FLIGHT OF ABUSED WOMEN, PLIGHT OF CANADIAN SHELTERS ... · the street youth and women and children...

1Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, 1265 Military Trail, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada.M1C 1A4. I am grateful for Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s (SSHRC) generoussupport of my work on violence against women and thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightfulcomments on an earlier version of this paper.

FLIGHT OF ABUSED WOMEN, PLIGHT OF CANADIAN SHELTERS: ANOTHER ROAD

TO HOMELESSNESS

Aysan Sev’er1

Running title: Abused Women and Homelessness

FLIGHT OF ABUSED WOMEN, PLIGHT OF CANADIAN SHELTERS: ANOTHER

ROAD TO HOMELESSNESS

Abstract

The paper explores the link between women abuse and homelessness. Although theexamples are drawn from Canada, the argument is that the plight of abused women is similarthroughout North America. First, I discuss the stereotypes about homelessness and theconservative governments’ stance toward the homeless. Second, I introduce abuse of womenas another road to homelessness. Third, I review the literature on dependent children fromabusive homes as victims and witnesses who need social protection. Fourth, I establish theimportant role shelters play for women fleeing abusive relationships, by tracing the history ofshelters. The tenuous position of the shelters in relation to conservative governments isemphasized. The paper ends with the consequences of fear of homelessness for women andtheir children, and the public policy implications of the close link between abuse andhomelessness.

The mass media often presents us with two equally stereotypical images of the “homeless.”

The first is of older men or women, covered with dirt, bruises and sores, wearing tattered clothes and

pushing rusty shopping carts full of their meager earthly possessions. Additional stereotypes of this

type include mental health problems, substance dependencies, and propensity for unprovoked

violence. The second stereotypical image of the homeless is of school drop-outs with spiked hair, clad

in imitation leather with multiple adornments protruding from holes in their ears, mouth and nose.

Additional stereotypes of the second type may include aggressive begging, promiscuity, propensity

for profanity, crime and violence.

These distinctly different stereotypes nevertheless form a unified image of social

undesirableness. Personified by demeaning images, the homeless becomes homogenized, categorized

and often feared. They become the depersonalized “other” that more privileged people learn to

dislike, dismiss, avoid, reject and even blame for their own suffering (Hardill, 2000). Declaring them

the “enemy” rather than “victims,” conservative governments round-up the homeless, push and shove

the poor, sweep them off the streets and parks as if they were inanimate pieces of refuse, and

Abused Women and Homelessness 3

2 Just as the final draft of this paper was being written, the Ontario Government announced a $26 milliondollar fund to combat homelessness (Cash boost, 2000). Ironically, just a few days earlier, a National Council onWelfare report indicated that 16.4% of the Canadian population lives below the poverty line and this is a slightdecline from the previous year. However, according to the same report, the ranks of the poorest of the poor aregrowing at an alarming rate (Poverty rates down, 2000). Thus, despite the latest cash boost, the problems addressedin this paper will remain unchanged.

increasingly search ways to criminalize whatever it is that they do (Boyle, 2000; Rankin, 2000). For

example, the traditional harassment and punitive measures against street level sex workers as opposed

to the leniency for their clients is a well documented fact (Larsen, 1992; Lowman, 1992; Weitzer,

1999; West, 2000). Another example of over-criminalization is the recent “war” the city of Toronto

declared against the homeless youth. Since 1999, there is a heightened police scrutiny and new public

nuisance laws such as the Safe Streets Act taken up by a conservative provincial government and an

equally conservative municipal mayor who is eager to please an affluent downtown core. The Safe

Streets Act has been a war against some street youth trying to earn a few dollars by washing car

windows (Rankin, 2000; Boyle, 2000).

There are some challenges to the treatment of the homeless as well as a limited moral/social

outrage about their depersonalization (Crowe, 2000; Hardill, 2000; Harding, 2000). Of course, there

are some homeless people who fit some of the negative stereotypes as discussed above. However,

exceptions should not make the rules. In fact, as an undesirable artifact of the concentration of

wealth, money and power in the hands of a privileged few, the numbers and the variations amongst

the homeless are on the rise (Poverty Rates, 2000). Crowe (2000) alikens the plight of the homeless

to those who live in refuge camps, shanty towns and squat cities in the third world. They are not in

the third world, of course, they are dispersed at the core of Canadian major cities such as Toronto,

Vancouver and Montreal,2 or similar urban centers in North America.

What is more relevant here is that there are new paths to homelessness. A proportion of the

new homeless is indeed extremely different from what the common stereotypes suggest, but the plight


3 In Canada, almost 75 women are killed by their partners/husbands every year (Crawford et al., 1997;Sev’er, 1998).

is similar. At the structural level, poverty, job unavailability or insecurity, low wages, insufficient or

non-existent social benefits especially during cyclical economic busts do tail-spin some of the working

poor out of their existing housing arrangements (Maine, 1998; Metraux & Culhane, 1999). Moreover,

the conservative political and economic climates spawn increasingly conservative policies. Cuts to

welfare, declining child or health care, unavailability of affordable housing and other shrinking social

security measures combine to make growing numbers of people one misfortune away from

homelessness (Hardill, 2000; Mallan, 1998; Protester’s open letter, 2000). In Koegel, Burnam and

Baumohl’s (1996) brilliant analogy, it is like we are living in a world where more and more people

are playing the game of musical chairs with fewer and fewer chairs in the game. Players who have

structural disadvantages or who face personal misfortunes end up standing when the music stops.

They are the ones who lose the roof over their heads (Main, 1998).

This paper focuses on a different path to homelessness travelled almost exclusively by women

and their dependent children. This path falls outside the traditional stereotypes, and consists of

women and their dependent children who flee their homes. The flight is caused by abuse or threat of

violence their partners/husbands/fathers inflict on them (Bufkin & Bray, 1998; Mallan, 1998;

Metraux. & Culhane, 1999; Stayron & Janoff-Bulman, 2000; Susser, 1998). Most of us never see the

hopelessness of these women unless a few get brutally murdered by their abusive partners.3 We rarely

associate such women with the other homeless who sleep on street grates or ask for loose change.

