The Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) approved a two-year federal grant which will provide funding for Project Safeguard to increase outreach to underserved populations.

The grant was approved after a national competition and was sponsored by the Denver District and Denver City attorneys’ offices, the Denver Police Department Victim Assistance Unit, and the Denver Domestic Violence Task Force.

PSG Legal Advocates Tia Collier and Margie Wagner will begin to provide outreach, education and direct services focusing on Latina and women from other immigrant communities.

The grant provides funding for the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee and CourtWatch which will allow both programs to provide resources and training on stalking, as well as focusing on violation of restraining order cases in Denver courts.

Call 303-863-7416 if you have questions about the program, or would like to learn how your agency may become a part of a collaborative opportunities which may arise from the PSG outreach programs.

By Debora L. Beck-Massey

DVI Outreach Coordinator

As America matures and long held beliefs change, older women are admitting to being abused. In addition, because of the increasing longevity of women’s lives, they are more likely to acquire disabilities and partner abuse is substituted by abuse perpetrated by grown children and / or caregivers.

Older women, while embracing many aspects of current lifestyles, still hold to the socialization gained through the decades -- beliefs that they have little say over their bodies, that partners can demand sex as payment for the relationship.

Medical personnel are often revered so the women don't question what might be inappropriate actions or behavior.

They are unsure of their rights and don't argue on their own behalf when dealing with caregivers.

Many older women have lived with what is classified as domestic violence for over 30-50 years.

If they called for help in the past they were often told to endure it, the batterer was walked around the block and told to cool off, in fact they learned if they called for help the abuse became worse.

They now do not trust people who tell them that they should get out.

They are afraid of loosing their homes, are chained to the relationships because of time, they often do not fit into safe houses because of the chaos and noise.

The phenomena that occur when able-bodied individuals encounter those who are differently “abled” or older can be problematic.

The able-bodied become over protective or strong in their beliefs that, particularly women who are differently abled or older can no longer think, feel or act on their own, must have a “normal” or “younger” person tell them what to do, think or how to behave.

Please see, Disability, page 2

What is forgotten is that those who are older and differently “abled” have civil rights that should always be taken into consideration.

Caregivers, grown children and individuals working with older women often forget to ask questions such as “if their touch hurts” or become impatient when the individual complains of pain or discomfort.

If the older person complains too much they are threatened with placement in a care facility, loss of their home and loss of independence.

Policies and beliefs surrounding those who are differently “abled” and/or older woman need to be challenged. The supposition that all policies will work for everyone is a misguided belief that needs to change.

All agencies need to view their practices and services from the viewpoint of those underserved and outside the center of the bell curve.

Are the forms in large print, on tape or are helpers assigned to fill out the forms?

Are the victims required to report to law enforcement?

Does that limit services to the victim, keep them from getting help or out?

Are the services explain in a manner that everyone can understand? Are their older women working in the services so that women of their age group see or talk to someone familiar? Are older women included in volunteer programs?

Challenge our beliefs for the benefit of all being served.

Debora L. Beck-Massey MPA-DVM is the Resource Outreach Coordinator for the Domestic Violence Initiative for women with disabilities and based in Denver. She is also a survivor of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The Project Safeguard staff said goodbye to Executive Director Sharon Maybee who retired in July. Sharon had been in her leadership role at PSG for three years, strengthening the organization financially and programmatically.

She brought vast experience, energy, passion and fun to the agency and will be greatly missed. The staff is a little jealous as she will be spending her days enjoying her grandkids, traveling, making pottery and hopefully having some time for herself!

PSG’s Board of Directors announced the hiring of Corinne LeBaron as the agency’s new Executive Director. Corinne has worked in the domestic violence field for over 10 years, the past 4 ½ with PSG.

Please see Staff, Page 3

Corinne has been the Director of Client Services for the past 2 years,

Executive Director Sharon Maybee (back center) retired at the end of July. Corinne Lebaron (bottom left) was named her successor. Marie Schaal, (second right) was promoted to Director of Client Services. Mindy Abel (back left) is now a PsyD student in Washington D.C. Kat Boyd is the new Fatality Review Coordinator. Also pictured are Volunteer Coordinator Judy Ericson, CourtWatch Coordinator Susan DeFreitas, new VAWO grant our reach advocate Tia Collier, Bi-lingual Advocate Angel Ruiz, Denver Advocate Denise Thach and Development Director Alan O’Hashi. Not pictured are VAWO out reach advocate Margie Wagner and new Arapahoe County Advocate Amy Miller.

