Workplace Violence Experiences of Homeless Women and Women Residing in Battered Women Shelters

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive problem that follows victims from the home into the workplace. Many women who experience violence in their homes are also harassed at work and are abused in the workplace. For the current study, 30 women who reported a history of workplace violence were recruited from a homeless women’s shelter. Of the participants, 13 experienced domestic violence in the workplace; this article focuses on the results obtained from those 13 respondents. This article also discusses the link between homelessness, IPV, and workplace violence.

Background

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and Workplace Violence

IPV is defined by the National Violence Against Women Survey as “rape, physical assault, and stalking perpetrated by current and former dates, spouses, and cohabitating partners, with cohabitating meaning living together at least some of the time as a couple” (Tjaden & Theonnes, 2000, p. 5). IPV is a pervasive problem that follows victims from the home into the workplace. Many women who experience violence in their homes are also harassed at work and are abused in the workplace. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 2001), 16% of workplace homicides are perpetrated by an intimate partner. Intimate partner abuse adversely affects the victim’s ability to perform in the workplace. Victims of IPV are more likely to suffer from absenteeism, tardiness, and distraction in the workplace than those persons not affected by IPV (Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2007). The Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence conducted a survey from July to September 2005 of 1,200 currently employed men and women. Twenty-one percent of the respondents to that survey identified themselves as victims of IPV. Sixty-four percent of the victims reported adverse effects in the workplace; 57% were distracted on the job, 40% experienced harassment at work, and 21% were terminated (Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence [CAEPV], 2006). Additionally, women who experience chronic abuse have more health problems that adversely affect their ability to work (Staggs & Riger, 2005). IPV affects more than the individuals immediately involved; there are costs to the workplaces as well. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that, in 1995, victims of intimate partner physical abuse lost 7.2 days of work per incident. The estimated lost workplace productivity of victims of IPV was $727.8 million in 1995 (CDC, 2006).

Domestic violence and IPV do not affect only women who live in traditional “homes,” but also affect women living in shelters and on the street. These women and women living in poverty are targets for IPV (Boris, Heller, Sheperd, & Zeanah, 2002). Their life circumstances contribute significantly to their victimization. In the mid- and late 1990s, Bassuk, Browne, and colleagues’ defining research provided data on characteristics and needs of poor housed women and homeless women (Bassuk, Browne, & Buckner, 1996; Bassuk, Weinreb, et al., 1996; Browne & Bassuk, 1997). Their findings related to lifetime violence of poor women spurred additional research related to IPV, homelessness, poverty, and homeless families. Although their findings provided important data for use by social service agencies and policy makers related to IPV, there remained a need for focused investigations to clearly identify the most common types of abuse experienced by poor and homeless women and the risk factors associated with their victimization. The effects of violence at the workplace continue to plague women, violence both by their current partners and by their employers/colleagues. In addition to identifying the violence and its effects, further emphasis is needed to identify sources of support provided to victims of IPV in cases of abuse disclosure.

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to describe homeless women’s experiences of workplace violence. The specific objectives were to (1) identify types of domestic abuse that homeless or battered women are experiencing in the workplace and (2) identify factors contributing to domestic violence in the workplace.

Sample

A purposive sample of 30 women was recruited in the original study from two homeless women’s shelters in a midsized city in Kentucky. Both shelters offer basic lodging, food, and health care needs. One of the shelters also contains an intensive detoxification and substance abuse rehabilitation program. For inclusion in the study, the women must have experienced workplace violence, be over the age of 18, and be able to speak English. At the time of the abuse, the women were employed in various settings, including restaurants, retail stores, and offices. Thirteen of the 30 women (43%) interviewed reported experiencing abuse perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner. At the time of the abuse, two of the women were younger than 20 years of age, six were between 21 and 30; three were between 31 and 40 and three were above the age of 40 when the abuse occurred. The results presented in this article focus on the 13 participants who experienced domestic violence at the workplace.

