Intimate Partner Violence, Employment, and The Workplace: Consequences and Future Directions

TRAUMA,etVIOLENCE,
10.1177/1524838005280506
Swanberg al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT
& ABUSE / October
, AND THE
2005 WORKPLACE
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, EMPLOYMENT,

AND THE WORKPLACE
Consequences and Future Directions
JENNIFER E. SWANBERG
TK LOGAN
CAROLINE MACKE
University of Kentucky
The purpose of this article is to examine the literature on violence against women
and employment. After a brief discussion of the definition and consequences of in-
timate partner violence, the article reviews the research and related literatures to
describe the (a) types of job interference tactics used by abusers, (b) employee-level
consequences of partner violence, (c) victimized employee responses to intimate
partner violence, (d) organizational-level consequences of partner violence, and (e)
employer responses to intimate partner violence. Future research directions and
workplace implications are discussed.
Key words: intimate partner violence, women’s employment, workplace policy
DURING THE PAST 30 YEARS, the percentage tions that consider employees’ work and family
of women in the labor force has increased from concerns when making decisions pertaining to
44% in 1973 to 59.5% in 2003, and women cur- workplace policy often reap positive results for
rently comprise 47% of the total labor force (U.S. employees and employers (Bond, Galinsky, &
Department of Labor, 2004). Yet the structure Swanberg, 1998; Galinsky & Bond, 1998). More-
and culture of workplaces have failed to evolve over, theory and research have demonstrated a
as the needs of the contemporary workforce reciprocal relationship between work and fam-
have changed (Bailyn, 1993; Bailyn, Drago, & ily, with the effects of one sphere positively or
Kochan, 2001; Googins, 1991; Williams, 2000). negatively influencing the other (Frone, Russell,
Numerous organizations still adhere to policies & Cooper, 1994; Tenbrunsel, Brett, Moaz, Stroh,
and practices that are explicitly and implicitly & Reilly, 1995). Regardless of the empirical and
laden with gendered assumptions (Swanberg, theoretical findings, workplaces have been slow
2004; Williams, 2000). As such, issues that dis- to consider the complex lives of today’s
proportionately affect women compared to workforce when making organizational deci-
men have been marginalized by management sions (See Bailyn et al., 2001; Barnett, 1999). Such
(Williams, 2000). Research suggests organiza- delays have critical implications for women and
AUTHORS’ NOTE: Please send correspondence to Jennifer E. Swanberg, Ph.D., College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, 663
Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506-0027; e-mail: jswanberg@uky.edu.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE, Vol. 6, No. 4, October 2005 286-312
DOI: 10.1177/1524838005280506
© 2005 Sage Publications
286
Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 287
families. In particular, organizations have KEY POINTS OF THE RESEARCH REVIEW