Staff… from page 2

She will be leading the legal advocacy programs, as well as working on legislative issues and conducting statewide trainings on restraining orders and other domestic violence issues.

Corinne’s experience, energy, commitment and dedication to PSG’s mission will continue to guide and strengthen the agency into the future.

The new Director of Client Services at PSG is Marie Schaal. Marie moves into this position after having been PSG’s Legal Advocacy and Assistance Coordinator in the 17^th Judicial District for the past 2 ½ years.

During her tenure in Adams County, Marie developed important networks, greatly enhancing services for domestic violence victims, including an expansion into the newly formed county of Broomfield.

She was also honored with the 17^th Judicial District’s Community Advocate award in 2001.

Welcome to Dawn Mallard. Dawn has been working with PSG since June as a part-time bi-lingual advocate.

She has jumped right in, working the crisis line, restraining order court, and divorce and custody clinic. PSG is excited to have such a hard working team player on staff.

Mindy Abel, the Director of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee (FRC) has left PSG to pursue a Psy.D. degree in Virgina.

Mindy had been with Safeguard for 3 ½ years, first as an advocate in Adams County and then as the first full-time Director of the FRC.

Under her guidance the FRC was taken to a new level in addressing lethality/ risk assessment in domestic violence cases.

The staff of PSG as well as the FRC committee members will miss Mindy’s dedication, knowledge and sense of humor.

Kathryn Boyd assumed the Director of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee (FRC) position in August.

Kat moves into this position, having worked for PSG for 2 ½ years, most recently as the Legal Advocacy and Assistance Coordinator in Arapahoe County.

While in Arapahoe County, Kat was able to build bridges between agencies to provide more comprehensive services to domestic violence victims.

Kat’s experience, commitment and compassion for victims will bring a new dimension to the FRC.

Congratulations to Angel Ruiz, PSG’s bi-lingual advocate. Angel and her husband Jose are the proud parents of a baby boy, Jose Alejandro. We wish them all the best!

In October, Amy Miller will join PSG as our Legal Advocacy and Assistance Coordinator in Arapahoe County.

Amy brings with her a passion for the work as well as practical experience.

She received her MSW from the University of South Carolina, where she also provided services to victims of domestic violence through the USC Office for Sexual Health and Violence Prevention, the Center for Child and Family Studies and Sistercare, Inc.

Since moving to Denver, she has worked for Savio House.

Randy Saucedo joined PSG as the Legal Advocacy and Assistance Coordinator for the 17^th Judicial District.

Randy comes to PSG already having many years of experience working with victims of domestic violence, including providing victim services for the Adams County DA’s Office, Commerce City Police Department and Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office.

He is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree in the University of Colorado at Denver’s Public Administration Domestic Violence program.

Raising the bar

Review hearings should be used in Denver courts

Two-thirds of all DV defendants in Denver have plead guilty at arraignment and immediately are placed on probation.

It seems it would be an easy two-block stroll from the Pre-Arraignment Detention Facility over to Probation, but many defendants do not make the trip.

If the defendant fails to take that two-block walk or doesn’t reports to probation, it may be six to eight months where the system gets around to finding a perpetrator to be non-compliant and the perpetrator brought back into court for a revocation hearing.

Generally, Probation makes an attempt during the first 30 days after sentencing to contact the defendant. Probation may have difficulty locating the defendant particularly when a restraining order has been issued and the defendant ordered out of the home.

It is only after this month has passed, that the revocation process begins. While it would be helpful if better contact information were provided upon a defendant’s release, a better approach is to order the defendant to appear before a review hearing.

The dockets in Denver’s General Sessions courtrooms are overloaded, but CourtWatch figures for the months of June through August 2002 seem to indicate that this would not be a problem.

A PSG volunteer was present in Courtroom 12T for arraignments 22 times during that time period. 274 cases were heard. Of those 274 cases, 63 defendants plead guilty and were sentenced to probation. That means that approximately 3 defendants per day or perhaps 90-95 per month would be ordered to come back for a review hearing.

Doing the math, between the three courtrooms, there may be two cases per day per courtroom. This number can be further reduced by canceling the review hearing upon notice of compliance from Probation that defendant has reported to Probation, attended four DV classes and completed all his assessments.

