The Employment Trajectories of Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Intimate partner violence in the United States is significantly associated with employment instability. Using a latent growth curve model, the current study investigates the impact of intimate partner violence on mothers’ (N=4897) employment outcomes trajectories in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study which include four waves of data collection starting when a child was born and ending about eight years later. Outcomes included annual weeks worked and employment status (employed vs. unemployed). There was a significant effect of intimate partner violence on weeks worked and employment status at the second wave of data collection, indicating that mothers were most likely to experience employment instability when they had a three-year-old child. Results also showed that intimate partner violence survivors were still experiencing unemployment six years after abuse occurred. Workplaces and policymakers should protect mothers with young children experiencing intimate partner violence by extending time off from work and connection to community resources.

Full text

Page Proof Instructions and Queries
Thank you for choosing to publish with us. This is your final opportunity to ensure your article will be accurate at
publication. Please review your proof carefully and respond to the queries using the circled tools in the image below,
which are available in Adobe Reader DC* by clicking Tools from the top menu, then clicking Comment.
Please use only the tools circled in the image, as edits via other tools/methods can be lost during file conversion. For com-
ments, questions, or formatting requests, please use . Please do not use comment bubbles/sticky notes .
*If you do not see these tools, please ensure you have opened this file with Adobe Reader DC, available for free
a t https://get.adobe.com/reader or by going to Help > Check for Updates within other versions of Reader. For more
detailed instructions, please see https://us.sagepub.com/ReaderXProofs.
No. Query
No queries
Journal Title: Work, Employment and Society
Article Number: 1035289 1035289WES
Please confirm that all author information, including names, affiliations, sequence, and contact details,
is correct.
Please review the entire document for typographical errors, mathematical errors, and any other
necessary corrections; check headings, tables, and figures.
Please ensure that you have obtained and enclosed all necessary permissions for the reproduction
of artworks (e.g. Illustrations, photographs, charts, maps, other visual material, etc.) Not owned by
yourself. Please refer to your publishing agreement for further information.
Please note that this proof represents your final opportunity to review your article prior to publication,
so please do send all of your changes now.
Please confirm that the funding statement is accurate.
1 No abbreviations in abstract, please check all have been expanded correctly
2 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Smith et al., 2018’, or delete the citation.
3 ‘Shepard and Pence, 1998’, changed to 1988 to match reference list. Please check.
4 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Showalter, 2016’, or delete the citation.
5 ‘Crowne et al., 2010’, changed to 2011 to match reference list, please check.
6 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Beck et al., 2014’, or delete the citation.
7 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Logan et al., 2007’, or delete the citation.
8 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Showalter et al., 2018’, or delete the citation.
9 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Brush, 2000’, or delete the citation.
10 ‘Black et al., 2011’, changed to 2010 to match reference list, please check.
11 ‘Adams, 2012’, changed to Adams et al., 2012 to match reference list, please check.
12 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Rosen, 2001’, or delete the citation.
13 ‘Bowen and Guo, 2012’, changed to 2011 to match reference list, please check.
14 ‘Kimerling et al., 2007’, changed to 2009 to match reference list, please check.
15 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Showalter et al., 2017’, or delete the citation.
16 ‘Straus et al., 1998’, changed to 1990 to match reference list, please check.
17 Expand LCG at first instance

18 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Dutton and Kerry, 1998’, or delete the citation.
19 Please indicate significance of * in Table
20 Please indicate significance of * in Table
21 Please indicate significance of * in Table
22 Is this sentence incomplete? Compel organizational leaders to do what?
23 Please provide complete reference details for ‘CDC, 2003’, or delete the citation.
24 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Pillinger, 2020’, or delete the citation.
25 ‘Yragui, 2012’, updated to Yragui et al., 2012 to match reference list, please check.
26 Expand FVO at first instance
27 Expand EAPs at first instance
28 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Falk et al., 2019’, or delete the citation.
29 Victim’s families?
30 Please provide complete reference details for ‘Legal Momentum, 2013’, or delete the citation.
31 ‘Swanberg, 2012’, changed to Swanberg et al., 2012 to match reference list, please check.
32 Previously this was listed as less than four states. Please check.
33 ‘Falk et al., 2001’ is not mentioned in the text. Please insert the appropriate citation in the text, or delete
the reference.
34 Please add accessed date
35 Please add accessed date
36 Please add accessed date
37 ‘Muthén and Curran, 1997’ is not mentioned in the text. Please insert the appropriate citation in the text,
or delete the reference.
38 ‘Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2015’ is not mentioned in the text. Please insert the appropriate citation in
the text, or delete the reference.
39 ‘Riger and Staggs, 2004’ is not mentioned in the text. Please insert the appropriate citation in the text, or
delete the reference.
40 ‘Swanberg et al., 2005’ is not mentioned in the text. Please insert the appropriate citation in the text, or
delete the reference.
41 ‘Swanberg et al., 2007’ is not mentioned in the text. Please insert the appropriate citation in the text, or
delete the reference.
42 ‘U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006’ is not mentioned in the text. Please insert
the appropriate citation in the text, or delete the reference.
43 Please give year of publication for both books

