Views expressed in opinion columns are the author’s own.
If the past month was any indication, this year’s election is bound to be eventful.
Unprecedented times followed after President Biden stepped down and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as candidate for the Democratic nomination. Despite varied opinions from Harris and former President Donald Trump, there is at least one issue where Democrats and Republicans agree — domestic violence.
In 2018, Trump told CNN he is “totally opposed to domestic violence of any kind. Everyone knows that.” In comparison, when Biden was a senator, he introduced the Violence Against Women Act, which passed in 1994. He also signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022, which prevents people convicted of domestic violence from purchasing firearms.
50 percent of deaths in domestic violence cases involve a firearm. Though the Violence Against Women Act made it difficult for perpetrators to purchase guns, the policy did not come full circle until an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 that extended limitations on firearms sales to individuals who were convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.
Still, the relationship between gun policies and domestic violence does not tell the full story of how to support victims and deter violence.
Improper state funding creates negative consequences for survivors. In Pennsylvania, more than 800 support service requests from domestic violence survivors went unaddressed in a single day during 2023 due to a lack of financial resources.
In 2019, Ohio spent about $2.04 per person on domestic violence programs, compared to the national average of $5.82. Part of this disparity is driven by a lack of investment in domestic violence resources from taxpayer dollars.
While Biden assisted efforts to prevent putting guns in the hands of abusers, deterring domestic violence requires larger cultural changes, such as implementing protections from state budget reallocations and increasing funding for shelters and programs that support survivors.
Punishment for domestic violence must also be standardized across states. Deterrence needs to be driven by developing federal policies such as guaranteed funding and universal punishment of abusers to help prevent recurrence.
Findings show that state policies tend to vary in areas of public safety, which include domestic violence.
Public safety initiatives receive different shares of financial support depending on who is in power. While variation exists in this area, the important factor may be yearly allocation within the state operating budget.
States adjust and approve their operational budget every year, and in turn determine how much money survivor assistance programs receive. In 2023, New York experienced a $11.7 million budget cut to survivor assistance programs. Though public safety allocations can focus on deterring domestic violence, the necessary investment is often lacking.
Programs that support domestic violence prevention can also include access to Medicaid. But Medicaid applicants must reside in the state they apply in, leaving domestic violence survivors to navigate different states’ restrictions if theirs does not have an interstate agreement.
Someone fleeing a domestic violence situation may have limited funds and support, which prevent them from meeting residency requirements. If Medicaid was controlled at the federal rather than state level, this problem could be rectified, as Medicaid cannot currently be transferred between states.
States with projects aimed at supporting those in need may lead to increased support for survivors. For example, Washington’s Medicaid Transformation Project provides financial support for community-based care to address issues such as access to housing and transportation, resources that are key to escaping domestic violence.
While some programs are being developed to address support for basic needs, guaranteed funding set aside for domestic violence deterrence and survivor support that is protected from state reallocation is missing.
Moving forward, better state-based funding practices must be developed. Biden’s acts take a step in the right direction, but states need to combine this with yearly guaranteed and mandated state funding to domestic violence shelters with protection from reallocation.
Funding for victims and shelters needs to be backed by federal legislation that guarantees states specific yearly operating budgets to support maintaining the current need and growing shelter support where there are holes.
While deterring domestic violence has received bipartisan support, the executive branch can do more. To prevent reallocation and set aside federal funds to support deterring violence, the president — regardless of the election — needs to issue an executive order authorizing this.
Autumn Perkey is a government and politics PhD student. She can be reached at perkey@umd.edu.
