Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among
Welfare Recipients (Letter Report, 11/24/98, GAO/HEHS-99-12).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO provided information on the
effects of family violence on the use of welfare programs, focusing on
the: (1) prevalence of domestic violence among welfare recipients; and
(2) implications of domestic violence for the employment of welfare
recipients and other low-income women.

GAO noted that: (1) while studies on the prevalence of domestic violence
among welfare recipients do not provide national estimates of prevalence
and vary substantially in terms of methodology and the samples studied,
these studies consistently indicate that a sizable proportion of welfare
recipients have been or are victims of domestic violence; (2) the one
study of those reviewed that was specifically designed to provide a
statewide prevalence estimate was based on a representative sample of
Aid to Families with Dependent Children recipients in Massachusetts in
1996; (3) this study found that almost 20 percent of the welfare
recipients surveyed had experienced domestic violence in the prior 12
months, and about 65 percent had been victims of domestic violence at
some time in their lives; (4) the research available on the effect of
domestic violence on the employment of welfare recipients and other
low-income women presents a more complex picture; (5) some research
indicates that welfare recipients and other low-income women who
reported ever having been abused were employed at the same rates as
those who had never been abused; (6) but no studies compared employment
rates among women currently in abusive relationships, as opposed to
women who reported having been abused in the past, with employment rates
of women who are not now in abusive relationships; and (7) however,
several studies do identify potential negative effects of current
domestic violence on victims' employment.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-12
     TITLE:  Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for 
             Employment Among Welfare Recipients
      DATE:  11/24/98
   SUBJECT:  Welfare recipients
             Women
             State-administered programs
             Workfare
             Disadvantaged persons
             Program graduation
             Surveys
             Statistical data
IDENTIFIER:  Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
             HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
             Massachusetts
             AFDC
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Committees

November 1998

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - PREVALENCE AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT AMONG
WELFARE RECIPIENTS

GAO/HEHS-99-12

Domestic Violence and Welfare

(116018)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AFDC - Aid to Families With Dependent Children
  PRWORA - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
     Reconciliation Act
  PTSD - post-traumatic stress disorder
  TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-280099

November 24, 1998

Congressional Committees

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(P.L.  104-193) (PRWORA), enacted in August 1996, significantly
changed the nation's cash assistance program for needy families with
children.  Title I of the law replaced the Aid to Families With
Dependent Children (AFDC) program with fixed block grants to states
to provide Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and ended
families' entitlement to assistance.  In fiscal year 1997, $16.7
billion in federal TANF funds was made available to the states, and
states provided assistance to 3.9 million families in an average
month.  Several goals of the TANF program are specified in the law,
including that of ending welfare dependence by promoting work over
welfare and self-reliance over dependency, and the law provides
states with increased flexibility to help them achieve those goals. 
The law strengthens existing requirements that most of those
receiving assistance seek employment and cooperate with child support
authorities.  At the same time, to address concerns that some of the
new requirements could unfairly penalize victims of domestic violence
or put some of them at greater risk of harm, the bill includes a
provision (Title I, part A, sec.  402[a][7]), generally referred to
as the Family Violence Option, that allows states to identify
domestic violence victims and, when appropriate, waive program
requirements for them. 

The Conference Agreement of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 required
that we study and report on the effects of family violence on the use
of welfare programs (the names of addressees are listed at the end of
this letter).\1 \2

Accordingly, this report provides a summary of the research findings
on (1) the prevalence of domestic violence among welfare recipients
and (2) the implications of domestic violence for the employment of
welfare recipients and other low-income women.  We conducted a
literature search of several on-line bibliographic databases,
including Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Index, ECONLIT, and
PsychInfo; reviewed bibliographies of key research studies on this
issue; and consulted with experts on domestic violence issues to
identify other studies we should consider.  In identifying and
reviewing studies on the implications of domestic violence for
employment among welfare recipients, we included related studies that
did not look at welfare recipients exclusively, when we felt that
such studies would add to our knowledge of the situations faced by
welfare recipients.  We conducted our work from March through
September 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 


--------------------
\1 The House Conference Report, No.  105-217, July 30, 1997, p.  561. 