lagged behind in recognizing that intimate part-
• Job interference tactics used by male abusers gen-
ner violence is not just a domestic issue, but it
erally fall into two primary categories: work dis-
has significant implications for the workplace. ruption and work-related stalking.
According to data from the National Violence • The consequences of job interference tactics have
Against Women Study,1 lifetime prevalence significant ramifications for victimized employ-
rates of intimate partner violence have been es- ees (individual-level consequences) and the
timated at 22.1% for women (Tjaden & places where they work (organizational-level
consequences).
Thoennes, 2000). The study further indicated • Studies on the effect of intimate partner violence
that approximately 1.3 million women are sub- on victims’ employment may be categorized into
jected to intimate partner violence annually in two types: empirical studies of the relationship
the United States alone (Tjaden & Thoennes, between experiencing intimate partner violence
2000). Other data suggest that women physi- and employment patterns; and empirical studies
identifying and documenting the extent to which
cally assaulted by an intimate partner in the
abusers’ actions interfere with victims’ ability to
past year were likely to experience 3.4 separate work and perform on the job.
assaults (National Center for Injury Prevention • The reasons associated with whether and why
and Control [NCIPC], 2003). Moreover, based women decide to tell someone at work about the
on an analysis of the National Violence Against abuse may depend on prevailing personal or or-
Women Survey (NVAWS) the NCIPC (2003) has ganizational attitudes about intimate partner vi-
olence, the extent to which partner violence
estimated that 4.5 million assaults occur annu- affects work performance, and the subsequent
ally. Although these numbers are alarming, re- availability of workplace supports.
searchers believe that violence against women • Organizational consequences associated with in-
is underestimated because victims may timate partner violence may result in higher pro-
underreport intimate partner violence on duction, health care, administration, and liability
costs.
surveys (Bachman & Salzman, 1995; Straus &
• Organizational responses to intimate partner vio-
Gelles, 1990). lence when it traverses the boundaries of
Data further indicate that intimate partner vi- women’s jobs appear to be unique to each organi-
olence has serious workplace implications. Ac- zation. While some organizations consider part-
cording to the National Crime Victimization ner violence a form of workplace violence, others
Survey (NCVS), between 1992 and 1996, an av- resist doing so due to the stigma associated with
partner violence.
erage of 18,000 people were assaulted by an inti- • Limited extant research suggests that workplace
mate partner at work each year (Warchol, 1998). supports provided to victimized employees may
Women were 5 times more likely than men to be have positive short-term effects on employment
attacked at work by a current or former intimate outcomes.
partner (Bachman, 1994). Nearly 20% of all
women fatally injured in the workplace were at-
tacked by an intimate partner (Brownell, 1996). women who recently filed domestic violence or-
Research further purports that employees are ders within the previous 12 months, 57% had
almost as likely to be victimized at work by an been harassed on the phone by an abusive part-
intimate partner as by a coworker and female ner and 40% had been harassed in person while
employees killed on the job are actually more on the job. Leone, Johnson, Cohan, and Lloyd
likely to be killed by a partner than by a (2004), using a random sample of low-income
coworker (Warchol, 1998). women (N = 563), found that as the physical vio-
The consequences of intimate partner violence increased in an intimate relationship, so
lence have major ramifications for the victim- did the likelihood that the victim would miss
ized employee (individual-level consequences) work. The short-term consequences of intimate
and the workplace where the victim is em- partner violence on employment may result in
ployed (organizational-level consequences). increased absenteeism, reduced productivity,
For instance, in one research study (Swanberg, or job loss (Leone et al., 2004; Raphael, 1996;
Macke, & Logan, 2005), among employed Riger, Raja, & Camacho, 2002; Shepard & Pence,
288 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / October 2005
Research suggests 1988; Tolman & Rosen, women’s financial security and for workplaces
organizations that 2001), and long-term con- (Duffy, Scott, & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; Petty &
consider employees’ sequences may result in Kosch, 2001; Tolman & Raphael, 2000; Violence
work and family inconsistent work histo- Against Women Act [VAWA], 1994, 2000). How-
concerns when ries, underemployment, ever, only a limited number of studies in the sci-
making decisions and reduced actual and entific literature focus on the consequences of
pertaining to p o t e n t ia l e a rn in g s intimate partner violence on victims’ employ-
workplace policy (Brush, 2003; Tolman & ment and the places where they work. To maxi-
often reap positive Raphael, 2000). It has mize partner violence victims’ economic secu-
results for employees been estimated that in to- rity by reducing the risks associated with the
and employers tal, victims lose $18 mil- negative affects of partner violence on women’s
lion annually in earnings labor force participation and on workplaces, the
(Greenfeld et al., 1998) first step is to clearly understand the conse-
and nearly $1 billion in lifetime earnings quences of intimate partner violence on female
(NCIPC, 2003) because of missed work, job loss, victims’ employment and on employers. To this
and inability to maintain consistent employ- end, this article examines the literature on inti-
ment. Leaving a good paying job for safety rea- mate partner violence and employment. The ar-
sons or encountering difficulties securing ticle focuses on how violence against women af-
meaningful work further complicates the eco- fects women in their roles as paid employees
nomic hardships that women encounter when and the places in which they work. After the
leaving an abusive relationship (see Sullivan, Method section, intimate partner violence is de-
Basta, Tan, & Davidson, 1992; Sullivan, fined and its consequences briefly summarized.
Campbell, Angelique, Eby, & Davidson, 1994). The types of job interference tactics used by
At the organizational level, intimate partner batterers are reviewed, proceeded by a review
violence results in significant costs to the em- of the employee-level consequences of intimate
ployers (M. Bell, Moe, & Schweinle 2002; partner violence, including its consequences on
Wisner, Gilmer, Saltzman, & Zink, 1999). The victims’ employment patterns and job out-
Bureau of National Affairs (1990) has estimated comes. The contexts associated with whether
that employers spend $3 billion to $5 billion dol- employees disclose their situation to someone
lars annually on consequences related to part- at work are also discussed. Finally, the article re-
ner violence spilling over into the workplace. views the organizational consequences of vio-
Expenditures include lost productivity, em- lence against women, including a discussion of
ployee turnover, and health-care-related costs. employers’ responses to the situation. Based on
Separating out the costs of lost productivity a review of the literature, future research
from paid work and household labor from the directions and workplace implications are
medical costs associated with partner violence, discussed.
the NCIPC (2003) has estimated that partner vi-
olence costs nearly $1 billion in lost productiv-
METHOD
ity. Considering the costs to individuals and or-
ganizations, workplaces need to recognize The literature on the relationship between in-
intimate partner violence as an employee issue, timate partner violence, employed victims, and
to establish workplace policies and procedures workplaces were identified and collected using
that will assist employees who may be experi- a variety of means. Multiple searches were con-
encing partner violence, and to prevent or ducted using the Academic Search Premier En-
reduce the negative consequences when it does gine, which includes access to nearly 4,200 jour-
spill over into the workplace. nals covering the social sciences, humanities,
In the past decade, public policy, organiza- general science, multicultural studies, and edu-
tional psychologists, and management scholars cation. Three thousand of the journals in Aca-
have been instrumental in raising the aware- demic Search Premier are peer reviewed, and
ness of this issue and its implications for some journals in the database go back as far as
1964. Key word searches using “domestic vio- is recognized that female intimate partner vio-
lence” and “employment,” “domestic violence” lence against male intimates and same-sex
and “work,” “intimate partner violence” and intimate partner violence exist, for the purpose
“employment,” and “intimate partner vio- of this article, intimate partner violence is spe-
lence” and “work” were conducted. Books per- cifically referring to male intimate partner
taining to intimate partner violence were re- violence against female intimates.
viewed for chapters focused on workplaces or Extensive research pertaining to violence
employment. Books pertaining to workplace vi- against women indicates that partner violence
olence were reviewed for chapters focused on has deleterious effects on victims’ physical and
intimate partner violence as a form of work- mental health (for a review, see Campbell, 2002;
place violence. Reference lists from articles per- Campbell et al., 2002; Plitcha, 1996). The short-
taining to intimate partner and work were re- and long-term physical consequences of inti-
viewed for relevant articles. In the end, articles mate partner violence include bruises, broken
and book chapters that primarily focused on the bones, loss of menstruation, bladder infection,
intersection between partner violence and em- concussions, migraine headaches, memory
ployment were included in this review. In addi- loss, and difficulty concentrating. Psychological
tion, investigators contacted scholars, request- consequences of intimate partner violence in-
ing copies of relevant papers presented at clude heightened rates of
academic conferences. Statistical information suicidal ideation, suicide Exerting control over
was drawn from federal Web sites, including attempts, drug and alco- victim’s employment
the Department of Justice, Centers for Disease hol abuse, posttraumatic or job opportunities is
Control (CDC), the Department of Health and stress disorder, depres- a form of victimization
Human Services, and the Department of Labor. sion, and anxiety (Camp- used by batterers to
In total, this literature review assimilates 104 ar- bell, 2002; Campbell et al., intimidate their
ticles, book chapters, and reports dating from 2 0 0 2 ; P lit ch a , 1 9 9 6 ) . partners. Studies have
1976 to 2005 that illuminate issues surrounding Moreover, 41% of violent estimated that 36% to
partner violence and women’s employment. attacks by intimate part- 75% of employed
ners that cause injury re- intimate partner
quire medical attention, violence victims were
INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE co m p a re d t o 2 0 % o f bothered by their
stranger attacks involv- abusive partners
Definitions ing injury (Bachman & while at work.
Salzman, 1995).
Working definitions of intimate partner vio-
lence vary from study to study. For this article’s Interference Tactics:
purpose, the definition of intimate partner vio- Batterers’ Effect on Employment
lence was adopted from the CDC’s definition,
which is based on research conducted by Exerting control over victim’s employment
Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, and Shelley or job opportunities is a form of victimization
(1999). As defined by the CDC, intimate partner used by batterers to intimidate their partners
violence is actual or threatened physical or sex- (MacMillan & Gartner, 1999). Studies have esti-
ual violence or psychological and emotional mated that 36% to 75% of employed intimate
abuse directed toward a spouse, ex-spouse, cur- partner violence victims were bothered by their
rent or former boyfriend or girlfriend, or current abusive partners while at work (Shepard &
or former dating partner. Intimate partners may Pence, 1988; Swanberg et al., 2005; Taylor &
be heterosexual or of the same sex. Terms used Barusch, 2004). For instance, Shepard and Pence
to describe intimate partner violence are do- (1988) conducted an exploratory quantitative
mestic abuse, spouse abuse, partner violence, study to examine the effect of intimate partner
rape, and battering, among others. Although it violence on women’s work and ability to work.
An employment survey was administered dur- them from getting a job (Riger, Ahrens,
ing two separate occasions to 71 women attend- Blickenstaff, & Camacho, 1998). Qualitative
ing battered women support groups. The sur- studies reported similar findings. Brandwein
vey included a series of questions pertaining to (2000) conducted a qualitative study of 24 ethni-
employment status, effect of abuse on job per- cally diverse battered women receiving public
formance, and the ability to obtain and main- assistance in two regionally disparate states. The
tain employment. Results indicated that 57% of study collected its focus group sample of women
respondents were harassed by phone or in per- from mental health programs, domestic violence
son by their abusers while at work, with 21% shelters, and welfare-to-work programs during
stating that it occurred frequently. Similarly, an- a 3-year period. Respondents reported such
other study focusing on the effects of intimate sabotage tactics as hiding clothes, not showing
partner violence and women’s employment us- up to care for young children, or beating women
ing a sample of women (N = 758) who received prior to work, thereby preventing her from re-
domestic violence orders (DVOs) in the Com- porting to her job. Moe and Bell’s (2004) qualita-
monwealth of the Kentucky found that almost tive study of women residing in domestic vio-
half reported experiencing some form of job in- lence shelters (N = 19) suggests similar themes.
terference tactics, including showing up at re- The sample was diverse with respects to race,
spondent’s workplace or calling her incessantly ethnicity, age, education, socioeconomic status,
(Swanberg et al., 2005). Job interference tactics and occupation. In particular, 20% of the sample
identified in the literature reviewed fall into two reported as poor or homeless, 53% as low in-
primary categories: work disruption and work- come or working class, and 21% as middle class.
related stalking. The following section reviews Physical ramifications of the abuse (bruises,
the two forms of interference tactics. cuts, ripped clothing) was a primary way that
abusers disrupted women’s employment. For
Work Disruption instance, one respondent, who had worked in
various full-time jobs, reported that her work