Yet, these women do flee their homes, possibly more than once, often taking their children with them

(Susser, 1998; Zima, Bussing & Bystritsky, 1999). They stay at neighbours, hotels or shelters, they

spend long hours in police headquarters, hospitals, train or bus stations. A disturbingly high


4 Of course, there are other groups that also fall through the cracks in times of fiscal responsibility (i.e.,immigrants, people of color, people who test HIV positive, teenage mothers, physically or mentally ill). Followingthe September 11 terrorist attack on New York and Washington, the plight of all these already disadvantagedgroups requires careful analysis (see War wiped homelessness, 2001). However, I will confine my analysis to thehomeless.

proportion return to the abusive conditions without being able to secure any behavioural change in

their partners (Dobash & Dobash; 1992 Metraux & Culhane, 1999). The two most commonly given

reasons for returning to abusive partners are: not being able to find jobs and/or alternate housing

(OAITH, 1996; 1998; 1999).

In the following sections, I will review the literature on violence against women to show its

pervasiveness. Although the statistics are both from Canada and the U.S., the major focus of the

discussion will be on the province of Ontario, Canada. The literature will irrefutably show the

importance of the availability of a safe place in breaking the cycle of violence against women

(OAITH, 1996). Second, the literature on children as witnesses to parental strife will be reviewed.

Mothers try to protect their children by taking them along when they flee their abusive partners

(Metraux & Culhane, 1999). This tendency makes the availability of a safe environment particularly

crucial during the transition period, which can take months or years. Thus, the child factor alone

makes transition houses a crucial necessity. Housing is also a must if women are going to successfully

break the cycle of violence. Third, the historical development and functioning of abused women’s

shelters and transition houses will be reviewed. Since the early 1970s, shelters have served not only

as physical places of refuge, but also as places of ideological growth, feminist nurturence and social

action (Tutty, Weaver & Rothery, 1999). Fourth, I will summarize the economic turmoil of women’s

shelters and help lines since the mid-1990s when the Canadian political left has been decimated and

even the political centre has shifted to the right (Mallan, 1998). Vulnerable people like the homeless,

the street youth and women and children escaping from abuse have been hit the hardest.4 My intent


is to highlight the plight of the latter, although some of their difficulties also hurt other

disenfranchised homeless groups. Finally, the social and moral costs of the demise of shelters such

as locking women and children in abusive, destructive and even deadly family relations will be

discussed (Shelters save more wives, 2000; OAITH, 1999). I will end with policy recommendations

that emphasize the necessity for and obligations of a welfare state to guarantee women and their

dependent children a basic human right: a safe place to call home and freedom from violence.

INCIDENCE OF WIFE/PARTNER ABUSE:

The New Hampshire researchers call the marriage license as a "hitting license" (Straus, Gelles

& Steinmetz, 1986, 1980, also see Gelles, 1987, 1994). As national surveys in Canada and the United

States show, this designation is an accurate one (WAC Stats, 1993; Canadian Panel, 1993) since

almost one in three women (29%) report at least one incident of physical abuse in their long-term

relationships. Lifetime rates of wife assault are significantly higher in cases of previous marriages

(48%) than in cases of current marriages (15%, Rodgers, 1994:4). In Confronting Crime: An

American Challenge, Elliot Currie (1985:208) states “violence against women is ... one of the most

serious and deadly forms of criminal violence in America.” Crawford et al., (1997) come to a similar

conclusion for Canada.

The most recent Canadian General Social Survey (GSS, 2000) estimated that 1.2 million men

and women faced some form of intimate violence between 1995-1999. Although similar proportions

of women and men (8% versus 7%) reported at least one incidence of violence, both the frequency

and the consequences of violence were disproportionally higher for women. For example, almost five

times more women than men reported that they feared for their lives. One quarter of women who

were abused said that they were beaten, and 13% reported that their partners either threatened

themwith or actually used a gun or a knife on them. Four out of 10 abused women reported


experiencing some form of injury, and 15% claimed that they required medical attention as the result

of violence. In comparison, incidents reported by men were much less serious (GSS, 2000). Thus,

the above figures show the risks in Canadian women’s homes. According to a recent Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS) press release, findings for women in the U.S. are very similar (BJS, 1995).

For the purposes of this paper, three other dimensions need to be emphasized. First, violence

against women/mothers are often witnessed by their dependent children. In the recent Canadian

survey, 37% of the spousal victims claimed that their children had either heard or saw at least one

episode of violence (GSS, 2000, also see Rodgers, 1994). Children may also be directly targeted.

Second, women remain as the major caregivers even when they, themselves are victimized. Attempts

to escape involve finding a safe place for themselves and their children (Sev’er, 2001). Third, abusive

men often increase their taunting, threats, stalking and physical violence during or shortly after

separations (Sev’er, 1997). According to the BJS (1995), intimate-offender attacks on women

separated from their husbands were three times higher than that of divorced women and about 25

times higher than that of married women. In Canada, as opposed to the 15% of women reporting

violence by their current partners, 48% reported violence by previous partners (Rodgers, 1994:9).

Moreover, assaults by former partners were significantly more severe than attacks by current partners

(GSS, 2000). One possibility is that some separations are due to already existing violence in

relationships rather than violence as the outcome of separations. Nevertheless, the extremely troubling

correlation between violence and attempts to separate cannot be overlooked (see Bean, 1992; Block

& Christakos, 1995; Crawford & Gartner, 1992; Ellis, 1992; Johnson & Chisolm, 1990; Okun, 1986;

Sev’er, 1997; 1998; Wilson & Daly, 1992). Although most abused women may not know the grim

statistics, they often know from experience that their partners will be at their most dangerous if and

when they attempt to leave (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997; Sev’er, 1997; 1998; Sev’er, 2001).


Women who desperately want to leave may also fear the consequences of putting themselves, their

children and even their friends and relatives in harm’s way (Sev’er, 1997; 1998). In sum, research

points to the absolute necessity of a safe place to help women in times of crisis or during a

separation/divorce.

CHILDREN AS WITNESSES:

Frequently, children witness the violence although they themselves may not be the target

(Fantuzzo et al., 1991; Jaffe, Wolfe & Wilson, 1990). In a recent case, a Toronto man poured a litre

of sulphuric acid over her female partner’s face who was getting out of their long-term relationship

(Victim of acid attack, 2000). Her six-year-old son witnessed the ghastly attack which produced

caustic burns to 80% of his mother’s body (Acid attack victim, 2000). Although the above example

is an extreme, children do witness violence in their homes (Wolak & Finkelhor, 1998; Zima, Bussing

& Bystrinsky, 1999). The recent Canadian survey (GSS, 2000) also underscores children being twice

as likely to witness violence against their mothers than against their fathers. Within the last five years,

37% of all responding victims of spousal violence claimed that their children witnessed at least one

violent event. Moreover, in 45% of the households where children had witnessed violence, the

mother had suffered physical injuries (GSS, 2000), indicating that what children may be watching is

a lot more than a mild altercation.

