Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients
Released: 1998-11-24T00:00:00

Letter

Background

PRWORA gave states the flexibility to design their own strategies for achieving TANF program goals, including the goal of helping welfare recipients move into the workforce. States can establish their own eligibility requirements and decide what assistance and services will be available. At the same time, states must meet federal requirements that emphasize the importance of work for those receiving assistance. PRWORA requires that, to avoid federal financial penalties, states must ensure that specified minimum percentages of their caseloads participate in work or work-related activities each year. In fiscal year 1997, states were to ensure that adult recipients in 25 percent of all TANF families and 75 percent of two-parent TANF families were engaged in work or work-related activities; these participation rate requirements increase in subsequent years, reaching 50 percent and 90 percent, respectively, in fiscal year 2002. States must impose a sanction on recipients who do not comply with TANF program requirements by reducing recipients’ cash grants or, at state option, by terminating the entire family’s cash grant. In addition, with the exception of 20 percent of a state’s caseload, federally funded TANF assistance is limited to 5 years.

Through the Family Violence Option, states can exempt individual victims of domestic violence from program requirements—including those related to participation in work activities, cooperation with child support authorities, and the 5-year time limit on receipt of federally funded TANF benefits—and refer these individuals to counseling and supportive services. States that choose to adopt the Family Violence Option certify that they will screen TANF recipients for domestic violence; refer them to domestic violence and related services; and, when good cause is established, waive program requirements for them when complying would make leaving an abusive situation more difficult or would penalize those who are, have been, or are at risk of experiencing domestic violence. As of September 1998, 24 states had formally adopted the Family Violence Option.

Prevalence of Domestic Violence Among Welfare Recipients

Available studies on the prevalence of domestic violence among welfare recipients consistently indicate that a sizable proportion of welfare recipients have been or are victims of some type of abuse by an intimate partner. Although nationwide estimates are not available, we identified some relevant research studies that are based on smaller geographic areas or participants in particular programs. According to these studies, approximately 15 to 56 percent of the women surveyed reported that they were current victims or had been victims of physical domestic abuse in the 12 months preceding the survey, and between 55 and 65 percent reported that they had been physically abused by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. (See app. I for more information on the findings of the studies we reviewed.) These estimates are higher than estimates of the prevalence of domestic violence among the general population. A 1998 nationally representative telephone survey of more than 8,000 women found that 1.5 percent reported having been physically abused by a partner in the 12 months preceding the survey, and 25 percent reported having been physically abused by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime. However, surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice show that, compared with women in general, women aged 20 to 34, divorced or separated women, and women with family incomes under $9,999 are more likely to be victims.

Differences in the definition of domestic abuse used, the circumstances under which women were surveyed, and the sample of women surveyed may explain, at least in part, the relatively wide range of estimates of the prevalence of domestic violence among welfare recipients reported in the studies we reviewed. Although there is substantial overlap among the specific behaviors considered abusive in most of the studies we reviewed, a few studies had more general definitions of abuse or left the definition up to the respondent. Prevalence estimates would also be affected by the extent to which women who have been abused acknowledge that in their survey responses. It is generally believed that domestic abuse is underreported among women. The degree of potential underreporting is likely to vary across studies on the basis of the way the surveys were administered. The surveys summarized here were administered in different settings, ranging from welfare offices to respondents’ homes; in groups or individually; and by individuals with whom the respondents had had time to establish relationships as well as by people respondents had met only at the time of the interview. Finally, the samples of welfare recipients surveyed varied across studies. In some cases, the prevalence estimates reported here were based on representative samples of larger populations, such as all AFDC recipients in a state, while in others, the estimates were based on groups of recipients participating in a particular program or class.