Work disruption consists primarily of actions history was “sporadic because he had no prob-
that prevent the victim from reaching the work- lem beating me up. I could not move on so I
place either on time or at all; as such, these ac- would have to call in and say I could not make
tions predominantly take place in the home or it” (Moe & Bell, 2004, p. 40). In an investigation
off the workplace premises. The studies that fo- of the effects of partner violence on Black and
cus on this topic reported a variety of work dis- White women’s employment, Brush (2001) dis-
ruption behaviors (see, e.g., Brandwein, 2000; covered that “poor White and Black women
Brush, 2000, 2001; Libbus, Sable, Huneke, & An- face somewhat different efforts by men to con-
ger, 1999; Raphael, 1995, 1996; Swanberg & Lo- trol behavior . . . direct efforts to control or pun-
gan, 2005; Taylor & Barusch, 2004). In particular, ish women for seeking work outside the house
results from a national, 12-site welfare-to-work seemed more characteristic of the experiences of
quantitative evaluation indicated that partici- White women” (p. 83).
pants’ abusers disrupted employment efforts
by depriving victim of sleep; refusing to care for Work-Related Stalking
children while participant went to work; hiding
or destroying clothing, books, or car keys; in- Stalking is generally defined as the unwel-
flicting physical injury on participant prior to come and repeated harassing or threatening be-
work; turning off the alarm clock; cutting off havior directed at one individual (Tjaden &
participants’ hair; or preventing her from going Thoennes, 1997; Westrum & Fremouw, 1998).
to work (Raphael, 1995, 1996). Among women Stalking may include closely watching and/or
in three domestic violence shelters located in ur- harassing someone. The first form of stalking
ban settings, 46% of their partners prohibited generally involves limited and indirect contact,
while the second form of stalking frequently in- ployed or recently employed victims of inti-
volves direct and physical contact (Cupach & mate partner violence had been observed or
Spitzberg, 2004). Examples of stalking behavior closely watched by their abusive partner within
include following a person, appearing outside the past year. Raphael’s (1996) study of a dozen
or showing up at a person’s home or place of welfare-to-work programs, also previously de-
business, leaving written messages or objects, scribed, identified on-the-job surveillance as a
or vandalizing a person’s property. Analysis of frequent interference tactic used by batterers.
the NVAWS reveals that 81% of women who Similar patterns emerged in Swanberg and Lo-
were stalked by an intimate also reported physi- gan’s (2005) qualitative study of employed or
cal assault by that same partner, and 31% also recently employed victims of partner violence.
reported sexual assault by that partner (Na- Using a cross-section sample of women (N = 34)
tional Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease residing in the community, in shelters, or in
Control, 1998). Lifetime prevalence rates sug- drug treatment programs, the authors inter-
gest that between 5% and 8% of women will be viewed and conducted focus groups during a 6-
stalked at some time in their life (Tjaden & month period to better understand how partner
Thoennes, 1998, 2000). Recent prevalence victimization affected their job and to deter-
(within the past 12 months) rates suggest that mine the context surrounding the decision per-
between 0.5% and 1.0% of women suffer at the taining to disclosure. Fifty-two percent of par-
hands of a stalker (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, ticipants reported specifically being watched at
2000). work. A few participants stated that partners’
The literature suggests that work-related behaviors created more stress and anxiety than
stalking behavior parallels general stalking be- harassing at her at work because the former be-
havior. Specifically, the types of behaviors ex- havior is “so unpredictable.” This finding is not
hibited by a batterer at or near a victim’s work- surprising because the creation of elevated
place can be grouped into two dimensions of stress and anxiety is common among stalking
work-related stalking: on-the-job surveillance victims (Schell, 2003). Finally, an employer-
and on-the-job harassment. On-the-job surveil- based survey of 46 Canadian corporations shed
lance behaviors included perpetrator looking a slightly different perspective on on-the-job
into the window of the workplace, perpetrator surveillance in the workplace (Schell, 2003). The
waiting for the victim at the end of the workday, cross-section study took place from January
or perpetrator waiting for victim along her 1995 through January 2000, during which time
commuting route (Raphael, 1996; Swanberg & 46 firms were randomly selected from 1,782 cor-
Logan, 2005). On-the-job harassment incidents porations listed in a Canadian-based human re-
were identified as events whereby the perpetra- source directory to participate in a survey fo-
tor physically appeared on the workplace pre- cused on the prevalence of work-related
mises or when the perpetrator made telephone stalking and sexual harassment among employ-
calls to victims, their coworkers, or supervisors. ees. Eight of the 46 firms reported stalking inci-
Workplaces are popular places to hassle vic- dents in their organization, of which many in-
tims among perpetrators because the work loca- cluded on-the-job surveillance. In total, 19
tion often remains unchanged even when the stalking incidents were reported to human re-
residence has changed (i.e., when women leave source professionals in the 5-year span of the
their partners), and they know where their part- study. A spouse or boyfriend perpetrated 32%
ners or former partners are located during cer- of reported stalking cases.
tain time periods (Chenier, 1998; Libbus et al., The prevalence of on-the-job harassment
1999). In the literature reviewed, the prevalence ranged from 8% to 75% (see, e.g., Brush, 2000,
of on-the job surveillance ranged from 35% to 2002; Friedman & Couper, 1987; Stanley, 1992;
52% (Raphael, 1996; Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg et al., 2005; Taylor & Barusch, 2004;
Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Tolman & Rosen, Tolman & Rosen, 2001). On-the-job harassment
2001). Swanberg et al.’s (2005) previously de- behaviors included appearing at work, disal-
scribed study revealed that 35% of the em- lowing employed victims to complete work
functions (Brush, 2002; Friedman & Couper, county. Lifetime prevalence of on-the-job ha-
1987; Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, rassment was 23% and recent prevalence 6%.
2005; Taylor & Barusch, 2004), or making fre- Similarly, Lloyd’s (1997) analysis of data from a
quent telephone calls to victims, coworkers, or random household survey designed to deter-
supervisors (Brush, 2000; Friedman & Couper, mine the effects of domestic violence on the la-
1987; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). For instance, bor force participation (N = 824) of women liv-
one study conducted by the Victim Services ing in an low-income Chicago neighborhood
Unit in New York surveyed employed or re- revealed comparable results. Among the sam-
cently employed intimate partner victims (N = ple of female respondents (employed and un-
50) to better understand how violent partners employed) who were or had been in an adult re-
interfere with women’s work (Friedman & lationship with a man (n = 802), 8.7% of the
Couper, 1987). Seventy-five percent of respon- sample reported on-the-job harassment by
dents reported that their abusive partner ha- phone and 7.8% reported on the job harassment
rassed them on the job either in person or on the in person during their lifetime. In another study
phone during the previous 12 months. Compa- (Brush, 2000), among 122 women enrolled in a
rable findings were reported by Stanley’s (1992) 4-week job-training program, 21% percent of
study of women victimized by their partners participants were threatened or harassed at
and receiving services from a domestic violence work by phone or in person. The significantly
intervention service agency (N = 118) in Tulsa, lower percentages of on-the-job harassment in
Oklahoma. Among the sample of employed or these studies may be partly explained by the
recently employed respondents (n = 82), 70% sample selection criteria.
were telephoned excessively while at work.
Swanberg et al. (2005), in their previously men- Victimized Employee-Level Consequences
tioned study, reported that in the previous 12 of Partner Violence
months, 40% of respondents were harassed in
person by an intimate partner, 34% had been The consequences of job interference tactics
threatened at work, and 24% reported that an have significant ramifications for victimized
intimate partner bothered their coworkers on the employees (individual-level consequences)
job. Similar results emerged from an in-depth, and the workplaces where they are employed
descriptive study of long-term welfare recipi- (organizational-level consequences). This sec-
ents (Browne, Salomon, & Bassuk, 1999). tion of the article discusses the individual-level
Through a random sampling selection process consequences of intimate partner violence spill-
using a population of women who had received ing over into the workplace and then examines
public assistance for at least 36 months, women responses that victims take to manage the situa-
(N = 285) were interviewed in person to identify tion at work.
the barriers to employment. Among this sam- Information gleaned from the limited num-
ple, 42% had been harassed at work during the ber of small studies suggests that 66% to 96% of
previous year. employed victims of partner violence report
Other research investigations indicated that that employment was disrupted in some way
on-the-job harassment occurred less frequently. because of the partner victimization (Friedman
Using the first wave of the Women’s Employ- & Couper, 1987; Stanley, 1992; Swanberg et al.,
ment Study, a three-wave study of welfare re- 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Tolman &
cipients in an urban Michigan county, Tolman Rosen, 2001). For example, in a previously de-
and Rosen (2001) examined the prevalence of scribed study by Swanberg et al. (2005), 71% of
domestic violence and its association with respondents were unable to concentrate at work
health, mental health, and economic well-be- because of partner victimization within the past
ing. Participants in the sample (N = 753) were all year and 63% were unable to perform on the job
recipients of welfare in February 1997, racially to the best of their ability within the past year.
mixed single mothers between the ages of 18 Forty-six percent of respondents went home
and 54, and residents of the one Michigan sick because they were too upset about the part-
ner victimization during the previous 12 factors was predictive of the probability of
months. Stanley (1992) and Friedman and employment.
Couper (1987) reported similar findings. Re- Two analyses of one cross-sectional sample
spectively, 96% of employed victims of partner (N = 824) of women in a randomly selected
violence reported that their jobs were somehow household survey in a low-income area of Chi-
affected by the victimization, including missing cago report no evidence to suggest that victims
work, a decreased ability to concentrate at of partner violence are employed at different
work, and being reprimanded by employers for rates than their nonvictim counterparts (Lloyd,
problems resulting from abuse. 1997; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999). More specifically,
Yet the research pertaining to the relationship Lloyd’s (1997) analysis indicated that women
between partner violence and employment, in- who experienced partner violence were as
cluding victims’ employment patterns, is com- likely to be employed as women who had not
plex. Studies focusing on the effect of intimate experienced such victimization. However, her
partner violence on victims’ employment fall findings further imply that victims of partner
into two general categories: empirical studies of violence were more likely to have been unem-
the relationship between experiencing intimate ployed in the past and that partner violence
partner violence and employment patterns; and may depress socioeconomic status and occupa-
empirical studies identifying and documenting tional attainment over time. Correspondingly,
the extent to which abusers’ actions interfere using the same data set, Lloyd and Taluc’s
with victims’ ability to work and perform on the (1999) multivariate analyses found additional
job. evidence to suggest that, “although women
who experienced male violence were as likely to
Intimate Partner Violence and Employment Patterns be currently employed as those who did not,
The studies focusing on the relationship be- they were more likely to have been unemployed
tween partner violence and employment pat- in the past . . . and to have higher rates of welfare
terns are inconclusive; that is, it is difficult to de- receipt” (p. 370). Meisel, Chandler, and Rienzi
termine at this time the effect that intimate (2003), using a sample of women receiving Tem-
partner violence has on short-term and long- porary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in
term job stability, employability, and earnings California (N = 632),
(for a review, see Riger & Staggs, 2004; Tolman & found that women with The studies focusing
Raphael, 2000). In their comprehensive litera- battering partners were on the relationship
ture review of research on welfare and domestic less likely to be em- between partner
violence, Tolman and Raphael (2000) reported ployed, but if women violence and
that some victims of partner violence struggle to w e re w o rk in g , t h e y employment patterns
be employed, others manage to obtain employ- worked the same amount are inconclusive; that
ment but fail to maintain it, and still others can- of hours as women with- is, it is difficult to
not obtain employment at all. Thus, the authors out battering partners. determine at this time
conclude that partner violence does interfere Another study pro- the effect that
with employment but does not necessarily pre- vides additional evidence intimate partner
vent it. That is, data suggest that partner vio- to suggest that the long- violence has on
lence does not affect employment status; rather, term relationship be- short-term and long-
it affects the victim’s ability to sustain consistent tween partner violence term job stability,
employment for long periods of time. Danziger, and women’s employ- employability, and
Corcoran, Danziger, and Heflin (2000), in their ment is complex. Data earnings
review of the literature pertaining to welfare re- from a longitudinal study
form and employment, suggested that individ- of an ethnically diverse group of extremely poor
ual factors such as domestic violence were not women (N = 285) were analyzed to determine
significantly associated with employment. But the relationship between partner violence and
rather the combination of a multitude of work over a period of time (Browne et al., 1999).
Controlling for demographic, psychosocial, Intimate Partner Violence and

