“Missing” Domestic Violence Victimsin Welfare Caseloads:

The Discrepancy Between Administrativeand Survey Disclosure Rates

Andrea Hetling, PhDCorrene Saunders, BACatherine E. Born, PhD

ABSTRACT. The large discrepancy between epidemiological evidenceand welfare administrative data regarding domestic violence prevalenceamong welfare recipients is an issue of major concern for social policy.This study sought to determine whether or not the discrepancy is due tounder-reporting by all women or by certain types of women. Using sur-vey and administrative data on a sample of June 2002 welfare recipients,characteristics of women whose abuse was known to their welfare case-workers are compared to those of individuals who disclosed to survey re-searchers but not to welfare personnel. Statistically significant differencessuggest that some subgroups, including African Americans and women

Andrea Hetling is Assistant Professor, University of Connecticut, CT. CorreneSaunders and Catherine E. Born are affiliated with University of Maryland.

Address correspondence to : Andrea Hetling, Assistant Professor, University of Con-necticut, 1800 Asylum Avenue, West Hartford, CT 06117 (E-mail: andrea.hetling@uconn.edu).

This research was funded by the Maryland Department of Human Resources. Aportion of the data used for the project comes from a study funded by the Office of theAssistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services (Reference Grant No. 01ASPE367A) and awarded to the Mary-land Department of Human Resources, on which the University of Maryland, FamilyWelfare Research and Training Group was a sub-contractor.

Journal of Health & Social Policy, Vol. 22(2) 2006Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JHSP

© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J045v22n02_05 79

This electronic prepublication version may contain typographical errors and may be miss-ing artwork such as charts, photographs, etc. Pagination in later versions may differ fromthis copy; citation references to this material may be incorrect when this prepublicationedition is replaced at a later date with the finalized version.

with less education, rather than all women, may be less likely to discloseabuse to welfare caseworkers. [Article copies available for a fee from TheHaworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address:<docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com>© 2006 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

INTRODUCTION

Theoretical approaches and qualitative research suggest that domes-tic violence is a substantial barrier for many welfare recipients in achi-eving self-sufficiency, and survey research has shown a high prevalenceof domestic violence among cash assistance recipients (See, for exam-ple, Tolman & Raphael, 2000). However, preliminary studies of wel-fare program administrative data indicate that very few women, a smallfraction of survey rates, have disclosed domestic violence to welfarecaseworkers (Lennert, 1997; Raphael & Haennicke, 1999). This dis-crepancy between disclosures to researchers and domestic violence ad-vocates, and those to welfare caseworkers is troubling. In order for ap-propriate services to be provided to domestic violence victims, frontlinewelfare staff must be able to identify the population that is potentiallyeligible to be served.

This paper examines the characteristics of a sample of Marylandwelfare recipients from June 2002 who, during a telephone survey, dis-closed domestic violence to the research interviewer. Using administra-tive records and survey data of the sample members, this projectcompares demographic characteristics and reported barriers of individ-uals who disclosed domestic violence with their caseworkers to thosewho disclosed to the survey researchers, but whose abuse was not docu-mented in administrative welfare records. Those who did not disclosedomestic violence to either are included as a comparison group. Thepurpose of the analyses was to decipher whom welfare caseworkers arereaching and assist in identifying possible subgroups of “missing” vic-tims. Identification of these “risk” characteristics could aid in designingimprovements to domestic violence screening methods in welfareoffices. Findings related to the presence of differences between thegroups could also change the culture of caseworker training in general.If particular types of women are less likely to disclose, as opposedto universal under-reporting, training on case management and barrieridentification should include modules on cultural stereotypes and sensi-tivity.

80 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND WELFARE RECEIPT

Epidemiological evidence shows a high prevalence of domestic vio-lence among women living in poverty (Office of Justice Programs,2004), in particular those receiving public cash assistance. Surveys in-dicate that approximately 20 percent of welfare recipients are currentvictims of abuse and from 60 to 70 percent of women have experienceddomestic violence in their lifetime (Browne & Bassuk, 1997; Danzinger &Seefeldt, 2002; Moffit et al., 2002: Raphael, 1996; US GAO, 1998).These rates are stark in comparison to the general population whoseprevalence rates hover around 6 percent for severe abuse and 16 percentfor mild abuse (Straus, 1978; US GAO, 1998).