The fact that the witnessed violence is taking place in children’s core relationships is

significant (Jaffe, Wolfe & Wilson, 1990). Children may see their fathers hitting their mothers or

siblings, they may feel helpless in case of cries for help or grunts of pain. In a recent study, a

respondent reported that her teenage son used to hide in his bedroom closet when her husband beat

her up. At the time of the interview, she had been separated from her abuser for more than three

years, but her son still slept in the closet (Sev’er, 2001). Other children see cuts, bruises and blood.


Some children observe sexual assaults or even murder (Eth & Pynoos, 1994). Michelle Harkness (20)

was murdered by her husband, and her infant daughter spent two full days without food or water,

cuddling to her mother’s body before they were discovered (Youngster, 2 found alone, 1994).

Surveys asking adults about their childhood memories of witnessing violence show anywhere

between 11% to 20% of adults recalling terrifying incidents from their childhood (Wolak & Finkelhor,

1998:75, also see Fantuzzo et al., 1991 and Terr, 1990). Moreover, adults who had witnessed

violence as children recall an average of nine such incidents, pointing to the possibility of

compounding effects of exposure (Terr, 1990). In Canada, 78% of women who stay in women’s

shelters report that their children observed the violence they endured (Juristat, 1999:6). This may

mean that the Canadian GSS (2000) may be underestimating the problem of children witnessing

violence against their mothers. It is also possible that women are more likely to seek shelter support

if their children witness their suffering. There is some support for the latter assertion since 60% of

women who have left their abusive partners claim that their children had witnessed the violence as

opposed to 34% of women who did not make such a claim (Rodgers, 1994:12).

Wolak and Finkelhor (1998:81) group the symptoms of children exposed to partner violence

under the categories of behavioural, physical, emotional and cognitive problems. Others show severe

psychological and behavioural problems of child witnesses of violence (Zima et al., 1999; Rodgers,

2000). One possibility is that when such children reach adulthood, they may externalize their fear,

anger, frustration and lack of social skills by trying to control others. These are the ones who

contribute to the cycle of violence by transforming from victims into perpetrators (Rodgers, 2000).

Another possibility is that such children will internalize their fear, anger, frustration and lack of social

skills. These children may become easy targets for abuse by making poor decisions, by allowing other

people to make decisions for them, by choosing predatory partners or by engaging in forms of self


5 All the known monotheistic religions insist on some kind of equilibrium between marital partners andtheir children, although all provide a much higher rung for the husband/father in family matters. Since this paperis about Canada, the most applicable religious institution for the discussion is the stance of the Christian Church.

deprication ranging from low self esteem, eating disorders, substance abuse, self mutilation or suicide

(Sev’er, 2001; Zima et al., 1999).

Long term exposure to violence often victimizes multiple generations of people. For example,

women with violent fathers-in-law are six times more likely to be abused than women whose fathers-

in-law are non-violent (Rodgers, 2000). Women’s ability to get out of abusive relationships and to

take their children with them correlates with either a serious threat or injury that makes them fear for

their lives (GSS, 2000) and/or their belief in a viable alternative to the abusive home. Of course, the

availability, accessibility and the quality of support and services like shelters and transition homes play

a crucial role in such decisions (OAITH, 1998; 1999; Shelters save more wives, 2000). Yet, shelters

are not homes.

HISTORY OF REFUGES, WOMEN’S SHELTERS AND TRANSITION HOMES:

Given the fact that men’s violence against women permeates human history, strategies to deal

with its extreme manifestations has also been present. Family members, neighbours and friends may

always have provided varying degrees of help, despite strong tendencies toward privatization of

family life since the advent of industrial capitalism (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997; Dobash &

Dobash, 1992). Religious institutions may have dealt with family violence in their teachings, sermonal

interventions and when worse came to worst, by using the church as a moral barrier and a temporary

sanctuary.5 However, gender inequality in the covert and overt positions of most churches still exists.

Moreover, most churches view family violence as a personal matter that needs to be resolved withing

the privacy of the family rather than as a social problem which has broad human rights and women’s

rights implications. In sum, although churches have and continue to play a role in providing some


relief for abused women and their children, often this help is overladen with moralistic slant for female

submission rather than as encouragement for equality, growth or change (Beaman-Hall & Nason-

Clark, 1997; Nason-Clark, 1995). Instead, the women centered institutional response to partner

violence had to wait until the early 1970s.

The first shelter (Chiswick Women’s Aid) opened in Britain in 1972. Originally, the derelict

building awaiting demolition was just a women’s meeting place but when an abused woman showed

up at its door, she was taken in and others followed. Soon, women and children were “sleeping like

sardines” in extremely uncomfortable, overcrowded and substandard conditions (Dobash & Dobash,

1992:63), and the health officials demanded its closure. However, given its exigency, neither the city

council nor the police forced closure. On the contrary, the police kept on referring women to this first

of its kind shelter while the media cheered its cause (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Okun, 1986).

Ever since, aspects of the first refuge has been directly relevant to the strengths and

weaknesses of women’s shelters. Indeed, Chiswick house brought out violence against wives right

into the public discourse. It also placed the abused woman among other women who could relate to

her dilemma, pain and fear. Without the moralist familialism of neighbors, family, or the church and

outside of hegemonic paternalism of the law enforcers of the state, women seized the opportunity to

learn from other women. Moreover, women had the opportunity to negotiate with and make claims

from the state for issues that were previously deemed to be private matters. They also forged links

with the media to transform violence against women into a social problem (Dobash & Dobash, 1992;

Mahony, 1994).

Chiswick house also embodies problems that shelters continue to experience. The first and

foremost difficulty is problems with funding. As a meeting place that was inadvertently transformed

into a refuge, Chiswick had a haphazard financial profile: the expenses relating to the building were


paid from local taxes while the resident women used social security payments to contributed to their

own upkeep (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Okun, 1986; Tutty et al., 1999). This “making due, existing

day-by-day” nature of women’s shelters is a continuing problem (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997;

Mallan, 1998; OAITH, 1996; 1998; 1999). The Women’s House which opened in October 1974 in

Minnesota, and those that simultaneously opened in Glasgow and Edinburgh, England, all had to deal

with patch-work funding arrangements (Dobash & Dobash, 1992).