Employee Outcome Consequences
and health factors, Browne et al. (1999) found
that “women who were victimized by male inti- Although it is difficult to draw persuasive
mate partners during the previous year had and strong conclusions about the relationship
only one third the odds of maintaining employ- between intimate partner violence and long-
ment for at least 30 hours per week for 6 months term employment because of the limited studies
or more during the subsequent year as com- conducted to date on employed partner vio-
pared to women without victimization experi- lence victims, studies that identify and docu-
ences” (p. 417). Furthermore, the authors re- ment the extent to which abusers’ actions inter-
ported that the effect was even greater for fere with victims’ ability to work and perform
women working 40 hours or more per week. on the job appear to be more conclusive. Over-
Specifically, women working full-time who had all, the research seems to be in agreement that
been recently victimized (within the past year) compared to nonvictims, victims of partner vio-
were only about 20% as likely to work full-time lence are more likely to report lower productiv-
for 6 months or more the following year, ity, higher absenteeism rates, more frequent tar-
compared to nonvictimized women. diness, and higher job turnover rates and job
Longitudinal research further underscores losses (Raphael, 1996; Shepard & Pence, 1988;
the complexity associated with partner victim- Tolman & Rosen, 2001). The following section
ization and employment. Honeycutt, Marshall, reviews the research literature pertaining to the
and Weston’s (2001) study of victimization following four negative job-related conse-
among low-income women receiving Aid to quences of partner violence: reduced productiv-
Families with Dependent Children or food ity, increased absenteeism, increased tardiness,
stamps (N = 836) failed to reveal a direct rela- and job loss.
tionship between victimization and employ-
Productivity. Using absenteeism, tardiness,
ment. Victimization itself did not prevent
and the ability to concentrate as proxy measures
women from working. Rather, multiple regres-
for productivity, several cross-section studies
sion analyses revealed a more complex relation-
report that partner violence victims’ productiv-
ship; abuse by past partners was related to cur-
ity was compromised by partners’ victimization
rent employment only among White women,
(Brush, 2000, 2002; Raphael, 1996; Stanley, 1992;
whereas partner victimization (current or past) Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005).
did not have any effect on Black women’s em- Swanberg et al. (2005) found that 71% of em-
ployment. Votruba-Drzal, Lohman, and Chase- ployed or recently employed women reported
Lansdale’s (2002) investigation of the associa- that they were unable to concentrate at work be-
tion between welfare, employment transition, cause of the abuse. Twenty-three percent were
and domestic abuse among 2,128 participants unable to concentrate on a daily basis and 17.5%
suggest that women who remain on welfare on a weekly basis. Sixty-three percent were un-
(and unemployed) are subject to higher rates of able to perform on the job to the best of their
abuse, whereas women who successfully tran- ability during the previous year; 8% of the sam-
sition into work experience have fewer inci- ple were affected daily and 9% were affected
dences of partner violence. Partner violence in weekly. Likewise, Swanberg and Logan’s (2005)
this study was not associated with obtaining study reported that more than half of the partici-
work, but rather the prevalence of partner vio- pants interviewed were unable to concentrate in
lence was more predictive of long-term employ- the past year because of partner victimization.
ment. Riger, Staggs, and Schewe’s (2004) find- In one case, the woman eventually lost her job
ings from the first three waves of a panel study despite her determination to stay focused at
of welfare reform in Illinois (N = 962) imply that work. The lack of concentration may result from
a lifetime of partner violence was not signifi- before-work circumstances, on-the-job harass-
cantly associated with work stability. ment, phone harassment, stalking, or depres-
sion resulting from the abuse (Friedman, work early (Brush, 2002; Swanberg & Logan,
Tucker, Neville, & Imperial, 1996; Raphael, 2005). Brush’s (2002) examination of women re-
1996; Stanley, 1992; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). ceiving welfare and enrolled in “work-first” ac-
As an example, Stanley’s (1992) study of 82 bat- tivities in a Pittsburgh program site reported
tered employed women, who were enrolled in that 27% had to leave work early because of is-
domestic-violence-related treatment services, sues surrounding partner violence. The culmi-
reported that 70% of participants were too dis- nation of similar findings led Raphael and
tracted by the violence to perform well at work. Tolman (1997) to conclude that victims with a
Data also suggest that partner violence victims’ partner who does not want them to be
inability to concentrate is strongly associated employed were more likely to miss work or
with their fear of the perpetrator (Raphael, 1996; report late.
Swanberg & Logan, 2005).
Tardiness. Employed intimate partner vio-
Absenteeism. Partner violence victims also lence victims also experience significant tardi-
have significant absenteeism rates (Brush, 2002; ness rates (Friedman & Couper, 1987; Raphael,
Johnson, 1995; Sable, Libbus, Huneke, & Anger, 1996; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Swanberg et al.,
1999; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). The studies
2005). Research found that between 23% and conducted to date, using a sample of employed
54% of employed partner violence victims re- partner violence victims, which are both small
ported being absent from work because of the and limited in scope, suggest that 50% to 65% of
abuse, with between 4% and 6% reporting that partner violence victims reported being late for
this happened frequently (Allard, Albelda, work or leaving work early because of the vic-
Collen, & Cosenza, 1997; Friedman & Couper, timization (see, e.g., Friedman & Couper, 1987;
1987; Raphael, 1996; Sable et al., 1999; Shepard Raphael, 1996; Shepard & Pence, 1988;
& Pence, 1988; Stanley, 1992; Taylor & Barusch, Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Specifically, Fried-
2004; Tolman & Rosen, 2001). Friedman and man and Couper (1987) found that almost two
Couper (1987) found that 54% of their em- thirds of respondents reported that they were
ployed, victimized female sample had missed late to work because of the abuse; specific rea-
an average of 3 days of work per month because sons included being too exhausted after the vio-
of injuries, shame, depression, or attending ap- lent incidents occurring the night before,
pointments with lawyers or law enforcement needing extra time to apply makeup to cover
for issues directly related to the partner vio- the bruises, and waiting for pain medication to
lence. Taylor and Barusch (2004) reported that take effect. Moreover, 20% of the sample was
36% of women receiving public assistance had late for work because their partners tried to pre-
to stay home from work because of domestic vi- vent them from going to work by engaging in a
olence. Swanberg et al. (2005) found that 25% of variety of prework tactics. Raphael (1996) found
employed or recently employed women apply- that 13% of the victims who reported being late
ing for domestic violence orders called in sick to to work also reported that this type of tardiness
work during the previous 12 months because occurred frequently. Similarly, Swanberg and
they were “too upset to go in,” with 4% calling Logan (2005) found that nearly two thirds of
in weekly and 11% calling in at least monthly. participants reported to work late frequently
Other evidence suggesting that intimate because of batterers’ prework tactics. Reported
partner violence interferes with women’s reasons for tardiness in the last two studies in-
steady job attendance includes a cross-section cluded batterer turning off alarm clock, women
study (N = 734) of women receiving public wel- being too exhausted after violent or aggressive
fare in Massachusetts (Allard et al., 1997). This incidents the night before, batterer physically
research study found that women were more restraining women from leaving for work, bat-
likely to be absent from work if their partner/ terer hiding her car keys, and batterer refusing
boyfriend preferred that they not be employed. at the last minute to assist with child care.
In addition, women reported having to leave
Job loss and turnover rates. Cross-sectional Pence, 1988; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). More
studies indicate that 5% to 27% of victims re- specifically, Moe and Bell (2004) found that bat-
ported a job loss as a direct result of the partner tered women sometimes quit a job because the
violence (Riger et al., 2002; Romero, Chavkin, physical injuries sustained from abusers’ as-
Wise, & Smith, 2003; Sable et al., 1999; Shepard saults were too severe to continue working or
& Pence, 1988; Stanley, 1992; Swanberg & Lo- they feared for their life, and to avoid future vic-
gan, 2005) and, in some cases, partner violence timization, they had to leave their jobs. One
victims experienced higher job turnover rates woman in the qualitative study, prior to being
than nonvictims (Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd & Taluc, raped by her boyfriend, had been successfully
1999; Romero et al., 2003; Zachary, 2000). attending school and balancing motherhood
Romero et al.’s (2003) longitudinal study of low- with three jobs. However, she ultimately had to
income mothers of children with chronic illness quit all three of her jobs and move cross-country
(N = 504) found that women with victimization by bus to flee from her abusive boyfriend. Riger
histories were more than twice as likely to lose a et al. (2002) reported similar findings. Using life
job because of health issues than nonvictimized narrative interviews with 57 women recruited
women: 26% versus 10%, respectively. Shepard from three urban domestic violence shelters,
and Pence (1988) reported that 24% of their sam- Riger and her colleagues set out to understand
ple of employed victimized women lost a job in the multilayered impact that intimate partner
the past year as a direct result of the abuse. Simi- violence has on its victims’ lives. With respects
larly, 30% of participants in another study, de- to employment, many of the respondents stated
scribed earlier, reported that the abuse had that they were unable to complete their educa-
caused them to lose a job (Stanley, 1992). tion or hold a job because of the physical evi-
Swanberg et al. (2005) found that 27% of respon- dence of the partner violence. Physical injuries
dents quit a job in the past year because of inti- prevented women from going to work, and
mate partner violence, sometimes women were asked to resign be-
and 12% reported that cause of a visible injury.
Reasons women quit
they lost a job or failed a Regardless of the reason, be it termination or
their jobs include
class because of partner resignation, intimate partner violence victims
feeling shame
victimization. And, fi- lose their jobs because of the abuse. The high job
associated with the
nally, a descriptive study turnover rates noted in the previously men-
victimization situation,
of female Aid to Family tioned studies may explain the more frequent
fear for their own and
with Dependent Children spells of unemployment experienced by victims
their children’s safety,
recipients (N = 404) living in studies such as Lloyd and Taluc’s (1999). In
embarrassment
in Kansas City, Missouri, addition, for some women the lack of consis-
associated with
revealed that 5% had lost tent, long-standing employment may also in
abusers’ continued
a job as a direct result of part explain the lower relative personal income
on-the-job
t h e in t im a t e p a rt n e r of partner violence victims as compared to non-
harassment,
violence (Sable et al., victims (Lloyd & Taluc, 1999). Nonetheless, job
unreliability of child
1999). loss either by resignation or termination by em-
care, children’s
Reasons women quit ployers for behaviors related to partner victim-
health issues, or
their jobs include feeling ization is likely to compromise women’s eco-
because abuser
shame associated with nomic security, leading some women to turn to
forced them to resign.
the victimization situa- public assistance for financial assistance (Allard
tion, fear for their own et al., 1997; Moe & Bell, 2004; Tolman & Raphael,
and their children’s safety, embarrassment as- 2000). Research has documented the impor-
sociated with abusers’ continued on-the-job ha- tance of financial independence in overcoming
rassment, unreliability of child care, children’s violent relationships (Campbell, Rose, Kub, &
health issues, or because abuser forced them to Nedd, 1998; Gelles, 1976; Lloyd, 1997; Moe &
resign (Moe & Bell, 2004; Riger et al., 2002; Bell, 2004; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Strube &
Romero et al., 2003; Sable et al., 1999; Shepard & Barbour, 1984), yet for some women leaving a
job to secure safety may lead to another form of their partners did not tell their employer
insecurity—economic insecurity. As an exam- (Swanberg et al., 2005). Some of the reasons why
ple, Moe and Bell (2004) found in their qualita- respondents remained silent at work about
tive study that several women quit high-paying their home situation included victims’ embar-
jobs to secure safety for themselves and their rassment about the situation, victims not want-
family. Oftentimes, some women had to rely on ing to be stigmatized, victims felt it was a per-
TANF, and other women took lower paying jobs sonal issue not to be discussed at work,
in new communities. coworkers were partners’ friends, partner
worked in the same workplace and she feared if
Employee Responses to Partner Violence: she told someone at work and her partner
Disclosure—To Tell or Not to Tell found this out, the violence would escalate.
Similar results were found in Swanberg and
A body of research literature suggests that Macke (in press). Using cross-sectional data col-
employees with social supports at work, be it a lected from a workplace violence survey dis-
coworker or supervisor, are more likely to be tributed to all employees at one organization lo-
“happy workers” and to have longer job tenures cated in the southeastern region of the United
than employees without social supports (see States (N = 868), authors investigated the preva-
T. D. Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000, for re- lence of intimate partner violence at one job site
view; Bond et al., 1998; Galinsky & Bond, 1998). and the contexts associated with disclosure.
Specific to intimate partner violence, social sup- Among the sample of employees with recent in-
port can provide coping resources that can miti- timate partner violence histories (n = 34), 56%
gate the effects of threatening events and expe- did not inform someone at work about the part-
riences (Thoits, 1986). Moreover, research ner victimization. Reasons for not disclosing fell
suggests that victimized women with high lev- into three main categories: (a) victims felt part-
els of perceived social support are more likely to ner violence was a personal issue and should
disclose to nonfamily members (Rhodes & not be brought into the workplace (64%), (b)
McKenzie, 1998; Yoshioka, Gilbert, El-Bassel, & they felt embarrassed and/or ashamed (32%),
Baig-Amin, 2003) and, in combination with and (c) they did not feel people at work could be
other protective factors such as employment, trusted (3%). In a related qualitative study per-
good health, and self-esteem, report lower lev- taining to battered women’s perceptions and
els of anxiety and depression (Carlson, McNutt, experiences of disclosing their partner victim-
Choi, & Rose, 2002). Yet, in many cases, the ization histories to case managers (N = 10),
stigma associated with intimate partner vio- women identified several factors that influ-
lence silences many of its victims and isolates enced their decision to disclose (Busch & Wolfer,
them from support networks on the job. As 2002). Perceptions about potential negative con-
such, this may prevent employed intimate part- sequences of disclosure, diminished percep-
ner violence victims from telling anyone at tions of choice about whether to disclose or not,
work about their situation (Lemon, 2001; and intuitive feelings about their case managers
Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005; affected women’s decision about how and what
Swanberg & Macke, in press). to tell their case managers. Finally, Lemon
Lemon (2001), in a legal argument for em- (2001) suggested four other reasons why vic-
ployment rights of domestic violence victims, tims may be reluctant to come forward about
posited that employed victims of intimate part- their abuse-related situation, namely, (a) that
ner violence often remain silent at work because the batterer may seek revenge if he discovers
they fear losing their job. Empirical studies con- that she revealed information to the employer;
cur with this claim. For instance, 33% of em- (b) that he may be responsible for the abuse;
ployed or recently employed women who re- (c) that the batterer, whom the victim may
cently filed a domestic violence order against care about, will be harmed; and (d) that the
TABLE 1: Corporate Attitudes Pertaining to Partner Violence
• 57% of senior corporate executives believe partner violence is a major social problem
• 33% of senior corporate executives believe partner violence has a negative impact on their companies’ bottom line
• 40% of senior corporate executives reported that they were personally aware of employees and other individuals affected by partner
violence
• 66% of senior corporate executives believe that their organization’s financial performance would benefit from addressing partner vio-
lence within the organization
• 47% of senior corporate executives believe that partner violence has a negative impact on their organization’s productivity
• 44% of senior corporate executives believe that partner violence increases the health care costs of the organization
• 94% of security directors from 248 companies across 27 states ranked partner violence as “high” on the scale of security problems
• 78% of human resource professionals polled by Personnel Journal said domestic violence is a workplace issue
SOURCE: Family Violence Prevention Fund (2003).
employer may not care about or have time for and 43% informed a coworker about their vic-
the abuse-related problems” (p. 830). timization situation, despite women’s concerns
Although issues of privacy and fear of job about the reactions and subsequent actions that
loss concern some employed victims of partner might transpire. Safety concerns, needing time
violence, other victims found informing some- off, or wanting to explain workplace absences
one at work to be a useful strategy (Swanberg were reasons that influenced employees to tell
et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Swanberg someone at work. Respondents also opted to
& Macke, in press). The following section re- disclose because they assumed people “figured
views three studies that specifically explored out what was going on.” The third study echoes
the context associated with whether employed findings from the first two research investiga-
victims opt to tell someone at work about their tions (Swanberg & Macke, in press). Forty-four
situation. percent of employed victims of intimate part-
In the first study previously described, 66% ner violence informed someone at work about
of employed or recently employed (N = 518) their home situation. Victims disclosed to co-
women who filed for domestic violence orders workers (64%), immediate supervisors (29%),
in the Commonwealth of Kentucky reported nonimmediate supervisors (21%), or other peo-
telling someone at work about the partner vio- ple within the workplace (14%). Reasons why
lence at home (Swanberg et al., 2005). Among respondents informed someone at work in-
the respondents who told someone at work (n = cluded the need for advice/support (26%), sup-
331), 59% told their immediate supervisor, 46% port from friends (23.5%), expressing feelings to
informed a coworker or fellow student, 6% told someone (18%), legal protection or for safety
a supervisor that was not their immediate su- purposes (15%), informing supervisor of reason
pervisor, and fewer than 1% informed a human for seeming “stressed out” (12%), and telling su-
resources professional, an employee assistance pervisor before someone else did (5.5%).
professional, or security. Some of the reasons The limited available research pertaining to
employees told someone at work included pro- disclosure implies that a victim’s decision to
viding reasons for why respondent quit her job, disclose or not disclose in the workplace may be
called in sick or appeared upset at work, need- dependent on the possible prevailing personal
ing someone to confide in, explaining physical and/or organizational attitudes about intimate
evidence of abuse, needing to inform someone partner violence, the extent to which the inti-
that she feared for safety, and wanting to ex- mate partner violence impacts their work per-
plain poor work performance to prevent being formance, and the subsequent availability of
fired. workplace supports. Furthermore, as will be
Similar results emerged from the second discussed later in this article, the limited re-
study, also described earlier in this article search to date suggests an overall positive expe-
(Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Forty-six percent of rience with disclosing victimization to someone
respondents informed supervisors or managers at work.
Organizational-Level Consequences Organizational Costs

