Creating a Tool for Assessing Domestic Violence Risk and Impact Among TANF Clients

Abstract

The Family Violence Option (FVO), a provision of the 1996 welfare legislation, allows states to waive certain program requirements for domestic violence (DV) survivors in order to protect them from danger or penalties. The absence of a standardized method for assessing risk and impact has been an impediment to states’ use of the FVO, particularly in the granting of waivers. The purpose of this study was to address this limitation by developing and testing a risk and impact assessment tool for DV survivors applying for waivers under the FVO. Therefore, a collaborative effort between state administrators and researchers was formed which included input from welfare staff and DV advocates. Background research included reviews of validated risk assessments and FVO policies, as well as primary data from focus groups and surveys with staff from the state human services organization, county welfare agencies, and DV organizations. A tool was then created with 131 questions covering demographics, abuse experiences, partner access and risk, perceptions of safety, and emotional health, and piloted in four counties. Two hundred and thirty-seven completed assessments were analyzed using descriptive statistics, principal component analysis, and feedback from assessors. The final tool (n= 95 items) was informed by validated evidence and frontline practice wisdom, recommended to improve FVO utilization and survivor outcomes. From this study, the authors recommend that other states seeking changes to their FVO risk assessment policy and practice explore collaborative partnerships between practitioners and researchers in order to make decisions informed by best practices and systematic research. They should also pursue cross departmental training of risk assessment tools to prevent a siloed approach to FVO implementation.

Administering the U.S. Family Violence Option: The role of stigma in waiver recommendations

“…The NJ-ADVRI includes sections measuring women's abuse experiences, partner access to the women, the women's perception of her safety and the impact of the abuse on mental health. The development and coding of each measure is described in detail elsewhere (Steiner et al, 2019), therefore, only a brief summary is provided here.…”

“…The counties were selected to represent the geographical and demographic diversity of the state and included those organisations that were willing to field the pilot tool. For more information on how the NJ‐ADVRI was developed and tested see Steiner, Johnson, Hetling, Lin, and Postmus (2019). This research analyses the 237 risk assessments completed by advocates during the pilot phase of implementing the NJ‐ADVRI between June and December 2016.…”

“…Information was collected on women's experience of five types of abuse in the preceding 6 months (emotional, financial, physical and sexual abuse, and stalking) and the frequency of the abuse (never to very often). Items were adapted from a series of validated scales (Steiner et al, 2019). The individual items for each abuse type were weighted based on severity of the violence type.…”

“…The items were then summed to create a total risk score for each type of abuse and then recoded into a risk level of low , moderate and high abuse for each abuse type. Risk levels were determined based on research evidence on factors related to lethality in DV and the professional experience of the research team (Steiner et al, 2019).…”

“…The counties were selected to represent the geographical and demographic diversity of the state and included those organisations that were willing to field the pilot tool. For more information on how the NJ-ADVRI was developed and tested see Steiner, Johnson, Hetling, Lin, and Postmus (2019).…”