Psychological and sociological research, anecdotal accounts, and pre-valence studies indicate that domestic violence, as a potential barrierto self-sufficiency, has important implications for public welfare pro-grams and participating women. Access to financial resources is often akey component of women’s decisions to leave an abusive situation, andfor many women Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)is an important resource (Davis, 1999). Women leaving violent homesmay be hindered by short and long term health effects of domestic vio-lence, poor work histories, and extensive legal issues (Brown, Salo-mon, & Bassuk, 1999; Brush, 2000). Women currently in abusive situa-tions may also have large barriers to achieving self-sufficiency as abuseoften escalates when women attempt to find employment or furthertheir training (Brandwein & Filiano, 2000).

With these issues in mind, the federal welfare reform legislationof 1996 (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996) included the Family Violence Option, which obligates statesthat adopt the Option to screen for domestic violence, make service re-ferrals, and offer waivers or exemptions from certain program require-ments. However, to date, very little is known about the impact of theFamily Violence Option. Preliminary studies of administrative data indi-cate that very few women, approximately 1 percent of the active caseload,self-identify as domestic violence victims and opt for waivers (Lennett,1997; Raphael and Haennicke, 1999).

This discrepancy between the prevalence of domestic violence amongwelfare recipients and the rate at which the FVO waivers are used hasled to a debate among advocates and policymakers on why the differ-ence exists. Certain groups argue that few women take advantage of theOption because the numbers of victims who need services are low andmay include individuals who only claim to be victims in order to con-

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 81

tinue receiving assistance (Sarnoff, 1999). Other groups say that screen-ing and notification practices are flawed and the policy cannot reachthose women in severe crisis or those still living with their abusers(NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, 2002). However, both argu-ments are based on assumptions about how most women would react ifexperiencing domestic violence, and both are selective in the particularpsychological theories used to support their point of view. In reality, thesituation is probably more complex than either polar view makes it ap-pear.

SCREENING FOR AND DISCLOSINGDOMESTIC VIOLENCE

The difference is more likely attributed to the experience and knowl-edge of the interviewer and certain considerations made by the victims.On one hand, welfare caseworkers may not be as well-trained or sophis-ticated in case management and clinical work as domestic violence ad-vocates or other counselors or as knowledgeable of interviewing andprobing techniques as survey researchers (Bane and Ellwood, 1994). Inaddition, caseworkers may not consider screening for domestic vio-lence part of their job responsibilities, or may be skeptical of recipientswho claim to be victims of domestic violence but have not taken any in-dependent action to improve their situation (Hagen and Owens-Manley,2002). On the other hand, issues of confidentiality and necessity maycompromise victims’ willingness to disclose in the welfare office, butnot in an anonymous survey. Especially when past sanctions have takenplace, researchers found that disconnection between a welfare recipientand her caseworker can adversely affect the kind of support she receivesas a domestic violence victim (Sanders and Rainford, 2003). In fact, par-ticipants in one study doubted that anyone would use the Family Vio-lence Option because of distrust of caseworkers and the confidentialityprovisions of the FVO (Ponder and Kinnevy, 2003).

Research in medical settings has found other barriers to effective do-mestic violence screening related to the comfort level of the screener inasking direct questions or providing adequate referrals. For example, itwas found among emergency room personnel that the most commonbarriers to screening for domestic violence were a lack of effective in-terventions, lack of provider education, and lack of time (Salber and Mc-Caw, 2000). In another study, hospital nurses who participated in a pilotuniversal screening program for domestic violence found that the most

82 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

challenging barrier was providing effective and appropriate referrals.Due to lack of education related to domestic violence and a lack of com-fort in dealing with the issue, many nurses found the referral processdifficult and time-consuming (Davis and Harsh, 2001).

Neither research on mistrust between welfare caseworkers and theirclients, nor studies involving the lack of knowledge and capabilities ofscreeners examine or even consider that barriers to disclosure might beexperienced or perceived differently by distinct groups of women. Thereare no completed studies that investigate the demographic characteris-tics of women who disclose domestic violence to service providers incomparison with the characteristics of women who have disclosed to re-searchers. This paper uses both administrative and survey data to deter-mine if there are consistent demographic or situational differencesbetween women who disclosed domestic violence to their welfare case-worker, and those who chose to confide in a survey researcher. If suchdifferences exist, their identification would aid greatly in designing im-provements to the domestic violence screening process in welfare of-fices, a key component of the Family Violence Option and the first stepin helping domestic violence victims receiving welfare. Most likely,these findings will also aid in developments in other fields as well in-cluding emergency and family medicine.