of Intimate Partner Violence and When partner violence spills over into the
Employer Responses workplace, in addition to affecting the primary
target, negative consequences are likely to
Until recently, intimate partner violence has transfer to secondary victims (Bell, Moe, &
been a social problem that has virtually been ig- Schweinle, 2002; Brownell, 1996; Kinney, 1995;
nored by workplaces (Duffy et al., 2005; Fried- Riger et al., 2002; Zachary, 2000). Secondary vic-
man et al., 1996; P. R. Johnson & Indvik, 1999; tims are individuals who are not the intended
Petty & Kosch, 2001). Within the past decade, target of the aggressive or violent episode but
some organizations have become more aware of rather are accidentally injured or harmed by it.
intimate partner violence as a social problem In the workplace, this might include coworkers
and its associated economic and social costs and or supervisors of the primary target, customers,
consequences to workplaces. As a result, some or other individuals who happen to be in the
firms have taken action to combat this social is- work area at the time of the partner violence epi-
sue at the workplace level. Data suggest that sode. Secondary victims may be traumatized or
10,000 to 60,000 intimate partner violence inci- harmed by witnessing an event or suffering
dents are perpetrated within the workplace from physical assault. As a result, they may suf-
each year (Bachman, 1994; Warchol, 1998). As fer similar negative effects including physical
noted in the information compiled from several and psychological health problems (Bell et al.,
studies pertaining to employer views of inti- 2002; Brownell, 1996; Duffy et al., 2005; Kinney,
mate partner violence by the Family Violence 1995). In turn, these health effects may result in
Prevention Fund (2003), there is an awareness of similar consequences as
the problem but not a consensus on the work- experienced by the pri- The organizational
place consequences associated with the social mary victims’ including consequences
problem (see Table 1). There also appears to be a reduced productivity, in- associated with
lack of information about how to keep victims creased tardiness, and in- intimate partner
and others safe at the workplace when violence creased turnover/job violence, when it is
spills over into the workplace. loss. Regardless of its vic- either ignored as a
The organizational consequences associated tims, intimate partner vi- personnel issue or
with intimate partner violence, when it is either olence has significant disregarded as a
ignored as a personnel issue or disregarded as a costs to workplaces, em- work-related issue,
work-related issue, have the possibility of cost- ployees, customers, and have the possibility of
ing employers enormous sums of money (Bu- other bystanders. The costing employers
reau of National Affairs, 1990). In contrast, foremost organizational enormous sums of
when the social issue is addressed as a work- costs incurred because of money.
place issue, the social and economic costs can be partner violence include
significantly reduced (Friedman et al., 1996; production costs, medi-
Pereira, 1995; Petty & Kosch, 2001). Identifying cal costs, administrative costs, and liability
and quantifying these costs is a critical first step costs (Johnson & Indvik, 1999; Reynolds, 1997;
in convincing organizations that intimate part- VAWA, 1998; Zachary, 2000).
ner violence has major social and economic con-
sequences for workplaces and that action is Production costs. As was noted earlier, pri-
needed to eradicate its radiating effects (Duffy mary and secondary victims of partner violence
et al., 2005). The following section reviews the often display lowered productivity within the
limited literature on the four types of organiza- organization as a direct result of intimate part-
tional costs associated with intimate partner vi- ner violence (M. Bell et al., 2002; Brownell, 1996;
olence: production, medical, administrative, East, 1999; H. Johnson, 1995; Kinney, 1995; Ra-
and liability costs; and it reviews the current phael, 1996; Zachary, 2000). More than half of
knowledge about employers’ responses to intimate partner violence victims miss 3 or more
intimate partner violence. workdays per month (Zachary, 2000). Lowered
productivity may result from partner violence son & Indvik, 1999; Reynolds, 1997; Zachary,
victims’ use of work time to secure resources or 2000). These administrative costs include leave
make phone calls prohibited at home (Wilson, or transfer costs, separation costs, and replace-
1997). Such lowered productivity at the individ- ment costs (i.e., hiring and training costs) (Bell
ual level results in an overall lowered produc- et al., 2002).
tivity of the company, involving a lowered Legal liability is also an important consider-
quality and/or quantity of organizational out- ation for organizations managing the repercus-
put (Brownell, 1996; Chenier, 1998; Johnson & sions of partner violence. Employers are obli-
Indvik, 1999; Zachary, 2000). gated to protect employees at work from
“recognized hazards that are causing or are
Medical costs. The second prominent cost in- likely to cause death or serious harm . . . . to em-
crease experienced by organizations because of ployees,” as is stipulated by the Occupational
partner violence occurs in the area of medical Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)
expenses. Primary and secondary victims of General Duty Clause (Chenier, 1998; Johnson &
partner violence experience negative physical Indvik, 1999; Petty & Kosch, 2001). According to
and psychological effects of such abuse much Petty and Kosch (2001), “employers are obli-
more so than the general population (see Camp- gated to do everything reasonably necessary to
bell et al., 2002; Plitcha, 1996, for review). As a protect the life, safety, and health of employees”
result, the physical and mental health effects (p. 461). This suggests that once an employer
faced by intimate partner violence victims re- has been informed of a potential partner-
sult in increased employee benefit costs, in- violence-related risk situation, they may be held
creased health insurance premiums, and liable if reasonable steps were not taken to pro-
increased sick leave expenditures (Bell et al., tect the safety of the employees. If the organiza-
2002; Brownell, 1996; Chenier, 1998; Greenfeld tion was aware of an impending danger yet did
et al., 1998; Johnson & Indvik, 1999; Reynolds, not take steps to prevent it, OSHA may fine the
1997; Wisner et al., 1999; Zachary, 2000). An organization between $25,000 and $70,000 for
analysis of the NCVS2 conducted by Greenfeld serious health hazard (Petty & Kosch, 2001).
et al. (1998) indicates that partner violence vic- Additional costs borne by employers as a result
tims incur $24 million annually in medical ex- of partner violence include increased security
penses, much of which again is borne by costs, increased workers’ compensation costs,
employers. Wisner et al.’s (1999) analysis of the increased legal costs, lost business, damaged
computerized cost data for 126 identified vic- reputation, and damaged property (Bell et al.,
tims of intimate partner violence in a large 2002; Chenier, 1998; Johnson & Indvik, 1999).
health plan in two Minnesota cities found that
$1,775 more was spent on each intimate partner Employer Responses
violence victim annually as compared to a ran- The previous cost assessments associated
dom sample of female health plan enrollees. with partner violence expose the possible fiscal
This cost differential can be accounted for by liability that organizations are likely to incur if
more hospitalizations, higher general clinic use, and when intimate partner violence is disre-
higher mental health services use, and more garded as a workplace concern. Although more
out-of-plan referrals for intimate partner than half of business executives recognize inti-
violence victims as compared to their nonvictim mate partner violence as a workplace issue with
counterparts (Wisner et al., 1999). significant organizational costs, research sug-
gests that few organizations have taken an ac-
Administrative and liability costs. Increased ab- tive stance against intimate partner violence or
senteeism, tardiness, and turnover of primary have developed formal policies for dealing with
and secondary victims result in increased ad- it (Johnson & Indvik, 1999). Among the few or-
ministrative costs for the organization (Bell ganizations that have taken the issue seriously,
et al., 2002; Brownell, 1996; Chenier, 1998; John- the Wall Street Journal (1995) suggested that a
concern to “keep talent, reduce absenteeism, procedures, often referred to as “family-

