Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice

Under the Rule of Thumb: Battered Women and the Administration of Justice

A Report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights

January 1982

. . .

Preface

The Commission undertook this study of the problems of battered women in accordance with its legal mandate to "study and collect information" and to "appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws. . .in the administration of justice." Throughout its existence, the Commission has studied the treatment of various social groups by the justice system and assessed the consequences of the practices and policies of those involved in the administration of justice for both suspects and victims, While the Commission's recent report on police practices and the delivery of police services addressed issues of concern to all, this report focuses only on female victims and male abusers who are involved in incidents of physical violence while in a spousal relationship. It is the existence and extent of assaults of that nature as well as the treatment of both victim and abuser by the justice system that the Commission explored in this project. In January 1978 the Commission sponsored a consultation on public policy issues affecting battered women. That consultation brought together nationally recognized experts in criminal justice, attorneys, victim advocates, and Federal officials for 2 days of discussion of the problem and alternatives for reform. Although speaking from a wide variety of backgrounds and perspectives on the problems of battered women, these experts were united by their conclusion that the legal system's response to women victims of domestic violence and their abusers differs markedly from its typical response to other assault victims and perpetrators. Numerous participants both within and outside the legal system described the policies and attitudes of police, prosecutors, and judges in such cases. They made it clear that domestic assault cases receive singular treatment by law enforcement officials and consistently evoke responses that are not found in other cases involving assaults between strangers or acquaintances. Although the category of "domestic violence" includes abuse against children, the elderly, and men, this report is concerned with evaluating the treatment of adult women who are victims of domestic violence by the criminal and civil justice systems and by various service agencies.

For reasons undetermined in the context of this project, instances of abuse against adult women constituted the overwhelming majority of cases in the jurisdictions studied, Although it is true that husbands are sometimes the targets of spouse battering, this report focuses on female victims for several reasons. The incidence of abuse of women by men is much greater than the abuse of men by women. Women are, as a group, more likely to be economically dependent upon their spouses and therefore unable to escape an abusive relationship without protection from the legal system and support from various service organizations. Finally, the common law legacy of women as objects of property and as incompetents unable to conduct their own legal affairs continues to color the attitudes of police officers, prosecutors, and judges. 

The project culminating in this report built upon the 1978 consultation. It was designed to elicit further information on the nature and extent of law enforcement practices that treat battered women differently from other assault victims. In the preparation of this report, Commission staff conducted field studies and hearings in Phoenix, Arizona, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Phoenix was selected because Arizona was recognized as a State with a traditional criminal law approach in which battered wife cases are handled under laws available to all victims of violent crime; Harrisburg was selected because of Pennsylvania's attempts to institute reforms in the treatment of these cases. The Phoenix hearings were held on February 12 and 13, 1980, and the Harrisburg hearings on June 17 and 18, 1980.

For the purposes of this report, the term "wife battering" is meant to include the battering of women by men with whom they have or have had an intimate relationship, whether or not legally married.

This project has addressed only physical abuse, Psychological or emotional abuse, while certainly serious and potentially damaging, is not usually treated as a criminal offense, and greater evidentiary problems are presented in investigating and proving psychological abuse. . . .

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Chapter 3: The Police

Finding 3.1: Police decisions, including departmental policies and the practices of individual officers, affect the justice system's ability to protect the legal rights and physical safety of battered women.

The police stand at the entrance to the justice system, and their actions often prevent or discourage battered women from pursuing criminal remedies against their abusers. Left unchecked, spouse abuse generally increases in severity as time passes, resulting in the victim's death in many cases. Where police policies and practices are based on misperceptions of domestic violence, officers are unlikely to respond effectively to battered women's calls for assistance, which perpetuates and reinforces the patterns of violence.

Recommendation 3.1: Police officers should receive specific training for handling domestic violence cases, Such training should be developed in cooperation with those who are operating shelters for battered women and others familiar with the particular needs of battered women.

Finding 3.2: Police traditionally have viewed most incidents of spouse abuse as private matters that are best resolved by the parties themselves without resort to the legal process.

Underlying the notion that spouse abuse is a private rather than a police matter is the belief that assault is not a crime if the assailant is related to the victim. Many police departments subscribe to this philosophy, although the criminal law allows for no such exception.

Recommendation 3.2: Police officers responding to domestic violence calls should take whatever action would be appropriate were assailants and victims rot related or acquainted, while bearing in mind the extra protection necessary for victims who may be emotionally or financially dependent on their assailants. If investigation of the facts surrounding a dispute discloses that an assault has occurred, the officers should take appropriate action against the assailant. 