METHODS

Sample

The sample used for this research originated from a project on em-ployment barriers sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary forPlanning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services (Ovwigho et al., 2004). A random sample of single-parent Maryland TANF cases that received cash benefits in June 2002and had at least one child on the case was drawn for the analyses (n �1,146). Payees were approached to participate in a telephone survey, theTANF Caseload Survey designed by Mathematica Policy, Inc., con-ducted between August 19, 2002 and October 31, 2002, and a 71 per-cent response rate was achieved (n � 819). This project limits the 819respondents further, so that the sample discussed here includes only in-dividuals who responded to the questions about domestic violence (n �789). These items consisted of sixteen behavior–and experience–related

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 83

questions spanning events such as being pushed, grabbed, or shoved toharassment and interference with attempts to work or go to school.1

The 789 sample members were separated into three groups. The firstgroup consists of those who had disclosed domestic violence to theirwelfare caseworker and whose disclosure was recorded in the adminis-trative system. Administrative markers include: a yes/no field for “dom-estic violence,” a shelter field with a value indicating that the individualwas living in a domestic violence shelter, and three program exemptionfields with values indicating that the exemption reason was domestic vi-olence. Seventeen sample members had one or more of the listed mark-ers. Additionally, 16 cases were coded as domestic violence victims bytheir individual case narratives, typed notes entered by the welfare case-worker in the automated system’s free-form space where they can anno-tate an ongoing narrative on each welfare case and their interactionswith caseheads. The narratives of all sample members were read andcoded to identify a number of potential barriers to employment for aprevious study (Ovwigho, Saunders, and Born, 2005). Cases with a do-mestic violence note in the narrative were added to the caseworker-identified analytic group. The total of the two groups is 33 caseworker-identified cases.

Survey disclosers make up the second analytic group. Individuals inthis group disclosed recent (within the past year) domestic violence tothe survey researcher but were not marked in the administrative datasystem or the case narratives as revealing this information to their case-worker (n � 172).

The third group is used for comparison purposes and comprises allremaining survey respondents (n � 632). Although members of thecomparison group did not disclose recent domestic violence to eithertheir caseworker or the survey researcher and are referred to as “non-victims” in the paper, it is important to recognize the possibility thatthey did experience domestic violence in the distant past or that they ex-perienced recent abuse but decided not to disclose the experience.

Data

This study utilizes both survey and administrative data collected be-tween June and October 2002. Survey data were used for demographicinformation, as well as information regarding employment barriers. Spe-cifically, the following demographic variables were derived from sur-vey data: gender, age, race, marital status, highest education completed,household composition, and ages of children. Employment barriers

84 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

were divided into three categories: human capital deficits; personal andfamily challenges; and logistical and situational challenges. Human-capital deficits include having less than a high school diploma, lackingwork experience, and routinely performing fewer than four job tasks.Personal and family challenges include poor physical health, caring foran ill friend or family member, pregnancy, mental health issues, chemi-cal dependencies, severe domestic violence, learning disabilities, crimi-nal records, and language barriers. Logistical and situational challengesinclude issues of transportation, childcare, unstable housing, and per-ceived problem neighborhood characteristics.

Administrative data from Maryland automated systems were used tocomplement the survey data and specifically to provide informationabout cash assistance program participation and employment history.The data were retrieved from three computerized management informa-tion systems maintained by the State. These systems are CIS, the ClientInformation System; AIMS/AMF, the Automated Information Man-agement System/Automated Master File; and MABS, the MarylandAutomated Benefits System.

Analyses

These data were analyzed using descriptive and bivariate statistics.Specifically, frequency tables summarized customer information andmeasures of central tendency described customer characteristics andtrends. The Chi-square and ANOVA statistical techniques tested for dif-ferences between the caseworker-identified group and the survey dis-closers. Data on nonvictims are included in the tables as a point ofreference. To reflect the true percentage of Baltimore City cases repre-sented in Maryland’s current TANF caseload, the data were weightedby a factor of either 1.31 (for Baltimore City) or 0.70 (for non-BaltimoreCity).