Method

Approval for the study was obtained from the University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to conducting the study. Intensive interviewing was used to collect data for this qualitative study using a focused, semistructured interview guide. The original interview guide was developed based upon an extensive literature review, the researcher’s previous experience with intensive interviewing using Lofland and Lofland’s guide for interviewing (Anderson, 1996; Anderson & Imle, 2001; Lofland & Lofland, 1984). Additional questions were added throughout the study as new topics emerged. Additionally, interviewers, at their discretion, explored unanticipated issues that arose. Interviews were conducted face-to-face by two doctoral students and an undergraduate research assistant. Although the location was negotiable based upon participant preference, all the interviews were conducted on-site at the shelter. The interviews were tape recorded and lasted approximately 60–90 min. At the conclusion of the interview, the participant was given a modest payment of $25. Each tape was transcribed after the interview, and a codebook was developed based upon the interviews and emerging themes. The tapes and transcripts were kept in a locked filing cabinet, and access was restricted to the primary investigator and three research assistants.

Analysis

It is imperative to assure that qualitative data have been analyzed carefully in order to establish trustworthiness or rigor (Barusch, Gringeri, & George, 2011; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1986). Content analysis refers to the “reduction and sense-making effort” of large pieces of interview or other qualitative data (Patton, 2002, p. 453). During the initial phase and throughout the analysis process of these data, Atlas-ti was used to help organize and count the data, thus helping the investigators verify and be true to the data. The research team listened carefully to the tape-recorded interviews, transcribed the interviews, read and reread the transcriptions and field notes collected during the interviews. Field notes included the environment, the participants’ nonverbal cues, and interruptions or distractions. Using this information, they developed a codebook that evolved throughout the data collection and analysis phase. This intense process described in the development of the codebook enhanced verification of the data and assisted with theme discovery. To assure that the researchers involved in this project stayed true to the women’s description of violence, the three research team members independently read and coded the women’s interviews and field notes, as each interview was completed (Sandelowski, 1995). After each team member completed individual coding and “getting some sense of a whole,” (Sandelowski, 1995, p. 374) the team would meet and determine agreement of patterns and themes that evolved from the data. Through the process of the team meetings, agreement on the codes and grouping of codes led to the development of four distinct themes that are discussed in the Results section.

Results

Thirteen of the 30 women (43%) interviewed were abused by a current or past intimate partner. The abuse either occurred in the workplace or directly impacted job stability or performance. Eight of the 13 women (61.5%) were abused by a current intimate partner and 5 (38.5%) were abused by a past intimate partner. Four incidences of abuse occurred during day shift (between the hours of 7 a.m. and 3 p.m.), four on evening shift (3 p.m. and 11 p.m.), and two during night shift (11 p.m. and 7 a.m.). Of the women reporting abuse, each reported that the abuse occurred several times. Four major themes emerged from these qualitative interviews: type of abuse, weapon use and alcohol and drug involvement, employer support, and police support.

Type of Abuse

The women experienced different types of IPV at the workplace. The major type of abuse encountered by the women was physical assault. Ten women reported physical abuse, including biting, striking with an object, and hitting. The abuse had significant ramifications, including scars, hospitalization, and absence from work. One participant stated, “He pushed me, shoved me around, or grabbed me by the hair of the head.”

Nine participants in this study experienced stalking/harassing communications at the workplace by their significant other. In the state of Kentucky, stalking is defined as “(engaging) in an intentional course of conduct directed at a specific person or persons which seriously alarms, annoys, intimidates, or harasses the person or persons which serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct shall be that which would cause a reasonable person to suffer mental distress.” Additionally, Kentucky state law defines harassing communications as “(communicating) with a person, anonymously or otherwise . . in a manner which causes annoyance and serves no purpose of legitimate communication” (National Center for Victims of Crime, 2012). However, for the purpose of this study, “harassing communication” and “stalking” were classified together. A participant who experienced stalking/harassing communication stated, “He’d call every five minutes. You know, you can’t be productive in a job when you are getting threatening phone calls every five minutes, and I’m the one answering the phone and he’s screaming and hollering at me over the phone, or he’s showing up…you just, you can’t work like that.”

Five of the women were verbally abused using profanities and derogatory insults, such as reported by this participant, “He would curse me…and ‘you ain’t good for nothing’, and my self esteem was this low. I could crawl under it.” Some women experienced more than one type of workplace related abuse. “He’s been to every job I’ve had since the day I met the man. So I can’t really say that there’s not one he hasn’t been to, to threaten, shove, cuss.” Another participant stated, “And he used to get really jealous when I wouldn’t get off on time and he would come up and sit in the parking lot and wait for me to get out, come in and bug me, wanting me to come out and talk to him…I would go outside. Sometimes he would smack me, sometimes he would spit.”