and avoid liability” has been moving organiza- friendly policies,” to assist employees in man-
tions to take action against domestic abuse aging work and family responsibilities
(Pereira, 1995, p. B1). For instance, corporations (Galinsky & Bond, 1998). “Family-friendly”
including Liz Claiborne, Polaroid Corporation, supports generally take the form of either infor-
and CoreStates Financial Corporation have de- mal or formal policies or programs. Examples of
veloped a set of company-wide personnel and informal workplace supports might include a
management policies and support services spe- supervisor/coworker offering a listening ear or
cifically tailored to victims of partner violence allowing occasional flexibility with starting and
(Friedman et al., 1996). As a result, they have set quitting times. Examples of formal workplace
an example for other businesses to follow supports include Employee Assistance Pro-
(Friedman et al., 1996; Pereira, 1995; Petty & grams (EAPs), flexible schedule arrangements,
Kosch, 2001). and management training programs pertaining
Although some firms are working to reduce to work/family issues (Swanberg et al., 2005;
the risk of intimate partner violence when it car- Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Swanberg & Macke,
ries over into the workplace by creating preven- in press). Although research has reported posi-
tion and protection programs, a limited number tive individual and organizational outcomes
of studies on the issue also suggests that em- with the adoption of family-friendly workplace
ployers sometimes respond to intimate partner practices (T. D. Allen et al., 2000, for review;
violence incidents by terminating the primary Bond et al., 1998; Galinsky & Bond, 1998), few
victim (Bell et al., 2002; Browne et al., 1999; research studies have investigated intimate
Shepard & Pence, 1988; Stanley, 1992). For in- partner violence spillover into the workplace as
stance, Shepard and Pence (1988) found that a work/family issue. That is, very few studies
44% of their sample of battered women (N = 71) have investigated the relationship between inti-
had been reprimanded or fired by their em- mate partner violence at work, workplace sup-
ployer for excessive absences, tardiness, and ports, and employee outcomes. Extant research
poor productivity. Likewise, 12% to 56% of em- on this topic suggests that rather than immedi-
ployed partner violence victims experienced ately terminating an employee on learning
such consequences in their lifetime (Friedman about her victimization, organizations have
& Couper, 1987; Lloyd, 1997; Raphael, 1996). other options including offering formal and/or
Furthermore, although participants did not informal supports as a strategy to assist em-
identify termination as the reason for job loss, ployees (Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Lo-
Browne et al. (1999) reported that only one third gan, 2005; Swanberg & Macke, in press).
of women in their study were able to maintain a Three studies were identified that specifi-
job for 6 months or more the year following a cally examine whether organizations provide
partner violence incident. Findings suggest that any form of workplace support to employed
there is no one “typical” way that an organiza- victims of intimate partner violence. Specifi-
tion responds to intimate partner violence as a cally, two of three studies (Swanberg et al., 2005;
workplace problem. Although the stigma asso- Swanberg & Macke, in press) included ques-
ciated with intimate partner violence might tions in the survey instrument pertaining to the
drive the decisions of some employers, research types of workplace supports received and the
suggests that others recognize intimate partner level of satisfaction with the workplace sup-
violence as a workplace problem comparable to ports. Among the 331 respondents (employed
other forms of violence that emerge within or recently employed women who filed for a
work settings, and thus actions need to be taken domestic violence order) who told someone at
to keep employees and customers safe. work about the abuse (Swanberg et al., 2005),
the majority received either informal or formal
Workplace Supports supports from coworkers or supervisors. Exam-
During the past two decades, some organiza- ples of informal supports included a “listening
tions have introduced workplace policies and ear” (90%), assistance from coworkers during
TABLE 2: Formal Employer Supports
Prevention Protection Intervention
• Partner violence education programs • Leave time without penalty so em- • Employee Assistance Programs
for supervisors: helping supervisors ployee can keep court appointments (EAPs) staffed with partner violence
recognize warning signs and enhanc- or go to safe shelters professionals
ing familiarity with community part- • Flexible work hours • Counseling services through EAPs
ner violence resources • Workplace transfers • Resource referrals to outside partner
• Partner violence education programs • Alter work schedule to confuse violence services
for employees encouraging disclosure perpetrator • Assistance with safety planning
• Partner violence education for secu- • Relocation of victim’s work station • Emergency funds for crisis situations
rity personnel • Temporarily altering job responsibili-
ties/adjusting expectations
• Observation of protection/restraining
orders
• Provision of legal assistance
• Provision of a cell phone
• Phone call screenings
• Silent alarms at victim’s work station
• Providing photo of perpetrator to se-
curity personnel to spot intruder
• Security camera
• Security escort to vehicle
• Priority parking near building
• Enhanced parking lot lighting
SOURCE:Bell et al.(2002), Brownell (1996), Family Violence Prevention Fund (2003), Johnson & Indvik (1999), Kinney (1995), Reynolds (1997).
break times (62%), screening intrusive tele- 85% of respondents were satisfied with the sup-
phone calls from the abusive partner (46.5%), port they received from people at their
assistance with creating workplace. Moreover, 72% of respondents
a security plan should reported that the support helped them to keep
Two of three studies
partner threaten to come their job, and 84% of women reported that
included questions in
to the workplace (44%), having a job helped them to cope with the vio-
the survey instrument
genera l information lence at home.
pertaining to the
about where to go for Data suggest similar findings in the second
types of workplace
help with violence at study, which inquired about types of supports
supports received
home (32%), escorting received and level of satisfaction with the sup-
and the level of
the victim to her car at ports (Swanberg & Macke, in press). Among the
satisfaction with the
the end of the work shift respondents who disclosed to someone at work
workplace supports.
(27%), and coworkers (n = 15), the most commonly offered support
Among the 331
helping with out-of- was a listening ear (87%), followed by break
respondents who told
work responsibilities time spent with coworkers (53%), coworker as-
someone at work
(36%). Formal supports sisting with personal matters (53%), informa-
about the abuse, the
offered by workplaces tion about resources (53%), a referral to a coun-
majority received
and used by respon- selor (40%), schedule flexibility (40%), an
either informal or
dents included supervi- informational brochure (27%), workload flexi-
formal supports from
sor-approved schedule bility (20%), help making a security plan in case
coworkers or
flexibility to attend to batterer showed up at workplace (13%), escort
supervisors.
personal matters (73%), to car (13%), and phone call screening (7%).
workload flexibility Overall, all employees who disclosed partner
when preoccupied with personal matters violence to someone in the workplace (27%)
(49.5%), referral to counseling (15%), and an in- were satisfied with the supports offered to
formational brochure describing domestic vio- them. In addition, 73% of participants reported
lence services in the community (9%). Overall, that the workplace supports helped them stay
employed, and 87% reported that having a job ployees while also resulting in economic
helped them cope with the intimate partner savings for the employer by increasing produc-
violence. tivity, decreasing absenteeism, and strengthen-
In contrast, another study reported less posi- ing morale (Chenier, 1998). The U.S. Depart-
tive findings. Stanley’s (1992) study cited earlier ment of Labor concluded that every dollar
indicated that only 20% of the research partici- invested in EAPs resulted in a savings of $5 to
pants had been offered any assistance by their $16 (Chenier, 1998).
employer. The quality of the assistance, as re- Although several companies, such as Polar-
ported by research participants, was either oid, Liz Claiborne, and Marshall’s (Brownell,
value laden or simplistic in nature, as evidenced 1996), have been pioneers in providing such for-
by such comments as “Why don’t you just leave mal workplace supports to their employees,
him?” Despite findings from this latter study, there is no research indicating the outcomes of
the limited research available suggests that re- such supports. Though it is speculated that such
ceiving both informal and formal workplace supports may enhance victims’ ability to main-
supports is valued and consequently promotes tain employment, empirical evidence is lacking.
loyalty among employed victims. Yet given the This clearly constitutes an area for further
extremely small sample size and study limita- research.
tions, conclusions must be drawn with caution.
Nonetheless, drawing on organizational re-
SUMMARY
search within the employee assistance field,
Brownell (1996) recommended that employers The purpose of this article is to examine the
maximize workplace safety by instituting a literature on violence against women and em-
range of formal employer policies specific to ployment. Specifically, the literature review
partner violence. Brownell offered a broader discussed research pertaining to the (a) types
definition of workplace supports. She catego- of job interference tactics used by abusers, (b)
rized possible formal workplace supports as employee-level consequences of partner vio-
prevention, protection, or intervention services. lence, (c) victimized employee responses to inti-
Examples of such services are provided in mate partner violence, (d) organizational-level
Table 2. consequences of partner violence, and (e) em-
Prevention-focused formal supports, such as ployer responses to intimate partner violence.
security personnel, are often already in place The association between victimization and em-
within medium and larger firms to assume the ployment is complex (see Key Points of the Re-
responsibility of handling workplace violence search Review). The research to date suggests
incidents (Schell, 2003). However, security per- that intimate partner violence does not prevent
sonnel may need to be trained on how to man- victims from working; however, it does prevent
age partner violence when it spills over into the victims from maintaining long-term stable jobs
workplace, or new personnel may need to be because women may need to leave jobs for
hired to provide prevention and intervention safety reasons. Job interference tactics used by
supports (Brownell, 1996). Protection-focused abusers are classified in two categories: work
formal supports such as flexible work arrange- disruption and work-related stalking. As a re-
ments, screening phone calls, or providing sult of these behaviors, some victims of partner
leave with job security are workplace policies violence struggle to be employed, others man-
designed to keep employees safe and to keep age to obtain employment but fail to maintain it,
them working, whether it be at an alternate job whereas still others cannot obtain employment
site or an alternate work schedule. The third at all. Employers spend an estimated $3 billion
type of formal workplace support includes pro- to $5 billion yearly on costs associated with
grams such as EAPs. EAPs, in particular, are es- partner violence, including increased produc-
pecially effective in assisting employees who tion, medical, administrative, and liability
are experiencing partner violence (Chenier, costs. Employer responses to partner violence
1998). More specifically, EAPs can benefit em- have been mixed. That is, key organizational
administrators have traditionally not viewed from the findings. Thus, future research on this
intimate partner violence as an issue needing topic warrants studies with large samples and
organizational attention, despite the organiza- rigorous methods.
tional costs associated with the social problem. A third limitation of intimate partner vio-
The varied responses to victimization disclo- lence and employment studies is that many in-
sure at work include job termination as well as vestigations are conducted using low-income
the provision of informal and/or formal sup- samples. As such, in many of the studies, em-
ports. Limited extant research suggests that ployment outcome variables were strictly about
workplace disclosure and subsequent supports job attainment or job tenure. However, there
have positive short-term effects on employment may be other employment and economic factors
outcomes. Despite the potential for positive that are strongly related to partner violence. For
outcomes resulting from disclosure, research instance, what are the long-term economic ef-
suggests that not all partner violence victims fects of job instability resulting from partner vi-
feel comfortable informing someone at work, as olence? Or for women who are able to maintain
they fear being fired or they feel the problem is stable employment despite experiencing part-
manageable on their own. The following sec- ner violence, what effects do the consequences
tion sets an agenda for further research and associated with the abuse have on performance
practice interventions regarding victimization reviews and promotional opportunities?
and employment.
Future Research Directions
From the perspective of the employed victim,
IMPLICATIONS: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR longitudinal research focusing on the complex
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE nuances associated with partner violence and
employment is long overdue for three primary
Research: Developing a Better Under- reasons. First, authors concur with Browne et al.
standing of the Relationships Between Inti- (1999); Corcoran, Danziger, Kalil, and Seefeldt
mate Partner Violence and Employment (2000); Riger et al., 1998; and Riger and Staggs
(2004) that future research is needed that fol-
Although research has revealed the complex lows partner violence victims over time, specifi-
nature of the intersection between intimate cally documenting temporal relationships be-
partner violence and employment, extant litera- tween violent episodes and employment
ture continues to be plagued by limitations and factors. As Danziger and Seefeldt (2002) noted,
caveats. These shortcomings as well as future “studies [pertaining to domestic violence] that
research directions are discussed below. take a snapshot of individuals at one point in
time cannot address the extent to which barriers
Research Limitations [to work] persist over time and the possible ef-
One of the primary limitations of the studies fect of such persistent barriers on consistent em-
reviewed is that many are cross-sectional in na- ployment” (p. 77). Furthermore, Bell (2003) sug-
ture and do not take into account temporal fac- gested that for some women, there is a very
tors such as the relationship between violent complicated cyclical relationship between abu-
outbursts and poor work performance (Browne sive behavior, employment, and unemploy-
et al., 1999). The one longitudinal study con- ment. A more precise assessment between part-
ducted to date (Browne et al., 1999) demon- ners’ violent behaviors and employment
strated a relationship between severe partner behaviors will allow for more effective clinical
violence and job instability. Additional longitu- interventions with victims and batterers, and it
dinal studies are needed to further build on this will allow for accurate workplace interventions
finding. Another limitation of this review is that aimed to prevent and protect people in the
many of the studies of intimate partner violence workplace. Second, longitudinal research
and employment rely on small samples. As should include a focus on victims of partner vio-
such, it is difficult to draw general conclusions lence who manage to stay employed for longer
periods of time, as such research will help deter- costs and contribute to the overall efforts at reducing
mine what individual and workplace factors intimate partner violence’s devastating conse-
quences. (p. 14)
might contribute to stable employment. And
third, a richer and more comprehensive under- Second, although OSHA has guiding regula-
standing of the effects of partner violence on tions pertaining to workplace violence and the
employment could be gathered if research handling of partner violence when it spills over
samples included victims across economic into the workplace, very little research has been
brackets, occupational levels, and all age conducted on employers’ knowledge of the
groups. consequences that intimate partner violence
From the perspective of the workplace, fur- may have on the workplace, attitudes and per-
ther research is needed in three areas. First, the ceptions about partner violence, and actions
reviewed research demonstrates that partner taken once partner-violence spillover situations
violence has a significant impact on the work- become apparent within the workplace. Fur-
place; however, there is limited information on thermore, no information could be found about
the employee prevalence of partner violence the prevalence of employers that implement in-
and its effects on employment and job perfor- timate partner violence management and staff
mance. More specifically, information is lacking education/training programs. In addition, the
about the overall prevalence of intimate partner reviewed literature implies that the stigma as-
violence among the general workforce. Measur- sociated with intimate partner violence some-
ing how this social ill affects the overall em- times prevents victims from seeking assistance
ployed population could assist in building a at the workplace. If employees felt more com-
strong rationale for employer involvement in fortable coming forward about their domestic
addressing this issue. Furthermore, although situations and coworkers and managers under-
outside the parameters of this article, work- stood how to manage the information, then the
places may incur costs related to perpetrators
workplace might become a safer place to seek
(Leone et al., 2004; Rothman, 2002). For in-
assistance. Thus, further research is needed to
stance, Rothman (2002) reported that organiza-
understand intimate partner violence from a
tions incurred costs because of the absence of
workplace perspective, specifically focusing on
employed perpetrators as a result of time in jail,
employers’ knowledge and attitudes about
court, counseling, and meeting with probation
partner violence and the actions taken when it
officers. Moreover, Barling and Rosenbaum
spills over into the workplace.
(1986) and Melzer (2002) suggested that a stress-
Third, assuming other longitudinal data con-
ful work climate may contribute to partner vio-
firms Browne et al.’s (1999) findings that part-
lence. Thus, to understand the full effects of
ner violence does not prevent employment but
intimate partner violence on partner-victimized
rather affects job stability, further investigation
women and on organizations, it is necessary to
into the strategies employers could use to help
study the effects of perpetrators’ actions on or-
victims of partner violence stay employed for
ganizations. In addition to the lack of informa-
longer periods of time is warranted. For in-
tion pertaining to the incidence of partner
stance, research within the interdisciplinary
violence in the general employed population,
field of work and family suggests that work-
there is also a lack of information pertaining to
place supports (i.e., supervisor support, flexible
the effects of intimate partner violence on orga-
work schedules, alternate work hours) are asso-
nizations, including its effects when it spills
ciated with reduced job turnover, reduced tardi-
over into the workplace. Duffy et al. (2005) sug-
ness, and increased job satisfaction (Bond et al.,
gested that
1998; see T. D. Allen et al., 2000 for review). As
such, considering Swanberg and colleagues’
developing a better understanding of how intimate
partner violence affects organizations and employ- (Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005;
ees in the workplace should lead to more effective Swanberg & Macke, in press) research and bor-
organizational interventions that will minimize rowing from research within the field of work
and family, it seems plausible that workplace tims asked for help from coworkers or supervi-
supports may also have positive work out- sors, positive outcomes resulted. Thus, assisting
comes for victims of intimate partner violence. employed victims in carefully considering the
Thus, an intervention study focusing on the re- pros and cons of disclosing this information to
lationship between workplace supports and job an employer could be enormously beneficial.
outcomes among victims of partner violence is Furthermore, social service workers, with the
another important area of inquiry. victim’s permission, could act as an intermedi-
ary between the victim and the employer
Practice: Applying Current Knowledge (Lemon, 2001). That is, a counselor or victim’s
to Community and Workplace Practice advocate could speak to the employee’s super-
visor, educating him or her about partner vio-
Assisting Employed Victims of lence and the employee’s situation, as well as
Intimate Partner Violence collaboratively creating a plan that aims to keep
Research findings clearly suggest that inti- the employee and workplace safe while also
mate partner abuse is not isolated to the home. allowing the employee to continue working.
As such, social service workers can possibly
play a role in helping victims manage the de- Workplace Applications3
mands of work while also staying safe. For in-
Within the workplace, there are several steps
stance, social service workers might integrate
that employers can take depending on the orga-
into their counseling interventions with em-
nization’s size, commitment to the issue, and re-
ployed victims of partner violence (if they have
sources. Ideally, workplace partner violence
not already) a variety of
policies should focus on prevention, protection,
t o p ics p e rt a in in g t o
Research findings and assistance (Friedman et al., 1996; Hoffman
work. In fact, a study
clearly suggest that & Baron, 2001; Petty & Kosch, 2001). Petty and
pertaining to the needs
intimate partner Kosch (2001) recommended that workplace vio-
and the prioritization of
abuse is not isolated lence policies include two key components: (a) a
help-seeking behaviors
to the home. As such, zero-tolerance policy for any type of violent
among survivors of part-
social service workers behavior, including partner violence; and (b) a
ner violence 6 months af-
can possibly play a procedure for confidential reporting of violence-
ter leaving a shelter (N =
role in helping victims related matters. This policy can be expanded to
143) found that survi-
manage the include workplace partner violence by explic-
vors reported that 60%
demands of work itly identifying partner-violence-related behav-
wanted assistance with
while also staying iors that are prohibited at the workplace and on
issues pertaining to em-
safe. its property and the specific procedures that
ployment and 63% ac-
will be taken if such actions are discovered. As
ce s s e d co m m un it y -
well, the policy should create a set of clear and
based employment services (N. Allen, Bybee, &
simple steps that should be taken by managers,
Sullivan, 2004). Partner violence counselors and supervisors, security personnel, and coworkers
advocates may help victims extend their safety if partner violence incidents spill over into the
plans to include workplaces (Petty & Kosch, workplace. It is recommended that all employ-
2001), and they may assist survivors in finding ees should be made aware of workplace partner
employment (Allen et al., 2004). Counselors violence policies and procedures and that the
could also play a role in helping victims information should be distributed and dis-
strategize whether to tell someone at work played in anonymous locations.
about their abusive situation and how. Research Given the shame and stigma associated with
findings (Lemon, 2001; Swanberg et al., 2005; partner violence, demystifying the disgrace as-
Swanberg & Logan, 2005) reveal that partner vi- sociated with this social problem might encour-
olence victims might be reluctant to tell some- age employees to come forward and to conse-
one at work about their situation for a variety of quently reduce or eliminate the risk of partner
reasons. Yet two studies imply that when vic- violence spilling over into the workplace. Strat-
egies used by some companies to address this ature reviewed suggests that intimate partner
issue include requiring all employees to attend violence has a significant effect on employed
general information sessions on partner vio- victims’ day-to-day work life, yet the long-term
lence that provide information about commu- consequences are still unclear. Moreover, inti-
nity resources, distributing information materi- mate partner violence has serious economic
als about partner violence and where to seek consequences for employers, especially when
help, and posting materials in public and pri- individuals feel stigmatized and are therefore
vate places. Furthermore, Friedman et al. (1996) inhibited from disclosing the abuse to someone
recommended that partner violence be incorpo- at work or when intimate partner violence is not
rated into all training seminars, including office recognized as a workplace problem. To fully
safety and employee health or employee bene- comprehend the social, psychological, and eco-
fits training, as a way to destigmatize the issue. nomic costs of intimate partner violence on em-
Numerous publications on workplace vio- ployees’ work performance and its costs when
lence strongly recommend that employers re- it spills over into victims’ jobs and the places
quire managers and supervisors to participate they work, further research is needed. Yet there
in workplace violence prevention training pro- is enough information to suggest that increas-
grams (Hoffman & Baron, 2001; Lemon, 2001; ing people’s awareness about the consequences
Petty & Kosch, 2001). It is recommended that of intimate partner violence on women’s em-
the workplace violence prevention programs ployment and the organizations in which they
include a component specifically about work- work might help reduce the economic and
place intimate partner violence. Recommended social costs of this issue. Likewise, expanding
topics include recognizing partner-violence- social services to include topics related to work-
related symptoms among employees, employee place safety planning could possibly assist vic-
confidentiality, organizational procedures for tims of intimate partner violence in keeping
handling partner violence incidents, OSHA’s
their job.
general duty-to-warn clause, EAPs, community
There are several limitations to this article.
resources available to help employees, and
First, there may be other factors that are associ-
workplace policies and practices that are avail-
ated with the intersection of intimate partner vi-
able to accommodate victims’ needs (leaves of
olence and employment that were not included
absences, flexible work hours, Family Medical
in this article because of the fact that this topic is
Leave Act).
a fairly new area of inquiry. Second, because this
Finally, specific personnel policies can be cre-
ated to protect intimate partner violence victims area of research inquiry is new, there were lim-
(Akukwe, 1998; Friedman et al., 1996; Petty & ited empirical studies from which to draw. In
Kosch, 2001). Policies might include paid time some instances, the same articles were used to
off, extended leave of absence, workplace relo- illuminate key topic areas. Third, despite an ex-
cation policies, flexible work hours that may al- haustive search, it is likely that not all of the rele-
low victims to apply for court orders or seek vant research studies were included in this re-
new housing arrangements, or the provision of view. Even with these limitations, this article
escort services to and from employee’s car (see provides an overview and a synthesis of the ex-
Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research). panding body of literature focused on victim-
ization, employment, and organizational con-
sequences. In addition, the review provides a
CONCLUSION framework that can be used to further the re-
Intimate partner violence has significant so- search in this area, and to enhance the
cial and economic consequences for victims and comprehensiveness of workplace and social
the organizations at which they work. The liter- service interventions.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, POLICY, & RESEARCH

