Violence Against Women: Reflecting on 25 Years of the Violence Against Women Act and Directions for the Future

This special issue of the journal presents “Reflecting on 25 Years of the Violence Against Women Act and Directions for the Future.” Over 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act, also known as Title IV of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103–322). This seminal legislation signaled a monumental shift in the way the U.S. addresses gender-based violence. No longer would we treat acts of domestic violence as private family matters. Law enforcement would view domestic violence and other forms of violence against women as crimes, and respond accordingly. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was the culmination of many years of grassroots advocacy to have gender-based violence treated as a crime.

Along with years of advocacy, other factors paved the way for the enactment of VAWA. One such element was changes in state- and local-level responses to domestic violence, often precipitated by lawsuits against police due to nonenforcement. Another influence was research and statistics demonstrating the sheer magnitude of violence against women. Studies such as the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment suggested that arrest could deter domestic violence (Sherman & Berk, 1984). A third factor was a general fear of crime that had increased for three decades but declined just prior to passage of VAWA. Politicians used rising crime rates to advance “get tough on crime” stances to win elections, while further stoking fears of crime among the public (Gover & Moore, this issue).

Like its overarching legislation, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the Crime Act, VAWA took a punitive approach to gender-based violence. It directed criminal justice system representatives to respond to violence against women by supporting the arrest, prosecution, and adjudication of perpetrators. VAWA aimed to reduce and prevent violence against women, hold offenders accountable for their criminal behavior, and enhance the safety and well-being of victims (Gover & Moore, this issue). In addition, VAWA led to the creation of the Office on Violence Against Women within the U.S. Department of Justice, and provided funding for research and evaluation to better understand and address gender-based violence.

Since its passage in 1994, the U.S. Congress reauthorized VAWA three times, in 2000, 2005, and 2013. Each reauthorization expanded the scope of the original Act. VAWA 2000 extended programs for elderly and disabled women; added protections for foreign nationals and battered immigrant women; provided new funding to improve responses to sexual assault and domestic violence on college campuses; and enhanced federal penalties for domestic violence and stalking (Clark, 2007; Laney, 2010). VAWA 2005 added protections for American Indian (AI) women victims of domestic violence and expanded penalties for repeat stalking perpetrators (Aday, 2015). In addition to reauthorizing most of the programs of the prior three Acts, VAWA 2013 further addressed the needs of marginalized groups such as AI and Alaska Native (AN) women. The 2013 reauthorization included provisions that granted AI tribes criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who committed domestic violence and other crimes on tribal land (Modi et al., 2014).

Despite the increased enforcement, enhanced penalties, and programming afforded through VAWA 1994 and its successors, violence against women remains ubiquitous. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey of 2018 (Morgan & Oudekerk, 2019), the rate of rape or sexual assault in 2018 was 2.7 victimizations per 1,000 persons aged 12 or older (734,630 incidents). The rate of domestic violence was 4.8 victimizations per 1,000 persons aged 12 or older (1,333,050 incidents). Of these domestic violence victimizations, 3.1% (847,230 incidents) were among intimate partners. These figures for rape/sexual assault and domestic violence represent increases in rates over those reported in 2016 and 2017. With stay-at-home orders across the country and throughout the world, coupled with changes in criminal justice responses to crime overall, including early release of offenders due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many fear there will be continued increases in rates of violence against women.

Given the momentous milestone of more than 25 years of the Violence Against Women Act, along with passage of H.R.1585, now is a good opportunity to reflect on what VAWA has done, changes it has brought about, and additional steps we can take toward eradicating violence against women. The time is ripe for a critical review of VAWA, and the changes the U.S. Congress may want to make to it. The five articles in this special issue are an initial step at examining VAWA, including its accomplishments and limitations. Each one focuses on different and key aspects of the Act, including its influences on responses by criminal and tribal justice systems, and communities, to gender-based violence. The authors also suggest directions for the future.