A related dilemma for shelters is the dependency upon and legitimate demands for

government funds on the one hand versus their independence, reflexivity, social activism and quest

for social change (Kenny & Magnusson, 1993). Chiswick house was run by a charismatic, motherly

figure. Other early shelters insisted on non-hierarchical relations among the volunteers and the

residents where most volunteers were survivors of abuse themselves. However, governments have

been and continue to be reluctant to fund organizations that lack a clear bureaucratic structure and

division of responsibility. Governments also demand formal training and meritocracy. Thus, the most

advocacy oriented shelters are also the least likely to fit into governmental expectations. Governments

are reluctant to fund organizations that strongly challenge and criticize the status quo (Dobash &

Dobash, 1992; Kenny & Magnusson, 1993; Schechter, 1982).

A different problem which plagues shelters is related to the living conditions, safety and over-

crowding (Tutty et al., 1999). From the beginning, there seems to be a higher demand for safe houses

than their capacity for accommodation. Early shelters tried an open-door policy, leading to problems

and dissatisfaction (Dobash & Dobash, 1992). Crowded eating, sleeping arrangements, children’s

noise and disruptive behaviour, personal and cultural diversities among the residents have always

taxed shelters which try to cater to people from all walks of life. Confinement to less than adequate

living quarters, concerns about safety and social and psychological artifacts of long-term abuse the


residents bring in with them often make shelter life intolerable. In one study, 70% of children in a

shelter had clinical-level behavioural problems and 53% appeared to be clinically depressed (Wolak

& Finkelhor, 1998:93, also see Terr, 1990; Zima et al., 1999). Even when women express

gratefulness for the services they have received, they complain about the noise, uncleanliness and lack

of privacy (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Metraux & Culhane, 1999; NiCarthy, 1997; Okun, 1986;

Schechter, 1982). Ironically, shelters which enforce strict admittance requirements or exclude some

children to deal with the mentioned problems also find themselves bitterly criticized for being too

bureaucratic and heartless.

THE EARLY CANADIAN SHELTER MOVEMENT AND THE CURRENT STATE:

In Canada, the first shelter opened in 1973 in Vancouver, and was immediately followed by

others. The Canadian shelter movement experienced most of the above discussed dilemmas. The most

vivid clash amongst the state, civil society in general and women as social claims makers and service

users is embodied in Vancouver’s Women’s House Saving Action of 1985 (Kenny & Magnussen,

1993). Like the ones in England and the U.S., The Women’s House was under overwhelming

pressure for services, and in need of adequate and sustained government funds. The catch-twenty-two

was (and often is) that funding was scarce, unpredictable, and more often than not, came with

governmental strings. In terms of women’s issues, the political resolve of governments have been

wide ranging from election to election, and from province to province. There are tensions between

feminist activism and equity principles and the requirement for bureaucratic structures demanding a

professional but docile work-force in order to qualify for funds. As Kenny and Magnussen eloquently

highlight (1993:372), the critical mobilization of state funded women’s shelters against government

policies is deemed analogous to the state mobilizing against itself. Thus, shelters are caught in an

uncomfortable dance to fulfill the rigid requirements for sustained funding without totally sacrificing


their reason d’etre: ideological purity, feminist goals and social activism. On the other hand, shelters

are supposed to provide much needed services for women and their dependent children. Yet, half of

their time is spent justifying the worth of their services through collection of statistics and publicizing

their efforts so that they can continue to qualify for funds (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997:76). The

fragile balance gets that much more difficult when there are regional or national economic upheavals.

One way of dealing with the shelter/government tug-of-war has been to turn to private

donations to augment the governmental shortfall. However, preoccupation with fund raising

activities, even with the best of intentions of improving or expanding services, has meant sacrifices

to the critical, women-centered, social activist edge of the shelter movement (OAITH, 1998:21-22).

Starting from The Women’s House in Vancouver, shelters who have resorted to raise private funding

to improve their services have failed to shame governments into providing more funding. On the

contrary, the self sufficiency struggles of the shelters have released the governments from whatever

responsibility they may have had toward women and their dependent children.

The strengths as well as the plight of the Canadian shelters can be found in a recent Statistics

Canada survey (Juristat, 1999). At the time of the survey, there were 470 operating shelters for

abused women across Canada. Most of these shelters were clustered in Ontario (129), Quebec (105)

and British Columbia (93). In the report, the term “shelter” was broadly defined to include all

residential facilities for abused women and their dependent children (Juristat, 1999:2). Between 1997-

1998, a total of 90,792 people (47,962 women and 42,830 children) were admitted to 413 of these

shelters (OAITH, 1998:1). Of those admitted, 56% had their children with them, 20% had no children

and 18% were admitted without their children (Juristat, 1999:6).

From 1993 to 1998, the number of women and children residing in shelters on a given day has

significantly increased (respectively, 1,498 versus 2,260 women and 1,636 versus 2,509 children).


6The discrepancy between the Statistics Canada report numbers (Juristat, 1999) and the Ontario report(OAITH, 1998) is due to the more stringent definition of the term “shelter” by the latter. In Canada, women’sshelters are funded by the provincial governments. In Ontario, funding is provided by the Ministry of Communityand Social Services

In contrast, the rise in the number of shelters was minimal (Juristat, 1999; OAITH, 1998). Only 17

new shelters have been created across Canada, 10 of which are in First Nations Communities

(Juristat, 1999:3). Ontario, the most populous province of Canada, has done very little to reverse the

standstill in providing help for abused women. Many shelter initiatives which were underway before

1995, folded due to severe cut-backs (see Breaking the Cycle, 1995). Existing shelters report

providing a variety of resident services ranging from counseling (91%), to parenting skills (82%),

housing referrals (82%) and advocacy (87%). More funding and labour intensive services such as

culturally sensitive services and services for women with disabilities were provided only by 60% of

the shelters. In addition, over 70% of the shelters reported that they provided short-term counseling,

crises telephone lines and advocacy for ex-residents. Over 50% provided legal services, financial

assistance/welfare, housing referrals and advocacy to both non-residents and ex-residents (Juristat,

1999:4). The operating costs reported by 411 shelters were $170 million, or merely $413,626 per

shelter per year.