\2 The Conference Agreement does not define family violence.  In this
report, we use both family violence and domestic violence to refer to
violence between adult partners and ex-partners. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

While studies on the prevalence of domestic violence among welfare
recipients do not provide national estimates of prevalence and vary
substantially in terms of methodology and the samples studied, these
studies consistently indicate that a sizable proportion of welfare
recipients have been or are victims of domestic violence.  The one
study of those reviewed that was specifically designed to provide a
statewide prevalence estimate was based on a representative sample of
AFDC recipients in Massachusetts in 1996.  This study found that
almost 20 percent of the welfare recipients surveyed had experienced
domestic violence in the prior 12 months, and about 65 percent had
been victims of domestic violence at some time in their lives. 

The research available on the effect of domestic violence on the
employment of welfare recipients and other low-income women presents
a more complex picture.  Some research indicates that welfare
recipients and other low-income women who reported ever having been
abused were employed at the same rates as those who had never been
abused.  But no studies compared employment rates among women
currently in abusive relationships, as opposed to women who reported
having been abused in the past, with employment rates of women who
are not now in abusive relationships.  However, several studies do
identify potential negative effects of current domestic violence on
victims' employment. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

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.\3 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.\4

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,\5 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.\6 As of September
1998, 24 states had formally adopted the Family Violence Option. 


--------------------
\3 The law does require that states ensure fair and equitable
treatment. 

\4 Families with no adult receiving assistance (commonly referred to
as "child-only" cases) are not subject to this limit.  States may
exempt up to 20 percent of their average monthly caseload from the
time limit on the basis of hardship or having been subjected to
domestic violence.  Also, states may opt to provide assistance beyond
the 5-year time limit using state funds. 

\5 For more information on issues related to child support
enforcement for domestic violence victims, see Jessica Pearson, Nancy
Thoennes, and Esther Ann Griswold, Child Support and Domestic
Violence:  The Victims Speak Out (Denver, Colo.:  Center for Policy
Research, Feb.  1998). 

\6 In the description of the Family Violence Option in the PRWORA,
subjection to domestic violence is said to have the same meaning as
being "battered or subject to extreme cruelty," as defined in another
section of the law.  According to that definition, an individual has
been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty if he or she has been
subjected to (1) physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to
result in, physical injury; (2) sexual abuse; (3) sexual activity as
a dependent child; (4) being forced, as the caretaker relative of a
dependent child, to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or
activities; (5) threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse;
(6) mental abuse; or (7) neglect or deprivation of medical care. 


   PREVALENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
   AMONG WELFARE RECIPIENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

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.\7

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.\8 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.\9

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.\10 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.\11 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.\12 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. 


--------------------
\7 In four of the six studies summarized here, questions were asked
specifically about a male partner, while in the other two, questions
did not specify the partner's gender. 

\8 These data are for women who reported having been physically
assaulted or raped by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner,
or date.  See Patricia Tjaden 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, Nov.  1998). 

\9 U.S.  Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Violence by Intimates:  Analysis of Data on
Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends
(Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Department of Justice, 1995).  The
definition of violence used here includes rape, sexual assault,
robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.  The definition of
intimates includes spouses, ex-spouses, boyfriends or girlfriends,
and ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends. 

\10 See, for example, Mary P.  Koss, 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), pp.  58-61, and Mary Ann Allard, Randy Albelda,
Mary Ellen Colten, and Carol Cosenza, In Harm's Way?  Domestic
Violence, AFDC Receipt, and Welfare Reform in Massachusetts (Boston: 
University of Massachusetts at Boston, Feb.  1997), pp.  5 and 17. 

\11 Allard and others, In Harm's Way? 

\12 Those six behaviors most closely match the definition of domestic
violence in the 1978 Massachusetts Chapter 209A Abuse Prevention Act,
which defines domestic violence as physical harm, involuntary sex, or
fear of harm.  The behaviors asked about in the survey were being
hit, slapped, or kicked; being thrown or shoved onto the floor or
down stairs; being hurt badly enough to go to the doctor; having a
gun, knife, or other object used against one in a frightening manner;
being forced to engage in sexual activities; or being threatened with
harm. 