FINDINGS

Individual and Case Characteristics

Individual demographic characteristics (gender, age, race, maritalstatus, and education) and information regarding sample members’households (number of persons in the household; number of childrenunder six; and age of the youngest child) are presented in Table 1

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 85

86 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

TABLE 1. Individual and Case Characteristics of Single-Parent TANF Cases

Recent DV Knownto Caseworker

Recent DV Disclosedin Survey only

No DV Disclosedin Past Year

AgeMean* 30.5 31.2 28.0Median 28.0 30.0 26.7Standard Deviation 9.4 8.5 7.4Range 15-62 21-51 18-51

Race*

African American 55.6% (15) 79.0% (128) 84.2% (494)Caucasian 33.3% (9) 14.8% (24) 9.9% (58)Other or Mixed Race 11.1% (3) 6.2% (10) 6.0% (35)

Marital StatusNever-married 57.2% (16) 69.8% (114) 72.3% (432)Married or living w/ partner 10.2% (3) 13.6% (22) 11.1% (66)Separated, Divorced,Widowed

32.6% (9) 16.6% (27) 16.6% (99)

Education*

Less than high school 27.5% (8) 47.4% (78) 41.1% (246)High school/GED 45.4% (12) 42.3% (69) 42.9% (256)More than high school 27.1% (7) 10.3% (17) 16.0% (96)

Number of Persons in theHousehold

Mean 4.1 3.9 4.0Median 4.0 4.0 4.0Standard Deviation 1.3 1.4 1.7Range 2-7 2-9 1-17

Number of Children Under 6Mean 2.3 2.2 2.2Median 2.0 2.0 2.0Standard Deviation 1.2 1.1 1.3Range 1-5 0-7 0-7

Age of Youngest ChildMean* .9 1.2 1.0Median 1.0 1.0 1.0Standard Deviation 1.0 0.9 0.9Range 0-3 0-4 0-4

Sample Size 27 164 599

Source: 2002 survey of single adult TANF cases in MARYLAND.Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients inMaryland. Survey item nonresponse may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller thanthose shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.*p � 0.05.

separately for caseworker-identified victims and survey disclosers. Thethird column includes the figures for the non-victim group as a point ofcomparison. Statistical tests were conducted on differences between thetwo victim groups, and p-values are noted in the table.

Caseworker-identified victims were slightly younger than survey dis-closers with an average age of 30.5 years compared with 31.2 years. Theages of the former group also spanned a wider range, 15-62 years, in com-parison with the latter, 21-51 years. The analysis of race also revealedstatistically significant differences between the survey and caseworkergroups. Although 79.0% of survey disclosers were African Americanand only 14.8% were White (similar to the non-victim group), the case-worker-identified group was noticeably different with 55.6% AfricanAmerican and 33.3% White.

The third variable with a statistically significant difference betweenthe two groups was the measure of highest education completed. Again,the survey discloser population more closely parallels the non-victimgroup than the caseworker-identified group. At the time the survey wascompleted, 42.9% of the non-victim group had either a high school di-ploma or had successfully completed a General Equivalency Diploma(GED) program, but had not gone further in their education. Similarly,42.3% of the survey discloser population had a high school education.An additional 10.3% of survey disclosers and 16.0% of non-victims hadmore than a high school education. In contrast, the administrativelymarked group was more educated; 72.5% had attained high schooldegree or more.

When examining the age of the youngest child in the household, alsostatistically significant at the 0.05 level, the average age of the youngestchild in the group of welfare agency disclosers was 0.9 years comparedwith 1.2 years for the youngest child in the survey disclosers’ group.This practically small difference mirrors the identified difference in theage of the women themselves.

No statistically significant differences exist in the number of personsin the household and number of children under six years of age. Althoughthe measure of marital status did not produce statistically significant re-sults, there are some notable differences between the survey and admin-istrative victim groups. Among survey disclosers, 69.8% self-reportednever having been married; this is similar to the non-victim group (72.3%).However, the caseworker-identified group had a smaller percentage(57.2%) of never-married participants. Also, separated, divorced, andwidowed women made up close to a third (32.6%) of caseworker-identi-fied victims compared with less than a fifth (16.6%) of survey disclosers.