A study requested by the Massachusetts Governor’s Commission on Domestic Violence was the only one of those we reviewed that was designed specifically to estimate the prevalence of domestic violence among a state’s welfare population. The study was based on a representative sample of 734 women aged 20 and older who were receiving AFDC in Massachusetts between January and June 1996. This study found that almost 20 percent of respondents had been victims of domestic violence in the 12 months preceding the survey and that about 65 percent had been victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives. For purposes of the study, a woman was considered to have been a victim of domestic violence if she answered yes to one or more of six questions about her current or former husband or boyfriend’s behavior toward her, including acts of physical violence, threats of harm, and nonconsensual sexual activities. While the majority of the survey questions were administered by an interviewer, who asked the questions and recorded respondents’ answers, the questions regarding abuse were put on an audiotape that respondents listened to through headphones. This methodology was used because the authors found through extensive pretesting of the survey instrument that it was the least threatening to respondents, and, therefore, the most likely to produce accurate estimates.

Implications of Domestic Violence for Employment Among Welfare Recipients and Other Low-Income Women

Research on the implications of domestic violence for the employment of welfare recipients and other low-income women presents a complex picture. Our review of 14 studies that discussed employment-related barriers for domestic violence victims among these populations indicates that while domestic violence does not rule out employment for many of these women, some victims of domestic violence may face a range of employment-related problems related to the abuse.

Research Findings Regarding the Employment Status of Domestic Violence Victims

On the basis of the available research, we cannot conclude that being a victim of domestic violence changes the likelihood that a woman will work. We were unable to find any studies that isolate the effects of domestic violence on a woman’s employment status by controlling for the effects of other factors that could influence whether a woman is employed or not. Of the 14 studies we reviewed, 2 compare estimates of employment rates among samples of abused and nonabused women without attempting to control for other factors. One of these studies, the Massachusetts study of AFDC recipients described earlier, found similar employment rates among women who reported having been abused (8.8 percent) and women who reported never having been abused (7 percent). Similarly, a study of women in a low-income Chicago neighborhood found that, at the time of the survey, women in the sample who had been abused in the past 12 months or had ever been abused were employed at rates similar to those of women who reported that they had never been abused. However, the latter study also found that, compared with women who reported never having been abused, women who reported having been abused at some point in their lives had experienced more spells of unemployment; greater job turnover; and significantly higher rates of receipt of AFDC, Medicaid, and food stamps.

When attempting to determine the effect of domestic violence on women’s employment status, it is important to consider that the effect could be quite different for women who have been abused in the past and for woman who are currently in abusive relationships. This distinction is not captured in the employment rate comparisons cited above. Current victims are likely to face different circumstances than women who were abused in the past. While research indicates that women may suffer emotionally for some time after they leave an abusive situation, which could affect their ability to work, they might not face the same logistical and safety concerns that women currently in abusive relationships may face, which are discussed in the next section.

Research Findings Regarding the Potential Effects of Current Domestic Violence on Victims’ Employment

While it appears that having experienced domestic violence at some point does not rule out employment for many welfare recipients and other low-income women, in the studies we reviewed, program staff who work with welfare recipients, as well as abused women themselves, consistently report that obtaining and maintaining employment can be difficult for many current victims of domestic violence. These studies indicate that abusers often feel threatened by women’s efforts to improve themselves and become financially independent, since those efforts could provide options to women that would help them leave the abusive relationship. Approximately 16 to 60 percent of the women surveyed in five of the studies reported that their partner had discouraged them from working, and 33 to 46 percent said that their partner prevented them from working. (App. II presents these findings in more detail.)

The research indicates that, in order to keep women from attending training programs or working, abusive partners often try to sabotage women’s efforts, in some cases by becoming violent. Abusers are commonly reported to thwart women’s attendance at these activities by promising child care that they then fail to deliver; destroying or hiding items the women need for the activities; and inflicting visible signs of abuse, such as bruises, black eyes, and cigarette burns, so the women will be too embarrassed to go to training, work, or a job interview. Welfare-to-work program staff report in one study that domestic violence has prevented program participation for some women who are unwilling to attend for fear of provoking their partners’ “anger and further assaults.”

Some abusive partners may also try to keep women from participating in work-related activities by calling them frequently during the day, coming to the program or work site unannounced, or both. A survey of battered women who were working at the time the abuse occurred found that 56 percent of the women surveyed reported that their partners had harassed them at work by phone or in person, with 21 percent reporting that their partners frequently harassed them at work. In two other studies, approximately 35 to 40 percent of the women surveyed said their abuser had shown up at their place of work and caused a disruption.(App. III presents the findings discussed in this and the following paragraph.)

