Disjunctures for Women and Frontline Workers: Implementation of the Family Violence Option

Abstract

This research uses analysis of qualitative interviews with 10 battered welfare clients and 15 frontline welfare workers to examine the implementation of the Family Violence Option (FVO) under welfare reform. States adopting the FVO agree to screen for domestic violence, refer identified victims to community resources, and waive program requirements that would endanger the women or with which they are unable to comply. The analyses find that none of the 10 clients in this study received these services. This lack of services reflects four critical disjunctures between the formal policy and the policy experienced by the clients. It also reveals several more basic structural factors that provide conflicting mandates to frontline workers. Frontline workers' discretionary behaviors enforce core rules related to welfare eligibility and reduce welfare caseloads but do not provide violencerelated services to victims.After enacting welfare reform through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA; U.S. Public Law 104-193 [1996]), lawmakers agreed that domestic violence poses a considerable risk to women receiving welfare payments. Advocates successfully argued that welfare reform's new demands, such as universal child support enforcement, mandatory work requirements, and strict time limits, might endanger women attempting to flee battering relationships. Out of concern for the immediate safety of these women and in an acknowledgment of domestic violence's long-term effects on both physical and mental health, policy makers passed an amendment to PRWORA, the Family Violence Option (FVO; 42 U.S. Code 602 [a] 7 [2005]), which states could voluntarily agree to offer to welfare recipients. This amendment mandates that participating states provide three basic services: screen all welfare applicants for domestic violence, provide identified victims with appropriate referrals to community resources, and waive program provisions such as time limits, child support enforcement, and work requirements if these would endanger a woman or were beyond her current ability to comply because of domestic violence. Although the majority of states have voluntarily adopted the FVO, preliminary reports from the field indicate that few women are receiving the types of assistance provided through the policy (Lein et al. While literature on the characteristics of battered welfare recipients is growing (for recent reviews, see Tolman and Raphael 2001;Riger and Staggs 2004), far fewer studies tackle the question of the implementation of the FVO. The current article draws on a "bottomup" (Schram 1995, 40) approach to study policy implementation by understanding the experiences of clients and the practices of frontline workers as they carry out policy-directed functions. As Sanford Schram (1995) notes, the bottom-up approach emphasizes the subjective, narrative, and situated nature of experience. Much welfare policy research assumes a NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Auth...

Screening for Domestic Violence in Public Welfare Offices

“…Although this study was not designed to evaluate organizational views on screening or differences in setting or training, the consistent absence of discussion of domestic violence indicates that deeper systemic issues may be at play. Lindhorst and Padgett (2005) identify organizational factors such as the focus on case closure, lack of time to carry out thorough interviews because of high client-to-staff ratios, and inadequate training in responding to abuse as impediments to screening for domestic violence. Workers have also been found to harbor negative judgments of clients that are communicated directly and indirectly, which act as obstacles to disclosing abuse (Hagen & Owens-Manley, 2002;Lindhorst & Padgett, 2005;Saunders et al, 2005).…”

“…Lindhorst and Padgett (2005) identify organizational factors such as the focus on case closure, lack of time to carry out thorough interviews because of high client-to-staff ratios, and inadequate training in responding to abuse as impediments to screening for domestic violence. Workers have also been found to harbor negative judgments of clients that are communicated directly and indirectly, which act as obstacles to disclosing abuse (Hagen & Owens-Manley, 2002;Lindhorst & Padgett, 2005;Saunders et al, 2005). Similar structural dynamics may be occurring in the settings under investigation here, and may be pervasive in the current welfare system.…”

“…Domestic violence advocates recommend that direct service providers talk with women privately about confidentiality and its limits prior to asking women about abuse (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2004). Battered women who have chosen not to disclose their abuse to welfare workers have reported concerns about confidentiality as a primary deterrent to disclosure (Lindhorst & Padgett, 2005;Postmus, 2003;Raphael, 2000). Without assurances that information regarding abuse will be kept confidential, many women will have little incentive to honestly answer questions about victimization.…”

A Multi-Systems Life Course Perspective of Economic Abuse

“…Johnson (2015) argues it has led to a focus on safety (short-term goal) rather than security (long-term goal). Similarly, the explicit goals of the Family Violence Option (FVO), (1) screening for intimate partner violence, (2) providing appropriate referrals in cases of IPV and (3) waiving time limits and work requirements of women experiencing IPV, are not being met (Lindhorst & Padgett, 2005).…”

Street-Level Organizations, Inequality, and the Future of Human Services

“…Studies conducted in different types of human services agencies (e.g., agencies providing child welfare oversight, domestic violence counseling, education, welfare benefits, and mental health care) have demonstrated how practitioners informally adapt to the demands of performance measurement. In too many cases, it shows that they may successfully make the numbers, but in the process shortchange their clients, limit responsiveness to need, and avoid the more difficult cases (Ladd, 2011;Lindhorst & Padgett, 2005;Smith & Donovan, 2003;Soss, Fording, & Schram, 2011;Spitzmueller, 2014). Street-level research reveals that what you don't see (and can't readily measure) can hurt you.…”