Type:	Journal Article
Title:	Disjunctures for women and frontline workers: implementation of the family violence option
Other Titles:	The social service review
Authors:	Padgett, Julianna D Lindhorst, Taryn
Keywords:	Welfare;Service provision;Policy
Year:	2005
Publisher:	University of Chicago Press
Citation:	79 (3), September 2005
Notes:	General Overview: In 2005, the United States amended the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996, with a Family Violence Option (FVO). The option allows states to screen for domestic violence, refer identified victims to community resources and waive program requirements that would endanger women or with which they are unable to comply. This US article examines the implementation of the FVO in Louisiana. The article includes background information on the discretion of frontline workers in implementing policy and a discussion on welfare reform. Objective: While the majority of US states have voluntarily adopted the FVO, preliminary reports from the field suggest that few women are receiving the support intended by the legislation. The article reports on a study that investigates the implementation of the FVO in Louisiana. Results: The study found that none of the ten clients proceeded through the system in the way suggested by the FVO implementation process. Only four women remembered being given information about the FVO policy and none remembered being screened by the caseworker. None of the ten clients received help through the FVO, even though they were eligible. The findings are consistent with previous research that suggests frontline workers place additional criteria on battered women, instead of offering assistance under the FVO. Clients experience the welfare system as adversarial but they are expected to disclose information about their abuse. The article discusses a number of structural barriers which prevent workers from recognising and responding to domestic violence. It also discusses the optional nature of the FVO and the lack of federal or state administrative accountability system for implementation. The welfare system holds frontline workers accountable for main activities, including moving clients into work or training and closing cases, but there is no such accountability for services under the FVO. The article notes that services use strategies for controlling demand, such as structuring activities of frontline workers for core service delivery instead of providing services to actions that are seen as secondary to the agency’s core mission. Conclusions: The article concludes that there are competing goals and structural barriers in the implementation of the FVO. The protection options of the FVO are not being applied. It argues that if the major focus of welfare officers is the reduction of caseload, then women’s safety concerns will remain secondary.
URI:	https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/14232
ISSN:	0037-7961
Appears in Collections:	Journal Articles

Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.