"Missing" domestic violence victims in welfare caseloads: The discrepancy between administrative and survey disclosure rates

Journal of Health and Social Policy

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 79-95

  Hetling, Andrea ^a,c   Saunders, Correne ^b   Born, Catherine ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT; ETHNICITY; HOUSEHOLD SURVEY; VIOLENCE; WELFARE PROVISION; WOMENS STATUS;

ARTICLE; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PREVALENCE; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIAL WELFARE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); DATA COLLECTION; DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MARYLAND; MIDDLE AGED; SOCIAL WORK;

EID: 33847617812     PISSN: 08977186     EISSN: 15404064     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J045v22n02_05     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bane, M.J., & Ellwood, J.T. (1994). Welfare realities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Brandwein, R., & Filiano, D. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: The voices of battered women. AFFILIA, 15(2), 224-243.
3. 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(2), 261-278.
4. Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. (1999.) The impact of recent partner violence on women's capacity to maintain work. Violence Against Women, 5, 393-426.
5. Brush, L. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition. Violence Against Women, 6(10), 1039-1065.
6. 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.
7. Davis, M. (1998). The economics of abuse: How violence perpetuates women's poverty. In R.A. Brandwein (Ed.), Battered women, children, and welfare reform: The ties that bind (pp.17-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
8. Davis, R., & Harsh, K. (2001). Confronting barriers to universal screening for domestic violence. Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(6), 313-320.
9. Hagen, J., & Owens-Manley, J. (2002). Issues in implementing TANF in New York: The perspective of frontline workers. Social Work, 47(2), 171-182.
10. Kenney, C.T., & McLanahan, S.S. (2001). Are cohabitating relationships more violent than marriage? (Working Paper No. 01-22). Princeton, NJ: Center for Research on Child Wellbeing.
11. Lennert, J. (1997). Like ships that pass in the night: AFDC policy and battered women. Law and Policy, 19(2), 183-203.
12. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2002). TANF Caseload Survey: Maryland Instrument. Princeton, NJ: Author.
13. Moffitt, R., Cherlin, A., Burton, L., King, M., & Roff, J. (2002). The characteristics of families remaining on welfare (Three-City Study Policy Brief No. 02-02). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
14. Moore, T., & Selkowe, V. (1999). Domestic violence victims in transition from welfare to work: Barriers to self-sufficiency and the W-2 response (Summary Version). Milwaukee, WI: The Institute for Wisconsin's Future.
15. NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. (2002). Welfare and poverty: Domestic and sexual violence. Retrieved March 20, 2005 from http://www.legalmomentum.org/issues/wel/violence.shtml.
16. Office of Justice Programs. (2004). When violence hits home: How economics and neighborhood play a role (Research in Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
17. Ovwigho, P., Born, C.E., Ferrero, A., & Palazzo, C. (2004). Life on welfare: The active TANF caseload in Maryland. Baltimore: University of Maryland.
18. Ovwigho, P., Saunders, C., & Born, C.E. (2005). Barriers to independence among TANF recipients: Comparing caseworker records and client surveys. Baltimore: University of Maryland.
19. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193.
20. Ponder, C., & Kinnevy, S. (2003, October). What went wrong? The disconnect between the Family Violence Option (FVO) and abused women's needs. Paper presented at the 4th Trapped by Poverty/Trapped by Abuse Conference, Austin, TX.
21. Raphael, J. (1996). Prisoners of abuse: Domestic violence and welfare receipt. Chicago, IL: Center for Impact Research (formerly The Taylor Institute).
22. Raphael, J., & Haennicke, S. (1999). Keeping battered women safe through the welfare-to-work journey: How are we doing? Chicago, IL: Center for Impact Research (formerly The Taylor Institute).
23. Rennison, C.M., & Welchans, S. (2000). Intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
24. 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.
25. Sanders, C., & Rainford, W. (2003, October). Assessing the role of domestic violence among sanctioned TANF recipients: A qualitative study. Paper presented at the 4th Trapped by Poverty/Trapped by Abuse Conference, Austin, TX.
26. Sarnoff, S. (1999). The NIF/CDCP study on the incidence and prevalence of violence against women: A case in advocacy research. The Women's Freedom Network Newsletter, 6(1). Retrieved December 9, 2003, from www.womensfreedom.org/artic613.htm.
27. Straus, M.A. (1978). Wife beating: How common and why? Victimology: An International Journal, 2(3-4), 443-458.
28. Tolman, R., & Raphael, J. (2000). A review of research on welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 655-682.
29. United States General Accounting Office. (1998). Domestic violence: Prevalence and implications for employment among welfare recipients. Washington, D.C.: GAO/HEHS.