Finding 3.3: Police generally are reluctant to respond to domestic disturbances, which the officers view as dangerous to themselves, emotionally charged, and difficult to resolve. Some police departments do not require officers to respond to such calls, while other departments assign the calls low priority.

Although the relationship between the victim and assailant in abuse cases increases the danger of serious injury or death, the assignment of low response priorities on the basis of such a relationship indicates that police generally do not view the Situation as critical. Some departments also adopt policies limiting the types of situations to which they will respond, ignoring calls where an assault has been threatened but has not yet occurred or where the assailant has left the scene.

Recommendation 3.3: The police should respond in person to every call alleging abuse. Police departments should assign response priorities for abuse calls according to the standards established for all other violent crimes, that is, according to the degree of danger to the victim. 

Finding 3.4: Many police departments apply formal or tacit arrest-avoidance policies to domestic violence cases.

Several factors, including the beliefs that spouse abuse is a private matter and that arrest will not ultimately result in conviction or sanction, have led police to avoid arresting abusers. Police officers in many jurisdictions also claim they fear lawsuits for false arrest if the alleged assailant is found innocent in court, but the standards for false arrest are the same in abuse cases as in any other type of case and should not deter police from making arrests where appropriate.

Recommendation 3.4: Police departments should abandon policies of noninterference and arrest avoidance for domestic assaults. Where officers have probable cause to believe a crime has occurred, they should make an arrest. In circumstances where the officers are not empowered to arrest, they should explain citizen arrest procedures to the victim and assist her in making such an arrest. Police should enforce laws prohibiting spouse abuse without regard to the actions they think that prosecutors and courts subsequently may take.

Finding 3.5: Police officers are trained and encouraged to apply mediation and conciliation techniques in cases involving criminal spousal assault, where such techniques are inappropriate.

Communication skills and crisis intervention techniques can be useful tools to help police gather information about whether a crime has been committed and to help officers refer victims to social services or legal assistance. Many police departments, however, encourage the use of such tools to replace rather than augment the criminal process, with officers attempting to mediate between the victim and the assailant to resolve the conflict without further involving the justice system.

Recommendation 3.5: Although police officers should be trained in communications and crisis intervention techniques and be able to suggest the use of other remedies and services available to abuse victims, the officers should not use these routes as substitutes for law enforcement and should not attempt to resolve privately conflicts that have resulted in violations of the law.

Finding 3.6: Instead of taking appropriate police action, officers frequently recommend that domestic assault victims seek civil legal remedies or file private criminal complaints.

Where civil remedies to spouse abuse ore available, the police sometimes mistakenly believe that the civil process is meant to supplant the criminal process. This notion is fostered by departmental guidelines that lump domestic assaults with noncriminal matters, such as landlord-tenant and neighbor disputes, or that state or imply stricter arrest standards for spouse abuse than for other violent crimes. When officers refer the victim to civil or private criminal remedies, they leave her responsible for enforcing the law and, thus, subject to threats and pressure from her assailant if she proceeds against him.

Recommendation 3.6: Although police officers should explain available remedies and services to abuse victims and make referrals to the appropriate offices or agencies, departmental policies should emphasize the criminality of domestic assaults and encourage officers to resolve them in a professional manner, making arrests where appropriate. The officers should make it clear that they are acting as agents of the State or community, rather than shift their responsibilities to the victim.

Finding 3.7: Police officers frequently try to separate the assailant and victim for a short time, rather than make an arrest. In such cases, shelter facilities for battered women and their children provide a vital service. 

When police do not arrest an assailant, he may continue harassing or abusing his victim unless she has an alternative place to stay. The homes of friends and relatives are generally accessible to abusers, and hotel costs are prohibitive for the many victims who are financially dependent upon their assailants. Consequently, shelter facilities can be life-saving refuges. 

Recommendation 3.7: Although officers should not use shelters for victims of domestic violence as substitutes for arresting assailants, police departments should continue and increase their cooperation with shelter personnel. Officers should provide victims with information about available shelters and arrange transportation when necessary to protect victims and their children.

Finding 3.8: Existing reporting practices handicap police ability to deal effectively with domestic assault cases and unnecessarily limit the amount of available information about spouse abuse.

Police officers often fail to write reports on incidents of domestic violence that do not result in arrest. As a result, although domestic assaults are more likely than other assaults to recur, there frequently is no record to alert officers to an assailant's history of violent behavior. When officers do record domestic assaults, they often neglect to report whether the incidents involved force or the threat of force or to indicate the relationships of the parties, which may make the reports impossible to distinguish from those of assaults involving strangers.
 