   IMPLICATIONS OF DOMESTIC
   VIOLENCE FOR EMPLOYMENT AMONG
   WELFARE RECIPIENTS AND OTHER
   LOW-INCOME WOMEN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

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.\13


--------------------
\13 Of the 14 studies, 7 focused on employment- or training-related
barriers faced by welfare recipients.  Another study was based on
women applying for AFDC, and another was based on women in a
low-income neighborhood in Chicago, about one-third of whom were
receiving AFDC.  The remaining five studies were based on discussions
with domestic violence victims who were living in domestic violence
shelters or receiving services or assistance related to domestic
violence.  While these studies did not target welfare recipients,
many of the women interviewed had relatively low household incomes,
were receiving public assistance, or both. 


      RESEARCH FINDINGS REGARDING
      THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF
      DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

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.\14

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. 


--------------------
\14 Susan Lloyd, "The Effects of Domestic Violence on Women's
Employment," Law and Policy (fall 1997). 


      RESEARCH FINDINGS REGARDING
      THE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF
      CURRENT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON
      VICTIMS' EMPLOYMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

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."\15

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.\16 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.\\17 ,\18 (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.\19

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.\20

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).\21
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.\22 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. 


--------------------
\15 Janet C.  Quint, 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, 1991), p.  171. 

\16 Melanie Shepard and Ellen Pence, "The Effects of Battering on the
Employment Status of Women," Affilia, Vol.  3, No.  2 (summer 1988),
p.  58. 

\17 Connie Stanley, Domestic Violence:  An Occupational Impact Study
(Tulsa, Okla.:  Domestic Violence Intervention Services, Inc., July
27, 1992), pp.  12-13, and Stephanie Riger and others, Obstacles to
Employment of Welfare Recipients with Abusive Partners (Chicago: 
University of Illinois at Chicago, May 1998), p.  14. 

\18 In Riger and others, Obstacles to Employment, 40 percent of the
women surveyed said that their abusers came to their school or
workplace to harass them. 

\19 The 52 percent who had lost their jobs (Riger and others,
Obstacles to Employment) reported that they were fired or had quit
because of the abuse. 

\20 Stanley, Domestic Violence, pp.  12-13. 

\21 PTSD is a mental disorder whose definition encompasses "a range
of psychological responses to traumatic experiences" (Angela Browne,
"Violence Against Women by Male Partners:  Prevalence, Outcomes, and
Policy Implications," American Psychologist, Vol.  48, No.  10 (Oct. 
1993), p.  1081).  The disorder originally was identified in war
veterans, but it is now considered to apply to individuals who have
suffered other types of trauma as well, including domestic violence. 
Behaviors and feelings associated with PTSD include "reexperiencing
the traumatic event through recurrent images, thoughts, and dreams,
and generally experiencing intense psychological distress" (Allard
and others, In Harm's Way?). 

\22 This study also found that the negative effects of the abuse
appeared to diminish over time.  For example, those whose abuse
occurred more than 12 months previously had higher self-esteem, more
of a sense of mastery, and fewer symptoms of psychological distress
than those more recently abused.  Moreover, those who had never been
abused were even more emotionally well off. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

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. 

Mark V.  Nadel
Associate Director
 Income Security Issues

List of Addressees

The Honorable William V.  Roth, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Finance
United States Senate

The Honorable William Archer
Chairman
The Honorable Charles B.  Rangel
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives

The Honorable William F.  Goodling
Chairman
The Honorable William L.  Clay
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives


SELF-REPORTED INCIDENCE OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BY AN INTIMATE
PARTNER AMONG WELFARE RECIPIENTS,
AS REPORTED IN THE RESEARCH
LITERATURE
=========================================================== Appendix I

                                                                Percentage of sample who
                                                                 reported being abused
                                                               --------------------------
                  Sample on which                              Currently or  Ever
                  percentages are                              in the past   or in
Study author(s)   based               Type of abuse            12 months     the past
----------------  ------------------  -----------------------  ------------  ------------
Weeks, G., and    Sample of 1,184     "Physical abuse"         \a            55 ever
C. Webster, as    women selected at   defined as being hit,                  abused as
reported in R.    random from all     kicked, punched, or                    adults among
Lidman (1995)     families on public  beaten up.                             public
                  assistance in                                              assistance
                  Washington state                                           sample; 28
                  in March 1988; a                                           among
                  comparison sample                                          comparison
                  of 796 respondents                                         sample
                  was drawn randomly
                  from neighborhoods
                  likely to have
                  high rates of
                  public assistance
                  receipt.