According to the annual report of the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses

(OAITH, 1998), there are 98 shelters in Ontario.6 The report underscores a severe funding crisis since

the mid-1990s when the Progressive Conservative Party took office. For example, since 1995,

requests for different type of services by abused women and their children have increased anywhere

between 11% to 30% and the average stay in shelters has risen 18%. The cost of living has also

increased and shelter use is estimated to have risen anywhere between 1.5% to 10% during 1998-

1999. Yet, shelter funding across the province was cut by 5% in 1995 (OAITH, 1998, iii). As a

predictable result, 60% of the Ontario shelters report a significant decline in the services they could


provide. Services which make the shelter stay more inclusive and less traumatic (such as cultural

sensitivity programs, programs for children, etc.), have been the first to go. Programs like translation

services for immigrant women, services for older women or women with disabilities are not luxuries.

They are crucial (Susser, 1998; Vinton, 1998) since most refugee and Aboriginal women already

question the shelters as a viable alternative for themselves. These strong feelings of scepticism need

to be neutralized before these women can break the cycle of abuse in their personal lives (DeKeseredy

& MacLeod, 1997:19).

Shelters also report an increase in numbers of women they are totally unable to help. For

example, in 1997 alone, The Assaulted Women’s Helpline has received and responded to 26,000 calls

despite the cuts. Nevertheless, their line monitoring system showed that they missed another 50,000

calls because the lines were busy (OAITH, 1998: iv). In addition, the Ontario Government slashed

21.6% from social assistance and housing subsidies along with cuts or total elimination of other social

advocacy, training and education programs (OAITH, 1998:10). Shelter staff has also been sacrificed

to the cuts. Job losses, heavy work loads, expectation of unpaid counselling hours have risen and

workers have been cajoled for taking on fund-raising responsibilities (OAITH, 1998: iv). Since 1995,

sick time and stress leaves have been on the rise among shelter workers (1998:24).

After substantial pressure from women’s organizations and as a belated response to well-

publicized murders of numerous women at the hands of their male partners, in 1997, the Ontario

government allocated 27 million dollars to combat violence against women (OAITH, 1998).

Nevertheless, this apparent generosity was barely able to replace the degredation of the infrastructure

of the Ontario shelters, let alone meet the rising needs of women and children (OAITH, 1998: 11).

Moreover, most of the money has since been spent on generic institutions such as hospitals, training

and research rather than supporting prevention/education or resurrecting services battered women


7 The degenderized term “domestic violence” hides the fact that women are the victims of the mostfrequent and the most severe forms of violence at the hands of their partners. Women are also more than threetimes more likely to be killed by their abusive partners than men are likely to be killed by their female partners(Crawford, Gartner & Dawson, 1997; GSS, 2000; Juristat, 2000). The feminist literature strongly challengesdegenderizing violence committed by men, and prefers terms such as “wife abuse” or “female partner abuse” or“battered women” (see Kelly, 1997; Name withheld, 1996; Sev’er, 1999; Yllo, 1988).

directly access (i.e., shelters, assaulted women’s hotlines, second-stage housing).

There is no doubt that some of the above mentioned initiatives and extra funding are

important and have been beneficial in raising awareness about violence. However, women’s advocates

charge that establishments that can directly intervene and ameliorate the immediate suffering of

women and children have received very little or no help at all (Mallan, 1998; OAITH, 1999; NDP

seeks hike, 2000). Instead, the bulk of the new funds were earmarked for punitive measures such as

the courts and seeking convictions for the batterers (Mallan, 1998).

In the third quarter of the year 2000, there was a large number of femicides committed by

current or estranged partners (Husband charged, 2000; Grisly find, 2000; Husband’s suicide note,

2000; Woman shot dead, 2000; Slain woman, 2000). Along with their mothers, a number of young

children also lost their lives (NDP seeks hike, 2000). What was most disheartening about these

murders was that the victims had contacted the police in numerous occasions, the perpetrators had

been questioned and/or arrested many times, and in most cases, there were peace bonds issued against

them (see Hutchison & Hirschel, 1998 for a discussion of police utilization). Yet, numerous women

and some children lost their lives because they were not assured a safe place. As a delayed reaction,

the Ontario Government promised to release another ten million dollars to help victims (Government

of Ontario, 2000; Ministry of Community and Social Services, 2000).7 However, given the fact that

there are at least half a million women and children affected by violence in Ontario alone, this money

translates into about $20 per victim (roughly equivalent to two hamburger dinners at a fast-food

restaurant). These reactionary spurts of funding do little to ameliorate the recent shelter and women’s


centre closures (North York, Halton, Riverdale, South Asian Women’s Centre and Windsor, see

Town Hall Meeting, 2000), or reverse the decline in the services shelters provide (Juristat, 1999).

Eileen Morrow, the only paid staff remaining at OAITH after the 1995 funding cuts, stated that

battered women ask for housing and jobs, not more money for the criminal justice system (Town Hall

Meeting, 2000). Unfortunately, aside from cuts to shelters, the most significant cuts are to affordable

housing (OAITH, 1998; 1999).

CONSEQUENCES OF FEAR OF HOMELESSNESS

Whenever the abuse of women issue is raised, many people including some academics ask

“why doesn’t she leave?” (Gelles, 1972). Questions about why the perpetrator engages in violent

behaviour, why he does not stop, whether or not he is arrested, charged, etc., are almost never asked.

Also omitted are questions about whether the woman has the means to leave, whether she is in a

position to take care of her dependent children, whether she has money, a job or access to safe and

affordable housing. If these alternate questions were asked, the most likely response would be “How

could she leave?” According to Jones (1994), people who ask “why doesn’t she leave?” do not

necessarily want an answer anyway. What they really want is to evaluate and judge the victims (p.

130-131).

Abused women experience physical assault, verbal taunting, stalking, marital rape and threats

about custody. These stresses can and do result in depression, suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress

or substance abuse (Rodgers, 2000, Tutty et al., 1999). Getting out of such a vicious cycle is crucial,

but for many victims, the discussed cycle of funding shortages, shelter crowding, decline in social

welfare measures and especially affordable housing shortages have dire consequences. One

consequence which is not directly measurable but easily conceivable is that women do not dare to

leave their abusive partners (OAITH, 1998:31). Abused women often provide a vivid picture of their


fear of homelessness. On the basis of their own traumatic experiences, 39 survivors of a recent study

urged other women to leave their abusive partners as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the same

women had lived under escalating abuse before leaving their own partners. When asked why they

stayed for so long, the unified response from more than half of the respondents was the fear of not

having a decent place to live (Sev’er, 2001).