The research also indicates that the effects of domestic violence on a woman’s job performance can make it difficult for some battered women to maintain their employment or to advance in their jobs. According to the surveys of service providers and abused women we reviewed, women may be late for work or miss work entirely for reasons such as those described above, including unexpected lack of child care and visible injuries. In addition, abusers’ harassment of women at work could jeopardize their jobs. Three studies that interviewed domestic violence victims who were working when the abuse occurred found that 44 to 60 percent of respondents said they had been reprimanded at work for behaviors related to the abuse, such as being late to work, and 24 to 52 percent said they had lost their jobs because of the abuse. Almost 70 percent of the respondents to one of the surveys said that their job performance was negatively affected by the abuse, and about 50 percent said that they felt they had lost opportunities for salary and career advancement because of problems related to the abuse.

Some domestic violence victims may, in addition, experience emotional or physical health problems that could potentially affect their ability to find and maintain employment. The studies we reviewed found that the women who had been abused often suffered from chronic health problems, low self-esteem, and depression and exhibited behaviors associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Two of the studies indicate that domestic violence victims may experience such conditions at higher rates than women who have not been abused. The Massachusetts study found that welfare recipients who had reported having been abused at some point in their lives were significantly more likely than those who had not to say that they currently had “a physical disability, handicap, or any other serious physical, mental, or emotional problem.” In addition, the abused women had significantly lower self-esteem, less of a sense of mastery, and more symptoms of psychological distress. The survey of low-income women in Chicago found that women who reported having been abused were significantly more likely to report problems with depression, anxiety, and anger than their nonabused counterparts.

We provided a draft copy of this report for technical review to officials in the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; we also provided a copy to three experts on domestic violence and welfare-to-work issues. The reviewers said we had fairly characterized the research conducted in the area. They also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We will make copies of this report available upon request. If you or your staff have questions, please call me on (202) 512-7215. Other staff who contributed to this report include Gale C. Harris and Susan A. Riedinger.

Self-Reported Incidence of Domestic Violence by an Intimate Partner Among Welfare Recipients, as Reported in the Research Literature

Sample of 1,184 women selected at random from all families on public assistance in Washington state in March 1988; a comparison sample of 796 respondents was drawn randomly from neighborhoods likely to have high rates of public assistance receipt. “Physical abuse” defined as being hit, kicked, punched, or beaten up.

55 ever abused as adults among public assistance sample; 28 among comparison sample 404 women who voluntarily completed a survey they were handed upon checking in at the reception desk when they visited one of three offices of the Jackson County, Missouri, Division of Family Services during 2 months of the summer of 1996 to apply or to be recertified for Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC).

Partner hit, slapped, or kicked respondent.

Partner threatened to hurt respondent.

Partner forced respondent to have sex.

3.4 in past 12 months91 women receiving AFDC who entered the Chicago Commons West Humboldt Employment Training Center between July 1, 1994, and June 20, 1995.

Domestic abuse defined as “verbal and physical abuse and coercion by men directed at adult women in intimate relations, which is meant to take in the full range of physical and nonphysical means used by men to coercively control women.” Incidence was determined by self-report and staff assessment during a required Life Skills Module.

56 abused by current partner (continued)

Representative sample of 734 women aged 20 and older receiving AFDC in Massachusetts between January and June 1996.

Being hit, slapped, or kicked; thrown or shoved onto floor, against wall, or down stairs; hurt badly enough to go to doctor; threatened with a gun, knife, or other object in a way that made respondent afraid; forced to have sex or engage in sexual activity against her will; or threatened with harm.

Randomly selected sample of 216 female AFDC recipents who visited the Worcester, Massachusetts, Department of Public Welfare office to meet with their caseworker between August 1992 and November 1995; who had no history of homelessness; and who were pregnant or had at least one dependent child under age 17. “Severe physical violence” defined as one or more of the following: being kicked, bitten, or hit with a fist; being hit with an object; being beaten up; being choked, strangled, or smothered; being threatened or assaulted with a knife or gun; being slapped six or more times; or having one’s life threatened in some other manner.

