Connect with us

Activism

Domestic Violence Groups Praise Newsom’s Budget, But Ask for More Funding 

Victim services providers, including DV shelters and rape crisis centers, faced an influx of survivors seeking services during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Published

on

Maxim Hopman/Unsplash

Domestic violence (DV) advocates in California are praising Gov. Gavin Newsom for allocating $100 million in the 2021-22 budget revision to support crime victims. But they say the money is not enough to meet new DV-specific demands brought on, in part, by the COVID-19 crisis. 

Victim services providers, including DV shelters and rape crisis centers, faced an influx of survivors seeking services during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Over the past few years, they’ve also received reduced funding from the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), with continued cuts expected in the future.

The advocacy organizations ValorUS (formerly the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault) and the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV) have released a statement commending Newsom for the funding, without which, they say, services providers would have faced significant cuts beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023. However, they are also calling on Newsom to expand the funding to include $315 million for services that support victims and $15 million in ongoing prevention funding for sexual and domestic violence.

Victim services funding goes toward essential services for victims of violent crime, including legal assistance, housing and homelessness responses, child abuse programs and programs dedicated to traditionally underserved communities. 

There has been an increased demand for these services since the pandemic began, with more than three in five DV organizations globally reporting an increase in demand for services in a March 2021 report released by the NO MORE foundation, a national DV resource center. 

San Francisco-based Community United Against Violence (CUAV) faced an increased demand for services while working under social-distancing restrictions during the past year. 

CUAV provides direct services, including advocacy-based counseling, direct cash assistance and temporary housing for survivors in emergency situations.  

CUAV primarily serves LGBTQ+ people of color who are survivors of intimate partner violence, hate violence and police violence. The nonprofit also supports community organizing in the Bay Area, advocating for transformative justice and alternatives to policing. 

Dominique Cowling, Healing Justice Program Manager at CUAV, says the proposed $315 million in funding would help expand the services that CUAV is able to provide.

“It would be incredibly helpful for providing more of the domestic-violence specific work and education that we do, not only with our survivors but in our community trainings, too,” she said. 

When we go out and do outreach for our partner agencies, we can really have more staff members that are providing that education,” Cowling continued. “I can also imagine really being able to support folks that are in crisis, and that are experiencing housing [and] financial instability. There are so many things that would be really helpful for this additional funding.”

The Los Angeles-based Jenesse Center offers career services along with housing assistance, which Donna Derden, Chief Operating Officer, says is necessary for a holistic approach to victim services that ensures long term stability for crime survivors.

“We do all of the workforce development to guarantee long-term success. We don’t want them to have to return to the shelter because they ran out of money, they didn’t know how to pay their rent on time, they didn’t know how to do whatever, and they went back to the abuser. And, then, a year later, they’re coming back to us for more help. Addressing all those issues ensures long-term stability and success for the clients,” says Derden.

The specific amounts in the funding requests are based off of previous state spending. 

For the $315 million the groups are requesting for victims services funding, the governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) had previously projected that amount as the number needed to provide stability over three years. According to John Finley, policy manager at ValorUS, the $15 million prevention funding requested from the governor is based on the state’s previous investments in that area. 

California had previously allocated $10 million in one-time DV-related funding in fiscal year 2018, and $5 million in fiscal year 2019.

According to Finley, the amount proposed by ValorUS and CPEDV would stave off cuts until fiscal year 2025-26. With just the $100 million proposed, Cal OES projects that victim services providers would face funding cuts starting in fiscal years 2023 or 2024.

If the projected victim services funding cuts take effect, then vital services and agencies for people affected by a wide array of crimes — including domestic and sexual abuse, child abuse and hate crimes — would face cuts. 

This would disproportionately affect communities of color and low-income communities. According to a 2017 survey the Alliance for Safety and Justice conducted, people of color are 15% more likely to become victims of crime.

Finley also points out that the proposal for increased victim services funding comes at a time when California is estimating that it has a $75.7 billion surplus, which Newsom announced alongside his proposed expansion of the Golden State Stimulus, part of the California Comeback Plan. 

“Seeing that decline [in funding] even while we have an enormous state surplus, that is a bit concerning. I would go so far as to say, if we weren’t able to intervene significantly to any cuts to victim services, it would be totally indefensible for us to have this much money and then be cutting the services we provide to victims of violent crime,” said Finley.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Activism

Newsom, Pelosi Welcome Election of First American Pope; Call for Unity and Compassion

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.” Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

Published

on

Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.
Pope Leo XIV. Screenshot.

By Bo Tefu, California Black Media

Gov. Gavin Newsom and First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom on May 8 issued a statement congratulating Pope Leo XIV on his historic election as the first American to lead the Catholic Church.

The announcement has drawn widespread reaction from U.S. leaders, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called the moment spiritually significant and aligned with the values of service and social justice.

In their statement, the Newsoms expressed hope that the newly elected pope would guide the Church with a focus on compassion, dignity, and care for the most vulnerable. Newsom said he and the First Partner joined others around the world in celebrating the milestone and were encouraged by the pope’s first message.

“In his first address, he reminded us that God loves each and every person,” said Newsom. “We trust that he will shepherd us through the best of the Church’s teachings: to respect human dignity, care for the poor, and wish for the common good of us all.”

Newsom also expressed hope that the pontiff’s leadership would serve as a unifying force in a time of global instability.

“May he remind us that our better angels are not far away — they’re always within us, waiting to be heard,” he said.

Pelosi, a devout Catholic, also welcomed the pope’s election and noted his symbolic connection to earlier church leaders who championed workers’ rights and social equality.

“It is heartening that His Holiness continued the blessing that Pope Francis gave on Easter Sunday: ‘God loves everyone. Evil will not prevail,’” said Pelosi.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.