Another consequence may be delayed help seeking until a very serious injury to the woman

or her children occurs. The Violence Against Women Survey found that only 13% of women who

leave their abusive partners stay in a shelter. However, those who stay in shelters were more likely

to have suffered a serious injury requiring medical attention (Rodgers, 1994). Obviously, these are

women who have trouble finding an alternate housing arrangement for themselves or else they would

not be in a shelter. As these findings imply, the delay in leaving may have set the stage for escalation

of violence and the severity of the sustained injury. In 1998, it was observed that 29% of the women

currently residing in shelters had contacted the police in the last incident before being admitted to the

shelter, and in 86% of the cases, charges were laid (Juristat, 1999:7; Rodgers & MacDonald, 2000).

For others, lack of safe, affordable housing and jobs have meant returning to the abusive

partners after a short or medium length shelter stay (OAITH, 1998:29). Repeat shelter stays which

are called the “cycle of homelessness” form the mirror image of the repeated returns to the abusive

partner (Metraux & Culhane, 1999). Immigrant women may be particularly vulnerable to this pattern

since they may not have established social support systems (Dasgupta, 2000). The following is just

one example out of countless others: Rosie was a newcomer to Canada who spoke no English. At

the interview, her face was torn around her mouth, she weighed less than 90 pounds claiming that she

was starved. She had had a miscarriage because of a kick to her stomach while pregnant. Yet, rather

than the horror of being alone in a culture she did not understand, she returned to her abusive


8 On December 18, 2000, The National and the Magazine program (CBC) broadcasted interviews withwomen who have been forced to live on the streets due to lack of housing. Such problems for Aboriginal womenwere reported to have reached the point of crisis. In the interview, an Aboriginal woman (Laura Bell Rose) claimedthat the Children’s Aid Society took her children away because she couldn’t find a place to live after leaving herabusive partner. As if these traumatic experiences were not enough, women like Laura Bell are also subjected toacts of random violence on the streets (Susser, 1998; Metraux & Culhane, 1999). The existing shelters inVancouver report that due to the shortage of spaces, they are turning away 300 people every night.

husband (Sev’er, 1996). Some immigrant women may not be able to count on family support,

regardless of the abuse they suffer. For example, a Sri Lankan woman who was violently raped more

than 200 times by her husband was disowned by her parents when she eventually called the police

(Shelters save more wives, 2000).

For some women, their escape means long durations of unacceptable living conditions or

homelessness. According to shelter statistics, the wait for subsidized housing is anywhere from three

weeks to five years (sic) despite the existence of a special priority for placement for victims of abuse

(OAITH, 1998:v). Even when an emergency shelter can be found, what follows a short or medium

stay is a major problem. For example, in Ontario, 75% of the polled second stage housing

establishments report that they decreased the services they could provide since the 1995 cut-backs

(OAITH, 1998:24). Some women claim that they live on the streets after leaving an abusive partner

and immigrant or Aboriginal women are much more vulnerable to these patterns. Women living on

the streets may lose their children to the Children’s Aid Society or to the abusive partner (Metraux

& Culhane, 1999; The National, 2000).8 They also become vulnerable to other types of predatory

violence (Metraux & Culhane, 1999; Susser, 1998). Other women make expensive housing

arrangements they cannot afford and end up either getting evicted or having to rely on food banks

for their food and clothing (OAITH, 1998:v and 31). Some move in with their relatives and friends

and face difficulties in receiving social assistance. For an unknown number of women, fear of

homelessness may mean being locked in the abusive relationship and thus risking serious injury or


even death (OAITH, 1998).

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS:

Of course, wife/partner abuse is a major problem fueled by personal, social, structural,

economic and cultural reasons (Main, 1998). Wife/partner abuse has just as complex personal, social,

structural and economic consequences for woman, her children as well as for her family and friends.

Hence, it will be naive to argue that adequacy of shelters will ameliorate all such problems. However,

I am going to stress that the availability of emergency and second stage shelters is the bare minimum

affluent societies owe to their vulnerable people whose suffering is due to entrenched social ills

(Rodgers & MacDonald, 2000). According to the United Nations rankings, Canada has been selected

the very “best” country in the world three years in a row (Canada again best, 1996) and the affluence

of the U.S. remains unsurpassed in the world. Countries with such distinctions must do their very best

to protect all of their citizens, especially those who are the most vulnerable. Nevertheless, vulnerable

women are repeatedly shortchanged. Shelters which are a buffer between abused women and their

abusers are in a state of crisis. Different levels of government, especially the Conservative

Government of Ontario has been dismissive of even basic services to the homeless (NDP seeks hike,

2000). Even when funds are made available, the bulk is earmarked for overcriminalization rather than

the improvement of services. As DeKeseredy and MacLeod (1997:135) put it, conservative policies

in dealing with violence have gravitated toward “risk identification” rather than engendering structural

change simply because the risk identification approach is deemed less costly. Yet, a strictly fiscal

calculation of dollars and cents ignores the human costs. Without any attempt to understand the

genesis of women’s structural disadvantages, risk identification strategies act like a band-aid on a

gaping wound consisting of poverty, inequality, exploitation, sexism, racism along with a plethora

of other isms. In casting the complex social problems in terms of “danger” rather than the basic


human right for a safe shelter from violence, the vulnerable (abused women and homeless in general)

have been ill served and revictimized (Bunch & Frost, 1999).

It is my contention that women in Ontario deserve more socially conscious and responsible

measures and more reflexive state policies and procedures than what they have gotten. Moreover,

a sharp turn towards conservative fiscal responsibility models has created insurmountable

disadvantages to women in most parts of North America. Shelter closures, welfare cuts, cuts to

training programs in Canada and the U.S. are common occurrences. Homeless and abused women

await social responsibility and political resolve. Just to name two, bolstering funding for emergency

and second stage shelters are a must. Moreover, allocated funds should be spent with input from

front-line workers and affected women themselves rather than solely decided by far-removed

bureaucratic systems. Abused women want and deserve to feel safe, they need easy-access to shelters,

affordable housing and decent jobs. They want quality day-care and child-witness programs to help

their children with the trauma in their lives (Town Hall Meeting, 2000). Furthermore, immigrant or

Aboriginal women want culturally sensitive programs to accommodate their language, culture and

religious diversity. Women want access to legal aid within a more gender-sensitive justice system

rather than being objectified by the existing legal system (OAITH, 1998:27-41). Moreover, what

abused women need is not that much different from the needs and wants of the other disenfranchised

groups such as the homeless. The governments of at least the affluent countries such as Canada and

the U.S. have an obligation to fulfill the basic human rights and dignified living conditions for all their

citizens, especially those who are the most vulnerable.


