‖Findings and Recommendations from Focus Groups and Interviews with Victims of Incarcerated Offenders in MN ‖By Safia Khan ‖MCBW Program Manager ‖& ‖Rick Lind ‖MN DOC Domestic Violence Project Coordinator ‖This project was supported by Grant No WEAX-0012 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S., Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

Overview A.Project Overview B.Offender Population C.Who is a Victim D.Why Focus Groups and Interviews E.Relevancy and Limitations of Method F.Methodology G.Findings and Gaps Identified by Victims H.Recommendations for Advocacy and Corrections I.Next Steps

Background of Project Need for the project Communication Breakdown Objectives and Goals Enhance Safety & Security for Victims Training Policy & Protocol Changes What we learned along the way Training need Where we are now

QDVRO Qualified Domestic Violence-Related Offense MN Statute 518B.01 Domestic Abuse Act – Subd. 2. (c) MN Statute , Subd. 16. "Qualified domestic violence-related offense" includes a violation of or an attempt to violate sections 518B.01, subdivision 14 (violation of domestic abuse order for protection); (first-degree murder); (second-degree murder); (first-degree assault); (second-degree assault); (third- degree assault); (fourth-degree assault); (fifth-degree assault); (domestic assault); (female genital mutilation); (domestic assault by strangulation); (first-degree criminal sexual conduct); (second-degree criminal sexual conduct); (third-degree criminal sexual conduct); (fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct); (malicious punishment of a child); (terroristic threats); , subdivision 6 (violation of harassment restraining order); (stalking); , subdivision 2 (interference with an emergency call); and (violation of domestic abuse no contact order); and similar laws of other states, the United States, the District of Columbia, tribal lands, and United States territories518B.01, subdivision , subdivision

Incarcerated Offender Population Active and Inactive numbers exclude all QDVRO commits for murder and criminal sexual conduct. Also not included are commits for kidnapping, burglary 1 st degree, or manslaughter (which are not QDVRO offenses, but may be the result of domestic violence).

St. Louis County Prison Commits

Hennepin County Prison Commits

Who is a Victim Statutory Definitions 611A.01, (b) "Victim" means a natural person who incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime, including a good faith effort to prevent a crime , Subd. 1. "Crime" means conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine

Who is a Victim MN DOC Victim Assistance/Restorative Justice Unit A victim is any person who incurs loss or harm as a result of a crime, any person listed on a criminal complaint as a victim, any person the court has ever determined is in need of protection (demonstrated by a current or previous Order for Protection, Harassment Restraining Order, Domestic Abuse No Contact Order, or other court order), or any person listed in a criminal justice agency report as a victim.

Why Victim Focus Group and Interviews Violence Against Women Movement Stay grounded in experiences of victims/survivors Inform advocacy efforts and services Identified gap – lack of victim input Victim Engagement Victim centered while focusing on offenders Challenges of focus groups and interviews

911 Cal l Squads Investigat e ArrestNo Arrest Arrest Report Non-Arrest Report Ja il Arraignment Hearing No Contact Order Conditions of Release Pre-Trial/ Hearing TrialSentencingMonitoring /Probation DOMESTIC VIOLENCE/ ARREST INCIDENT Praxis – Rural Technical Assistance on Violence Against Women

Initial Intervention Unit Contacted Child Protection Screening CP Investigation Child Welfare Assessment Child Maltreatment Assessment Law Enforcement Notified Risk Assessment Service Plan Safety Plan CP Case Mgmt CD Assessment Psych/Mental Health Parenting Education Visitation Individual/Family Therapy DV Classes Emergency Placement EPC Hearing Safety Assessment CHIPS COURT Court Oversees and Sanctions Plan Child Placement CHILD PROTECTION MAP Praxis – Rural Technical Assistance on Violence Against Women

Landlord/HRA Notified Warning Given Eviction Hearing Sheriff Evicts HOUSING MAP Praxis – Rural Technical Assistance on Violence Against Women

Advocacy Program Files OFP Seeks Shelter Ex Parte Granted Sheriff Serves Respondent Ex Parte Denied Judge Reviews Civil Court Hearing OFP Granted OFP Denied Reliefs Granted OFP Filed ORDER FOR PROTECTION – CIVIL COURT PROCESS Supervise d Exchange /Visitatio n Praxis – Rural Technical Assistance on Violence Against Women

CUSTODY MAP Supervise d Exchange /Visitatio n Files for Divorce Family Court Hearing Final Divorce Hearing Custody Evaluation Interviews by Evaluator Custody Awarded Child Support Established Custody Hearing Temporary Custody Praxis – Rural Technical Assistance on Violence Against Women