Recommendation 3.8: Police departments should reform their recordkeeping procedures to assure that the officers and outside agencies have access to more complete information about domestic violence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation should assist this effort by creating "stranger" and "nonstranger" categories within Uniform Crime Reports statistics on assault and aggravated assault. The "nonstranger" category should include a further breakdown by relationship of the parties. Statistics on activities in which police officers were assaulted or murdered should also be broken down into domestic disputes and other disputes.

Chapter 4: The Prosecutors

Finding 4.1: Prosecutors enjoy wide discretion to determine which criminal cases will be prosecuted and often accord low priority to cases involving domestic violence.

Beyond deciding whether there is enough evidence to prosecute individual cases, prosecutors often make policy decisions about what types of cases to pursue. Most prosecutors have large caseloads and allocate office resources by establishing priorities for prosecution. Spouse abuse cases tend to receive very low prosecutorial priority, which frequently influences how police and judges respond to such cases, Police officers, for example, may be less interested in arresting an assailant if they know the prosecutor probably will not pursue the case.

Recommendation 4.1: Prosecutors should give battered women the same protection, support, and respect given other victims of violent crime, by establishing equitable charging policies and encouraging police and judges to handle domestic violence fairly and appropriately.

Finding 4.2: The rate of prosecution and conviction in criminal cases drops sharply when there is a prior or present relationship between the alleged assailant and the victim.
 
Prosecutors often accord defendants in domestic assault cases preferential treatment not shown defendants in other assault cases. At the same time, abuse victims: must overcome procedural barriers, such as waiting periods, that do not apply to victims of other violent crimes.

Recommendation 4.2: Prosecutors should base charging decisions only on the merits of the cases.

Finding 4.3: Some prosecutors hesitate to file charges against abusers, based on the belief that domestic violence is a noncriminal, personal matter or that prosecution would adversely affect the parties' marriages.

Like other law enforcement officials, many prosecutors suffer misconceptions about domestic violence and are unaware of its tendency to escalate, even to the point of murder. Although spouse abuse may seem a purely domestic problem to many prosecutors, their role is to prosecute criminal acts resulting from domestic disputes.

Recommendation 4.3: Prosecutors should receive training about the causes and criminal nature of spouse abuse and about procedures for enforcing statutes that prohibit such conduct.

Finding 4.4: Prosecutors often treat victims of spouse abuse as if they, rather than the defendants, were accused of criminal conduct.

Victims of domestic violence, like rape victims, have had to endure the doubts, accusations, and contempt of many law enforcement officials, who assume that the women incite their assailants to violence. Many prosecutors exhibit this kind of prejudice, discounting victims' descriptions of events because of their relationships with their assailants.

Recommendation 4.4: Prosecutors should treat abuse victims no differently from victims of other crimes, recognizing that physical violence is a legally unacceptable response to personal or family stress and. that responsibility for criminal acts lies with those who commit them, regardless of their relationships with their victims.

Finding 4.5: Prosecutors frequently attribute the low rate of prosecution in spouse abuse cases to lack of victim cooperation, which may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prosecutors who believe that abuse victims will not cooperate with the prosecution of their cases frequently discourage the victims from using the criminal justice system.

Studies have shown that prosecutors tend to overestimate the number of battered women who refuse to cooperate in the prosecution of their abusers, but the fact remains that the rate of attrition in such cases is high. Prosecutors often decline or dismiss abuse cases on the presumption that victims ultimately will not cooperate, regardless of what they say during initial interviews. Many prosecutors delay filing charges in abuse cases until a waiting period has passed to give victims time to change their minds about prosecuting before work begins on their cases. Some prosecutors downplay the likelihood of successful prosecution, attempting to persuade victims to drop the charges, seek civil action, or agree to allow defendants to participate in diversion programs instead of going forward with prosecution. These practices undermine the goals of prosecuting violent crime and deterring repeat offenses.

Recommendation 4.5: Prosecutors should not apply more stringent filing requirements or charging policies to domestic assaults than to other assaults and should not decline or dismiss meritorious cases.

Finding 4.6: Prosecutors rarely subpena victims to testify in abuse cases, although such action frequently could circumvent victim noncooperation.

