|
| |
- Policy Brief
#2
Safety and Self-Sufficiency:
Welfare, Domestic Violence, and Child Support
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (PRWORA) introduced many changes into the welfare delivery system: employment
mandates, time limits for receiving public assistance, paternity establishment, children's
school attendance provisions, family cap provisions, and strict child support cooperation
mandates. If welfare recipients do not comply with new laws and regulations, they can be
sanctioned and the cash assistance benefits reduced.
Under PRWORA, welfare recipients are required to cooperate with the
state child support program in establishing paternity and obtaining support for their
children. There is additional pressure for custodial parents to reveal what they know
about the identity of the non-custodial parent, providing name and other information
required by states. The new law gives the states discretion to claim non-cooperation on
the part of the custodial parent, which can result in the family being ineligible for
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits.
Changes in TANF and the Child Support Enforcement
(CSE) programs have made it more important than ever that domestic violence be examined
carefully so that recipients can receive child support from absent parents, leave the
welfare rolls and stay off of public assistance. Domestic violence is disproportionately
more common among low-income populations1, therefore a large percent
of women who receive TANF benefits are current or former victims of domestic violence. The
Journal of the American Medical Association reports that, over their lifetimes as many as
65% of welfare recipients experience abuse.2
Comparable estimates for Indiana suggest that at
least 55% of welfare recipients are or have been victims of domestic violence.3 A 1996 study found that
women are four times as likely to be violently
attacked, usually by intimates, if they are living in households with an annual income of
less than $10,000.4 Among
women who were receiving welfare benefits, 55% report at least one incident of physical
abuse in the past year 5 and 20% report being in an abusive relationship.6
The widespread incidence of violence among the TANF
and CSE caseloads has two main implications for the operation of these programs. First,
victims of domestic violence have increased difficulty in the transition from welfare to
self-sufficiency. A Massachusetts study found that abused women have more symptoms of
depression, lower self-esteem, and report a lower sense of mastery. Domestic violence
victims are also more likely "to face opposition from a former or current boyfriend
or husband to their participation in a work training program or in paid employment."7
Second, the aggressive pursuit of child support from
potentially violent, non-custodial parents may jeopardize the safety of custodial mothers
and their children. In such cases, an ethical dilemma arises: "Should the state
attempt to collect child support. potentially risking the safety of women and
children?" or "Should the state not pursue child support and thus, implicitly
reward abusive behavior?" While some abused women object to the state's attempt to
collect child support, most domestic violence victims see child support as an additional
source of income that will lead to self-sufficiency and a stable future for their
children.8
Thus, some state CSE programs are implementing
changes to allow them to identify adult and child victims of battery and implement
safeguards to protect them from additional violence. Moreover, there is a widespread
belief in the CSE community that with proper training, assistance, and planning for
caseworkers as well as welfare recipients, child support can be obtained while maintaining
personal safety 9.
(See Washington state's Address Confidentiality
Program [ACP], below.)
The Opportunity
At the May Ilth conference sponsored by the
Institute for Family and Social Responsibility at Indiana University in conjunction with
the Indiana Family Social Services Administration, the following two related questions
will be addressed: 1. How does abuse affect the ability of low-income families to
meet new welfare and child support program requirements and become self-sufficient? and 2.
How can the state design a transitional assistance program that serves battered women and
their children appropriately?
The conference will present a comprehensive overview of the
following issues: the psychological and physical consequences of battering, sabotage
dynamics, and workplace safety for staff and clients.
At the conference, the Family Violence Option (FVO) will be
reviewed. The FVO, Section 402(a)() of TANF, TITLE I of PRWORA permits states to waive
child support cooperation requirements for domestic violence victims. States are not
penalized if they exceed the 20% cap on TANF hardship exemptions or fail to meet work
requirements because of domestic violence good cause waivers. The FVO gives states the
option of certifying standards and procedures to ensure that the state will screen for
domestic violence and provide referrals for counseling and supportive services. The
conference program will highlight innovative state practices such as the Washington state
Address Confidentiality Program (ACP), which establishes a comprehensive system of post
office addresses for victims of domestic violence. This program helps domestic violence
victims keep their location a secret by using a substitute mailing address, and has
enabled women to establish paternity, collect child support payments, and remain safe from
harm.
Notes
1. Moore, A. (1997) "Intimate Violence: Does Socioeconomic
Status Matter?" In A.P. Cardarelli (Ed.), Violence Between Intimate Partners:
Patterns, Causes, and Effects (pp. 90-100). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2. Bassuk, E.L.; Weinreb, L.F.; Buckner, J.C.; Browne, A.; Salomon,
A. and Bassuk, S.S. (1996). "The Characteristics and Needs of Sheltered Homeless and
Low-income Housed Mothers." Journal of American Medical Association, 276, 640-646.
3. Lloyd, S. (1997). The Effects of Violence on Wonen's Employment.
Joint Center for Poverty Research, MacArthur Foundation. See:
http:www.spc.uchicago.edu/povertycenter/violence.html
4. Craven, D. (1996). Female Victims of Violent Crimes. U.S.
Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Indiana Coalition for Human Services
(October, 1997).
5. Welfare Reform Updates. Presented at the Indiana Coalition for
Human Services 1997 Legislative Forum, Indianapolis, IN.
6. Allard, M.A.; Albelda, R.; Colton, M.E.; Cosenza, C. (1997). In
Harm's Way? Domestic Violence, AFDC Receipt, and Welfare Reform in Massachusetts.
University of Massachusetts.
7. Ibid.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (February, 1997).
"Administration for Children and Families." Cooperation/Good Cause Forum Report.
Office of Child Support Enforcement: Washington, D.C.
9. Ibid.
 Have comments or questions? Send us an email.
|
