The federal government funds programs and services through transfers, grants and non-governmental agencies. To the extent possible, the current federal government favours reactive responses to social problems. The service levels and funding structures in Canada Canada
Shelters
- The federal government funds, in part, the development of shelters through the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation.
- In 2010, 64,500 women were admitted to a shelter, 74% of whom brought their children (Burczycka & Cotter, 2011).
- Ideological changes at the government level have resulted in decreased funding (Morrow, Hankivsky, & Varcoe, 2004)
- In smaller communities, including rural and First Nation communities, shelters are limited and may be ineffective due to challenges of anonymity, culture and capacity.
- Full-capacity is the most common reason women are turned away from a shelter (Burczycka & Cotter, 2011).
Hotlines
- Hotlines are established in most provinces; funding sources vary between provinces
- Services are available in French and English as well as several other languages in large centres
Child Welfare System
· The mainstream child welfare system is managed provincially in Canada.
· Aboriginal child welfare services are federally funded and are underfunded in comparison to others.
· Aboriginal children are overrepresented among children removed from their homes by the agencies (Blackstock, Trocme & Bennett, 2004).
· Child welfare agencies function independently resulting in widespread inconsistency of service. Although exposure to intimate partner violence is the most substantiated protection concern, this type of file is closed in 64% of cases (Blackstock, Trocme & Bennett, 2004).
Policing
· Only one-third of women contact the police to report abuse; this is less than informal supports, counsellors or medical professionals (Barrett, St. Pierre & Vallaincourt, 2011).
· Reasons to avoid police involvement: the criminal justice system cannot help, the incident was too minor, fear of retaliation and shame
· Some women did not contact police due to a fear of racism, distrust of the institution, language barriers, cultural-insensitivity and barriers relating to disabilities. Many of these fears have been substantiated in practice.
Mandatory Charging and Domestic Violence Courts
· A Mandatory charging policy was introduced in the early 1980s to minimize police discretion and remove the onus from the victim.
· DV Courts were introduced in 1996 and vary provincially. Their focus is on early intervention and aggressive prosecution. As of 2009 there were DV courts established in seven provinces as well as at least on integrated domestic violence court (Todd, R.)
· The results of the well-intended policy shift included:
o Disempowerment, fear and possible increased risk to victim
o Criminal charges of breach of justice against victims who refuse to testify (Griffiths & Hatch Cunningham, 2002)
o Counter-charging against victims who were practising self-defense, especially female, Aboriginal, rural women (Balfour, 2008)
Laws and Policies
· The Criminal Code of Canada prohibits violence, harassment, forcible confinement and other activities associated with violence against women.
o VAW is not in the criminal code; instead the justice system relies on other offences
o Violence against a spouse or child is considered to be an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes
o There are testimonial aids to help to protect vulnerable victims
o Some regions have provincial-level legislation relating to family violence. Provisions therein may include granting exclusive use of the home to the victim, monetary compensation for the victim, and no communication clauses (Department of Justice Canada, 2011)
Informal Support Seeking
· Victims have reported that they seek help most often from informal supports (Barrett, St. Pierre
· This highlights the importance of proactive measures and calls attention to the avoidance of formal services.
No comments:
Post a Comment