Factors

Weapon Use and Alcohol and Drug Involvement

Four of the 13 women reported that their intimate partner used a weapon during the abuse such as a knife or gun. According to one participant, “He had pulled a gun on me before and stopped me dead in my tracks, because I didn’t want to get shot.” A second women stated, “I mean, he always carried the knife with him, but he didn’t ever actually, he’d always just threaten, you know, he’d shoot me, or kill me, or cut me, it was always something.” Yet another said, “He took a shot gun and blew out the antique mirror on my grandmother’s dresser and burned my favorite teddy bear.”

There was a high relationship between alcohol and drug use and workplace abuse. Nine women (69%) reported alcohol or drug use by the abuser. According to one participant, “He (was) out there drunk…lying on top of the car, hollering through the windows ‘I’m going to kill you’.” Another stated, “Sometimes, if he was drinking or something, he would get physical, and um, smack me around a little bit.” A third woman reported, “So he come in one night, drinking. He was a wino, I remember he always drank Thunderbird Wine. And he come in, I sat down on the couch, and he just all the sudden turned over and he had bit my nose. And it left teeth marks.” Four of the women (30.7%) reported personal alcohol or drug abuse. “Well I’m an alcoholic, my drinking got worse after uh, it.”

Employer Support

In some instances, the abuser intended to sabotage the woman’s employment or educational opportunities in various ways. “On purpose he would come approximately 10 til or 5 til 12, because the parents pick the children up at 12…and he wanted to make sure that, that he was causing problems and the parents might report something.” Another participant stated, “He never wanted me to work, um, he wouldn’t say, ‘You can’t work’, but there was always manipulation, there was always verbal abuse about it.”

Employers were not always supportive of the abused women, even when the abuse occurred during working hours. Four participants in the study stated that their employer was nonsupportive, compared to only one who reported support from the boss. Five women were terminated from their job as a direct result of the abuse. “It just got so bad, him screaming and yelling at the work, and the boss was just like, ‘I just can’t have it. You know, see that he’s locked up and not coming here on the property. You know, or you’ll just have to leave.’ And ended up I lost my job and it was a good job for a mortgage company.” One participant reported, “I started dating a gentleman and he would have people drive by to see if I was there. Then he begin coming in everyday, he would ask my boss and call to see if I would be at work, my schedule would be, when my days off would be and got to a point where they wanted to fire me over it.” According to another woman, “One of the other girls would answer the phone and he would think it was me and he would threaten, ‘I’ll get you when you walk out tonight. You can’t hide from me forever.’ You know, that went on for two weeks, my boss was getting really upset. And you know, um, and even after he knew I wasn’t coming to that door, he started coming to the back door and that eventually led to me getting dismissed from my job.”

Although the employers were not supportive, some participants received support from the coworkers. Two of the women discussed a lack of support from coworkers, whereas four received help or support from coworkers. According to one participant who was supported, “I’ve had a couple of them (coworkers) walk with me to my car after that. You know, go out the back door with, make sure I got out.” However, another recalled, “I had told a couple coworkers that I worked with, beside everyday…how abusive he was and how he was out of his head, those two were with me, when he pulled up and saw him cause they took off running…they was afraid he might have a gun.”

Police Support

The police were involved in the majority (8) of the incidences. For the purpose of this study, police support was considered when law enforcement was aware of the abuse. Police officers were labeled either “supportive” or “non-supportive.” “Supportive” actions attempt to protect the victim, and could range from providing information regarding shelters to arresting the perpetrator. “Non-supportive” actions taken by the police could include ignoring the situation or punishing the victim. Six of the women reported that the police were supportive, two stated that the police were not supportive, and five did not specify. “He just had me petrified. But you know, I called the cops and everything, and told them what was going on, and they said, ‘Well, he actually has to come to your home. He actually has to knock on your door, then you can call us. Other than that there, there is nothing we can do. He actually hasn’t did anything to you yet’.”

Discussion

The Link Between Homelessness, IPV, and Job Instability

The participants in this study were residing in homeless shelters at the time of interview. Homelessness and poverty may increase a woman’s risk of experiencing domestic violence (Boris et al., 2002; Wenzel, Tucker, Elliot, Marshall, & Williamson, 2004). Boris and colleagues (2002) found that homelessness may increase the risk of IPV. In a study with 60 homeless persons, aged 18–21, 72% had been in a physically violent relationship. On average, the participants had endured two abusive intimate partners, and one reported having experienced abuse in 20 previous relationships (Boris et al., 2002). Poverty adds to the risk of domestic violence among homeless women. Based on interviews with 804 women living in Section 8 housing and 402 women residing in shelters, 15% of the participants reported IPV in the last 6 months. Also, the greater the period of homelessness, the greater the chances that the respondent would have experienced abuse (Wenzel et al., 2004). Furthermore, in previous studies investigating homeless women, participants have indicated that homelessness was associated with workplace violence (Anderson & Rayens, 2004; Hatton, 2001).

