African Americancommunit ies view the problem ofdomestic violence, as well as solutions toit. As a result, the Community Insightson Domestic Violence Among AfricanA m e r i c a n s p roject met with keyre p resentatives from the AfricanAmerican communities in nine cities inthe United States to explore theirp e rceptions on the impact domesticviolence has on the lives of theircommunity members. The pro j e c texamined what they perceived as thecauses and consequences, as well ascommunity responses and solutions todomestic violence. In this re p o rt, thereader will learn the perspectives ofAfrican Americans residing in the SanFrancisco/Oakland, California area.

C o l l e c t i v ec o m m u n i t y

re s p o n s ebegins with

a communityc o m m i t m e n t

to action.

8

As readers move through thisre p o rt, they will begin to seeand hear the problem ofdomestic violence thro u g hd i ff e rent lenses and diff e re n tvoices. There are commonthemes that emerge from thei n t e rviews, but there are alsovariations on themes acro s sd i ff e rent groups. After re a d i n gthe re p o rt, two things will beclear: 1) the community contextof African Americansu n d e r s c o res the complexityinvolved in identi fying the

p roblems of and solutions to domesticviolence, and 2) competing issues shapedby poverty challenge those communitymembers who live in low-income, high-s t ressed neighborhoods to respond toissues of domestic violence. These andother community insights highlighted inthis re p o rt provide alternate or expandedviewpoints on addressing domest icviolence within the African Americancommunity and supporting the need toestablish non-traditional services andi n t e rventions for African Americans.

Community Engagement MethodsCapacity Building and the Assessment Process

The first two of the nine cities chosenfor this project were San Francisco andOakland. The decision to begin theassessments in California was partly dueto its location in the Nort h w e s t e rn U.S.,in part because of the presence of anidentifiable African American communityin the area, and because of the activei n t e rest expressed by re p resentatives inSan Francisco and Oakland in mobilizingthe African American community toa d d ress the issue of domestic violence.

Although the two cit ies aregeographically close in pro x i m i t y, they aredemographically dissimilar. Thirty fivep e rcent of Oakland’s 399,484 re s i d e n t sa re African American, while seven perc e n tof San Francisco’s 776,733 residents areAfrican American (U. S. Census Bure a u ,2000). In 2000, 16 percent of Oakland’sfamilies lived below the poverty thre s h o l dand 25 percent of its adults had notattained a high school education.Oakland's median family income was$44, 384, while San Francisco's medianfamily income was $63, 545. In re f e re n c eto families’ demographics, 18 percent of

San Francisco's adults were without ahigh school education and 8 percent of itsfamilies lived in povert y. These statisticsp rovide broad strokes framing the livesand realities of African American in theOakland and San Francisco are a .

Prior to conducting the communityassessment, the Institute was involved in ap rocess of capacity building. Althoughmany definitions of capacity buildingexist, the one articulated by the Euro p e a nC e n t re for Development PolicyManagement (ECDPM) is helpful inunderstanding the goal of the Institute inentering the San Francisco/Oakland are aas part of the community assessmentp rocess. The ECDPM (1998) definescapacity building as promoting “theability of individuals, organisations [sic],and societies to perf o rm functions, solvep roblems, and set and achieve their ownobjectives.” The Insti tute took ap a rt i c i p a t o ry approach toward capacitybuilding that is people-centered, non-h i e r a rchical, and empowering by re l y i n gon local experts, grass roots eff o rts andcommunity strengths (Lusthaus, 1999).

8% of SanF r a n c i s c o ' s

residents livebelow the

p o v e rty line,w h e reas 16%of Oakland'sresidents livein povert y.

Capacity building took two forms. First,planning sessions were held with a locala d v i s o ry committee for almost one year.Members of the advisory group wereselected through re f e rrals from colleagues,state coalitions, domestic violencep revention advocacy groups and shelterp rograms. The advisory committeep a rt n e red with the Insti tute inconsciousness-raising, communityeducation, and community org a n i z a t i o nactiv ities, in addition to advising theInstitute on plans for an Institute-hostedcommunity forum on domestic violence.The advisory group also assisted theInstitute in identifying and contacting the

potential pool of participants for thecommunity assessment discussions. Inaddition, the advisory group identifiedlocal African American leaders, whodisplayed a commitment to and aware n e s sof anti-violence messages, for re c o g n i t i o nand award presentation during thecommunity forum. Second, a town hallmeeting was convened to provide a venuefor community members to publicly voicetheir opinions and concerns aboutdomestic violence to a panel of communityleaders. Both events were publicized inlocal newspapers, by radio stations, and ontelevision.

9

1 0

Community Assessment MethodologyP a rticipant Selection

Th i rty-eight (38) African Americanmen and women, of various ages,occupations, educational levels, andrelationship, gender and sexual identitiesp a rticipated in the community assessmentdiscussions (See Tables 1-3). They wereinitially part of a pool of nominatedp a rticipants who were divided into thefollowing affinity groups: 1) CommunityActivists, 2) members of the FaithC o m m u n i t y, 3) the Human Serv i c eC o m m u n i t y, 4) the Law Enforc e m e n tC o m m u n i t y, and 5) advocates for

members of the LGBT Community.Nominated participants within eachc a t e g o ry were identified by the advisoryg roup and then invited to part i c i p a t e .Though these groups were not exhaustiveof those community gro u p sknowledgeable about domestic violence,the Institute decided that valuable insightsf rom individuals in these groups wouldyield the type of balanced inform a t i o nhelpful to understanding issues ofdomestic violence in the SanFrancisco/Oakland area.

Community Assessment Discussions

T he community assessmentdiscussions used a focus group format ino rder to obtain participants’ perc e p t i o n sabout domestic violence in the AfricanAmerican community. The focus gro u pf o rmat provided an opportunity to learnwhat aspects of domestic violence werei m p o rtant to participants as theyresponded to open-ended questions and

interacted in a group discussion (Patton,1990; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990).The discussions were audiotaped tocollect information about the gro u pinteraction as participants responded toopen ended questions and to allow forf u t u re analysis of the conversations.

A member of the Institute’s SteeringCommittee facilitated each group and

C u rre n t l y,v e ry little is

known aboutthe voiceswithin the

A f r i c a nA m e r i c a n

c o m m u n i t yand the

p e r s p e c t i v e sthey holdabout theissue of

domestic violence in

all its forms.