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 87

Welfare and Employment History

Table 2 uses Maryland administrative data to examine welfare, em-ployment, and earnings history for the three groups. For the most partthe experiences of the groups were similar, and only one measure wasfound to have a statistically significant difference between the two vic-

88 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

TABLE 2. Welfare and Employment Experiences of Single-Parent TANF Cases

Recent DV Knownto Caseworker

Recent DV Disclosedin Survey only

No DV Disclosedin Past Year

Ever Employed 95.2% (26) 94.6% (155) 92.0% (551)

Employed between April 2001and March 2002

60.4% (17) 60.5% (99) 56.8% (340)

Number of Quarters Worked 1.5 1.3 1.3

Number of ConsecutiveQuarters Worked

1.4 1.3 1.2

Number of Jobs Held 1.4 1.0 1.1

Total Earnings $3,178.57 $3,077.81 $3,758.10

Average Quarterly Earnings $1,051.60 $1,164.96 $1,361.89

Employed during first quarterof 2002 (January- March)

27.8% (8) 21.7% (36) 26.2% (157)

Employed during secondquarter of 2002 (April-June)

34.8% (10) 26.0% (43) 28.3% (169)

TANF Cash Assistance in previous 5 Years (60 months)

Mean Number of Months 19.2 25.3 25.8

Median Number of Months 13.0 23.0 24.0

Standard Deviation 17.8 16.1 16.1

Range of Months 1-57 1-60 1-60

TANF Cash Assistance in previous 1 Year (12 months)

Mean Number of Months* 6.3 8.4 8.6

Median Number of Months 7.0 9.0 10.0

Standard Deviation 4.7 3.7 3.7

Range of Months 1-12 1-12 1-12

Sample Size 27 164 599

Source: Maryland Automated Benefits System for employment data, Customer Information System forcash assistance participation 2002Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients inMaryland. Survey item non-response may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller thanthose shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100.*p � 0.05

tim groups. Examining employment history, over 90 percent of samplemembers in both groups were employed at some point in their lives witharound a fourth to a third working in first and second quarters of 2002.The two disclosure groups earned similar amounts, but less than non-victims.

The data regarding welfare history show that caseworker-identifiedvictims, on average, received cash assistance for a shorter amount oftime over the previous five years and during the previous year than sur-vey disclosers, and this difference was statistically significant for themeasure of assistance in the previous year. In the most recent 12-monthperiod, victims whose abuse was known to the caseworker received as-sistance for an average of 6.3 months, in comparison with 8.4 monthsfor survey disclosers.

Potential Barriers for Employment

Table 3 presents potential barriers to employment faced by domesticviolence victims on welfare. The barriers are divided into three sub-groups: human capital deficits; personal and family challenges; and lo-gistical and situational challenges. The table presents the frequency ofspecific barriers as well as the total number of barriers from each cate-gory. Statistical tests were conducted to identify differences betweenthe caseworker-identified and the survey disclosure groups.

Human-capital deficits include having less than a high school educa-tion, lacking work experience, and having routinely performed fewerthan four common job tasks. Close to half (47.4%) of the survey dis-closers had less than a high school education compared with 27.5% ofthe caseworker-identified group; this difference was statistically signif-icant at the 0.05 level. Similar percentages within each group reportedno work experience and having performed fewer than four common jobtasks. On average, caseworker-identified victims had fewer human-ca-pital barriers than survey disclosers, 0.67 versus 0.93 respectively, butthis difference was not statistically significant.

Regarding personal and family challenges, no statistically significantdifferences were found, although, on average, caseworker-identified vic-tims reported more of the specific barriers than survey disclosers. Smallsample sizes for the individual barriers prevented some statistical testsand most likely hindered reaching statistical significance on some mea-sures. The average number of these types of barriers was 1.92 for wel-fare agency disclosers and 1.56 for survey disclosers.

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 89

90 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

TABLE 3. Potential Barriers to Employment of Single-Parent TANF Cases

Recent DV Knownto Caseworker

Recent DV Disclosedin Survey Only

No Recent DVDisclosed

Human Capital Barriers-Any 42.5% (12) 58.7% (95) 55.9% (333)Less than High School * 27.5% (8) 47.4% (78) 41.1% (246)No Work Experience a 22.7% (6) 22.7% (37) 20.7% (124)Performed Less than 4 Jobskills

17.2% (5) 22.0% (36) 27.7% (165)

Average Number of HC Barriers(Std. Dev.)