Advocacy Program Landlord/HRA Notified Warning Given Eviction Hearing Sheriff Evicts 911 Cal l Squads Investigat e ArrestNo Arrest Arrest Report Non-Arrest Report Ja il Arraignment Hearing No Contact Order Conditions of Release Pre-Trial/ Hearing TrialSentencingMonitoring /Probation Files OFP Seeks Shelter Ex Parte Granted Sheriff Serves Respondent Ex Parte Denied Judge Reviews Civil Court Hearing Initial Intervention Unit Contacted Child Protection Screening CP Investigation Child Welfare Assessment Child Maltreatment Assessment Law Enforcement Notified Risk Assessment Service Plan Safety Plan CP Case Mgmt CD Assessment Psych/Mental Health Parenting Education Visitation Individual/Family Therapy DV Classes Emergency Placement EPC Hearing Safety Assessment CHIPS COURT Court Oversees and Sanctions Plan Child Placement OFP Granted OFP Denied Reliefs Granted OFP Filed Supervise d Exchange /Visitatio n Files for Divorce Family Court Hearing Final Divorce Hearing Custody Evaluation Interviews by Evaluator Custody Awarded Child Support Established Custody Hearing Temporary Custody Praxis – Rural Technical Assistance on Violence Against Women

Relevancy and Limitations What are focus groups? A group of individuals selected and assembled by facilitators or researchers to discuss and comment on, from personal experience, the topic that is the subject of the research. Why did we choose the focus groups and interviews method? Qualitative, richer data Nuanced and detailed Common in the VAW movement How relevant are the findings of these focus groups and interviews? Focus groups and interviews are highly reliable methods in qualitative research and community assessment. Despite different life experiences, we received similar information from victims/survivors What are the limitations of the method? Could have had interviewer bias. Group format of gathering information may have caused the experiences of some of the women interviewed to be lost among the voices of other women in the group. Missing voices of certain groups (LGBTQ, people with disabilities, immigrant victims, etc.)

Methodology and Demographics How were these focus groups and interviews conducted? Focus group sizeInterviews were one on one 22 victims participatedVictims had options to choose Semi-structuredRecruitment process and eligibility criteria Co-facilitators modelIndividual facilitator model RecordingsConfidentiality Key Participant Demographics Ages: 20’s to late 40’sOffense: DA, SA, and Stalking Unreported DV victimsParticipant relationship to CJS Participant Diversity

Victim Focus Groups Questions Question Development. Questions utilized: What are/were the issues you faced during his incarceration? Do you/did you want contact while he is incarcerated? Feedback on DOC’s potential no visitation policy. Feedback on DOC’s Wrap-Around Safety Planning Process. If you have children together, what should contact look like? Are there safety issues? What comes to mind when you are told that his release date is pending? What kind of contact/relationship would you like from his case manager and his agent? How can his case manager and agent build a rapport with you? What information would you like them to know?

Victim Focus Groups Questions What have you been told about his incarceration? Who told you? Given you have been through this, what would you have liked to know? How does that knowledge impact your safety? What came up that was a surprise or a problem? Do you know about Minnesota CHOICE? Did you sign up? Is it helpful? What would you change? If you did not sign up, why? After you found out he was being released, what were your immediate concerns? Were they taken care of? Did they prove to be issues once he was released? Did you have contact with his case manager or agent? What was that like? Helpful? Not? What would you have liked from his agent? What information would you have liked to give them or get from them? Since he has been out, how has his behavior been toward you? Has he been abusive? If abusive, have you reported? Why or why not? If he was, would you or wouldn’t you? Why or why not? What are other gaps in the system that you have experienced? What else would you like us to know and to tell Corrections, Victim Witness, and Community Advocates? What does safety mean to you? What has or will keep you safe?

Findings Victims are frustrated and hurt by receiving very little information and support throughout the process, especially post conviction. Victims considered everyone to be part of the same system. Their experiences with the system dictated how open they were to engaging with everyone. Language used by those working with the victims was intimidating and not accessible to the victims.

Findings “You’re at the mercy of the information that people have and whether they want to share it… it’s terrifying.” “I lived in constant fear that he would be released and I wouldn’t know. Nobody contacted me. I didn’t know if he was going to get out today or in two years.” “I was stabbed several times and left to die and in the end, all I got was a letter in the mail saying he was being released and I could call if I had any questions.”

