An Interview with the Team at The Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence (MCEDSV): Part 3 of 3

Laura Killingbeck:

So, for this journey with orsa, one of our focuses is economic control. In your perspective and experience, what are some of the most important things that people need to know about financial abuse and economic control?

Chéree Thomas:

That's a big question, because there are so many different ways in which people exercise financial control in a relationship.

An example…some of us love direct deposit. But if you're in a relationship with someone who has control of your finances and your accounts and things, you no longer have control of your finances when that check comes in. Because they [the perpetrator] knows the moment that it comes in, and whether or not you moved any money…because you've worked this number of hours, you get this amount taken out for benefits…so where's the rest?

So, things that people don't think about…the inability to be able to cash your own check. Bills put in your name. That's a really hard one. Because when you believe that you're in partnership with someone and you enter into…sharing bills…you don't recognize in the beginning that all of the bills are in your name for a reason. But now, when the light bill isn't being paid, when the water bill has not been paid…they're all in your name. Only your credit is being ruined. Your ability to access housing at this point becomes...can I say damn near impossible?

Merkeb Yohannes:

Damn is an okay word. (group laughter)

Chéree Thomas:

Thank you.

Laura Killingbeck:

I support it.

Chéree Thomas:

I mean, you already have to have–for a number of apartments right now–three times the amount of the rent as your income. When most people are living check to check. So that's not even possible.

And if you have an eviction on there, it's highly unlikely, unless you have a cosigner. But then your cosigner has to make three times as much, too. And then they have to be willing to take that risk, even though you have this eviction, right?

The cost that is associated with looking for an apartment…for example, most apartment complexes now charge a fee to apply. Just to apply! So if you're spending $150 for an application, just to apply…that's part of the money that you set aside for the actual rent, first month and deposit itself. That's a barrier.

Childcare expenses…all of these different things that hinder a person from being able to make that safe choice. Because someone else can see every single thing that you're doing with your money, and are deciding whether or not you have access to your money, and how much of your own money that you get.

Merkeb Yohannes:

One of the tricky things about economic abuse–it’s tricky to understand–is that there's no structure, no society, no nothing that doesn't use some form of currency. So, it is embedded in our every day. It is not something you can walk away from, step away from, unless there's some community somewhere that has no currency. But even if it's not money currency, there's still value. So anytime currency is involved, which is everywhere in our world, there will always be that opportunity for a harm-doer to leverage that. Because you need it.

And in the U.S. it’s not just the currency, it's the systems that are set up. I hate our credit reporting system. It's biased–it was created in a biased way. There's no way, unless you actually have the stars aligning, for many people [to meet] expectations that are created by that credit score system.

Chéree Thomas:

And you know, that's becoming more biased too, right?

Merkeb Yohannes:

You can't attain it, right? So now this credit system is being used, say, by a credit union to decide whether you are a credible person to get a credit card, an account–any of these things.

And we also don't have enough understanding from systems…and this is not orsa specifically– orsa is on the other end, and I think they're trying and working hard to try and understand–that it's hard to explain economic abuse.

Because if Chéree knew those bills were in her name…it is not against the law for the bills to be in her name. That's the problem. So when she goes to the credit union they'll be like, “Oh, girl, your credit score is terrible. We can't even give you a checking account.”

Chéree Thomas:

You can't even get a security account.

Merkeb Yohannes:

You can’t. And then you have to explain, “Well, can I explain to you that my partner, or this person I lived with, didn't let me have access to my money?” Now you're telling a teller.

Right? And so, there is that system itself…I think the financial institutions themselves need to strengthen their own understanding of financial abuse and economic abuse, because it is very hard for someone to explain.

Like we said: economic abuse is hard because it almost seems like the victim or the survivor is consenting…to the harm, because of the way that the structures are created.

It's not just even about earning. Sometimes it's the opposite, where perpetrators, harm-doers, create barriers for people to earn money. And so now you've got this dependency on this other person. Maybe you and your children have this dependency on another person. Right? And then think about how would you get financial assistance? Even if you decided, “Okay, I want to leave.” Right?

For a married person…okay, say, my biggest concern is I need shelter, and I need food, and I need to take care of myself and my kids…when you look to the state for assistance, they're gonna say, “Oh, we need to see your earnings and your partner's earnings.”

It’s so intertwined. And the environment and our society is just really ripe for economic abuse to happen. Because the systems are not recognizing it. They're not structuring their support to recognize economic abuse.

There's no way that someone can go to a credit union and say, “Hey, I know you're weighing me based on my credit score, but can I tell you why my credit score is this score?” Or “Can I tell you why I have an overdue bill?”Or, “Can I tell you why, in your internal system, there's a thing against me because I used to bank here, and I don't anymore…” There's so many things to navigate.

