Objective: The establishment of the Family Violence Option (FVO) in 1997 was met with some controversy, as critics believed waivers from time limit and work requirements would hinder women's ability to leave welfare and find employment. Method: Using administrative and interview data from Maryland, multivariate equations analyze if domestic violence disclosure, administrative documentation, or waiver use had a statistically significant affect on one year employment and welfare use outcomes of individuals. Results: Waiver holders did not differ fromnonvictims, but victims who are not documented received fewer months of welfare and earned less income. Conclusions: Findings do not indicate that FVOwaivers encourage women to stay on welfare longer. However, the poor outcomes of undocumented victims indicate that some individuals may be slipping through the cracks of a well-intentioned policy.
Allard, M. A., Albelda, R., Colten, M. E., & Cosenza C. (1997). In harm's way? Domestic violence, AFDC receipt, and welfare reform in Massachusetts. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.
2.
Angelari, M. (1998). The family violence option in Maryland: A preliminary report. Baltimore: The Women's Law Center of Maryland.
3.
Brandwein, R. A. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: The voices of batteredwomen. AFFILIA: Journal ofWomen and SocialWork, 15, 224-243.
4.
Browne, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1997). Intimate violence in the lives of homeless and poor housed women: Prevalence and patterns in an ethnically diverse sample. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 261-278.
5.
Brush, L. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition. Violence Against Women, 6, 1039-1065.
6.
Burt, M. R., Zweig, J. M., & Schlichter, K. (2000). Strategies for addressing the needs of domestic violence victims within the TANF program: The experience of seven counties. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
7.
Choice, P., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). A conceptual approach to understanding abused women's stay/leave decisions. Journal of Family Issues, 18, 290-314.
8.
Curicio, W. (1997). The Passaic County study of AFDC recipients in a welfare-to-work program. Passaic County, NJ: Passaic County Board of Social Services.
9.
Davis, M. F. (1999). The economics of abuse: How violence perpetuates women's poverty. In R. Brandwein (Ed.), Battered women, children, and welfare reform: The ties that bind(pp. 17-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Hetling-Wernyj, A.,& Born, C. E. (2002). Domestic violence and welfare receipt in Maryland: How is the family violence option being implemented?Baltimore: University of Maryland Press.
11.
Kantor, G. K., & Jasinski, J. L. (1998). Dynamics and risk factors in partner violence. In J. L. Jasinski& L. M. Williams (Eds.), Partner violence: A comprehensive review of 20 years of research(pp. 1-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Lennett, J. (1997). Like ships that pass in the night: AFDC policy and battered women. Law and Policy, 19, 183-203.
13.
Murphy, P. A. (1997). Recovering from the effects of domestic violence: Implications for welfare reform policy. Law and Policy, 19, 169-182.
14.
Pagelow, M. D. (1981). Women-battering: Victims and their experiences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, (1996).
16.
Raphael, J. (1996). Prisoners of abuse: Domestic violence and welfare receipt. Chicago: The Taylor Institute.
17.
Raphael, J. (2000). Saving Bernice: Battered women, welfare, and poverty. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
18.
Raphael, J., & Tolman, R. (1997). Trapped by poverty/trapped by abuse: New evidence documenting the relationship between domestic violence and welfare. Ann Arbor, MI: The Project for Research on Welfare, Work, and Domestic Violence.
19.
Raphael, J., & Haennicke, S. (1999). Keeping battered women safe through the welfare-to-work journey: How arewe doing?Chicago: The Taylor Institute.
20.
Satel, S. L. (1998). The abuse excuse. Women's Quarterly. Retrieved December 9, 2003 from http://www.iwf.org/pubs/twg/wi98f.shtml (available now at http://www.fact.on.dc/newspaper/wq98wi04.htm).
21.
Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (1988). The effect of battering on the employment status of women. AFFILIA: Journal of Women and Social Work, 3, 55-61.
22.
Straus, M. A. (1986). Medical care costs of intra-family assault and homicide. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 62, 556-561.
23.
Tjaden, P.,& Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
24.
Tolman, R.,& Raphael, J. (2000). Areviewof research on welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 655-682.
25.
Tolman, R., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving welfare. Violence Against Women, 7, 141-158.
26.
Walker, L. E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper& Row.