A rotating schedule could be set up where each of the three courtrooms takes one week of review hearings on a Thursday afternoon instead of doing Probation Revocation hearings on that day. If a defendant has not been compliant, a citation could be issued or a further review hearing set.

In addition, if the assessment shows that the defendant is in need of further counseling such as drug and alcohol treatment, the judge can make it an order at this time.

A similar procedure is set up in Aurora and seems to work well. Denver could benefit from implementing a program similar to Aurora.

While the initial transition to the system may put a burden on the system, the overall benefits of getting a defendant into treatment sooner and cutting down on probation revocation hearings would make a vast improvement in achieving compliance and containment.

The Safeguardian

By Nancy Ehrenreich

with Mark Barr

Despite a marked increase over the past three decades in laws and policies aimed at the problem of domestic violence, attitudes toward battered women still swing between two extreme positions. On the one hand, battered women are viewed as helpless victims, and on the other as contributors to their own abuse. These contradictory viewpoints in turn have led to a patchwork of legal solutions that fail to provide a consistent and realistic portrait of the limited but real choices available to women in abusive relationships.

After discussing the roots of the agency-victim debate, and examining the theoretical underpinning of some current domestic abuse policies, the author proposes a new definition of agency that recognizes the choices available to women even within the confines of an abusive relationship. She hopes that this new concept of agency will enable policymakers to craft strategies built around the real choices available to battered women at critical junctures in their lives.

Please see Mothers, Page 4

Mothers…from page 3

In surveying the current landscape of domestic violence abuse policies, the author groups the strategies into three groups: policies that (1) deny choice, (2) provide choice, or (3) punish past choices. Mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies lie within the first group, as they deny battered women any choice in the proceedings. Policies such as these grew out of a conceptualization of battered women as helpless victims with no ability to make rational choices.

The author uses the restraining order as an example of the second class, since it is the initiative of the battered woman that starts the procedure.

Finally, policies such as criminal prosecution of battered women who kill their abusers and civil termination of parental rights of battered mothers fall with the third category, where battered women are punished for past choices. For the author, it “defies common sense and fairness” to have some policies that deny any choice, others that critically depend upon the choices of a battered women, and still others that punish past choices.

In place of this fractured image of battered women, and the resulting confusion in public policy, the author offers a new definition of agency for battered women. The new definition rejects the old characterization of agency “where an individual is completely atomistic and self-determining.” Instead, agency within the context of domestic violence should be understood as the ability to make positive decisions or take deliberate actions in order to affect the possibility of future violence.

Three important premises underlie this concept. First, battered women will face moments when they can make decisions that affect the course of abuse.

Second, the presence of choice is not the same as control, nor is having a role in an abusive relationship the same as being blamed for the character of that relationship. Finally, battered women can act rationally even in the midst of abuse.

Recognition of this more nuanced concept of agency should lead to policies that effectively utilize the rationality of battered women while not ignoring the constraints within which their choices operate. As an example of such a policy change, the author proposes reforms in proceedings against battered mothers for failure to protect their children. Under the current situation, the legal system recognizes the victimization of battered women but at the same time punishes mothers for the same victimization through prompt removal of their children.

The author suggests an alternative system, in which a mandatory probationary period (during which the woman is provided with intensive counseling and positive support services) is combined with warnings about serious consequences for future unreasonable decisions that prompt a recurrence of the violence.

Such an approach, she argues, with its use of positive and negative consequences, would realistically acknowledge the role battered women play in abusive relationships, as neither helpless victims nor completely independent agents.

Nancy Ehrenreich is a professor at the DU Law School and a member of the Project Safeguard Board.

By Judy Ericson

Volunteer Coordinator

Eileen Kulas has a belief that she should give back to society by making someone else’s life a bit better. She has lived up to her credo by being one of Project Safeguard’s most dedicated volunteers over the past four years. Eileen also is a member of the PSG Board of Directors.

On Saturday morning you can usually find her in Denver Courtroom 12T. It is here in the noisy, bustling and emotionally charged arraignment court where Eileen patiently listens, takes notes, and mentally sorts out the complex issues that arise.

“I feel there continues to be a cultural stereotype of ‘what women should be’.

But, over the past four years I feel things are getting better. As I listen to judges, there seems to be more ‘thoroughness’ and awareness of DV as a valid issue,” Kulas said.

“There is more discussion of DV and more emphasis on ‘no contact’ or restraining orders between the victims and the defendant.

On the other hand, there seem to be more cases of DV, more cases with physical contact between men and women.”