Horizon Research  404 women who       Partner hit, slapped,    10.6 in past  29 ever\b
Services, for     voluntarily         or kicked respondent.    12 months\b
the Missouri      completed a survey
Department of     they were handed
Social Services,  upon checking in
Division of       at the reception
Family Services   desk when they
(1996)            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 threatened to    10.3 in past  22.5 ever\b
                                      hurt respondent.         12 months\b

                                      Partner forced           3.4 in past   13.4 ever\b
                                      respondent to have sex.  12 months\b

Raphael, J.       91 women receiving  Domestic abuse defined   56 abused by  26 in the
(1996)            AFDC who entered    as "verbal and physical  current       past\c
                  the Chicago         abuse and coercion by    partner
                  Commons West        men directed at adult
                  Humboldt            women in intimate
                  Employment          relations, which is
                  Training Center     meant to take in the
                  between July 1,     full range of physical
                  1994, and June 20,  and nonphysical means
                  1995.               used by men to
                                      coercively control
                                      women." Incidence was
                                      determined by self-
                                      report and staff
                                      assessment during a
                                      required Life Skills
                                      Module.

Allard, M., and   Representative      Being hit, slapped, or   19.5 in past  64.9 ever
others (1997)     sample of 734       kicked; thrown or        12 months
                  women aged 20 and   shoved onto floor,
                  older receiving     against wall, or down
                  AFDC in             stairs; hurt badly
                  Massachusetts       enough to go to doctor;
                  between January     threatened with a gun,
                  and June 1996.      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.

Browne, A., and   Randomly selected   "Severe physical         32.6 abused   58.1 abused
S. Bassuk (1997)  sample of 216       violence" defined as     by current    by any
                  female AFDC         one or more of the       or most       partner
                  recipents who       following: being         recent        since
                  visited the         kicked, bitten, or hit   partner       respondent
                  Worcester,          with a fist; being hit                 was 17 years
                  Massachusetts,      with an object; being                  of age or
                  Department of       beaten up; being                       "on her
                  Public Welfare      choked, strangled, or                  own,"
                  office to meet      smothered; being                       whichever
                  with their          threatened or assaulted                was earlier
                  caseworker between  with a knife or gun;
                  August 1992 and     being slapped six or
                  November 1995; who  more times; or having
                  had no history of   one's life threatened
                  homelessness; and   in some other manner.
                  who were pregnant
                  or had at least
                  one dependent
                  child under age
                  17.

                                      Threat by partner to     18.1          30.7
                                      kill respondent.         threatened    threatened
                                                               by current    by any
                                                               or most       partner
                                                               recent        since
                                                               partner       respondent
                                                                             was 17 years
                                                                             of age or
                                                                             "on her
                                                                             own,"
                                                                             whichever
                                                                             was earlier

Lloyd, S. (1997)  Approximately 274   "Physical aggression"    31.1 in past  \a
                  women who reported  defined as throwing      12 months
                  receiving AFDC in   something at respondent
                  the 12 months       or pushing, grabbing,
                  prior to the        shoving, or slapping
                  survey interview    her.
                  were selected from
                  a random sample of
                  824 women aged 18
                  and older residing
                  in Humboldt Park
                  in Chicago.\d

                                      "Severe aggression"      19.5 in past  \a
                                      defined as kicking,      12 months
                                      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.

Curcio, W.        846 AFDC            For "physical domestic   14.6 abused   57.3 ever
(1998)\e          recipients in       abuse," respondent was   by current
                  Passaic County,     asked "Have you ever     partner
                  New Jersey, who     been the victim of
                  participated in an  physical domestic
                  8-week Life Skills  abuse?" and
                  Program between     "Are you now
                  December 1995 and   experiencing a problem
                  January 1997.       with physical domestic
                                      abuse?" The respondent
                                      answered yes or no on
                                      the basis of her
                                      interpretation of what
                                      constituted "physical
                                      domestic abuse."

Pearson, J., and  1,082 women who     Applicants were asked    \a            40 ever\b,f
others (1998)     were new            if they had been in a
                  applicants for      relationship where they
                  public assistance   were "physically,
                  in one of four      emotionally, or
                  social services     sexually abused,"
                  offices in three    defined as being
                  Colorado counties   pushed, slapped,
                  between April and   shoved, or hit; being
                  December 1997 for   kept away from family
                  whom a screening    and friends; having
                  form was completed  phone calls and
                  for the study.      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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a 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. 