Chéree Thomas:

So…trying to change your benefits. If you are married to someone, you can't do anything without their permission. If you try and make any changes at all, you have to get their consent. If you're married to someone and you want to remove them off with your health insurance….you have to get their consent. You can't just do it–the list of reasons why you can make those changes does not include abuse.

Merkeb Yohannes:

And the other thing I really want to point out is, with economic abuse, my experience has been this: I've met people 10 years after they have come out of what we might call that immediate crisis situation. And they've sort of moved on, many parts of their lives have changed, but that aspect of the abuse and control still exists.

Laura Killingbeck:

They are still in that abusive relationship?

Merkeb Yohannes:

No, the economic impact–the impact of [economic] abuse is still lingering. I'll give you an example. I know of a survivor whose abuser passed away. However, because they passed away when they were married, that debt…it just doesn’t…here we are, right?

That immediate threat of the perpetrator is not there, but the economic abuse or the financial abuse–the harm that they were doing–still five, six, 7 years later, that's coming back. It got carried over.

In crisis, it can be a situation…but economic abuse is also another area where we see that someone could, say, 20 years from now…I haven't seen my perpetrator in 20 years, but still, the fact that my credit was shot, the fact that I have an eviction…you can't clear things off a credit score. Seven years, they sit there. So…

Peter Namukowa:

Systemically…financial literacy is never taught in school. You can go to school and become a Harvard PhD. But when you begin talking money, sometimes it is just vague. They have all these terms they keep throwing around, and it's not something that people easily know. So, sometimes financial abuse comes in when you depend on someone else. Every time you want to make a decision that is financial related.

We work with survivors who walk out of a relationship, and they don't even know how to fill out a check to pay for their rent, or something like that. Because this person said, “I love you so much, I will take that burden off of your shoulder. Because money is very hard.”

And because we…some red flags that we ignore and have been normalized, become like good things, become a green flag. You'd be like, “Yeah, I don't care…whenever we have trips, my partner will always plan for that. They always get the bills in on time and all that kind of stuff.”

And then when the abuse happens and someone wants to walk away, they realize there's nothing they can do without this person.

And that's why we always answer the question, when people say, “But why are they even still in that relationship?” They can't leave because it's a trade off: they either give up this for their freedom, or stay and shield themselves…

Merkeb Yohannes:

Or even when you look back, look at these check cashing places. If that's your only choice…

Chéree Thomas:

…oh that’s a loan shark…

Merkeb Yohannes:

…but the economic abuse is not just happening with the perpetrator–the systems are also perpetrating this harm. So if you leave and you say, “That's okay, I'll go to a check cashing place at a 60% interest rate,” or whatever, you're now getting deeper in this hole…

Chéree Thomas:

…that you can’t get out of…

Merkeb Yohannes:

…or you go…you leave the situation, you need a car, and you go to a car sales place where, because of your credit score, you can't afford anything within APR that's lower than, I don't know, twenty percent, twenty-five percent. How is that justice? You know?

Peter Namukowa:

And then sometimes it is also even done–I'm going to say legally, but in courts. Like when, for example, children are involved, and someone is tied up with the courts.

We've seen situations where people use child support to continue exerting that power. Sometimes they are filing motions here and there because they have the money, they can pay for a lawyer. But the person who is facing the violence cannot afford a lawyer. They don't have any legal knowledge, but they still have to respond to those summons.

So, the only way that this person [the abuser] can have control over them [the survivor] is to always have them come to court, delay the child's support.So, it's complex. Like, it's a whole…

Laura Killingbeck:

…tangled web…

Merkeb Yohannes:

But if there was something I would stress–I think there is opportunity for financial institutions to come together, and understand that they have power to change their own policies and approaches so that survivors can feel like there's no judgment.

And they truly have partners that are willing and understand the dynamics of power and control, particularly around financial abuse. And as a field, as financial institutions–be it credit unions, banks, whatever–decide together: Hey, this is what we know. Because perpetrators and harm-doers use systems to harm survivors, right? They don't always just directly harm them themselves, but because they know how systems function, they're very good. They're very intentional. Perpetrators are very smart that way.

Chéree Thomas:

A good example of that…I know someone who–we always talk about technology abuse too, it's connected to this–I know someone whose partner removed all of their money out of the account, just so when the rent went through, it bounced. And you know what happens then? Insufficient fund fee.

Merkeb Yohannes:

Yeah, $35 a day per transaction.

Chéree Thomas:

Per transaction. So every time they try to pay the rent, you get another fee. Another fee, another fee. And then how do you dig out of it? And, again, it's your partner who has access to your account, and it's not illegal for them to take the money.