Research Practice
From the perspective of the employed victim, • Social service workers could play a key role in
longitudinal research designs inclusive of the helping employed victims manage the de-
mands of work while also staying safe by inte-
following three issues may help to further un- grating into counseling sessions issues
derstand and address this social problem: pertaining to work.
• Social service workers could also help victims
• assess the temporal relationships between vio-
extend safety plans to include workplaces and
lent episodes and employment factors;
help victims strategize about whether to and
• determine the strategies and coping skills used
how to tell someone at work about the abuse.
by short- and long-term employed partner vio-
• With the victim’s permission, social service
lence victims;
workers could act as an intermediary between
• include economically diverse samples that
the victim and the workplace.
cut across various occupational and age
categories.
Workplace Policy
From the perspective of the employer, further
research is needed in three areas. • Organizations could perhaps establish “work-
place partner violence” policies that specifi-
• More information is needed about the preva- cally focus on prevention, protection, and
lence of partner violence among the U.S. assistance.
workforce and about the economic, social, • Prevention policies could focus on zero toler-
and psychological costs of partner violence ance for any type of violent behavior, includ-
when it intersects with the workplace. ing partner violence.
• Further research pertaining to employers’ • Protection policies could establish procedures
knowledge and attitudes about partner vio- for confidentially reporting violence-related
lence is needed as well as the actions taken matters as well as establishing supervisor and
when partner violence interferes with work- employee training that educates people
place operations. about partner violence and resources avail-
• Further research into the strategies employers able to assist people experiencing such issues.
have established to help victims of partner vi- • Personnel policies could be created to pro-
olence maintain employment for longer peri- tect partner violence victims. Such policies
ods of time could serve as examples for other might include paid time off, extended leave
employers. of absence, flex-time, or workplace reloca-
tion policies.
NOTES Allard, M. A., Albelda, R., Collen, M. E., & Cosenza, C.