REFERENCESAcid attack victim had not shown fear, relative says. (2000, July 25). Toronto Star, p. A17.Beaman-Hall, L. & Nason-Clark, N.. (1997). Partners or protagonists? The transition house

movement and conservative churches. Affilia, 12(2), 176-196.Bean, C. 1992. Women Murdered by the Men They Loved. New York: Haworth.BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics). 1995. http://www.famvi.com.deptjust.htm). Block, C.R. & Christakos, A. (1995). Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over 29 years. Crime and

Delinquency, 41, 496-526.Boyle, T. (2000). Squeege kid clampdown working, Tories say. Toronto Star, July 19: A6.Breaking the Cycle: A Feasibility Study. (1995). Prepared for the Swan Shelter for Women and Their

Children by D.S. Elliot and Associates. Toronto.Bufkin, J.L. & Bray, J. (1998). Domestic violence, criminal justice responses and homelessness:

Finding the connection and addressing the problem. Journal of Social Distress and theHomeless, 7(4), 227-240.

Bunch, C. & Frost, S. (1997). Women’s Human Rights: An Introduction.Http://www.cwgl.rutgers.edu.whr.html.

Canada again best place in the world. (1996, July 16). Toronto Star, p. A1.Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women. Changing the Landscape: Ending Violence, Achieving

Equality. (1993). Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.Cash boost in battle against homelessness. (2000, December 24). The Mirror, p. 1.Crowe, C. (2000). It’s time to end silence on homeless. Toronto Star, November 14: A27.Crawford, M. & Gartner, R. (1992). Women Killing: Intimate Femicide in Ontario, 1974-1990.

Toronto: Women We Honour Action Committee.Crawford, M., Gartner, R. & Dawson, M.. (1997). Woman Killing: Intimate Homicide in Ontario

1991-1994. Toronto: Ontario Women’s Directorate. Currie, E. (1985). Confronting Crime: An American Challenge. New York: Pantheon.Dasgupta, S.D. (2000). Charting the course: An overview of domestic violence in the South Asian

community in the U.S. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 9(3), 173-185.DeKeseredy, W. & Macleod, L. (1997). Woman Abuse: A Sociological Story. Toronto:

Harcourt-Brace.Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R.P. (1992). Women, Violence and Social Change. New York: Routhledge.Ellis, D. (1992). Woman abuse among separated and divorced women: The Relevance of Social

Support. In E.C. Viano (Ed.), Intimate Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 177-188). Bristol: Taylor and Francis.

Eth, S. & Pynoos, R.S. (1994). Children who witness the homicide of a parent. Psychiatry, 57(4),287-306.

Fantuzzo, J.W., DePaola, L.M., Lambert, L. Mantino, T. Anderson, G. & Sutton, S. (1991). Effectsof interpersonal violence on the psychological adjustment and competencies of youngchildren. Journal of Counselling and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 258-265.

Gelles, R.J. (1972). Abused wives: why do they stay? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(4),659-666.

Gelles, R.J. (1987). The Violent Home (Updated Ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.Gelles, R.J. 1994. Introduction: Special issue on family violence. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, XXV(1), 1-6.Government of Ontario. (2000). Htpp://www.gov.on.ca:80?MCZCR/english/about/f011100.htmGrisly find on motorcycle. (2000, September 9). Toronto Star, p. A3.


GSS (General Social Survey). (2000). Family Violence. The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Harding, K. (2000). Council reviews squeegee program. The Toronto Star, August 2:B3. Hardill, K. (2000). Now they are killing the homeless. The Toronto Star, June 16:A25.Husband charged in women’s death. (2000, July 16). Toronto Star, p. A5.Husband’s suicide note spelled out plan. (2000, June 23). Toronto Star, p. A1.Hutchison, I.W. & Hirschel, D.J. (1998). Abused Women: Help seeking strategies and police

utilization. Violence Against Women, 4(4), 436-456.Jaffe, P.G., Wolfe, D.A. & Wilson, S.K. (1990). Children of Battered Women. Newbury Park, Calif.:

Sage.Johnson, H. & Chisolm, P.1990. Family homicide. In C. McKie and K. Thompson (Eds.). Canadian

Social Trends (pp. 63-69). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.Jones, A. (1994). Next Time, She’ll be Dead. Boston: Beacon.Juristat. (1999). Canada’s Shelters for Abused Women. Canadian Center for Justice Statistics: Cat.

85-002-XPE Vol. 19, No. 6.Kelly, K.E. (1997). The family violence and woman abuse debate: Reviewing the literature, posing

alternatives. In A. Sev’er (Ed.). A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Wife Abuse, pp. 27-51. NewJersey: Edwin Mellen.

Kenny, L. & Magnusson, W. (1993). In transition: The women’s house saving action. CanadianReview of Sociology and Anthropology, 30(3), 359-376.

Koegel, P., Burnam, M.A. & Baumohl, J. (1996). The causes of homelessness. In. J. Baumohl (Ed.).Homelessness in America, pp. 21-35. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx.

Larsen, E.N. (1992). The politics of prostitution control: Interest group politics in four Canadiancities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,16(2), 169-189.

Lowman, J. (1992). Street prostitution control: Some Canadian reflections on the Finsbury Parkexperience. British Journal of Criminology, 32(1), 1-17.

Mallan, C. (1998). Homeless report branded pitiful. Toronto Star, October 10, p. A1.Mahony, M.R. (1994). Victimization or oppression? Women’s lives, violence and agency. In M.A.

Fineman & R. Mykitiuk (Eds). The Public Nature of Private Violence: The Discovery ofDomestic Abuse, pp. 59-92. New York: Routledge.

Main, T. (1998). How to think about homelessness: Balancing structural and individual causes.Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 7(1), 41-54.

Metraux, S. & Culhane, D. (1999). Family dynamics, housing and recurring homelessness amongwomen in New York city. Journal of Family Issues, 20(3), 371-396.