0.67 (0.89) 0.93 (0.96) 0.90 (0.94)

Personal and FamilyBarriers-Any

85.0% (19) 74.7% (113) 58.8% (311)

Physical Health Problem b 26.2% (6) 20.4% (33) 20.0% (117)Family Health Problem c 52.7% (14) 39.0% (63) 31.0% (181)Pregnant 8.1% (2) 4.8% (8) 5.1% (29)Mental Health Problem d 58.2% (16) 46.9% (75) 22.8% (134)Chemical Dependence e � 12.5% (3) 8.2% (13) 3.8% (23)Learning Disability � 15.4% (4) 16.4% (26) 8.9% (52)Criminal Record 24.6% (7) 19.4% (32) 11.0% (66)Difficulty with English � .0% (0) 1.3% (2) .8% (5)Average Number of PF Barriers(Std. Dev.)

1.92 (1.43) 1.56 (1.36) 0.97 (1.04)

Logistical and Situation Barriers- Any

83.3% (20) 93.3% (144) 79.4% (439)

Transportation f 37.7% (10) 35.7% (58) 22.9% (137)Child Care f 48.0% (13) 62.2% (102) 35.4% (211)Unstable Housing g * 48.5% (13) 27.2% (44) 17.5% (105)Bad Neighborhood h * 39.4% (10) 62.1% (98) 55.8% (313)Average Number of LS Barriers(Std. Dev.)

1.87 (1.21) 2.11 (1.22) 1.48 (1.13)

Total Liabilities-Five or More 65.6% (13) 63.5% (90) 27.6% (136)Average Number of TotalBarriers(Std. Dev.) 5.39 (2.32) 5.27 (2.25) 3.39 (2.03)Sample Size 27 164 599

Source: 2002 survey of single adult TANF cases in MARYLAND.Notes: The survey data have been weighted to be representative of all single-parent TANF recipients inMaryland. Survey item non-response may cause the sample sizes for specific variables to be smaller thanthose shown. Rounding may cause percentages to sum to something other than 100. Chi-Square testswere conducted to determine differences between Admin and Survey Disclosers Only.+Unable to conduct Chi-Square test, due to cell counts with expected values less than 5.*p < 0.05aWork is defined as working for pay 50 percent or more of time since turning age 18.bPoor or fair overall health and physical functioning in the lowest quartile.cCases with a child with health, behavioral, or special need or those caring for an elderly, disabled, or sickfamily member or friend.dHigh level of non-specific psychological distress or probable major depression.eProbable alcohol or drug dependence.fSelf-reported problems that prevented case head from participating in work, education, or training duringthe past year.gHaving been evicted or moving two or more times in the past 12 months.hAt least one neighborhood characteristic is perceived by case head to be a big problem.

Logistical and situational challenges include transportation issues,problems with childcare, unstable housing (based on number of evic-tions and moves in the past year), and perceived problem neighborhoodcharacteristics. Findings in this area produced mixed results. Casework-er-identified victims were more likely to experience unstable housingthan survey disclosers (48.5% versus 27.2%), but less likely to reportbad neighborhood conditions (39.5% versus 62.1% of survey disclo-sers). On average, the two groups reported comparable numbers of lo-gistical barriers. Similarly, the two groups reported an average of a littlemore than five barriers total compared with 3.39 barriers reported bynon-victims.

DISCUSSION

According to the survey data, recent domestic violence is a commonissue faced by welfare recipients, with almost one in five respondents(24.0%, 190/789) disclosing experience with domestic violence in theyear prior to the survey. However, the administrative welfare data por-tray a very different picture; only 4.2% (33/789) of the survey respondentshad an administrative marker or case narrative note in the automated sys-tem in the year prior to the survey.

According to the data presented here, individuals who disclose totheir welfare caseworker do differ from those who choose not to do so.These findings indicate that a variety of subgroups of missing victims,rather than one particular profile or a typical hard-to-identify victim, ex-ist. Differences among the groups are mainly demographic ones, speci-fically age, race, and education and to some degree marital status. Deci-sions to disclose seem to have little to do with employment history, butanalyses of welfare history showed the caseworker-identified victimshave received fewer months of TANF in the past year. Analyses of bar-riers to employment have complex, but for the most part not statisticallysignificant, results.