Eileen had a successful career in the telecommunications industry.

Please see Eileen, page 6

Eileen…from page 5

Her involvement with PSG came as a result of her second Masters degree in Liberal Studies.

Her thesis was a profile of abused women.

While she was researching her thesis, several of her friends and co-workers stepped forward to share their personal abusive relationship experiences.

The reality of DV led her to PSG’s CourtWatch. “There may not be a lot of vocal admission by judges that PSG’s presence affects them, but there seems to be an awareness that leads judges to place more emphasis on DV as a crime.” Kulas said.

She credits her presence over four years as a reason why judges, DAs, and sheriffs know and trust her knowledge.

Thanks, Eileen, for all you do!

Charitable remainder trusts (CRT) can benefit families by increasing their incomes, saving on taxes and assisting non-profits, such as Project Safeguard.

During these turbulent economic times, consider converting highly appreciated assets, such as stock or real estate, into lifetime income without paying capital gains tax when the asset is sold.

Your income taxes can be reduced and estate taxes lessened when you die. CRTs allow you to assist charities, such as Project Safeguard that may have special meaning to you.

How does a CRT work? You transfer an appreciated asset into an irrevocable trust, which removes it from your estate. When you die, no estate taxes will be due.

The trustee sells the asset at full market value and pays no capital gains tax and reinvests into income-producing assets. For the rest of your life – or for a term up to 20 years – the trust pays you an income.

When you die, or at the end of the term, the remaining trust assets go to the charities you have previously selected.

If you think that setting up a CRT would be of value to you and your family contact your financial planner, tax-planning attorney or insurance provider.

Project Safeguard’s employee investment counselor at Met Life can provide specific assistance, call Alan at 303-863-7416 if you’re interested in more details about CRTs or other estate planning matters.

By Alan O’Hashi

Editor

Police officer attitudes about battered women are created from linking the officers’ day-to-day work experience with their personal perceptions of women and families.

This gestalt can result in a police officer taking various levels of action that may be flavored by preconceived notions about DV victims and perpetrators based on selective recall of work experiences, exaggerated stories told by fellow officers, and prior socialization, even though police responses to domestic violence calls, statutorily, leave no room for discretion.

The author focuses on enforcement of protective orders that are meant to protect DV victims from within the context of police working as a part of a patriarchal social culture in the city of Delta, British Columbia.

Review of the Literature -- The author offers two reasons for why Canadian protective orders and their enforcement need to be examined. First, he says, studies in the late 1980s and early 1990s are “guarded” about the success of protective orders. Second, with increasing public awareness about DV, the author believes that protective orders are used more frequently.

There are few studies about restraining orders, despite the proliferation of legislation world-wide that provide orders to protect women victims of DV.

Site – Delta, located south of Vancouver, had a police force of 131 sworn officers, including 12 policewomen. There were 32 constables who were on patrol, outside of traffic or other duties.

The official position of the Department is one in which officers are instructed to arrest in cases of DV – zero tolerance. The author found that civil protective orders are not taken seriously by the Delta police.

Please see Police, page 7

Police…from page 6

Methods of Inquiry – Feminist scholars hold differing views about examining domestic violence issues using quantitative and qualitative methods. The author concludes that while both approaches are valid, the attitudes of police officers about law enforcement can be best understood by revealing from face-to-face interviews information about their feelings about “women, violence, marriage, privacy, masculinity and domesticity.”

He interviewed 13 police officers and 8 other justice officials over three months. This represents a 16% sample of the entire force, but 47% of the beat cops who would more likely respond to DV calls. The author says that the reliability of the interview data increased as officers in Delta became more comfortable with his presence

The Police Subculture In Delta, the author found that the “masculine occupational culture contributed to the negative stereotypes of women as liars, manipulators and unreliable witnesses; (which) fostered erroneous assumptions about the cause of violence in the home; and pointed the finger at ‘the system.’”

Finger-Pointing – The sample of Delta police officers perceived, sometimes “venomously” that restraining orders were too easy to obtain and were thus not taken seriously by judges and lawyers.

The judicial officials interviewed, however, thought that the orders were effective, but the police failed to enforce them.

Attitudes Toward Marriage – The author said that police officers hold the conservative attitude that a woman’s place is in the home and duties include those of mothering and housekeeping. He found this attitude to be pervasive in the Delta sample

Blaming Women – Male police officers recalled negative experiences with battered women that reinforced their definition of women as untrustworthy liars. The officers deflected blame from men by saying DV is caused by variables such as alcohol and tough times at work.

