Screening for Domestic Violence in Public Welfare Agencies

Andrea Hetling, PhD

Assistant Professor of Public Policy

Presentation at the National Taiwan University December 2011

Project Summary

• Policy setting: Screening for domestic violence in welfare agencies is challenging

• Research question: Who is successfully screened and served?

• Approach: Maryland Study– Quantitative comparison of characteristics among 4

analytical groups– Qualitative examination of abuse experiences

• Implications: Findings relate to screening practice improvements

Policy Setting

• Pre-1996 • Public cash assistance is a federal entitlement program• Welfare staff are eligibility processors

• 1996 welfare reform • The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities

Reconciliation Act• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

• Block grants to states• Temporary assistance with program requirements

• Post-1996• Welfare staff are caseworkers working holistically with families

Caseworker Discretion

• Caseworkers have much discretion in interpreting and implementing rules

• Result of discretion can be• Positive - caseworkers have the leeway to respond to

their clients unique needs• Negative - caseworkers may react differently and unfairly

to clients based on stereotypes

• Research gives evidence to both

Family Violence Option (FVO)

• State level option passed in 1997• Mandates rules related to domestic violence

– Must screen for domestic violence– Must offer service referrals to counseling and supportive

services– Must have the option of waivers from program

requirements if the requirement would• Make leaving an abusive situation difficult• Unfairly penalize formerly abused women• Put women at risk of abuse by an estranged partner

Prevalence of Domestic Violence on the Welfare Caseload

• Social research – Conservatively one in four women have experienced

domestic violence

• Administrative records– State studies show disclosure rates between 5 - 10%– Approximately one in every 100 women receive

services from their welfare office

• June 2002 Maryland study combining survey and administrative data– Administrative records = 4.2%– Survey records = 24.0%

Why the Discrepancy?: Agency Level Factors

• Collaboration and community coordination not universal

• Specialized training on the dynamics of abuse not widespread

• Screening practices differ greatly– Best practices include:

• Procedures for maintaining confidentiality• Direct questions about specific behavior

Why the Discrepancy?: Individual Level Factors

• Some women choose not to disclose for personal reasons– Fear of child welfare involvement– Uncertainty regarding demands from welfare office– Desire to “move on”

• Some women may not feel comfortable with their caseworker– Women who disclosed to caseworker are more likely to

be White, older, and separated or divorced

Research Question: Who is Successfully Screened and Served?

• Understanding the characteristics and circumstances of women who disclose could inform screening practice improvements– Who might we be missing?

• Project uses the universe of Maryland administrative welfare records from March 1998 to June 2000

• Study examines and compares:– Demographic and case characteristics quantitatively– Abuse experiences qualitatively

Study state: Maryland

• Small, but diverse• Maryland is often called “America in Miniature” • Twenty-four jurisdictions and the City of Baltimore• State-supervised, locally administered system of public

social services

Maryland State Policy and Practices

• State adopted FVO in 1997• Written policies provide general guidelines

– “Several appropriate screening questions” – Process should emphasize “worker sensitivity and customer

confidentiality”• Frontline practices vary

– Explanation of FVO can happen before or after screening– Some office have appointed FVO experts

• FVO waiver policy is complicated– Disclosure of domestic violence does not equal waiver eligibility– Waiver eligibility does not equal offer of a waiver – Authority to grant a waiver lies is sometimes a caseworker

decision and sometimes a team decision

Methods: Analytical Groups

Administratively identified

Analytical group Size

Yes, universe of women with markers

Waiver holders n = 261,Represents 0.31%

Waiver nonholders n = 293,Represents 0.35%

No, 5% random, stratified sample from active caseload

Narrative disclosers n = 184, Represents 5.12%

Non-disclosers n = 3,597,Represents balance of caseload

Methods: Data

Customer Information System, administrative data system maintained by the state of Maryland– Administrative variables

• Individual characteristics• Case characteristics

– Caseworker notes• Type-written notes by welfare caseworker• Read and coded for presence and extent of domestic

violence

Findings: Similarities among Groups

• Average age - early 30s• Citizenship - vast majority (over 90%) are US

citizens• Language - over 95% speak English• Disability status - very low rates• No differences in current pregnancy• Average age at first birth - early 20s

Findings: Race Differences

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Waiverholders

Waivernonholders

Narrativedisclosers

Nonvictims

OtherCaucasianAfrican American

Findings: Marital Status Differences

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Waiverholders

Waivernonholders

Narrativedisclosers

Nonvictims

Widowed or unknownDivorcedSeperatedMarriedNever married

Experiences with Domestic Violence

• Notes on recent separations and experiences of abuse most common for all groups

• Narratives on waiver holders more commonly discussed interstate moves and long-term abuse

• Administratively marked groups more frequently reported an imprisoned abuser

Experiences with Domestic Violence

• Complexities of abusive relationships and process of leaving• Difficulties with related barriers including

– Health issues - mental health, substance use, and permanent physical injuries

– Employment-related - False assault charges and court appearances

• Family counseling and reconciliation attempts not common• Fear of being alone and refusal of work waivers• Desire to cut ties completely with abuser complicated by

financial support – Child support– Mortgage, car, and debt payments

Experiences with Related Services

• Case narratives of waiver holders more frequently noted – Counseling services, with waiver nonholders next– Shelter services, with waiver nonholders next– Police interventions, with narrative disclosers next

• Legal services were similarly discussed among the three groups

• Receipt of multiple services– One quarter of waiver holders– One out of six waiver nonholders– One out of ten narrative disclosers

Conclusion

• Individual discretion plays role in FVO screening and waiver distribution

• Caseworker decisions to offer waivers may relate to– Relationship status– Experiences with abuse

• Differences in marital status and under-representation of African Americans may reflect– Bias by caseworker– Individual decisions not to disclose

Limitations and Future Research

• Single study state limits generalizability– Need for further research in other locals and times

• Case narratives are from the caseworker perspective only

• Nondisclosers group includes victims and nonvictims– Need for qualitative data from the clients – Need for data from local police, courts, or local shelters

Policy and Program Implications

• FVO should be continued and strengthened– Identification through the FVO is related to more

counseling and legal services

• Training and development in screening techniques is critical– Certain subgroups seem to be more difficult to identify or

less likely to disclose – Trainings should:

• Be culturally sensitive• Include dating violence as topic• Address needs of currently abused women