\b Because these two studies estimate the prevalence among welfare
applicants instead of among welfare recipients (or, in the case of
the Horizon Research Services study, separate estimates are not
presented for applicants and women being recertified), we did not
include these studies' findings in the range of prevalence estimates
discussed in the text. 

\c Since this estimate refers to the percentage of women in the
sample who were abused in the past, rather than the percentage who
were ever abused, we did not include it in the range of prevalence
estimates discussed in the text. 

\d The sample size of 274 is our calculation based on the report's
findings that 33.3 percent of the 824 survey respondents reported
receiving AFDC in the 12 months prior to the survey interview. 

\e 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. 

\f Seventy-four percent reported abuse only by former partners, 24
percent reported abuse by current and former partners, and 2 percent
reported abuse only by a current partner. 


RESEARCH FINDINGS REGARDING THE
EXTENT TO WHICH VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC ABUSE REPORT THAT THEIR
PARTNERS DISCOURAGE OR PREVENT
THEM FROM WORKING
========================================================== Appendix II

                                                              Percentage of women who
                                                            reported that their partner
                                                           ------------------------------
                                                           Discouraged
                                                           them from       Prevented them
Study author(s)   Sample on which percentages are based    working         from working
----------------  ---------------------------------------  --------------  --------------
Shepard and       The 42 women who completed the first of  59              33
Pence (1988)      two surveys administered to a total of
                  123 women who were attending support
                  groups for battered women.

Allard and        The 476 women who reported that they     15.5\a          \b
others (1997)     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.

Curcio (1998)     The approximately 124 women (14.6% of    46.7\c          39.7\c
                  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       The 305 women who disclosed abuse by a   \b              44
others (1998)     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.

Riger and others  The 57 women recruited from four         \b              46
(1998)            domestic violence shelters in inner-
                  city Chicago who were interviewed
                  between February and April 1997.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The women in this group said that they had a present or former
partner who, at the time of the survey, would not have liked it if
they had had a job, gone to school, or enrolled in a job training
program.  Only 1.6 percent of the women who did not report abuse said
this. 

\b Data were not available for this category. 

\c The women in these groups said that their husband or boyfriend did
not encourage education and training or prevented the women from
getting education or training.  While these percentages are not
directly comparable with those in the rest of the table, we have
included them since partners who discourage or prevent education and
training are likely to also discourage or prevent their partners from
working. 


RESEARCH FINDINGS REGARDING THE
EXTENT TO WHICH VICTIMS OF
DOMESTIC ABUSE REPORT SPECIFIC
IMPACTS OF THE ABUSE ON THEIR
EMPLOYMENT
========================================================= Appendix III

                                          Percentage of women who reported that
                                ---------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   They were
                                Their       They were   They       reprimande
                                partner     late for    missed     d at work   They lost
                                harassed    work or     work       for         their job
            Samples on which    them at     left early  because    behaviors   as a
Study       percentages are     work in     because of  of the     related to  result of
author(s)   based               person      the abuse   abuse      the abuse   the abuse
----------  ------------------  ----------  ----------  ---------  ----------  ----------
Shepard     The 71 women who    56 (21      62 (13      55 (4      44 (13      24
and Pence   were working        said it     said it     said it    were
(1988)      during the time     happened    happened    happened   reprimande
            they were abused,   frequently  frequently  frequentl  d more
            out of the total    )\a         )           y)         than three
            sample of 123                                          times)
            women attending
            support groups for
            battered women who
            were surveyed.

Stanley     The 81 women who    35\b,c      62\c        57\c       60\c        30\c
(1992)      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.

Riger and   The 35 women who    40\d        \e          85         \e          52\f
others      worked or went to
(1998)      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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These women reported that their partner harassed them at work on
the phone or in person. 

\b These women answered yes to the question "Did your abuser ever
show up at your workplace and cause a disruption?"

\c These percentages are our approximations based on a bar graph of
respondents' affirmative answers to questions about the effect of
domestic abuse on their work performance. 

\d These women said that their abuser came to their work or school to
harass them. 

\e Data were not available. 

\f These women reported that they were fired or had to quit because
of the abuse. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY
============================================================ Chapter 0

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. 


*** End of document. ***