Prosecutors often subpena hostile witnesses in cases involving violent crimes. Because prosecutors generally view spouse abuse as a private matter, however, they rarely subpena abuse victims who are reluctant to testify. Instead, the decision whether to prosecute becomes the victims' responsibility. As a result, many victims elect to drop the charges because they fear renewed violence if the prosecution goes forward. Where prosecutors subpena victims, defendants cannot use threats of violence to coerce victims, and victim cooperation is more likely.

Recommendation 4.6: Prosecutors should use their authority to require the attendance and testimony of victims by subpena where this will advance the prosecution of the case or protect and support the victims.

Finding 4.7: Prosecutors frequently charge spouse abusers with crimes less serious than their conduct seems to warrant.

Many prosecutors routinely charge abusive spouses with minor offenses, such as harassment, even where the victim has been seriously injured. 

Recommendation 4.7: Charges in abuse cases should reflect the seriousness of the crime.

Finding 4.8: Some prosecutors have improved their handling of domestic violence cases by offering innovative support services to battered women.

In some cities, prosecutors have established programs that emphasize to victims and assailants that spouse abuse violates criminal law and that the State will treat it as any other crime against public peace and security. These programs offer support services to victims, which elicits their cooperation and trust, and make referrals to help victims meet needs that are not met by prosecution and sentencing.

Recommendation 4.8: Prosecutors should take full advantage of experimental domestic violence projects and institute policy and procedural changes to improve handling of abuse cases.

Chapter 5: The Courts

Finding 5.1: Although civil and criminal remedies to spouse abuse are most effective when used in conjunction with one another, there is confusion between these types of remedies, which undermines enforcement of both.

In jurisdictions where civil protection orders are available, some law enforcement personnel assume that victims must obtain such orders before they are entitled to police protection, which hinders enforcement of the criminal laws. At the same time, civil court judges often hesitate to enforce civil protection orders, in part because the penalties generally provided by State statutes are quasi-criminal rather than civil in nature. In some jurisdictions, civil court Judges have tried to transfer casts to the criminal courts, rather than impose criminal remedies. Sanctions for violating protection orders in spouse abuse cases, however, are no different from sanctions for violating many other civil orders.

Recommendation 5.1: States should provide training for judges, magistrates, justices of the peace, and other law enforcement personnel to clarify the appropriate sanctions for violating civil protection orders and criminal laws relating to spouse abuse.

Finding 5.2: Most cases of spouse abuse never reach courts of general jurisdiction. Entry-level courts generally resolve those cases police or prosecutors have not diverted previously.

Spouse abuse cases seldom come to court, but when they do, they usually are handled by magistrates and justices of the peace. These members of the minor judiciary greatly influence the way the justice system treats abuse cases, frequently deciding what charges to bring against defendants and holding hearings that dispose of cases. The types of remedies that magistrates and justices of the peace can offer battered women, however, often are limited to peace bonds, harassment citations, or similarly ineffectual options.

Recommendation 5.2: Magistrates and justices of the peace with jurisdiction over any aspect of spouse abuse cases should be trained on the laws governing relevant offenses and on the battering syndrome. Where protection orders are available to abuse victims, members of the minor judiciary should be given jurisdiction to issue such orders, at least temporarily, until a higher court can hold a hearing on the issue.

Finding 5.3: There are advantages and disadvantages inherent in both civil and criminal remedies to spouse abuse, but some judges prefer one type of remedy and use it exclusively.

Civil remedies, such as protection orders, may be faster and more flexible than criminal remedies and may resolve problems without the social stigma and economic deprivation criminal convictions may cause. In some cases, however, incarceration may be necessary to prevent abusers from renewed attacks, or the nature of the violence may demand prosecution. In such situations, criminal remedies are warranted. Despite the utility of both types of remedies, some judges prefer to resolve all abuse cases with only one approach.

Recommendation 5.3: Both civil and criminal remedies have a role in spouse abuse cases and should be used in a coordinated manner to provide maximum protection for battered women.

Finding 5.4: When abusers are convicted, judges seldom impose sanctions commensurate with the seriousness of the offenses or comparable with sanctions for similar violence against strangers.

Incarceration of abusers is rare. Instead, magistrates and justices of the peace routinely treat spouse abuse as a minor offense and impose nominal sanctions, generally a small fine, while judges frequently suspend sentences, defer judgments, or grant/probation for convicted abusers. When abusers violate conditions of probation, judges seldom revoke their probation, and repeat offenses often lead to penalties no greater than those for first offenses. Such sanctions do little to deter future abusive behavior.

