User:Gummygoodness/sandbox

Office on Violence Against Women
The United States Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) was created by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1995. The VAWA was renewed in 2005 and again in 2013, and mandates the OVW to work to combat and reduce violence against women in many different areas, including on college campuses and in people's homes. The OVW also serves to administer justice and strengthen services for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

The OVW is headed by a director, who is appointed by the President. and confirmed by the Senate. The Principal Deputy Director serves directly under the Director, and the Deputy Director right under the Principal Deputy. The current Acting Director of the OVW is Bea Hanson.

As an office in the United States Department of Justice, the Office on Violence Against Women receives federal funding for federal grants that are awarded to communities across America. These grants aim to create successful partnerships between federal and state authorities as well as provide helpful services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Currently the OVW funds 21 grant programs. These grants are for programs that aim to reduce domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking ; programs such as the Sexual Assault Services Program which assists victims of sexual assault and family members affected by it and others. The OVW has awarded over $4.7 billion in grants directed towards such projects.

The Office on Violence Against Women and its programs do have critics as well. The primary criticisms of the OVW are more directly related to the manner in which it allocates its funds than to the OVW itself. Some argue that the OVW does not appropriate its monetary resources to the communities that have the greatest need for them, such as men who suffer domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

Organization
The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) is headed by a Director. The Principal Deputy Director serves under the Director, and the Deputy Director just under the Principal Deputy Director. On the same echelon as the Deputy Director are four main sectors: the Criminal Justice Division, the Community Division, Policy Analysis and the Administration. On the third and lowest tier of the office rests Training and Technical Assistance, Program Development and Evaluation and Demonstration/Special Projects.



Director
Since 2002, the Director of the OVW has been a position that must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Director serves as the liaison between the Federal government and state governments in regards to matters concerning Violence Against Women (i.e., crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking). The Director also serves in that role internationally, with Indian Tribes in the country, and within other offices of the United States Government. The Director reports to the Attorney General and is responsible for the legal and policy provisions that are implemented under the Violence Against Women Act. The Director of the OVW also has ultimate control over all grants, cooperative agreements and contracts that OVW issues, and oversees a budget of almost $400 million.



Grant Projects
There are currently twenty-one grant programs that the OVW administers. Eighteen of these programs use discretionary grants, which are a specific type of grant in which the Office determines both how funds will be used and in what context. The remaining three grants are formula grants, which are grants that must be distributed according to how the legislation describes. In order to receive a project grant, the grant must meet certain standards and qualifications and the recipient must be eligible for the grant.

According to the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, OVW grants must follow five protocols that were all established by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As such, funds can be used for:

These guidelines are expanded through the definition of the programs mentioned in part four: That final restriction is included in order to “provid[e] technical assistance to Federal, State, tribal, territorial, or local courts wishing to improve their practices and procedures or to develop new programs ."
 * "improved internal civil and criminal court functions, responses, practices, and procedures"
 * "education for court-based and court-related personnel on issues relating to victims' needs, including safety, security, privacy, confidentiality, and economic independence, as well as information about perpetrator behavior and best practices for holding perpetrators accountable"
 * "collaboration and training with Federal, State, tribal, territorial, and local public agencies and officials and nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations to improve implementation and enforcement of relevant Federal, State, tribal, territorial, and local law"
 * "enabling courts or court-based or court-related programs to develop new or enhance the following types of programs ."
 * "court infrastructure (such as specialized courts, dockets, intake centers, or interpreter services)"
 * "community-based initiatives within the court system (such as court watch programs, victim assistants, or community-based supplementary services)"
 * "offender management, monitoring, and accountability programs"
 * "safe and confidential information-storage and -sharing databases within and between court systems"
 * "education and outreach programs to improve community access, including enhanced access for underserved populations"
 * "other projects likely to improve court responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking ”

Additionally, there are eligibility requirements for each grant. These standards vary based on the possible recipients of the funds. Grants must be applied for, and an award process follows the distribution.

Criticism
There have been some critiques of the OVW. Generally, the criticisms regard the implementation of the OVW’s programs, i.e., how effective the programs have been in actually decreasing domestic violence. While many scholars do not object to the idea of the VAWA, some specialists have opinions about to whom, where and how the OVW should allocate its funding.

A study from the Journal of Marriage and Family stated that the “VAWA does not specifically target funds to areas that are in the greatest need-communities with the most intimate partner violence. Instead of being targeted, such organizations must apply for VAWA funding. Although some effort has been made to distribute funds to reach the high-need areas and to address specific inadequacies, the funding process currently favors existing organizations. However, this may not be the most effective way of reaching communities with the greatest need. " As such, the OVW has taken this criticism under consideration, is currently in the process of finding new strategies to improve in these areas.

Other critics postulate that the VAWA does not allocate enough resources to men who suffer from domestic violence. There are claims that the OVW portrays women as the only victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, while men are solely perpetrators of these crimes. The CDC offers that 13.8% of males have reported abuse, but supporting organizations of the VAWA, such as the NNEDV, posit that that number has actually increased up to 37%. Others, including Connie Morella] for the [[National Council of Jewish Women, have said that the VAWA does not allocate enough funds or provide assistance to immigrant women, who they say often cannot receive state or federal assistance because of their status. Concerned Women for America believe that the OVW should do more to promote a better image of marriage and healthy relationship and focus on real abuse crimes, instead of using the VAWA to expand the meaning of domestic violence to more trivial cases and leaving less monetary funding and judiciary assistance for the 'real' victims.  At present, the OVW's definition of domestic violence encompasses all forms of abuse, including those of an emotional, economic, psychological, physical and sexual nature.

The reauthorization of the VAWA on February 28, 2013 was achieved despite some significant controversy in regards to the new provisions of the Act that include the LGBT community, Native Tribes, and undocumented immigrants. Twenty-two members of The U.S. House of representatives opposed the reauthorization because of the additional provision that protects those minority communities. However, according to the CDC, partners in homosexual relationships say that they have encountered similar or greater levels of domestic violence in their lifetime than their straight counterparts. The 2013 re-authorization of the VAWA proved to be more challenging than its last re-authorization in 2005, but the acheived changes focus mostly in who the VAWA will now protect and how much money the Act allocates for helping those additional groups.