In contrast to past theories, we conclude that FVO screening prac-tices have differing effects on different types of women. First, race canbe considered a possible risk factor for not disclosing domestic violenceor being missed by current FVO screening practices. The proportion ofAfrican American women among the group of welfare agency disclo-sers was statistically smaller than among survey disclosers. The largeand statistically significant difference in race between the groups in thisstudy is of concern on its own. Moreover, other data have indicated that

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 91

African Americans are at increased risk for domestic abuse; the Na-tional Crime Victimization Survey, for example, found that AfricanAmerican women were more likely to report domestic violence thanwere Whites (Rennison & Welchans, 2000).

Considering education level, women without a high school-level ed-ucation were less likely to be identified as victims in the administrativewelfare records. This is cause for concern because research suggeststhat women usually have difficulty finishing school or going to workbecause of violent situations (Moore & Selkowe, 1999). It could alsobe indicative of a distressing Catch-22 since caseworkers may be lesslikely to sympathize or support women who do not appear to be takingindependent action towards improving their situation, despite the factthat the violence may be the reason they are unable to do so.

Although statistically significant, findings on the average age of thecaseheads and of the youngest child suggest that the differences are verysmall and may well be of little practical importance. The age ranges ofthe two groups are quite similar. The effect of a few outliers in the case-worker-identified group would likely disappear with a larger samplesize and the differences would no longer be statistically significant. Dis-similarly, although not statistically significant, descriptive differences inmarital status raise some concerns. Separated and divorced women weremore numerous in the administrative data than among survey discloers,suggesting that a number of cohabitating or formerly cohabitating wom-en are not being recognized as victims by welfare caseworkers. The biastowards the term “spousal abuse” rather than “intimate partner abuse”in many communities may also exist in welfare agencies.

Beyond finding demographic subgroups of missing victims, it isheartening to learn that victims who disclosed to survey researchers andnot to their caseworker did not have significantly more employmentbarriers than those who were marked in the administrative data. How-ever, shorter welfare histories among caseworker-identified victimspoint to the possibility that the application process for new recipientsmay be identifying women with more success than follow-up or redeter-mination meetings.

In this study, we sought to identify differences that may aid in screen-ing protocols and developments and many of our findings lead to policyrecommendations. However, the study has three limitations that both tem-per the findings and lead to suggestions for further research. First, rela-tively small sample sizes compromised our ability to conduct tests in ahandful of cases and most likely hindered our ability to reach statisticalsignificance on certain measures. Thus, research with larger sample sizes

92 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

is needed. Second, caseworker perspectives would help in disentanglingsome of the findings and perhaps offer some insight on the reasons be-hind the differences. In this regard, our study is a first step in a larger en-deavor. Third, our comparison “non-victim” group may contain a numberof battered women who chose not to disclose abuse to their caseworker orthe survey researcher. Thus, our analyses are limited to understanding thedifferences between known, and not all, domestic violence victims. Al-though difficult to obtain, future research may consider the addition of lo-cal police or legal records to lessen this possibility.

In short, even considering study limitations, findings suggest that cur-rent frontline practices may not be adequate in screening, identifying, orrecording domestic violence among African American, less educatedwomen, those with longer welfare histories, and perhaps never-marriedand currently married women as well. According to our data, thesegroups are disclosing abuse to survey researchers, and may be dispropor-tionately slipping through the cracks of the FVO. This could be due to areluctance to disclose, insufficient or inappropriate screening methods, orboth. Caseworker training and screening protocols should include con-sideration of domestic violence stereotypes and cultural sensitivity.

NOTE

1. The TANF Caseload Survey was developed by Mathematica Policy Research,Inc., in consultation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS),Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and was admin-istered via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). The majority of the do-mestic violence questions were designed using a modified version of the ConflictTactics Scale based on guidance from the Women’s Employment Study–Universityof Michigan; two additional questions were taken from the Nebraska Client BarriersSurvey 2000.

REFERENCES

Bane, M.J., & Ellwood, J.T. (1994). Welfare realities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Brandwein, R., & Filiano, D. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: The voices of bat-tered women. AFFILIA, 15(2), 224-243.