Approximately 274 women who reported receiving AFDC in the 12 months prior to the survey interview were selected from a random sample of 824 women aged 18 and older residing in Humboldt Park in Chicago. “Physical aggression” defined as throwing something at respondent or pushing, grabbing, shoving, or slapping her.

31.1 in past 12 months (continued)

Ever or in the past “Severe aggression” defined as kicking, biting, or hitting with a fist; hitting or trying to hit respondent with an object; injuring respondent badly enough that she needed medical treatment; beating respondent up; injuring respondent so she needed to stay home from work; choking respondent; forcing respondent to participate in sexual activities against her will; burning respondent; locking respondent up; threatening respondent with a knife or gun; or cutting respondent with a knife or firing a gun at her.

19.5 in past 12 months 846 AFDC recipients in Passaic County, New Jersey, who participated in an 8-week Life Skills Program between December 1995 and January 1997.

For “physical domestic abuse,” respondent was asked “Have you ever been the victim of physical domestic abuse?” and “Are you now experiencing a problem with physical domestic abuse?” The respondent answered yes or no on the basis of her interpretation of what constituted “physical domestic abuse.”

14.6 abused by current partner 1,082 women who were new applicants for public assistance in one of four social services offices in three Colorado counties between April and December 1997 for whom a screening form was completed for the study.

Applicants were asked if they had been in a relationship where they were “physically, emotionally, or sexually abused,” defined as being pushed, slapped, shoved, or hit; being kept away from family and friends; having phone calls and activities monitored at home or work; being threatened or having children threatened; being threatened with having children taken away; being stalked, followed, or harassed; or being raped/sexually assaulted within the marriage. (Table notes on next page)

An incidence rate was not presented for this category. Four of the eight studies asked specifically about abuse by a male partner, while the other four asked about abuse by a partner without specifying the partner’s gender.

The final report for this study will not be published until late 1998. The data presented here are preliminary findings from the survey portion of the study as of July 1998.

Research Findings Regarding the Extent to Which Victims of Domestic Abuse Report That Their Partners Discourage or Prevent Them From Working

Sample on which percentages are based Shepard and Pence (1988) The 42 women who completed the first of two surveys administered to a total of 123 women who were attending support groups for battered women.

The 476 women who reported that they had ever been abused by a male partner, out of a representative sample of 734 women surveyed who were aged 20 and older and receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in Massachusetts between January and June 1996.

The approximately 124 women (14.6% of the 846 women surveyed) who reported that they were currently having a problem with physical domestic abuse, out of a total sample of 846 AFDC recipients in Passaic County, New Jersey, who participated in an 8-week training program between December 1995 and January 1997.

Pearson and others (1998) The 305 women who disclosed abuse by a past partner who was the father of at least one of their children, out of the 1,082 women who were new applicants for public assistance surveyed in four Department of Social Services offices in three Colorado counties.

The 57 women recruited from four domestic violence shelters in inner-city Chicago who were interviewed between February and April 1997.

Data were not available for this category.

Research Findings Regarding the Extent to Which Victims of Domestic Abuse Report Specific Impacts of the Abuse on Their Employment

The 71 women who were working during the time they were abused, out of the total sample of 123 women attending support groups for battered women who were surveyed.

56 (21 said it happened frequently)

62 (13 said it happened frequently)

55 (4 said it happened frequently)

44 (13 were reprimanded more than three times)

The 81 women who were working at the time the abuse occurred, out of the total sample of 118 women surveyed who were residents at a domestic violence shelter; receiving domestic violence counseling; or plaintiffs at the Protective Order Office some time between October 1, 1991, and March 31, 1992.

The 35 women who worked or went to school out of a total sample of 57 women recruited from four domestic violence shelters in inner-city Chicago and interviewed between February and April 1997.

Data were not available.

Bibliography

Allard, Mary Ann, and others. In Harm’s Way? Domestic Violence, AFDC Receipt, and Welfare Reform in Massachusetts. Boston: University of Massachusetts at Boston, Feb. 1997.

