Navigating the Welfare Reform Aftermath: How Survivors of Domestic Violence are Faring

1. Taryn Lindhorst, Associate Professor, UW School of Social Work Ilene Stohl, Economic Justice Program Coordinator Traci Underwood, Economic Justice Program Specialist Washington State Coalition against Domestic Violence Navigating the Welfare Reform Aftermath: How Survivors of Domestic Violence are Faring

2. Poverty and Domestic Violence Contributes to perpetration of violence Poverty Prevents victims from gaining necessary resources to end abuse Has consequential effects on development, especially for young children

3. Changes in National Welfare Policy Since 1996 • Personal Responsibility &Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) • Creation of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program • Increased state flexibility in program decisions • Mandatory work requirements • Mandatory child support enforcement • Increased sanctions for non-compliance • Time limits – maximum 5 years • Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 • DV activities no longer count as work

4. Welfare Matters for Battered Women • Women report fears of economic hardship as one of the most important reasons for staying in battering relationships • In Utah when PRWORA was passed: • 20% of women enroll in welfare services in the year after filing a DV report • Another 13% received welfare prior to the police report

5. Domestic Violence among Welfare Recipients • Prevalence studies with welfare populations find: • 12 – 23% report physical abuse in previous 12 months • 63 – 74% report physical abuse in lifetime • Rates are 3 – 8 times higher than violence estimates in the general population

6. Washington State • 60% of women in the WA welfare caseload have experienced sexual or physical violence as adults (Raphael & Tolman, 1997) • Battered women have an earning loss of 25% compared to non-abused women (Smith, 2001) • The majority of women killed in DV homicides in WA state were in low wage or unstable jobs (WSCADV)

7. TANF: Family Violence Option • State option – not mandatory • Screen and identify individuals with a history of domestic violence while maintaining their confidentiality • Refer identified individuals to counseling and supportive services • Waive program requirements as needed (mandatory work, child support enforcement, sanctions, time limits)

8. 3 Policy Implementation Studies • Louisiana Frontline Workers • 10 battered women • 15 frontline workers • DV Screening Practices of Frontline Workers • Frontline Management and Practice Study (Meyers, PI) • 782 transcribed transactions between frontline workers and clients in 4 states • Typology of Frontline Workers Responses to DV Disclosure • 22 clients who disclosed DV to worker

9. FVO Implementation : Louisiana FORMALPROCESS Client receives info about FVO via screening form Workers asks Client if DV Assistance is Needed During Interview Client Receives Community Referrals And/or Program Waivers Client Discloses Abuse to Caseworker From Lindhorst & Padgett (2005). Disjunctures for Women and Frontline Workers: Implementation of the Family Violence Option. Social Service Review, 79, 405-429.

10. FVO Implementation : Louisiana FORMALPROCESS Client receives info about FVO via screening form Workers asks Client if DV Assistance is Needed During Interview Client Receives Community Referrals And/or Program Waivers Client Discloses Abuse to Caseworker DISJUNCTURES Client is Aware of FVO Services (n=4) Client asked about DV by Worker (n=0) Client Discloses Abuse to Worker (n=3) Client Receives Assistance via FVO (n=0) From Lindhorst & Padgett (2005). Disjunctures for Women and Frontline Workers: Implementation of the Family Violence Option. Social Service Review, 79, 405-429.

11. Louisiana: Frontline Worker Themes • Administrative focus on case closure • Inadequate resources for assessing domestic violence • Worker attitudes related to the deservingness of clients • Specific domestic violence beliefs • Leaving • Seeking criminal justice intervention

12. FVO Screening: 4 States From Lindhorst, Meyer & Casey. (2008) Screening for Domestic Violence in Public Welfare Offices: An Analysis of Case Manager and Client Interactions. Violence against Women, 14, 5, 5- 28

13. Associations with  Screening • Interview takes place in TANF rather than employment services office • Discussion is part of a job search activity • Interview is conducted by a worker with fewer years of experience

14. Professional Screening Practices that Support Disclosure of DV • Build rapport through active listening and empathetic reflection. • Ensure that any disclosure of abuse is confidential. • Explain the reasons why disclosure would be beneficial. • Ask clients directly about abuse. • Define abuse broadly, with physical, sexual, and emotional components. • Use both open-ended probes and behaviorally anchored questions. • Avoid questions that force a woman to identify with a stigmatized status. • Provide multiple opportunities for disclosure within interviews and over time.

15. Processes in Worker Discussions • 13.9% Workers asked directly about abuse and used at least one other helpful behavior • 43.8% Routinized conversations • 42.3% Informing without screening

16. Example: Routinized Screening • W: What about your budgeting? Do you pay your bills timely or is that an issue for you, something you need to work on? • C: I guess I pay the most important ones. • W: Okay. That’s what I do too. How about prayer and attending church? • C: Not too often. • W: OK. And your parenting skills? Setting limits? Are you consistent, or are you lax, or how would you describe your parenting? • C: I wouldn’t say I’m lax. • W: OK. • C: I’d say I’m good; I’m a good parent. • W: OK. Domestic violence, has it even been an issue for you? • C: No. • W: What about substance abuse? • C: No. (MI077)

17. Example: Informing without Screening • W: OK. This is a new form for TANF reviews. This first one is on domestic violence. You don’t have to go to any work activity if you are experiencing domestic violence. We will help you relocate and everything. Sign here. • [C signs.] • W: This is also a new form. It says that if you have any disability we cannot make you participate in any work activity and we cannot deny you benefits. • C: OK. • W: OK, this form right here says that I provided you with the domestic violence and disabilities forms. Check here. This one says that you are not requesting any waiver for either one. Sign and date here. • C: OK. (GA415)

18. FVO Services: 4 States

19. Summary of Findings • Very low rates of screening for DV are occurring despite policy mandates • Based on current prevalence estimates, 75 - 87% of women who experienced DV in the past year are NOT identified for FVO services • Workers’ discretionary power is evident in these cases, but their failure to act indicates that such power is not used in the clients’ interest • Workers managing multiple conflicting policy requirements

20. What’s Happening in WA • WA adopted the FVO in 1997 • Partnership between WSCADV and DSHS • DV Advocates in 95% of welfare offices • Statewide DV trainings for DSHS case workers and social workers • Efforts to build research relationship between WSCADV, DSHS & UW • Coordinated advocacy efforts between UW and WSCADV with Senator Murray’s office

21. Ongoing Challenges to Improving Services to TANF Recipients • Funding • No clear accountability • Ability of state bureaucracies to collaborate with community based agencies • Complexity of women’s economic needs exceed what TANF can provide • Framing of poverty within the DV field • Legal status of immigrant survivors • Women with felony drug convictions • Nation has moved on

22. Full Implementation of FVO • Clear, multilingual notices that fully describe DV services • Trained and sensitized staff • Flexible, individualized and culturally competent responses that increase safety and support • Face-to-face pre-sanction screenings by workers trained to assess DV • Provision of appropriate waivers • Provision of information and referral to appropriate community services • Confidentiality • Accountability

23. Other Promising Practices for Systems Change • WA state leader in creating DV advocacy – TANF office partnerships • Link between leadership (DV and TANF) and implementation • Access to technical and higher education via TANF – like “Parents as Scholars” programs • Financial education and asset development programs • Credit repair • Individual Development Accounts • Micro-credit

24. Thank You! • Taryn Lindhorst tarynlin@u.washington.edu • Ilene Stohl ilene@wscadv.org • Traci Underwood traci@wscadv.org