(1997). In harm’s way? Domestic violence, AFDC receipt,
1. This is a national telephone survey on violence against
women conducted in the United States from November 1995 to
and welfare reform in Massachusetts. Boston: University of
May 1996. Massachusetts, McCormack Institute, and Center for
2. This is a survey maintained by the Department of Justice that Survey Research.
gathers data on criminal victimization from a national sample of Allen, N., Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. (2004). Battered
household respondents.
3. For the purpose of this article, authors specifically address
women’s multiple needs. Violence Against Women, 10(9),
workplace partner violence policies that should be included with- 1015-1035.
in broader workplace violence policies. Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000).
Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict:
A review and agenda for future research. Journal of
REFERENCES Occupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308.
Bachman, R. (1994). Violence and theft in the workplace. Wash-
Akukwe, C. (1998). The potential impact of the 1996 wel- ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
fare reforms on intimate partner violence. Family Com-
Bachman, R., & Salzman, L. E. (1995). Violence against
munity Health, 20(4), 54-62.
women: Estimates from the redesigned survey (Bureau of
Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., Kalil, A., & Seefeldt, K. (2000).
Department of Justice. How welfare reform is affecting women’s work. Annual
Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold. New York: Free Press. Review of Sociology, 26, 241-269.
Bailyn, L., Drago, R., & Kochan, T. (2001). Integrating work Cupach, W. & Spitzberg, B. (2004). The dark side of relation-
and family life: A holistic approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT ship pursuit: From attraction to obsession to stalking.
Sloan School of Management. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barling, J., & Rosenbaum, A. (1986). Work stressors and Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., & Heflin, C.
wife abuse. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 346-348. (2000). Work, income and material hardship after wel-
Barnett, R. (1999). A new work-life model for the twenty- fare reform. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(1), 6-30.
first century. Annals of the American Academy of Political Danziger, S., & Seefeldt, K. (2002). Barriers to employment
and Social Science, 562(0), 32-46. and the “hard to serve”: Implications for services, sanc-
Bell, H. (2003). Cycles within cycles. Violence Against tions and time limits. Focus, 22(1), 76-81.
Women, 9(10), 1245-1262. Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). The
Bell, M., Moe, A., & Schweinle, W. (2002). Partner violence radiating effects of intimate partner violence on occu-
and work: Not just a domestic issue. Academy of Manage- pational stress and well-being. Research in Occupational
ment Best Papers Proceedings, pp. 1-27. Stress and Well-Being, 4, 30-57.
Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. (1998). The 1997 East, J. F. (1999). Hidden barriers to success for women in
National Study Of The Changing Workforce. New York: welfare reform. Families in Society: The Journal of Contem-
Families and Work Institute. porary Human Services, 80(3), 295-305.
Brandwein, R. A. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: The Family Violence Prevention Fund. (2003). Workplace
voices of battered women. Affilia: Journal of Women and impact: Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.fvpf
Social Work, 15(2), 224. .org/workplace/facts.html
Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1999). The impact Friedman, L. N., & Couper, S. (1987). The cost of domestic vio-
of recent partner violence on poor women’s capacity to lence: A preliminary investigation of the financial costs of
maintain work. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 393.
domestic violence. New York: Victim Services.
Brownell, P. (1996). Domestic violence in the workplace:
Friedman, L. N., Tucker, S. B., Neville, P. R., & Imperial, M.
An emergent issue. Crisis Intervention, 3, 129-141.
(1996). The impact of domestic violence on the work-
Brush, L. (2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-
place. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Vio-
to-work transition. Violence Against Women, 6(10), 1039-
lence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions
1065.
(pp. 153-161). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
Brush, L. (2001). Poverty, battering, race and welfare
cal Association.
reform: Black-White differences in women’s welfare-to-
Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, L. (1994). Relationship
work transitions. Journal of Poverty, 5(1), 67-89.
between job and family satisfaction: Causal or
Brush, L. (2002). Work-related abuse: A replication, new
noncausal covariation? Journal of Management, 20(3),
items and persistent questions. Violence and Victims,
565-579.
17(6), 743-757.
Galinsky, E., & Bond, J. T. (1998). The 1998 Business Work-
Brush, L. (2003). Effects of work on hitting and hurting. Vio-
lence Against Women, 9(10), 1213-1230. Life Study: A sourcebook. New York: Families and Work
Institute.
Bureau of National Affairs. (1990). Violence and stress: The
work/family connection (Special Report No. 32). Washing- Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay? Jour-
ton, DC: Author. nal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 659-668.
Busch, N., & Wolfer, T. (2002). Battered women speak out. Googins, B. (1991). Work/family conflicts: Private lives-public
Violence Against Women, 5(8), 566-584. responses. New York: Auburn House.
Campbell, J. (2002). Health consequences of intimate part- Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A.,
ner violence. Lancet, 359(9314), 1331-1337. Perkins, C. A., & Ringel, C. (1998). Violence by intimates:
Campbell, J., Jones, A., Dienemann, J., Kub, J., Analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boy-
Schollenberger, J., O’Campo, P., et al. (2002). Intimate friends, and girlfriends. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
partner violence and physical health consequences. ment of Justice.
Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(10), 1157-1164. Hoffman, S., & Baron, S. A. (2001). Stalkers, stalking, and
Campbell, J., Rose, L., Kub, J., & Nedd, D. (1998). Voices of violence in the workplace setting. In J. A. Davis (Ed.),
strength and resistance: A contextual and longitudinal Stalking crimes and victim protection (pp. 139-159). Wash-
analysis of women’s responses to battering. Journal of ington, DC: CRC Press.
Interpersonal Violence, 743(1) pages. Honeycutt, T., Marshall, L., & Weston, R. (2001). Toward
Carlson, B., McNutt, L., Choi, D., & Rose, I. (2002). Intimate ethnically specific models of employment, public assis-
partner abuse and mental health. Violence Against tance, and victimization. Violence Against Women, 7(2),
Women, 8(6), 720-745. 126-140.
Chenier, E. (1998). The workplace: A battleground for vio- Johnson, H. (1995). The truth about white-collar domestic
lence. Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 557-568. violence. Working Woman, 20(3), 55.
Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (1999). The organizational bene- Raphael, J., & Tolman, R. M. (1997). Trapped by poverty/
fits of assisting domestically abused employees. Public trapped by abuse: New evidence documenting the relation-
Personnel Management, 28(3), 365-374. ship between domestic violence and welfare. Chicago: Taylor
Kinney, J. A. (1995). When domestic violence strikes the Institute and the University of Michigan Research
workplace. HRMagazine, 40(8), 74. Development Center on Poverty, Risk, and Mental
Lemon, N. (2001). Domestic violence law (pp. 792-837). St. Health.
Paul, MN: West Group. Reynolds, L. (1997). Fighting domestic violence in the
Leone, J., Johnson, M., Cohan, C., & Lloyd, S. (2004). Conse- workplace. HRFocus, 74(11), 8.
quences of male partner violence on low-income Rhodes, N., & McKenzie, E. (1998). Why do battered
minority women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66, women stay? Three decades of research. Aggressive Vio-
472-490. lent Behavior, 3(4), 391-406.
Libbus, M. K., Sable, M., Huneke, D., & Anger, K. (1999). Riger, S., Ahrens, C., Blickenstaff, A., & Camacho, J. (1998).
Domestic violence and implications for welfare-to- Obstacles to employment of welfare recipients with abusive
work: A qualitative investigation. Employee Assistance partners. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illi-
Quarterly, 14(4), 1-15. nois at Chicago.
Lloyd, S. (1997). The effects of domestic violence on Riger, S., Raja, S., & Camacho, J. (2002). The radiating
women’s employment. Law & Policy, 19(2), 139-167. impact of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interper-
Lloyd, S., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence on sonal Violence, 17(2), 184-205.
female employment. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 370- Riger, S., & Staggs, S. (2004). Welfare reform, domestic vio-
392. lence, and employment. Violence Against Women, 10(9),
961-990.
MacMillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999, November). When she
Riger, S., Staggs, S., & Schewe, P. (2004). Intimate partner vio-
brings home the bacon: Labor-force participation and
lence as an obstacle to employment among mothers affected by
the risk of spousal violence against women. Journal of
welfare reform. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Marriage and the Family, 61, 947-958.
Romero, D., Chavkin, W., Wise, P., & Smith, L. (2003). Low-
Meisel, J., Chandler, D., & Rienzi, B. (2003). Domestic vio-
income mothers’ experience with poor health, hard-
lence prevalence and effects on employment in two Cal-
ship, work and violence. Violence Against Women, 10(9),
ifornia TANF populations. Violence Against Women,
1231-1244.
10(9), 961-990.
Rothman, E. (2002, July). Batterers in the workplace. Paper
Melzer, S. (2002). Gender, work and intimate violence:
presented at the University of New Hampshire Family
Men’s occupational violence spillover and compensa-
Violence Conference, Durham, NH.
tory violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 820-
Sable, M., Libbus, K., Huneke, D., & Anger, K. (1999).
832.
Domestic violence among AFDC recipients: Implica-
Moe, A., & Bell, M. (2004). Abject economics: The effects of
tions for welfare-to-work programs. Affilia, 14(2), 199-
battering and violence on women’s work and employ-
216.
ability. Violence Against Women, 10(1), 29-55.
Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Shelley,
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003). G. A. (1999). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uni-
Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the form definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta,
United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
and Prevention. Schell, B. (2003). The prevalence of sexual harassment,
National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control. stalking, and false victimization syndrome cases and
(1998, April). Research in brief. Stalking in America: find- related human resource management policies in a
ings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. cross-section of Canadian companies from January
Washington, DC: Author. 1995 through January 2000. Journal of Family Violence,
Pereira, J. (1995, March 2). Employers confront domestic 18(6), 351-360.
abuse. Wall Street Journal, pp. B-1. Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (1988). The effect of battering on
Petty, R. A., & Kosch, L. M. (2001). Workplace violence and the employment status of women. Affilia, 3(2), 55-61.
unwanted pursuit: From an employer’s perspective. In Stanley, C. (1992). Workplace efficiency: The effect of family vio-
J. A. Davis (Ed.), Stalking crimes and victim protection (pp. lence on work performance. Tulsa, OK: Domestic violence
459-485). Washington, DC: CRC Press. Intervention Services.
Plitcha, S. B. (1996). Violence and abuse: Implications for Straus, M., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in Ameri-
women’s health. In M. M. Falik & K. S. Collins (Eds.), can families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145
Women’s health: The Commonwealth Fund Survey (pp. 237- families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
270). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1984). Factors related to the
Raphael, J. (1995). Domestic violence: Telling the untold decision to leave an abusive relationship. Journal of Mar-
welfare-to-work story. Chicago: Taylor Institute. riage and the Family, 46(4), 837-844.
Raphael, J. (1996). Prisoners of abuse: Domestic violence and Sullivan, C., Basta, J., Tan, C., & Davidson, W. (1992). After
welfare receipt. Chicago: Taylor Institute. the crisis: A needs assessment of women leaving a
domestic violence shelter. Violence and Victims, 7(3), 267- Violence Against Women Act, HR3514 & S2110 U.S.C.A.
274. Title 7, Sec. 701. (1998). Retrieved from http://
Sullivan, C., Campbell, R., Angelique, H., Eby, K., & www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/title7.pdf
Davidson, W. (1994). An advocacy intervention pro- Violence Against Women Act of 2000. (2000). Retrieved
gram for women with abusive partners: Six month fol- from http://www.acadv.org/vawabillsummary.html
low-up. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, Votruba-Drzal, E., Lohman, B., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L.
101-122. (2002). Violence in intimate relationships as women transi-
Swanberg, J. (2004). Illuminating gendered organization tion from welfare to work. Evanston: IL: Northwestern
assumptions: An important step in creating a family- University, Institute for Policy Research.
friendly organization. A case study. Community, Work & Warchol, G. (1998). Workplace violence, 1992-1996. Washing-
Family, 7(1), 3-28. ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Swanberg, J., & Logan, T. (2005, January). The effects of Programs.
intimate partner violence on women’s labor force Westrum, D., & Fremouw, W. J. (1998). Stalking behavior: A
attachment: Experiences of women living in rural and literature review and suggested functional analytic
urban Kentucky. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol- assessment technology. Aggression and Violence Behavior,
ogy, 10(1), 3-17. 3, 255.
Swanberg, J., Macke, C., & Logan, T. (2005). Intimate partner Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why work and family
violence, women, and work: A descriptive look at work inter- conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford Univer-
ference tactics, coping with violence on the job, and informal sity Press.
workplace support. Unpublished manuscript, University Wilson, K. J. (1997). When violence begins at home: A compre-
of Kentucky, Lexington. hensive guide to understanding and ending domestic abuse.
Swanberg, J., & Macke (in press). The intersection between Alameda, CA: Hunter House.
intimate partner violence and the workplace: Conse- Wisner, C. L., Gilmer, T. P., Saltzman, L. E., & Zink, T. M.
quences, disclosure rates and employer supports. (1999). Intimate partner violence against women: Do
Affilia. victims cost health plans more? Journal of Family Prac-
tice, 48(6), 439-443.
Taylor, M. J., & Barusch, A. S. (2004). Personal, family, and
Yoshioka, M., Gilbert, L., El-Bassel, N., & Baig-Amin, M.
multiple barriers of long-term welfare recipients, Social
(2003). Social support and disclosure of abuse: Compar-
Work, 49(2), 175-183.
ing South Asian and Hispanic battered women. Journal
Tenbrunsel, A., Brett, J., Moaz, E., Stroh, L., & Reilly, A.
of Family Violence, 18(3), 171-180.
(1995). Dynamic and static work-family relationships.
Zachary, M.-K. (2000). Labor law for supervisors: Domestic
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
violence as a workplace issue. Supervision, 61(4), 23-26.
63(3), 233-246.
Thoits, P. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 416-423. Jennifer E. Swanberg, Ph.D., is assistant professor at
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1997). Stalking in America: Find- the College of Social Work, University of Kentucky. Her
ings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. research focuses on the relationships between work, fam-
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research. ily, and organizational effectiveness, especially among
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, and under-studied populations including low-wage workers,
consequences of violence against women: Findings from the victims of intimate partner violence, and employed infor-
National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, mal caregivers. She has published in journals such as
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Work, Family and Community, Nonprofit Manage-
Programs. ment & Leadership, Journal of Economic and Family
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and conse- Issues, Family Issues, and Journal of Occupational
quences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Health Psychology. Her research has been funded by the
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Ford Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. She
Tolman, R. M., & Raphael, J. (2000). A review of research on has lectured and published reports on creating work envi-
welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues,
ronments supportive of employees’ work, personal, and
56(4), 655-682.
family needs. She has appeared as a work-family expert on
Tolman, R. M., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in the
national television and radio including MSNBC, CNN,
lives of women receiving welfare: Mental health, sub-
stance dependence, and economic well-being. Violence
NPR, BBC, CBC, and numerous radio stations
Against Women, 7(2), 141-158. throughout the United States.
U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (2004).
Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/wb/faq38.htm TK Logan, Ph.D., is currently an associate professor in
Violence Against Women Act of 1994. (1994). Retrieved the Department of Behavioral Science at the University of
from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/laws/vawa/ Kentucky, with appointments in the Center on Drug and
vawa.htm Alcohol Research. She has been funded by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and by the National Caroline Macke, MSW, is pursuing a doctoral degree in
Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and social work at the University of Kentucky. While working
has completed several drug court program evaluations as as a research assistant for Jennifer E. Swanberg, her
well as studies focused on intimate partner violence and research activities have focused predominantly on domes-
divorce; intimate partner violence and custody outcomes; tic violence and employment. She is also interested in
stalking victimization and perpetration; health and men- attachment theory, particularly as it pertains to violent
tal health status, barriers, and service use among women; relationships. She obtained her MSW from the University
HIV risk behavior; and health, mental health, substance of Kentucky. Before coming to the University of Kentucky,
use, and victimization among rural and urban women. she was a student at Thomas More College, where she
She is also senior author on several books focused on vic- received a bachelor’s degree in economics, business, and
timization, mental health, and substance abuse among international studies as well as an associate’s degree in
women and is coauthoring an evaluation text. political science.

Intimate Partner Violence, Employment, and The Workplace: Consequences and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intimate Partner Violence, Employment, and The Workplace: Consequences and Future Directions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TRAUMA,etVIOLENCE,

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, EMPLOYMENT,

Key words: intimate partner violence, women’s employment, workplace policy

families. In particular, organizations have KEY POINTS OF THE RESEARCH REVIEW

Controlling for demographic, psychosocial, Intimate Partner Violence and

TABLE 1: Corporate Attitudes Pertaining to Partner Violence

Organizational-Level Consequences Organizational Costs

concern to “keep talent, reduce absenteeism, procedures, often referred to as “family-

TABLE 2: Formal Employer Supports

Prevention Protection Intervention

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, POLICY, & RESEARCH

NOTES Allard, M. A., Albelda, R., Collen, M. E., & Cosenza, C.

You might also like