Gover and Moore provide an overview of the VAWA 1994 and the three reauthorizations that followed. They describe the context in which VAWA arose, and various issues that precipitated enactment of the Act by the U.S. Congress. VAWA has accomplished a lot in the past 25 years. The Federal Government has expended significant amounts of resources to eliminate violence against women. Each successive reauthorization of VAWA afforded more protections to victims of gender-based violence, yet there always seemed to be more required of the Act. While some pushed for more from VAWA, others would argue that it has gone too far (Muhlhausen & Villegas, 2012). As Gover and Moore document VAWA, they also consider the question posed by Moore Parmley in 2004 (p. 1428): “ . . . on the anniversary of the VAWA, will we be able to say with any confidence that the Act helped to prevent violence against women?” The lingering question for proponents and opponents of VAWA is what are the impacts of the Act? We explain why this is not an easy question to answer.

Zweig, Ferrell, Walsh and Yu focus on the role of VAWA in community responses to sexual assault. At the heart of their discussion are two types of community-based approaches to addressing sexual assault—victim advocates from nonprofit organizations, and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs). While victim advocates and SANEs may intersect and interact with criminal justice systems, their focus is on the health and well-being of victims and survivors, not necessarily enforcement of the law. Zweig et al. also review information on the intersections of the work of community-based providers with police and prosecutors, and describe how these relate to survivors’ experiences. They note that VAWA has provided funding for and fostered the expansion of community-based approaches to sexual violence. Similarly, VAWA has supported a substantial body of research on sexual violence. As a result, we have learned a great deal about the needs of victims and survivors. Yet, Zweig et al. contend there is more we need to understand, and different approaches researchers need to take in examining sexual assault for us to eradicate this behavior.

Hartman’s piece focuses on the reauthorization of VAWA in 2013. She describes how that Act helped to reduce the “stronghold” over AI and AN women. VAWA 2013 reestablished tribes’ sovereign authority to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians who commit crimes against AI and AN victims on tribal lands. Tribes could arrest and prosecute perpetrators of certain crimes of domestic and dating violence, and/or individuals who violate protection orders in Indian Country, regardless of the defendant’s Indian or non-Indian status. The Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) provided to tribes through VAWA 2013 was a significant step in enhancing the safety of AI and AN women. Through the SDVCJ and Title IX of VAWA 2005, tribes had greater resources to protect their members and those residing on tribal lands.

Jennings, Powers, and Perez document the influences of VAWA on law enforcement. While changes to law enforcement’s responses to violence against women had occurred prior to VAWA’s passage, the Act helped them to grow exponentially. VAWA provided funding for law enforcement agencies to enhance crime reduction and investigative tools, augment personnel, improve agency operations, and foster coordinated community responses through multiagency collaborations. Jennings et al. note that law enforcement is essential to a comprehensive approach to addressing domestic violence and sexual assault. Furthermore, the priorities of law enforcement can shape public opinion about the seriousness of gender-based violence. Much has happened over the past 25 years through VAWA to change law enforcement’s perception of and responses to violence against women. What Jennings et al. indicate is next is for researchers to evaluate critically VAWA’s impact on a myriad of outcomes, particularly reductions in domestic violence and sexual assault.

Zeroing in on the punitive aspects of VAWA, Goodmark discusses how the Act criminalized domestic violence and what has been the result. In short, Goodmark contends that criminalization is a failed policy. She notes that women of color activists warned against this approach, and that has been borne out in the mass incarceration of minority men, attributable in part to 25 years of VAWA’s support of law enforcement. Goodmark also disagrees with VAWA’s proponents that criminalization has led to reductions in intimate partner violence. She asserts that at best, the evidence is inconclusive, and at worst, criminalization has done more harm than good. Goodmark ends her piece by providing a vision for a non-carceral VAWA. She describes what that could entail, and how through it, we can still provide public safety for victims of domestic violence.

Despite challenges regarding its need, criticisms of its scope, and concerns about potential harm it has caused, the Violence Against Women Act has lasted for over 25 years. Its enduring legacy may be a function of the strong advocacy for it, the changes it brought about, the services it fostered, the funds it provided, or the bi-partisan support it enjoyed, at least up until 2005. With H.R. 1585 awaiting passage by the Senate, perhaps now is a good time to consider changes to the Act, and to figure out how to measure its impact.