In low-income women, IPV is negatively associated with job stability (Olson & Pavetti, 1996; Riger, Staggs, & Schewe, 2004). Victims of IPV who are of low socioeconomic status are placed in a precarious financial situation. They almost invariably are dependent on each paycheck for basic needs, such as rent payments, child care, and food. Compounding the problem, victims of IPV may be terminated as a direct result of the abuse. A participant who was terminated reported, “I was raising my boys on that income, so I didn’t only, you know, I didn’t only lose my job I lost support for my children, I had to go on welfare, food stamps, you know, a lot of things happened, were the outcome of that.” If a woman dependent upon a low-wage job is unexpectedly fired, she may find herself unable to keep up with financial obligations. The loss of a job can be the catalyst for a downhill spiral for these women.

Decision to Involve Law Enforcement

Most of the women in the study who contacted the police received support; however, many never involved law enforcement. There are several possible factors involved in the decision to contact law enforcement. Negative encounters with the police, or hearing discouraging stories, can dissuade intimate partner victims from contacting law enforcement. Others may refrain out of fear that the abuse may escalate. A participant reported, “I’d called the police a lot and that’s what got him to start stalking me.” Another respondent stated, “He went to jail for 30 days at the (name of jail) and when he got out he was at home worse than ever. He was afraid to come to the workplace, but he would beat me when I got out.” Low-income women have special factors to take into consideration. In some instances, women may refrain from involving law enforcement out of a sense of economic dependence. Women also may not contact the police out of fear of discrimination against persons of lower socioeconomic status or race (Wolf, Ly, Hobart, & Kernic, 2003). Still others consider IPV to be a shameful or painful family secret and are reluctant to disclose the situation to the police. Police involvement in cases of IPV has a significant impact on decreasing abuse against women. In their study, McFarlane and associates (2004) found that women who were qualified for a protection orders against their abusive intimate partners reported significant decrease in levels of IPV after an 18 months of follow-up compared to baseline abuse information. One woman stated, “I was pretty ashamed of it back then. I really couldn’t…I didn’t want people to know…I didn’t realize how much secrets I kept…I wasn’t able to be as honest as I should have been…cause I had a lot of shame and guilt.” The women may also experience low self-esteem as a result of the abuse (Wolf et al., 2003). A lack of self-esteem can lead women to believe they have done something to deserve the abuse. “Little things that…triggered…I would maybe ask him for a couple of dollars to get a pack of cigarettes…he would like fly off the handle about a pack of cigarettes and…I’m like, well you know, maybe I did ask wrong. I was blaming me.” Internalizing blame discourages women from contacting the police.

Factors that may increase the likelihood of police involvement include having children, being subjected to severe violence, and suffering an injury (Bonomi, Holt, Martin & Thompson, 2006). One woman reported an instance of abuse which left physical evidence, and she stated, “So I secretly went out the door and had to maybe call the police. And they come, and they see the mark and they took him to jail.”

Recommendations for Employers

IPV is a recognized category of workplace violence, along with criminal intent, customer/client, and worker-on-worker (University of Missouri Kansas City [UMKC], 2007). Employers have a responsibility to address all types of workplace violence. An overwhelming majority of employers are aware of the devastating impact IPV can have on a victim’s ability to perform in the workplace. In 1994, Roper Starch interviewed 100 executives from Fortune 1,000 companies on behalf of Liz Claiborne, and respondents believed domestic violence affected profits more than AIDS, homelessness, and lack of health care (Liz Claiborne, 1994). Sixty-six percent of corporate leaders participating in a Liz Claiborne (1994, p. 3) study believe that “a company’s financial performance will benefit from addressing the issue of domestic violence among its employees.” Eighty percent responded that IPV pervades every aspect of a victim’s life. However, although employers are aware of the relevance of IPV to the workplace, they still believe the problem is of a personal nature and the primary responsibility lies within the family (Liz Claiborne, 1994).

