Georgia set to eliminate all state funds to fight domestic violence
From Shannon McCaffery with the Associated Press:
Georgia is set to eliminate all state money for domestic violence programs, replacing it with federal funds that some advocates say will limit the services shelters for battered women can provide.
Officials with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have raised questions about the proposal from Gov. Nathan Deal to use some $4.4 million in federal welfare money — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF — to fund domestic violence shelters, according to memos and e-mails obtained by The Associated Press through an open records request.
But the state is pressing forward with the plan anyway. It’s included in budget proposals that have passed both the House and the Senate. The chambers are working out differences in the spending plans before sending them to Deal’s desk for his signature.
“For the state not to invest a single dollar into what are clearly lifesaving services sends a strong signal that these services are not important,” said Nicole Lesser, executive director of the Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
Lesser said that funding the shelters exclusively with TANF dollars could jeopardize their ability to provide services to women without children under federal TANF eligibility rules. Childless women make up between 30 and 40 percent of women seeking domestic violence services in Georgia, Lesser said.
In memos and e-mails from February and March, HHS officials asked the state to explain its use of TANF dollars but said they would not know for sure whether they were permissible until they conducted an audit.
The state has justified the use of the money by saying it helped meet the TANF goals of preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies as well as encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. HHS weighed in after the Deal administration sought assurances that the use of the money is permissible.
HHS officials did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Deal spokesman Brian Robinson said the governor will make sure the shelters receive the funds they need.
“We do feel this is a permissible use of TANF funds,” Robinson said. “But no matter what happens the money will be there for these shelters.”
Shannon Willis, director of Peace Place, Inc., which offers domestic violence services in Winder, Ga., said she worried she might have to turn single women away.
“We’ve been able to use the funds in the past for women with children, but certainly we are not in the business of maintaining two-parent families where domestic violence is involved,” Willis said.
Alan Essig of the non-partisan Georgia Budget and Policy Institute said the rationale the state is using to justify the use of the TANF funds for the shelters “sounds like a stretch.”
And he said the state appears to be crossing its fingers that by the time federal officials rule on the funds, Georgia’s revenue picture will have improved.
“I think they are trying to be very creative,” Essig said. “Because of the of the budget problems they walking very close to the line and perhaps crossing over it… and that could create problems down the road.”
Deal faced questions about his support for domestic violence victims during last year’s gubernatorial campaign.
The Democratic Party of Georgia ran a scathing attack ad last fall accusing Deal of working to weaken Georgia’s rape shield law while in the state Senate. Deal’s Democratic opponent Roy Barnes unearthed a 1981 vote Deal took against a family violence bill that would have given police power to arrest a spouse in their home without a warrant in domestic violence cases.
Deal fired back that he’d supported the 2005 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act and a rape victim whose attacker he prosecuted a young prosecutor stepped forward in the campaign’s waning days stepped forward to defend Deal’s tough-on-crime record.
Deal went on to defeat Barnes by 10 percentage points in the November general election.
- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
117 comments Add your comment
History Will Teach Us if We Will Learn
April 4th, 2011
9:33 am
TDWE & LMS:
Apparently, you didnt know how to read before or after you left Auburn. Here’s what the Preamble of the Constitution says:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Its a little more than road and Army building, especially the establising Justice and promoting the general Welfare parts.
vuduchld
April 4th, 2011
9:51 am
By the comments posted here I can take comfort in the fact that pot bellied Jawja cave men will continue to pound and batter their chickenhead cave women. Well know that the money “saved” will do to pay off Deal’s bankrupt lifestyle. You toothless hillbillies are so predictacle.
POUND AWAY REDNECKS!
Last Man Standing
April 4th, 2011
10:11 am
History Will Teach Us if We Will Learn:
I don’t think that you and I are in agreement as to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare”. While I will admit that this has been interpreted in different ways, I don’t perceive it as the government becoming everyone’s keeper.
I do know that, with the mind-set of many now, that the westward expansion could never take place today. Many would call upon government to build roads, bridges and rest stops to accommodate the pioneers. They would demand adequate health care facilities be established for their well-being. They would want the Indians to be represented by attorneys and compensated for any loss. An environmental impact statement would be necessary for the ecologists. The ASPCA would determine whether the horses or oxen would pull the wagons or ride in them.
You’ve come a long way, baby, and it’s all been backward!
TrishaDishaWarEagle
April 4th, 2011
11:44 am
yawn..more liberals who just can;t stand that I value my own money more than their life.
It is every womans duty not to be violated and abused. That means sometimes you leave the guy, sometimes you take a Demarini titanium softball bat to his skull. What it does NOT entail, is taking money from me, to do it.
LMS, bought a great tshirt over the weekend.. says:
GUN CONTROL.. The theory that the woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled by her own pantyhose is morally superior to the woman who explains to the police how her attacker got the fatal gunshot wound.
the Captain
April 4th, 2011
2:13 pm
Well now we a t least know how dumb, or just plain immoral TrishaDishaWarEagle and those libertarians are. First off this person needs to go educate themselves on how wealth is created. Learn the basics! Most people who spout off how they don’t want to give up anything they “earn” to help someone else (besides being a bad person) didn’t actually “earn” all they claim. They usually just take wealth other people make and claim it as their own. But Since TrishaDishaWarEagle has declared themselves a Social Darwinist, they probably have no problem with this.