Merkeb Yohannes:

And then we see financial abuse in other ways, too. Like leveraging relationships, like for one partner–the abuser–to say to children: “Hey, this parent cannot afford to send you to camp, or buy you a gift,” or whatever. And that's that manipulation. Then that's happening to further isolate the survivor from their children, or from their family. So, things with money are very complicated…because also capitalism exists in our world, and the value that we have on money.

Really, the number one thing–and I think in this society there is a lot of judgment…and how much do we believe someone, how much do we value them if someone's in poverty–I can tell you many, many, many, many, many times there's a lot of bias and prejudice in believing that people in poverty should not have autonomy or somehow have made bad decisions.

Whereas where you look at it, it's really systems not addressing issues. And things like economic abuse and financial abuse happening. And historically…we've seen the United States–a terrible history. And you said something about truth telling–I think a lot of this is a lot of truth telling that systems are not structured for everybody. And systems also have to acknowledge that, and say, “Yeah, we're not structured for everybody. And the responsible thing is for us to make those changes.”

Peter Namukowa:

And also, accommodating that every survivor's story is unique. It's not always going to be the same for each person, you know?

Chéree Thomas:

Because there's differential impact. I mean, because for one survivor, this may be the money that you need to pay the filing fee for your paperwork for documentation, right?

There's all of these different aspects and ways in which people are kept in financial bondage. That, to your point, is so nuanced. It is not a one size fits all discussion. You really do have to look at each and every circumstance.

But you have to have–and it's an “and,” not a “but”--and in order for there to be real solutions around it, financial institutions have to say, “What can we do from our role in order to support survivors?” And there's a lot that they can do. So much.

Merkeb Yohannes:

So much.

Laura Killingbeck:

Is that the first step for financial institutions–to build those relationships with on-the-ground partners, or...

Merkeb Yohannes:

To believe survivors. And then understand power and control. and then be willing to make change within their own systems.

Invite survivors to give input, understand the lived experience of people who have experienced economic abuse, and understand economic abuse exists within other abuses that are happening.

But yes: take the time to stop and listen and ask. And we're here. Coalition and its members do this work day in and day out. I can't tell you the number of systems–be it the finance system or whatever–that want to make change, who don't pause to say, “Hey, can we ask you how to do this well?”

They're still looking for their own…whatever their own bottom line is. And then they make up this system, these changes, and then they don't work. So really inviting people to the table be willing to listen to the truths. And be willing to make those changes. Change can happen gradually, but that also should not be the excuse or the reason that people hold back on making change. Change is hard. It takes a boldness. And I am looking forward to seeing who, in the financial institution landscape, will take the bold step forward to say, “We understand that we're not just supporting by giving money–we're looking inwardly at our own policies and our own access to service, and we are making changes in that way.”

Laura Killingbeck:

And do you have specific recommendations once people get to that step?

Merkeb Yohannes:

Yes, call us.

Laura Killingbeck:

It's the relationship…and you have to look at every little piece of it. So, it's about working in relationship, in development…

Merkeb Yohannes:

For example, do you have an avenue not to use a credit score as the only means of checking for credibility? Would you take other alternative ways? What does that mean?

It might come at the cost of the financial institution, right? I know a lot of institutions have low barrier loans and low barrier entry into the bank system. Great. But then also, how are you supporting someone in terms of accessibility?Language accessibility, accessibility for any disability?

In the United States, on average, people are reading at a seventh grade level. What is the fine print that I have to take my glasses off to read? What do you do? That in itself is a barrier. If it's one page of tiny print, of legal jargon... Why are we not simplifying, and saying, “Hey, when you write a check and if it bounces, you pay X?” You know, “This is how you calculate interest rate. So if you use this credit card and you don't pay off the minimum, here's what we're going to do…” In language that is easy to understand.

Just even these changes are so important. People being informed, and making a truly informed decision. That's what we want for survivors, right? It's not for us to say, “Oh, survivor, don't go to that check-cashing place,” or “Don't use your credit card.” What we're saying is, “Hey, if you're going to use this credit card, please know what is the consequence of using this credit card.” One month from now, two months from now, three months from now, four months from now–are you informed? “If you're going to get a loan, this is what this means.” Are you informed of that? And if it's still your choice–great, we'll support you.

Chéree Thomas:

And then some of the choices aren't even your own anymore. A lot of places are now going cashless. It's horrible, but they aren't even thinking at all about the impact on people who are in financial abuse. That didn't come in their mind at all, right? So you now are in a position where every time you go to pay for something, the person [the abuser] sees exactly what it is you're buying, where you were at the time, and all of that stuff.