Recommendation 5.4: Judges should impose sanctions in spouse abuse cases commensurate with the seriousness of the offenses and comparable to those imposed in cases where the parties are not related or acquainted. Judges should impose stiff penalties on repeat offenders and on defendants who threaten their victims, trying to coerce them into dropping charges. Probation, suspended sentences, and deferred judgments should be available only in first convictions for offenses not involving serious injury, and violation of any conditions attached to such dispositions should result immediately in appropriate sanctions.

Finding 5.5: Although civil orders prohibiting abusive conduct or excluding abusive spouses from their families' homes fill a distinct need not met by criminal remedies, such orders are not available to many battered women.

Protection orders for victims of spouse abuse are not available under the laws of many States. In other States, despite statutes authorizing protection orders, some judges are reluctant or unwilling to issue such orders, in part out of concern for the rights of abusers. Even where judges are willing to issue protection orders, abuse victims do not have a right to counsel when seeking civil remedies, as opposed to criminal remedies, and the orders may not be available quickly enough to prevent further violence.

Recommendation 5.5: States should enact legislation to provide protection orders for abuse victims and should provide coordination at the State level to ensure effective implementation. Victim/witness programs should be available in every jurisdiction to assist battered women throughout the judicial process. Advocacy services should be available for those seeking civil remedies as well as for those filing criminal charges. 

Finding 5.6: When abusers violate protection orders, many judges fail to impose meaningful sanctions.

Some judges routinely find abusers in contempt of court for violating protection orders and then tell the abusers that they can purge themselves of contempt of court by not repeating their contemptuous conduct. Judges often treat each new offense as a new act, without regard to previous strictures against such conduct.

Recommendation 5.6: Judges should order punishment for violations of protection orders with meaningful sanctions to ensure the deterrent value of such orders.

Finding 5.7: Many judges approach abuse cases as isolated incidents of aberrant behavior between consenting adults rather than as examples of a widespread societal problem.

Judges frequently express the view that spouse abuse is a "family" matter that should remain out of public view. Many judges believe that their sworn duty to uphold the sanctity of marriage supersedes their duty to enforce criminal laws. As a result, such judges are routinely lenient in spouse abuse cases, reinforcing patterns of violence by signaling abusers and victims that the courts will not interfere in their conduct.

Recommendation 5.7: State associations of judges should provide training for members on the battering syndrome and should encourage judges to treat Spouse abuse as a serious crime. Judges should provide leadership for other members of the justice system, including the private bar, and should make it clear to victims and abusers that the courts will not tolerate domestic violence.

Chapter 6: Diversion Programs

Finding 6.1: Prosecutors often use informal hearing procedures to screen out spouse abuse cases. Such informal settings tend to produce an atmosphere of fear and coercion for abuse victims, frequently result in no criminal action against defendants, and minimize any implication of wrongdoing by abusers.

When diversion programs originally were established, defendants who had been accused of crimes of violence were not eligible to participate. As the programs evolved, however, many began to allow participation by spouse abusers. By diverting spouse abuse cases away from the criminal justice system before trial, law enforcement officials imply to victims and assailants that the abusive conduct is something less than criminal. Agreements or conditions established in such informal settings rarely have the force of law or result in prosecution when violated. Consequently, victims and assailants are left with the impression that the justice system will not interfere with abusive conduct.

Recommendation 6.1: Pretrial diversion programs are inappropriate in cases involving serious or repeated physical violence and are not recommended. Where such programs exist, however, immediate prosecution should result from violations of any conditions the programs establish.

Finding 6.2: Mandatory counseling for spouse abusers can be effective, especially after conviction when the counseling is a condition of probation. In many jurisdictions, however, such programs are available to defendants charged with very serious or repeat offenses, where diversion is generally inappropriate.

In cases where the pattern of abuse has not yet resulted in serious injury, and where abusers genuinely desire to alter their behavior and have the additional motivation of incarceration for failure to do so, counseling may help them learn how to handle stress without resorting to violence. Where defendants are charged with serious or repeat offenses, mandatory counseling is an insufficient sanction.

Recommendation 6.2: Mandatory counseling should not be used instead of prosecution, but should be used only as a condition of probation. Violations should result in immediate revocation of probation.

Finding 6.3: Mediation and arbitration, which are generally inappropriate for settling domestic problems where one party has been violent to the other, are still used as substitutes for prosecution in some jurisdictions.