Brandwein, Ruth A. Family Violence and Welfare Reform: The Utah Experience and National Implications. Salt Lake City: Stafford Lecture, University of Utah, May 5, 1997.

Browne, Angela. “Violence Against Women by Male Partners: Prevalence, Outcomes, and Policy Implications.” American Psychologist, Vol. 48, No. 10 (Oct. 1993), pp. 1077-87. _____, and Shari S. Bassuk. “Intimate Violence in the Lives of Homeless and Poor Housed Women: Prevalence and Patterns in an Ethnically Diverse Sample.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 67, No. 8 (Apr. 1997), pp. 261-78.

Cooley, Tracy, and others. Safety and Self-Support: The Challenge of Welfare Reform for Victims of Domestic Abuse. Bangor, Me.: Maine Coalition for Family Crisis Services, 1997-98.

Curcio, William. The Passaic County Study of A.F.D.C. Recipients in a Welfare-to-Work Program: A Preliminary Analysis. July 1998. _____. Planning Research From the Inside: Domestic Violence in a Welfare-to-Work Program. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan School of Social Work, Sept. 25, 1997. http://www.ssw.umich.edu/trapped/curcio.html (cited Aug. 4, 1998). _____. Confidential Questionnaire. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan School of Social Work. http://www.ssw.umich.edu/trapped/curcsurvey.html (cited Aug. 4, 1998).

Haennicke, Sheila B., and others. Trapped by Poverty, Trapped by Abuse—Supplement I. Chicago: Taylor Institute and University of Michigan Research Development Center on Poverty, Risk and Mental Health, Aug. 1998.

Kenney, Catherine T., and Karen R. Brown. Report for the Front Lines: The Impact of Violence on Poor Women. New York: The Women, Welfare and Abuse Working Group, NOW Legal Defense and Education, 1996.

Koss, Mary P., Lisa A. Goodman, Angela Browne, and others. No Safe Haven: Male Violence Against Women at Home, at Work, and in the Community. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1994.

Lidman, Russell M. The Family Income Study and Washington’s Welfare Population: A Comprehensive Review. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, Evergreen State College, Oct. 1995.

Lloyd, Susan. “The Effects of Domestic Violence on Women’s Employment.” Law and Policy (fall 1997).

Missouri Department of Social Services’ Division of Family Services. Survey of AFDC Recipients: Domestic Violence and Women’s Employment, Vol. VI. Columbia, Mo.: Horizon Research Services, Nov. 1996.

Pearson, Jessica. Notices, Screening Instructions, and Data Collection Forms on Domestic Violence for Public Assistance Clients. Denver, Colo.: Center for Policy Research. _____, Nancy Thoennes, and Esther Ann Griswold. Child Support and Domestic Violence: The Victims Speak Out. Denver, Colo.: Center for Policy Research, Feb. 1998.

Quint, Janet C., Barbara L. Fink, and Sharon L. Rowser. New Chance: Implementing a Comprehensive Program for Disadvantaged Young Mothers and Their Children. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, Dec. 1991.

Raphael, Jody. Domestic Violence: Telling the Untold Welfare-to-Work Story. Chicago: Taylor Institute, Jan. 30, 1995. _____, and Richard Tolman. Trapped by Poverty, Trapped by Abuse. Chicago, Ill.: Taylor Institute and University of Michigan Research Development Center on Poverty, Risk and Mental Health, Apr. 1997.

Riger, Stephanie, and others. Obstacles to Employment of Welfare Recipients with Abusive Partners. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago, May 1998.

Shepard, Melanie, and Ellen Pence. “The Effects of Battering on the Employment Status of Women.” Affilia, Vol. 3, No. 2 (summer 1988), pp. 55-61.

Stanley, Connie. Domestic Violence: An Occupational Impact Study. Tulsa, Okla.: Domestic Violence Intervention Services, Inc., July 27, 1992.

Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes. Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Oct. 1998.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Over Half of the Women on Public Assistance in Washington State Reported Physical or Sexual Abuse as Adults. Olympia, Wash.: Evergreen State College, Oct. 1993.

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.