DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03797
title: Violence Against Women and the Role of Welfare Reform in Stanislaus and Kern Counties, California, 1999-2002
title: Archival Version

description: This study investigated the relationship between domestic
 violence and welfare reform. Two specific goals were (1) to determine
 the impact of domestic violence on welfare tenure and employment over
 a three-year period, and (2) to examine the well-being of children of
 female welfare recipients who experienced domestic violence. In
 addition, the study examined issues related to mental health problems
 and alcohol and drug problems, both of which are associated with
 domestic violence. This study was based on three rounds of interviews
 with a random sample of welfare recipients in Kern and Stanislaus
 Counties, California, between April 1999 and December 2002. Although
 the interview instrument was slightly altered for each round, the
 questions in all three rounds focused on employment history, health,
 mental health, domestic violence victimization, children's well-being,
and alcohol and drug use.
description: This study investigated the relationship between
 domestic violence and welfare reform. While a number of studies prior
 to the enactment of welfare reform demonstrated that high rates of
 welfare recipients experienced domestic violence, this study was
 designed to provide comprehensive information about domestic violence
 under the new welfare rules. Two specific goals were (1) to determine
 the impact of domestic violence on welfare tenure and employment over
 a three-year period, and (2) to examine the well-being of children of
 female welfare recipients who experienced domestic violence. In
 addition, the study examined issues related to mental health problems
 and alcohol and drug problems. Both conditions are associated with
 domestic violence, but the extent of this link among welfare
recipients after welfare reform was enacted was unclear.
description: This study was based on three rounds of interviews
 with a random sample of welfare recipients in Kern and Stanislaus
 Counties, California, between April 1999 and December 2002. Interviews
 were conducted at the welfare department in each county and were
 intended to occur on days when participants had other, already
 scheduled activities there. As an incentive and compensation for time
 and travel, study participants in Round One were offered a 30 dollar
 gift card for Wal-Mart. The gift card was increased to 50 dollars in
 Round Two and 75 dollars in Round Three. There turned out to be many
 problems with this approach. Participants were often not at the site
 at the time at which they were scheduled, requiring the interviewers
 to try to contact them by letter and telephone to come in for the
 interview. Home visits were not part of the study design, primarily to
 protect the safety of women who might be in abusive relationships. The
 first round of interviews was conducted from March to October 1999 and
 involved 356 subjects from Stanislaus County and 276 subjects from
 Kern County. Round Two interviews were conducted from May to December
 2000 and involved 311 subjects from Stanislaus County and 262 subjects
 from Kern County. Round Three interviews took place between January
 2001 and December 2002 and involved 309 subjects in Stanislaus County
 and 243 subjects in Kern County. The interview instrument was slightly
 different for each round. In all three rounds the questions focused on
 employment history, health, mental health, domestic violence
 victimization, children's well-being, and alcohol and drug use. The
 instruments for Rounds Two and Three included additional items on
 children's well-being, and the Round Three instrument included a
 section on criminal history. The instruments were a synthesis of the
 following instruments along with items designed by the researchers:
 the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), the Composite
 International Diagnostic Interview Short Form (CIDI-SF), the Short
 Form 12 (SF-12) and Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Surveys, the
 Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the Behavior and Symptom Identification
 Scale (BASIS-32), and the Ohio Youth Problems and Functioning Scales
(only in the Round Three instrument).
description: Variables in Part 1 include eligibility for welfare
 during each round of interviews, whether cash aid was received by
 respondent, education, age, race, marital status, number of children,
 childcare situation, employment history, other sources of financial
 support, quality of current housing, health questions from the SF-12
 and SF-36, domestic violence victimization history, abuse
 endured/witnessed in childhood, questions from the CIDI, section K,
 related to post-traumatic stress disorder, questions from the CIDI-SF,
 which included sections on major depressive episodes, generalized
 anxiety disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia, other specific phobias,
 and panic attacks, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition
 scales derived using the answers to the CIDI-SF questions, questions
 and scales from the BASIS-32, questions and score from the Rosenberg
 Self-Esteem Scale, history of mental health treatment, questions on
 history of alcohol and drug use and treatment taken from the CIDI
 sections J and L, and many derived variables. The variables in Part 2
 are the same as in Part 1, with additional variables on child
 well-being, housing and material hardship, childcare and
 transportation, experiences with the California welfare-to-work
 program, social support, income and welfare benefits, and health
 insurance for children. Variables on alcohol and drug use in Part 2
 correspond to questions from the CIDI-SF and were used to calculate
 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Third Edition, Revised scales. CIDI
 sections J and L are not in Part 2. There are many derived variables
 including several related to child well-being that are not in Part
 1. The variables in Part 3 are the same as in Part 2 except the Ohio
 Youth Problems and Functioning Scales were added to the Round Three
 instrument along with other items related to child well-being and
 criminal history. In addition, Part 3 does not contain all of the
derived variables that Part 2 does.
description: Response Rates: Of the Stanislaus study-eligible applicants 71
 percent were interviewed in Round One. In Kern County 55 percent of
 the eligible sample was interviewed in Round One. Of the 276 Kern
 respondents in Round One 262 (95 percent) were interviewed in Round
 Two, and 243 (88 percent) were interviewed in Round Three. Of the 356
 women interviewed in Round One in Stanislaus County, 311 (87 percent)
 were interviewed in Round Two, and 309 (87 percent) were interviewed
in Round Three.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Scales include the Composite International Diagnostic
 Interview, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short
 Form, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Third Edition, Revised,
 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition, the Short Form 12
 and Short Form 36 Health Surveys, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the
 Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale, and the Ohio Youth Problems
and Functioning Scales.
description: Kern and Stanislaus counties were chosen as sites for this
 study because of their leadership in developing ideas for working with
 welfare recipients and their emphasis on cooperative planning between
 local domestic violence centers and mental health/substance abuse and
 welfare departments. Sampling criteria included being eligibile for
 welfare, being the head of the household (not in a two-parent family)
 and the mother (not another relative) of any children living in the
 household, fluent in English or Spanish, between the ages of 18 and
 59, and receiving welfare for at least one year at the time of the
 first interview (if in Kern County) or applying for welfare (in
 Stanislaus County). For logistical reasons the Kern County sample was
 limited to Bakersfield, the largest city in Kern County. The Kern
 County sample was selected from a list of 4,732 welfare recipients
 generated by the Kern County Department of Human Services who met the
 above criteria and who were recertified to receive welfare between
 April 1, 1999, and August 30, 1999. In Kern County a stratified random
 sample was drawn for each month during the sampling period, with
 stratification on age (over 25 or not) and duration of time on welfare
 (two years and over or less). The Stanislaus County sample was drawn
 from women who applied for welfare in Stanislaus County between May 1,
1999, and August 15, 1999.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Round One Data
DS2: Round Two Data
DS3: Round Three Data
description: Women on welfare in Kern County whose recertification
 dates fell between April 1, 1999, and August 30, 1999. Women who
 applied for welfare in Stanislaus County between May 1, 1999, and
August 15, 1999. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
 instrument are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
 files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
 and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
 Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.