Browne, A., & Bassuk, S.S. (1997). Intimate violence in the lives of homeless and poorhoused women: Prevalence and patterns in an ethnically diverse sample. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 67(2), 261-278.

Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. (1999.) The impact of recent partner violenceon women’s capacity to maintain work. Violence Against Women, 5, 393-426.

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 93

Brush, L. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition. ViolenceAgainst Women, 6(10), 1039-1065.

Danziger, S., & Seefeldt, K. (2002). Barriers to employment and the “hard to serve”:Implications for services, sanctions, and time limits. Focus, 22(1), 76-81.

Davis, M. (1998). The economics of abuse: How violence perpetuates women’s pov-erty. In R.A. Brandwein (Ed.), Battered women, children, and welfare reform: Theties that bind (pp.17-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Davis, R., & Harsh, K. (2001). Confronting barriers to universal screening for domesticviolence. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(6), 313-320.

Hagen, J., & Owens-Manley, J. (2002). Issues in implementing TANF in New York:The perspective of frontline workers. Social Work, 47(2), 171-182.

Kenney, C.T., & McLanahan, S.S. (2001). Are cohabitating relationships more violentthan marriage? (Working Paper No. 01-22). Princeton, NJ: Center for Research onChild Wellbeing.

Lennert, J. (1997). Like ships that pass in the night: AFDC policy and battered women.Law and Policy, 19(2), 183-203.

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2002). TANF Caseload Survey: Maryland Instru-ment. Princeton, NJ: Author.

Moffitt, R., Cherlin, A., Burton, L., King, M., & Roff, J. (2002). The characteristics offamilies remaining on welfare (Three-City Study Policy Brief No. 02-02). Balti-more, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Moore, T., & Selkowe, V. (1999). Domestic violence victims in transition from welfareto work: Barriers to self-sufficiency and the W-2 response (Summary Version).Milwaukee, WI: The Institute for Wisconsin’s Future.

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2002). Welfare and poverty: Domestic andsexual violence. Retrieved March 20, 2005 from http://www.legalmomentum.org/issues/wel/violence.shtml.

Office of Justice Programs. (2004). When violence hits home: How economics and nei-ghborhood play a role (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice.

Ovwigho, P., Born, C.E., Ferrero, A., & Palazzo, C. (2004). Life on welfare: The activeTANF caseload in Maryland. Baltimore: University of Maryland.

Ovwigho, P., Saunders, C., & Born, C.E. (2005). Barriers to independence amongTANF recipients: Comparing caseworker records and client surveys. Baltimore:University of Maryland.

Ponder, C., & Kinnevy, S. (2003, October). What went wrong? The disconnect betweenthe Family Violence Option (FVO) and abused women’s needs. Paper presented atthe 4th Trapped by Poverty/Trapped by Abuse Conference, Austin, TX.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L.No. 104-193.

Raphael, J. (1996). Prisoners of abuse: Domestic violence and welfare receipt. Chi-cago, IL: Center for Impact Research (formerly The Taylor Institute).

Raphael, J., & Haennicke, S. (1999). Keeping battered women safe through the wel-fare-to-work journey: How are we doing? Chicago, IL: Center for Impact Research(formerly The Taylor Institute).

94 JOURNAL OF HEALTH & SOCIAL POLICY

Rennison, C.M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.

Salber, P., & McCaw, B. (2000). Barriers to screening for intimate partner violence:Time to reframe the question. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19(4),276-278.

Sanders, C., & Rainford, W. (2003, October). Assessing the role of domestic violenceamong sanctioned TANF recipients: A qualitative study. Paper presented at the4th Trapped by Poverty/Trapped by Abuse Conference, Austin, TX.

Sarnoff, S. (1999). The NIF/CDCP study on the incidence and prevalence of violenceagainst women: A case in advocacy research. The Women’s Freedom NetworkNewsletter, 6(1). Retrieved December 9, 2003, from www.womensfreedom.org/artic613.htm.

Straus, M.A. (1978). Wife beating: How common and why? Victimology: An Interna-tional Journal, 2(3-4), 443-458.

Tolman, R., & Raphael, J. (2000). A review of research on welfare and domestic vio-lence. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 655-682.

United States General Accounting Office. (1998). Domestic violence: Prevalence andimplications for employment among welfare recipients. Washington, D.C.: GAO/HEHS.

Hetling, Saunders, and Born 95