Anti-DV agencies in the SA community

We’ve spent the last few weeks discussing the specifics of DV in the SA community – the different forms that DV takes, the impact of cultural and religious factors, and the experiences of women and youth. Much of what we know about DV is based on the work done by anti-DV agencies in combating the problem in their communities. This week’s discussion is about the past, present and future of these agencies in the SA community.

Merchant, a professor of social work, begins by emphasizing the fact that domestic violence is not an individual problem, but a social and political one. It is a problem that occurs in all groups, irrespective of ethnic, socio-economic, educational or cultural background. South Asian researchers have noted, however, that Western feminists and agencies have marginalized and underserved minority women, and especially immigrant women. They have found that agencies that serve abused women are either unaware of or unable to address the “structural and cultural factors that legitimate domestic violence” (p. 250) in SA groups.

Historically, most South Asians in the US were immigrants and, as such, were more closely aligned with the values and beliefs of their homeland (arranged marriages, importance of the family unit, traditional gender roles, belief in destiny, etc.), and they were generally unlikely to seek help unless there was extreme DV or harm to children involved. But when they did seek help, they found that mainstream agencies did not meet their needs or understand their circumstances. As a result, South Asian immigrant women were compelled to address DV within their own communities. They located these agencies in areas that had concentrations of South Asians, and were staffed by those who spoke SA languages. Cultural traditions that were met with skepticism or disbelief in mainstream agencies were met with understanding in these agencies.

Merchant explores the extent and scope of the support available from these community-based anti-DV agencies. The findings are based on the responses provided by twelve SA-focused agencies which work in the field of DV prevention, education, or advocacy. The agencies were generally located in areas which had large SA populations, and had many features in common – the organization was non-hierarchical, activities and services were largely volunteer-driven, and they depended on community support by professionals (doctors, lawyers, psychologists, etc.). The agencies provided a range of services – most provided counseling services, support groups, and crisis interventions, but only a handful maintained a hotline or shelter. In addition to these basic services, agencies also occasionally addressed other issues, such as immigration and substance abuse, and provided additional services such as translations or literacy classes. The budgets for the agencies came largely from private donations and fundraising events; only a few had applied for state and federal funds. Merchant found, in other words, that the agencies operated quite differently from mainstream agencies, which employed a hired workforce and trained professionals, and utilized state resources.

The agencies reported serving an increasing number of clients every year; they attributed this to their increased presence at community events and on the Internet, and to their involvement in local activities such as literacy classes and activity groups. Some groups had worked with local police departments to increase cultural sensitivity to SA women who make distress calls. Most agencies did not record or report demographic details or other information about the clients. Some of the larger agencies were working towards immigration reform to offer greater legal protections to women who had arrived as dependents on their husband’s visa.

The agencies were almost entirely staffed by women of SA origin, and several agencies felt that the clients were best served by someone from their own ethnic or cultural group. Although some agencies recognized the need for formal monitoring and evaluation systems, only a few agencies had such systems in place; most depended on informal measures of their performance (e.g., client perceptions) and some conducted no kind of follow-up at all.

Merchant concludes by recognizing the crucial role that SA-focused agencies play in combating DV in their communities by providing services that are culturally sensitive and appropriate. In spite of their valuable services, however, finances were often a concern for the agencies, and many were beginning to apply for state funds. In tapping into mainstream resources, agencies were forced to face the challenge of balancing their volunteer- and community needs-driven beginnings with a more organized administrative structure. Merchant believes that finding this balance is crucial to the future and growth of the agencies.

[For more information, see: Merchant, M. (2000). A Comparative Study of Agencies Assisting Domestic Violence Victims: Does the South Asian Community Have Special Needs? Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 249-259.]