Findings of the current study confirm that victims of IPV experience an overwhelming lack of assistance from their employers. This is unfortunate, because employers are in a prime position to support victims of IPV. Persons in positions of power should take steps to create a supportive working atmosphere. In order to adequately support victims of IPV, management must take an active role. The NIOSH has recently published several recommendations for creating safe and supportive workplaces. Employers must first establish a commitment to workplace violence prevention by allocating sufficient resources and staffing to address the issue. Second, if possible, management should provide multidisciplinary assistance, including relevant medical, psychological, and legal services. Finally, a specific workplace violence policy should be developed and implemented (NIOSH, 2006). Unfortunately, not all workplaces in the United States adhere to these guidelines. A recent survey of worksites found that 70% do not have formal training regarding workplace violence. Of the worksites with workplace violence training programs, only 44% address domestic violence (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005).

Finally, employers should invest in the health and safety of their employees (NIOSH, 2006). Currently, 73 million employees work at a site without any security staff, and 69% of workplaces do not control public access (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005). A participant stated, in reference to her employer, “When the guy was there sitting he should have called the police and had the police come pick him up…that would have been trespassing, he didn’t have no business there, he was stalking me…but the boss I worked for, he should have done a whole lot more…to keep him off of the property.” One participant in the current study revealed, “So then I started dating this guy…and he would try to fight me on the job and then (employer’s name) would just stand there and look. He wouldn’t help…it was just like he would hear him arguing at me and he wouldn’t come to help…kind of like you just see something on the streets and you just shy away.” Another respondent stated, “They was just letting it go on. They just hushed, swept it under the rug…if somebody fought on the job.” Companies should also restrict information about employees. Any phone or e-mail requests for information about specific employees should not be answered. “And he (the abuser) went to a temp service and asked for me, and they didn’t know he was violent…he was there waiting when I got…off.” Support from the employer can have an impact on the trajectory of the abuse. Employer assistance is critical for the safety of abused women in the workplace.

Limitations

The limitations for this study include those limitations inherent in qualitative studies. The results are based upon the participants’ self-report of workplace violence and cannot be verified, thus recall error as well as personal bias are potential limitations (Patton, 2002). Although the payment for participation was modest, it is possible that a story may have been fabricated to receive payment for participation. The study results are applicable to the participants and cannot be generalized to another population.

Conclusion

IPV has become a part of workplace violence. Homeless women are at increased risk to experience intimate partner abuse, and this abuse leads to decreased job stability. Professionals who routinely work with homeless women or victims of domestic abuse, such as public health nurses or social workers, should consider including interventions to promote job retention for these women. Future studies are also needed to develop and evaluate various policy changes to decrease the risk of domestic violence extending into the workplace.

Recommendations

Future research on the effect of domestic violence in the workplace is needed to address its less well-understood dimensions and impact on more vulnerable populations such as women working in high-risk areas or in low-income jobs, including retail, offices, and restaurants. In their final report to the U.S. Department of Justice, Jasinski, Wesely, Mustaine, and Wright (2005) wrote that previous studies had established that domestic violence affecting vulnerable populations had occurred. Their findings added to the knowledge concerning the contexts in which this violence occurred and explored the risk factors responsible for this violence in the lives of this extremely vulnerable population. Their data also provided evidence of a relationship between this violence and the incidence of homelessness among these women. Their research indicated that almost one in four homeless women was homeless due to violence and that homeless women experienced all types of violence at higher rates than women in general.

An important barrier to be overcome in more effectively describing the types, circumstances, extent, and resulting effects of domestic violence among this population is the problem of underreporting by the women themselves. Members of vulnerable populations are generally less inclined to speak out about issues that may be negatively affecting them. There is a need for the development of policies and other interventions that will encourage vulnerable workers to report abuse or any other threatening acts to their employers, supervisors, or security personnel. Improved mechanisms are also needed to direct and help women toward obtaining restraining orders against their abusers when it is recognized that their abuse represents a real threat in their work environment. Research results should be communicated to employers to increase their awareness and understanding of the extent and implications of the threat of domestic violence to the well-being of their workers and to their organizations. Violent acts of any kind are a violation of work safety requirements. This definition is established by current laws; however, further work is needed to better inform and develop effective, enforceable policies that require and encourage employers to disclose abuse to the police, even if it was inflicted by an intimate partner. Finally, researchers need to continue to partner with employers and their employees to develop and evaluate interventions that are worksite appropriate and lead to evidence-based best practices.