Oh and he most ignorant thing people like TrishaDishaWarEagle show is when they embrace the moral black hole of Social Darwinism is that the concept of Social Darwinism, is not Darwinistic. Stupid people think that it is, but for anyone educated on both subjects can tell you Darwinism relies on natural selection, which selects individuals for any traits that help them to survive. Social Darwinism is an artificial selection, that selects for only a few traits (such as the collection of wealth). This is why libertarians still want police to enforce certain rules (or criteria for selection) that they know they can pass. If real Darwinism was going to happen, then the Social Darwinist would allow for dumber poorer people to use their traits (physical strength lets say) to rob them and survive.
But Social Darwinist like TrishaDishaWarEagle are in fact cowards who need the state protect them from actual Darwinism while claiming they are the biologically superior ones, when in fact they are neither biologically superior, or even a decent human being. But that’s libertarians for you.
TrishaDishaWarEagle
April 4th, 2011
2:22 pm
I do not need the police to protect me. Police only show up after a crime has been committed. I have a gun , and practice often to be proficient with it, and would gladly use it to protect my body and my things, against the likes of you, and yours, dear captain. Thats why social darwinism works. I am smaller and far outweighed by most males, but my best friend , Herr Glock, is the equalizer on that.
Orange&Blue
April 4th, 2011
2:40 pm
Enter your comments here
Last Man Standing
April 4th, 2011
3:08 pm
the Captain:
What a pompous, ignorant arse you are! You know as much about Libertarians as my dog knows about space travel. You sit upon your “high horse” and criticize others you do not even know.
Go peddle your BS to some of your leftist, property stealing friends.
Last Man Standing
April 4th, 2011
3:11 pm
TrishaDishaWarEagle:
“God made them big and God made them small. Sam Colt came along and equalized them all!”
Congratulations on your choice. The Glock is a superior weapon!
Red
April 5th, 2011
3:29 am
Moving from out of state and having to go into hiding after living in hiding at a shelter was the only thing that saved me and my babies llives (for now.) My youngest was just a few weeks old when we ran and went into hiding. We were rich and left with the clothes on our backs never looking back. We have given back to that shelter over time. We are still in danger. That shelter saved our lives. To take away that safe haven will only put the abued women and children at risk. God save you and protect the women and children who need shelters. Otherwise you will have no shelter teams…..but homicide teams, So many of us are abused to the point that we run or die. If you close them down we have nowhere to go. Dangerous people keep you from your family and friends.It is a cycle. A shelter is the only place you can go and feel safe.
Red
April 5th, 2011
4:03 am
Shame to those who think killing is the answer. I am a strong mommy and would never kill. That is what happened.They saved our lives and we gave back what we could. Unless you ever had to go into hiding while be hunted by a killer you would never understand. Please do not speak about what you do not know first hand. I was married to a millionaire. He (second time) threatened my life physically. I was pregnant the first time. Rich or poor….Were it not for that shelter I woulfd not be here to tetify their good deeds. There are strict regulations and a time limit as well as requirements. Ignorance leads to the spouting of unthruth. You have no idea what it is like to be hunted like an animal to be killed. Raped while married or tracked down and in hiding. Money did not matter. Shame on you and yet I wish God bless you. Hope you never have to go through that man or woman. Still fighting to stay alive 4 years later…. closing ANY shelter is wrong. I paid my taxes and dues for years. Let it help them and me. After 183,000 dollars I paid that year, the last thing I ever thought I would be doing is going into hiding. And that was the same year we went into hiding, We also gave back to the shelter, SHELTERS SAVES LIVES!!! AND, PREVENTS future abuse through their education programs.
Lt. Dan
April 5th, 2011
8:02 am
Sure, things are in a bucket of doo doo…money’s tight, not too many folks are all that happy, and the world, it seems, has gone upsidedown. There’s plenty to bitch about; many people and institutions toward which to point accusatory fingers. MAYBE, just MAYBE, we better just get our collective doo doo together and learn what self-sufficiency means.
angel carter
April 5th, 2011
12:06 pm
I am a mother of two and r needing assitance coming out of a domestic relationship also dealing with a domestic father that refuses to pay childsupport or anything else they are many that need assitance that want better but just need a boost in life and most of us have contributed and paid our taxes for many years so why take those funds for unrelated reason I cannot get Tanf the system is so restricted and not helping those that want and need help
TrishaDishaWarEagle
April 5th, 2011
7:04 pm
As you all know, I may be a Libertarian, but I couldn’t get around without my Rascal scooter given to me by Medicare for my diabeetus.
Also I am obviously not a woman since my operation a few years back, but I keep the name out of remembrance to my now sewn up vagina.
All you fart-smelling Tea Partiers still wanna do me though. I think some of my bed sores are oozy enough.
the Captain
April 6th, 2011
1:46 pm
@Last Man Standing, What did I say that was factually incorrect? Accuse me of being “pompous” all you want, it still doesn’t change the facts that modern libertarians like TrishaDishaWarEagle are immoral greedy social darwinist, or that social darwinism is not even Darwinistic.
the Captain
April 6th, 2011
2:00 pm
I also love how libertarians like Last Man Standing who follow a political philosophy that states among many other reprehensible things, that children of poor people should receive no education (forced into child labor then?), and that poor people themselves should have no access to doctors, or guaranties on not dying by starvation. Or the libertarian belief that the powerful should rule over the week and that the majority are on the planet to serve the minority. But then they get all up in a hissy if you call them out on their libertarian immorality.
P.S. I know a lot about libertarianism… and space travel.
nuchekwoman
April 6th, 2011
5:57 pm
For Mama says – funding from different sources ( federal and state) funds different types of services. In addition, those funds are not given directly to the victims of domestic violence or sexual assault, but goes to provide the different services that a shelter would provide.