Random samples of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients eligible for welfare-to-work activities (N = 632) were surveyed in two California counties for 3 consecutive years, starting in 1999. Overall, 54% of women interviewed at all three rounds met the criteria for an estimated need for domestic violence services at some point during the 3 years, but only 8% met the criteria in all 3 years. Estimated need for services and posttraumatic stress resulting from abuse were negatively associated with working at least 32 hours a week at the time of the interviews. Estimated need for services was associated with working fewer weeks in a year, having a lower wage income, and losing jobs during the year. Approximately half the women with estimated service needs had sought help from police, courts, a domestic violence agency, a counselor, or a physician.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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.
2.
Barusch, A. S., & Taylor, M. J. (1999). Understanding families with multiple barriers to self-sufficiency. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, Social Research Institute. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.socwk.utah.edu/sri/publications.html
3.
Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1999). The impact of recent partner violence on poor women's capacity to maintain work. Violence Against Women, 5, 393-426.
4.
Danziger, S. K., & Seefeldt, K. S. (2002). Barriers to employment and the “hard to serve”: Implications for services, sanctions and time limits. FOCUS, 22, 76-81.
5.
Dasinger, L., Miller, R. E., Norris, J., & Speiglman, R. (2001). Alameda County CalWORKs needs assessment and outcomes study: Changes in economic, work, welfare, and barrier status 15 months post-baseline. Berkeley, CA: Public Health Institute. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.phi.org/publications/report4.pdf
6.
Family Violence Option, 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(7) (1996).
7.
Johnson, H., & Sacco, V.-F. (1995). Researching violence against women: Statistics Canada's national survey. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 281-304.
8.
Kessler, R. C., Sonnega, A., Bromet, E., Hughes, M., & Nelson, C. B. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 1048-1060.
9.
Mancuso, D. C., & Lindler, V. L. (2001). Assessing the circumstances of TANF leavers and sanctioned families in Sonoma County. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from the Sphere Institute Web site: http://www.sphereinstitute.org/publications.html
10.
McFarlane, J., Soeken, K., Reel, S., Parker, B., & Silva, C. (1997). Resource use by abused women following an intervention program: Associated severity of abuse and reports of abuse ending. Public Health Nursing, 14, 244-250.
11.
Moffitt, R., Cherlin, A., Burton, L., King, M., & Roff, J. (2002). The characteristics of families remaining on welfare (Working Paper 0202). Baltimore: Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/stayers_bg.pdf
12.
Moore, T., & Selkowe, V. (1999). Domestic violence victims in transition from welfare to work: Barriers to self-sufficiency and the W-2 response. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from the Institute for Wisconsin's Future Web site: http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/pdfs/FSAbstractPDF.pdf
13.
Norris, J., Speiglman, R., & Dasinger, L. (2002). San Joaquin County CalWORKs needs assessment and outcomes study: Health and other potential barriers to working and self-sufficiency. Berkeley, CA: Public Health Institute. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.phi.org/publications/calworks1.pdf
14.
Raphael, J., & Haennicke, S. (1999). Keeping battered women safe through the welfare-to-work journey: How are we doing? A report on the implementation of policies for battered women in state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs. Chicago: Taylor Institute. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.ssw.umich.edu/trapped/pubs_fvo1999.pdf
15.
Riger, S., Aherns, C., & Blickenstaff, A. (2000). Measuring interference with employment and education reported by women with abusive partners. Violence and Victims, 15, 161-172.
16.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Appendix A: New York Self-Esteem Scale. In M. Rosenberg (Ed.), Concerning the self. New York: Basic Books.
17.
Speiglman, R., Fujiwara, L., Norris, J., & Green, R. S. (1999). Alameda County CalWORKs needs assessment: A look at potential health-related barriers to self-sufficiency. Berkeley, CA: Public Health Institute. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.phi.org/publications/082000CW1.pdf
18.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1995). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2-form A). Durham, NH: Family Research Laboratory.
19.
Taylor, M. J., & Barusch, A. S. (2002). The dynamics of leaving welfare: A study of long-term welfare recipients in Utah. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, Social Research Institute. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.socwk.utah.edu/sri/publications.html
20.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, P. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm
21.
Tolman, R., & Raphael, J. (2000). A review of research on welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 665-682.
22.
Tolman, R. M., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving welfare: Mental health, substance dependence, and economic well-being. Violence Against Women, 7, 141-158.
23.
Wittchen, H. (1994). Reliability and validity studies of the WHO—Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): Acritical review. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 28, 57-84.