Mediation and arbitration place the parties on equal footing and ask them to negotiate an agreement for future behavior. Beyond failing to punish assailants for their crimes, this process implies that victims share responsibility for the illegal conduct and requires them to agree to modify their own behavior in exchange for the assailants' promises not to commit further crimes,

Recommendation 6.3: Mediation and arbitration should never be used as an alternative to prosecution in cases involving physical violence.

Chapter 7: Shelters and Social Services

Finding 7.1: Shelters provide vital and essential support services for battered women.

Shelters provide abuse victims with a safe place from which to pursue legal remedies. Shelters also offer necessary housing and emotional assistance to battered women and their families, who are often emotionally dependent upon their abusers and impoverished.

Recommendation 7.1: Congress should ensure that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has the authority to monitor the nationwide establishment of emergency shelters for abuse victims in each State. If a State is determined to be shirking its duties, then the Department of Health and Human Services should provide direct technical assistance and training to shelter operators and grants to public and nonprofit private agencies for domestic violence projects.

Finding 7.2: Shelter personnel are trying to educate and sensitize the public about domestic violence, but their task is difficult because of ingrained attitudes.

In the past, social service agencies treated spouse abuse as aberrant behavior between individuals, rather than as a societal problem. Now, social service personnel are coming to understand that violence is a learned behavior and that children who grow up in violent homes generally perpetuate the patterns of violence as adults, both in their own homes and in their relations with outsiders. Those who operate battered women's shelters are trying to educate the public about the consequences of allowing violence to go unchecked, but meager funds make it difficult to counter widespread, ingrained attitudes about spouse abuse.

Recommendation 7.2: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should monitor State and local public education programs to ensure that there are concerted efforts to sponsor media campaigns, similar to those on alcoholism and child abuse, to increase public awareness about spouse abuse.

Finding 7.3: Shelter personnel are sensitizing the justice system by educating police, prosecutors, and judges about the battering syndrome.

Some shelters have placed special emphasis on educating police, since they are the first contact battered women generally have with the justice system. Many police departments welcome shelter assistance in providing training to officers because responding to spouse abuse calls traditionally has been a frustrating experience for the police.

Recommendation 7.3: The U.S. Department of Education should monitor the development of State and local projects to train police, prosecutors, judges, school teachers, mental health workers, clergy, and others who come into contact with battered women in the course of their professions.

Finding 7.4: Shelters for abuse victims cannot continue without support from the public and private sectors.

Shelters are the cornerstone of support services for battered women who are forced to leave home to escape violent spouses. Nevertheless, most shelters must piece their budgets together from any available source. Until public and private funding sources recognize shelters as essential, shelter personnel will have to spend inordinate amounts of time struggling for funding to survive.

Recommendation 7.4: Each State should establish a domestic violence office to coordinate State, Federal, and local programs within the State, in order to ensure that adequate funding is provided for projects such as counseling for abusers and victims, shelters, and training, and to compile statistics on spouse abuse.

Finding 7.5: Battered women in rural areas have unique problems to which the justice system has responded ineffectively.

The isolation of rural life compounds the problems battered women normally face. Public transportation is usually nonexistent. There may be no neighbors nearby to hear cries for help. The police may have to travel great distances to respond to victims' calls. Shelter facilities are not readily available, and local attitudes may make it difficult to turn to friends or relatives for assistance.

Recommendation 7.5: Shelters for battered women should be established in rural areas, and transportation should be available so that victims can use such facilities.

Finding 7.6: Shelters assist battered women to obtain available financial assistance, counseling, and family services through the public welfare system.

Beyond providing refuge from violence, shelters help abuse victims by making referrals to social service agencies that can provide additional support services. Eligibility requirements and benefits vary significantly from State to State, but battered women generally qualify for assistance if they have been financially dependent on their abusers before coming to the shelters. Shelter personnel can help an abuse victim with the problems she may encounter with welfare departments and other social service agencies if there is confusion about her eligibility.

Recommendation 7.6: Welfare departments should establish policies to expedite applications for assistance from battered women.

Finding 7.7: After leaving violent homes, many battered women seek advice and assistance from legal services offices, which may help the victims obtain divorces and civil protection orders. Recent proposals to reduce or eliminate funding for the Legal Services Corporation, however, may mean reduced services to battered women.

Legal services provide access to the Justice system for those who could not otherwise afford it. Because many battered women do not have independent income, they are likely to qualify for legal assistance for divorces and civil protection orders. When legal services offices allocate their reduced resources, it is unclear that they will be able to continue serving battered women at present rates.

Recommendation 7.7: Congress should encourage the Legal Services Corporation to make legal services for battered women a high priority for local programs.