M i n i s t r y o f C o m m u n i t y a n d S o c i a l S e r v i c e s . ( 2 0 0 0 ) .Http://www.gov.on.ca:80?CSS/page?news/sep2000b.html

Nason-Clark, N. (1995). Conservative Protestants and violence against women: Exploring therhetoric and the response. In M.J. Neitz & M. Goldman (Eds). Sex, Lies and Sanctity:Religion and Deviance in Modern America, pp. 109-130. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

NDP seeks hike in shelter cash. (2000, July 11). Toronto Star, p. A8.NiCarthy, G. (1997). Getting Free: You Can End Abuse and Take Back Your Life. Seattle: Seal.Okun, L. (1986). Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing Myths. New York: State University of New York.OAITH. (1996). Locked in-Left Out: Impacts of the Progressive Conservative Budget Cuts and

Policy Initiatives on Abused Women and Their Children in Ontario: Ontario Association ofInterval and transition Houses.

OAITH. (1998). Falling through the Gender Gap: How Ontario Government Policy Continues toFail Abused Women and Their Children. Toronto: Ontario Association of Interval and


transition HousesOAITH. (1999). Ten Years for Montreal: Still Working for change. Toronto: Ontario Association

of Interval and transition Houses.Poverty rates down but poorest of poor growing: Report. (2000, December 16). Toronto Star, p.

A21).Protester’s open letter to Harris. (2000, June 16). Toronto Star, p. A22.Rankin, J. Safe Streets Act. (2000). Toronto Star, November 28: E1.Rodgers, K. 1994. Wife Assault in Canada: The Findings of a National Survey. Juristat, Statistics

Canada 14(9). Ottawa: Canadian Center for Justice Statistics.Rodgers, K. (2000). Wife assault in Canada. In Canadian Social Trends, Vol. 3, pp. 137-147.

Toronto: Thompson.Rodgers, K., MacDonald, G. (2000). Canada’s Shelters for Abused Women. In Canadian Social

Trends, Vol. 3, pp. 248-252. Toronto: Thompson.Schechter, S. (1982). Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered

Women’s Movement. Boston: South End.Sev'er, A. (1997). Recent or imminent separation and intimate violence against women: A conceptual

overview and some Canadian Examples. Violence Against Women, 3(6), 566-589.Sev'er, A. (Ed.). (1998). Frontiers in Women’s Studies: Canadian and German Perspectives.

Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Sev’er, A. (1996). Current feminist debates on wife abuse: Some policy implications. Pp. 121-137

in Sonderbulletin. Berlin: Humboldt University Press.Sev’er, A. (2001). Fleeing the House of Horrors: Women Who Have Left their Abusive Partners.

Forthcoming from the University of Toronto Press.Slain woman didn’t report gun incident. (2000, July 24). Toronto Star, p. A4.Shelters save more wives, expert says. (2000, July 25). Toronto Star, p. A17.Susser, I. (1998). Inequality, violence and gender relations in a global city: New York 1986-1996.

Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power, 5(2), 219-247.Styron, T.H., Janoff_Bulman, R. & Davidson, L. (2000). Please ask me how I am: Experiences of

family homelessness in the context of single mothers’ lives. Journal of Social Distress andthe Homeless, 9(2), 143-165.

Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J. & Steinmetz, S.K. (1980).Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the AmericanFamily. New York: Doubleday.

Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J. & Steinnetz, S.K. (1986). The marriage license as a hitting license. In A.S.Skolnick & J.H. Skolnick (Eds.). Family in Transition (5th ed.), pp. 290-303 Boston: LittleBrown.

Terr, L. (1990). Too Scared to Cry. New York: Harper Collins.The National and the Magazine (2000). CBC Broadcast on December 18.Town Hall Meeting: 11 years after the Montreal Massacre. Held on December 3, 2000 at St.

Lawrence Hall, Toronto.Tutty, L.M., Weaver, G. & Rothery, M.A. (1999). Residents’ views of the efficacy of shelter services

for assaulted women. Violence Against Women, 5(8), 898-925.Victim of acid attack had been abducted. (2000, July 4). Toronto Star, p. B1.Vinton, L. (1998). A nationwide survey of domestic violence shelters’ programming for older

women. Violence Against Women, 4(5), 559-571.WAC Stats: 1993. The Facts About Women. New York: Women's Action Coalition.

26

War wiped homelessness off the map. (2001, October 15). Toronto Star, p. A21.Weitzer, R. (1999). Prostitution control in America: Rethinking public policy. Crime, Law and Social

Change, 32(1), 83-102.West, J. (2000). Prostitution: Collectives and the politics of regulation. Gender, work and

organizations, 7(2), 106-118. Wilson, M. & Daly, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spousal killings? Criminology, 30, 189-215.Wolak, J. & Finkelhor, D. 1998. Children exposed to partner violence. In J.L. Jasinski & L.M.

Williams (Ed.). Partner Violence: A Comprehensive Review of 20 Years of Research, pp. 73-111. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Woman shot dead behind home. (2000, July 19). Toronto Star, p. B3.Yllo, K. Political and methodological debates in wife abuse research. (1988). In K. Yllo & M. Bograd

(Eds.). Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, pp. 28-50 . Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.Youngster, 2 found alone with slain mom’s body. (1994, July 12). Toronto Star, p. A1.Zima, B.T., Bussing, R. & Bystritsky, M. (1999). Psychological stressors among sheltered homeless

children: Relationships to behavioral problems and depressive symptoms. American Journalof Orthopsyciatry, 69(1), 127-133.

November 5, 2001Dr. Robert W. Rieber, EditorJournal of Social Distress and the HomelessJohn Jay College of Criminal JusticeCity University of New York445 West 59th St.New York, New York10029, U.S.A.

Dear Editor Rieber,

Enclosed, please find the revised hard-copy and an electronic disk copy of my manuscriptentitled “Flight of Abused Women, Plight of Canadian Shelters.” I thank you and thank the twoanonymous reviewers for giving me the opportunity to improve on the earlier version. As thereviewers suggested:-I shortened the manuscript (from 31 to 26 pages, despite some new additions).-I “toned down” the over-critical language.-I added four new references specifically from the Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless.-I completed the references for my own work which appeared as “reference withheld” forconfidentiality purposes.-I proof read and checked for the accuracy of information.

I hope, the revised version fulfills the publication requirements of your journal. It has been apleasure working with you, and I very much appreciated the speed and generous feedback in thereview process. Please inform me about the publication schedule of my manuscript.

Thank you,

Aysan Sev’er

enc. MS & disc

FLIGHT OF ABUSED WOMEN, PLIGHT OF CANADIAN SHELTERS ... · the street youth and women and children...

Documents

Transcript of FLIGHT OF ABUSED WOMEN, PLIGHT OF CANADIAN SHELTERS ... · the street youth and women and children...