Findings “Even if they couldn’t tell me, they could have been nicer. They could have said, I understand why you want to know and I wish I could tell you but unfortunately, the law doesn’t allow me to… or at least sorry, he did this to you.” “How am I supposed to know if he has changed or not if I don’t know what he did in prison? Does he still say he didn’t do it? Will he move into my town when he gets out? It drives me crazy.”

Findings There was lack of emotional support for victims in all areas, even within advocacy. Victims’ interaction with various players were not trauma- informed. There was too much focus on the criminal justice system process and little support outside of it.

Findings Offender accountability does not always result in victim safety. Impact of offender’s abuse and subsequent incarceration on victims’ include loss of housing, loss of employment, and PTSD. Victims are being abused directly or through third parties during incarceration. Victims do not know who to contact and are hesitant to do so without knowing what the consequences are.

Findings “He called me thirty times in one week from prison… had his friends on the inside call me all the time. His mom would stop paying rent for me and my kids if I didn’t take his call. All the time, where are you, what are you doing? Nothing changed.” “I would go visit him and he’d call me names and the guards never did anything. I’d be crying and no one even gave me a tissue. He’d call me a b**** and a c*** and no one stopped him.” “I told him I wasn’t coming to pick him up so he started shouting, “b****, I’m gonna kill you,” you know? It wasn’t a collect call so he was in the transport office. I could hear the officers in the background...”

Findings Victims want to take part in the Wrap-Around Safety process. Victims want mandatory DV programming in prison. Victims want contact restrictions (visiting, phone, mail). Victims want a contact person in facility to reach out to them after incarceration.

Findings “[He] has been to prison [many] times because he keeps beating me up. I would visit because if I didn’t, he’d call me a thousand times and write me a thousand letters. I had to pay for the gas to drive down all the time and send him money. I thought things would change every time but if you’re going to visit him the weekend after he’s going in there, what’s going to change? This last time he went in, he chopped my hair, raped me, and beat me up so bad I was in the hospital for weeks. If I didn’t have that gap [in communication], I’d be right back to where I was… they know how to manipulate you… allowing visits gives them their control back.”

Findings Most victims wanted resources and education for the offenders because of several reasons (children, economic stability, safety). Most victims recognized the life experiences that made the offender abusive. Consequences of reporting violence deters some victims from reaching out to law enforcement or corrections when they face abuse post release.

Findings “His mom beat him all the time and his dad beat his mom. He needs help. They need to get him help in there because otherwise his next victim will not make it out alive. It’s not just about me. That’s why I’m here to talk to you.” “I will feel safe if I knew he was getting help in there. There has to be something done otherwise he will never change.” “He didn’t get any classes because they said he was in there for a very short time. I told them that was why he needed classes.”

Findings Victims want phone contact with corrections staff and advocacy throughout the corrections process. Victims want to provide input. Lack of information keeps victims from reporting abuse while on supervision. Agents referencing victims to offenders increases abuse.

Findings “He was living with me but no one knew because they never came over to check... He would lie to them all the time. I didn’t even know who to call.” “I found his agent and asked if I could go over and meet him. We met for an hour and a half… I felt so much better afterwards… What made me trust him was that he listened to me and told me everything he could… I would pick up the phone and call him if he ever contacts me.” “Letters don’t work because you are going through so much… If they can’t bother to pick up the phone and call you, why will you trust them?”

Findings Some victims who suffered sexual assault by a former intimate partner related more to being a sexual violence survivor than being a domestic violence survivor. Victims felt that everyone (911 to advocacy) needs to be more victim-centered. Victims who remained in a relationship with the offender felt that they had less support available and were less likely to call if they faced new abuse.

Recommendations Information sharing process between all stake holders. Victim Centered Approach to all victim contact. (Rapport) Greater scrutiny of offender interaction with victims within facilities. Re-examine concept of offender accountability equaling victim safety. Trauma informed interactions with victims. BIP available in facility and community.

Recommendations Resources in facility for offenders to better themselves. Greater collaboration between all systems stake holders who interact with victims. More DOC staff dedicated to keeping victims informed. Victim support regardless of relationship status. Greater understanding of CJS by all stake holders.

Next Steps Pilot Project Case Review & Tracking (St. Louis County) Comprehensive Coordinated Community Response Intake Statement DVRT Info Sharing Re-Entry Statement Victim Centered Release Planning Wrap-Around Safety Planning Training (Web Based Training Modules) Other…

‖

Contact Information Safia Khan Program Manager Office: ext. 116 Rick Lind OVW Domestic Violence Project Coordinator Mobile: