A Review of Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence

Abstract

In this article we review the growing body of research literature on domestic violence and welfare. We summarize and critique the existing research on domestic violence and welfare in several areas: prevalence of domestic violence among women receiving welfare; the relationship of domestic violence to their employment; and physical health and mental health, child support, and evaluations of policies and programs. We also raise some methodological concerns that can inform interpretation of existing data. We examine the relevance of the research for practice and policy, particularly for the implementation of the Family Violence Option. This review includes published research as well as unpublished studies presented at recent conferences.Changes in welfare laws in the form of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 have transformed welfare from an entitlement program that could provide ongoing cash assistance to a temporary program that restricts the time participants can obtain welfare benefits and emphasizes rapidly joining the labor force. PRWORA established a maximum 60-month time limit for total lifetime receipt of federal benefits under

Intimate Partner Violence, Welfare Receipt, and Health Status of Low‐Income African American Women: A Lifecourse Analysis

“…Lifetime reports of physical IPV in this sample (87.5%) were also higher than those found in similar populations [29% (Lloyd & Taluc, 1999) to 74% (Barusch et al, 1999)]. The wide variability in reported lifetime rates of IPV has been interpreted as resulting from variable definitions of IPV from study to study, as well as to contextual differences in spatiotemporal locations (given the variability in state welfare regulations over time; Tolman & Raphael, 2000). The present study expands these interpretations to suggest that data collection methods are also important in eliciting complete information about a woman's history of IPV, particularly IPV that has occurred over her lifecourse.…”

“…Low-income women report higher rates of IPV than women of other socioeconomic groups (Rennison & Welchans, 2000;Sutherland, Sullivan, & Bybee, 2001), and studies suggest that rates of IPV are higher among women on welfare than among other low-income women (Honeycutt, Marshall, & Weston, 2001;Raphael, 2002;Tolman & Raphael, 2000). Lifetime prevalence rates of physical IPV for women on welfare range from 29 to 74% (Barusch, Taylor, & Derr, 1999;Colten, Cosenza, & Allard, 1996;Lloyd & Taluc, 1999;Tolman & Rosen, 2001), whereas lifetime prevalence rates of physical IPV in the general population range from 22 to 31% (Collins et al, 1999;Klein, Campbell, Soler, & Ghez, 1997;Straus & Gelles, 1990;Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).…”

“…Intimate partner violence makes it difficult for women on welfare to seek, obtain, and maintain employment (Lloyd & Taluc, 1999), which, in turn, makes it difficult for them to adhere to work requirements outlined by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (Cole, 2001;Raphael, 2002;Riger & Krieglstein, 2000;Tolman & Raphael, 2000). Abusive partners use a combination of tactics to sabotage women's employment possibilities, such as destroying homework assignments, turning off alarm clocks, tearing clothing, physically injuring women in visible areas (such as the face), not following through on agreed-upon childcare arrangements, and harassment on the job (Moore & Selkowe, 1999;Raphael, 2002;Tolman & Raphael, 2000).…”

“…Abusive partners use a combination of tactics to sabotage women's employment possibilities, such as destroying homework assignments, turning off alarm clocks, tearing clothing, physically injuring women in visible areas (such as the face), not following through on agreed-upon childcare arrangements, and harassment on the job (Moore & Selkowe, 1999;Raphael, 2002;Tolman & Raphael, 2000). This type of work interference may be a reason why women who have experienced IPV are more likely than nonabused women to cycle on and off welfare multiple times (Cole, 2001).…”

“…Despite the documented high prevalence of IPV among low-income women (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), particularly women on welfare (Riger & Krieglstein, 2000;Tolman & Raphael, 2000), little is known about the temporal relationship between IPV and welfare receipt. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the experience of IPV precedes financial vulnerability and welfare receipt, or vice versa.…”