The author’s caveat is, that there may be some truth in what officers say, but questions how such attitudes become pervasive and circulate to the point that “a grain of sand becomes a beach.”

Women as Reluctant Witnesses – Officers said they put a lot of time into DV cases, only to have women recant which causes resentment to build up toward victims. These thoughts from officers are contrast with those who say that women are cooperative “most of the time” or that many trials don’t happen because of guilty plea bargains.

The author analyzed Delta court records that indicate 10% of women were classified as “uncooperative.” He attributes the vast difference between perception and reality to “selective recall” and a police subculture that places faith in “war stories.”

The selected memories of DV cases going sour because of reluctant witnesses over shadow the hundreds of cases in their careers that result in guilty pleas or successful prosecutions.

Conclusions – Gathering more information or creating more automated systems to process restraining orders will not result in more enforcement when orders are breached. The author says that more police DV training is needed.

Victims of domestic violence are cynical about the criminal justice system that doesn’t seem to be there for them. In the case of Delta, battered women become victimized again by the unspoken culture of criminal justice system.

Project Safeguard is seeking lay and professional volunteers to assist with our domestic violence prevention programs, particularly in Adams, Arapahoe counties and the newly created Broomfield County, now included in the 17^th Judicial District.

We are also seeking volunteers to assist with data collection and entry for our domestic violence prevention research programs.

Volunteers with knowledge of research methods and design and working experience with statistical programs like SPSS and Excel are encouraged to contact us. PSG is in the process of coding and analyzing data from the CourtWatch program. The analyses will be used to help the judicial system become more effective in helping to prevent domestic violence.

Volunteers are needed for most advocacy programs from assisting with legal and safety clinics to working in the office.

All volunteers receive training.

To date, volunteers have logged over 2,500 hours. Training is provided to all volunteers.

If interested, contact Volunteer Coordinator Judy Ericson at 303-863-7416 or jadeltd@aol.com

The Safeguardian is a publication of Project Safeguard, a Colorado 501(c)3 non-profit organization.

Our dream is to eradicate domestic violence and create equality and justice for all women and their children by promoting a system that treats all victims fairly and holds all abusers accountable.

Our mission is to provide safety, support, advocacy and justice to empower women and their children to achieve freedom from domestic violence.

Our Strategic goals: remain financially secure while expanding funding sources; continue to enhance its strong and effective direct services; lead the statewide effort toward social change to eradicate DV; address the changing social and cultural needs of the community.

Project Safeguard Board of Directors

Elizabeth Weishaupl - President

Julie Collett - President Elect

Kathleen Markey – Treasurer Karen Serota – Secretary

At Large -- Anna K. Farber Conrad, Tessa Alexander, Stephanie Drab, Shelia Mitchell, Nancy Ehrenreich, Kenneth Floyd, Eileen Kulas, Dimple Dhabalia

Project Safeguard Staff

Corinne LeBaron Executive Director

Marie Schaal Director of Client Services

Kat Boyd Fatality Review Coordinator

Susan DeFreitas CourtWatch Coordinator

Denise Thach Denver Legal Advocate

Amy Miller Arapahoe County Legal Advocate

Randy Saucedo Adams County Legal Advocate

Tia Collier DDHS Advocate, VAWO Outreach

Margie Wagner DDHS Advocate, VAWO Outreach

Angel Ruiz Bi-lingual Advocate

Dawn Mallard Bi-lingual Advocate

Judy Ericson Director of Volunteers

Warren Edson Supervising Attorney

Alan O'Hashi Editor, Director of Development

Project Safeguard

815 East 22^nd Ave.; Denver, CO 80205

TEL 303-863-7416 FAX 303-837-1808

E-MAIL SAFEGUARD@vs2000.org

WEB ADDRESS www.projectsafeguard.org

Non-Profit

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No. 1938

Denver, CO

Project Safeguard

815 East 22^nd Avenue

Denver, CO 80205

www.projectsafeguard.org

Inside: CourtWatch newsletter with detailed survey results … Insert

Corinne LeBaron is named new Executive Director… page 2

Volunteer Eileen Kulas keeps courtrooms in order … page 7

Project Safeguard’s Fall - Winter 2002 Journal of Domestic Violence Prevention through Legal Advocacy and Social Change