And they're also passing over the fees to the person who's using it. So not only are you forced to use a card, you're also forced to pay a fee. That is not a part of your budget because your budget is this thin.

There's so many different ways in which these different changes have been implemented. And I know you said change takes place over time…but some of these things happen like that because they're like, “Ooh, I don't want to absorb this fee. We’re going to pass this over to you.” [Changes] don't happen very rapidly. But those changes that do, they're thinking about their bottom line. And it never dawns on anybody to have a conversation about the impact.

Peter Namukowa:

I think most financial institutions could also stand out to be counted. What are they using their corporate social responsibility resources and activities for? If we have an activity that is promoting awareness against violence: show up, let people know that you stand with them. Because if a survivor sees a bank or credit union on X participating in this, there are higher chances that they will trust you more than the other one.

Merkeb Yohannes:

But it's also our responsibility, right? Because I don't think just because a financial institution is giving me money that, in practice, that institution is safe for survivors to gauge.

And so, as advocates, we also have to be discerning when we enter partnerships of, “Hey, this is what we stand for. Are you on board?” Because if we're not on the same page, I can walk away from your dollars, because that means survivors are not going to be harmed or there's no absolute safe space, right? Are you actually making the effort to educate your staff around abuse? To examine your processes internally, to influence your peers, to make policy changes?

Peter Namukowa:

Holding yourself accountable. If their partner showed up saying, “Hey, one of your workers is doing this and this…” some institutions may be tempted to keep this person because they are seeing a staff member… I think they should also be holding their people accountable, so that people know there's a zero [tolerance] policy for violence.

Chéree Thomas:

We know that these things can happen to anyone–it can also happen to the teller. And so, if my workplace does not feel safe…I mean, when we look at our policies and things, people know whether or not they can come and talk to us. They know whether or not this is really something that's going to be a safer option. So if they're making these broader changes, they're also supporting their staff as well. You know, staff members don't always tell people what's going on with them, right?

Laura Killingbeck:

I am always curious about that. For example, working with orsa, there is some set percentage of staff who are in abusive relationships from either direction. And among every team. So, it's a very interesting thing to grapple with…because it is, as an organization, self-change. How do you change from the inside out?

Merkeb Yohannes:

When we say we support survivors…we’re saying also internally…statistically there is someone at orsa, many people at orsa who are experiencing [violence]. Statistically, even in our work, that's the case, right?

But it's about that accountability. By making policy changes we're saying, “Hey, we're not blaming the survivor or the victim. We're holding the people that are harming accountable.” And how do they make that stance? How is orsa, or any other institution? How are they expressing that publicly? And how are they doing their own accountability? Because a lot of people can talk the talk, but you actually have to walk.

Laura Killingbeck:

And it's hard. It means that you're going to be an outlier.

Merkeb Yohannes:

You are. Your’e going to be different. And it probably has some business implications, right?

But truthfully: is it a value? It has to be a value, because anything that has a value that challenges norms…you might lose. You might lose something. And that willingness to say, “We're willing to lose, on behalf of survivors.” That is a hard decision, and I get that, because we've been in that space. We've walked away from a partnership or funding because it is more important for us to–for survivors–to see that, “Hey, we really care about whether this person truly values you. Values you or supports you as a survivor.”

And if that's not the case, every partnership is not a partnership for us. And that might be the case, right? And I also get that credit unions and orsa’s and other financial institutions work within their own systems, and they have their own limitations and parameters. So it's not an easy situation to be in.

But this is what I always say: It is really important that people know that they can lean into the coalition, because we can go in and work with credit union staff and teach them tenants of advocacy.

That's how anyone can be an advocate. If you start by believing–that's not the thing we can teach you. If, as an institution, you decide, “Our environment is that we believe survivors,” we can come in and show someone and teach someone: How do you have a trauma informed approach? How do you help survivors make decisions?

That's an investment though, right? I would love for an orsa or another bank to say, “Hey, we're both bankers and advocates.” And if you have that framing to say we're bankers and advocates, then you're putting the same amount of effort in crossing your T's and dotting your I's around your banking policies, as you are your advocacy skills and your advocacy policies. I wish I could be a banker–I would be a banker and an advocate.

So, if that's the approach financial institutions take, we can teach the advocacy part. We can help people understand how to practice empathy. We can help people understand how to safety plan or safety option survivors. We can help people understand how do they respond to a disclosure? We can help with that. But there has to be a willingness and an investment.

Laura Killingbeck:

So that would be a good step for financial institutions.

Merkeb Yohannes:

Yeah, start by saying, “We're bankers and advocates.” And then what does that take?