https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211035289
Work, Employment and Society
1 –20
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09500170211035289
journals.sagepub.com/home/wes
The Employment Trajectories
of Survivors of Intimate
Partner Violence
Kathryn Showalter
University of Kentucky, USA
Susan Yoon
The Ohio State University, USA
TK Logan
University of Kentucky, USA
Abstract [AQ: 1]
Intimate partner violence in the United States is significantly associated with employment
instability. Using a latent growth curve model, the current study investigates the impact of
intimate partner violence on mothers’ (N=4,897) employment outcomes trajectories in the
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study which include four waves of data collection starting
when a child was born and ending about 8 years later. Outcomes included annual weeks worked
and employment status (employed vs. unemployed). There was a significant effect of intimate
partner violence on weeks worked and employment status at the second wave of data collection,
indicating that mothers were most likely to experience employment instability when they had
a three-year-old child. Results also showed that intimate partner violence survivors were still
experiencing unemployment six years after abuse occurred. Workplaces and policymakers should
protect mothers with young children experiencing intimate partner violence by extending time
off from work and connection to community resources.
Keywords
employment, intimate partner violence, working, working mothers
Corresponding author:
Kathryn Showalter, College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, 619 Patterson Office Tower,
Lexington, KY 40508, USA.
Email: Kathryn.Showalter@uky.edu
0010.1177/09500170211035289Work, employment and societyShowalter et al.
research-article2021
Article
No abbreviations
are in the abstract

2 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Nationally representative estimates suggest that intimate partner violence (IPV) is a
serious concern for a large proportion of Americans. In the United States, close to 6%
of adult women experience IPV annually and between 25%-35% of women experience
some form of IPV in their lifetime (Black et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2018) .[AQ: 2].
Additionally, over one-fourth (28%) of women who experience any form of IPV indi-
cate they have missed at least one day of work or school because of the abuse (Black
et al., 2010). Women who experience IPV or physical, emotional, mental, and/or finan-
cial abuse by a current or previous romantic partner (hereafter referred to as survivors)
face several employment challenges. Employment challenges, or employment instabil-
ity, as labeled in related literature (Shepard and Pence, 1988; Showalter, 2016) [AQ: 3]
[AQ: 4]encompass the following: absenteeism, being late for work, leaving early from
work, and job loss. In 2006, emotional and physical consequences of IPV led 59.4% of
participants to miss work and 48.3% to lose or quit a job (Swanberg et al., 2006). What
is more is that IPV likely has a longer-term impact on employment, with survivors
reporting employment instability nearly 6 years after leaving an abusive relationship
(Crowne et al., 2011)[AQ: 5]. Considering the high frequency of survivors’ employ-
ment instability and the potential lasting effect of IPV on employment, longitudinally
examining survivors’ annual weeks worked and employment status (i.e., employed vs.
unemployment) over the span of several years is important for creating interventions for
improved employment outcomes for IPV survivors.
Literature review
Survivors’ employment instability
Abusive partners often systematically sabotage survivors’ employment. Abuser work-
place disruptions or direct (e.g. refusing to assist with child care) and indirect (e.g. emo-
tional abuse before work) tactics that control survivors’ work are closely linked to
employment instability (Beck et al., 2014; Borchers et al., 2016; Logan et al., 2007;
Stylianou, 2018; Swanberg et al., 2006; Tolman and Rosen, 2001) [AQ: 6] [AQ: 7].
Tolman and Rosen (2001) find nearly half of survivors in a sample of Michigan female
welfare recipients had experienced workplace disruptions over a 12-month period. This
frequency is likely even higher today as texting, social media posting, tweeting, direct
messaging, and online tracking create new ways for abusive partners to disrupt survi-
vors’ work. The effect of workplace disruptions is severe especially for mothers in need
of stable employment to provide for their families.
Motherhood and employment instability
Balancing motherhood and employment are especially challenging for IPV survivors.
Motherhood provides abusive partners with leverage to guilt survivors into prioritizing
children over their careers (Showalter et al., 2018) [AQ: 8]. In interviews with women
enrolled in an employment program, nearly half of women whose abusive partners told
them “good mothers did not work” did not complete the program (Brush, 2000) [AQ: 9].
Given that women with annual household incomes below $25,000 are more likely to
Can
remove
The change of
date for Shepard
and Pence is
correct.
Showalter, K. (2016).
Women's
employment and
domestic violence: A
review of the
literature. Aggression
and violent behavior,
31, 37-47.
This is correct
AQ6:
Beck, J. G., Clapp, J. D., Jacobs-
Lentz, J., McNiff, J., Avery, M., &
Olsen, S. A. (2014). The association of
mental health conditions with
employment, interpersonal, and
subjective functioning after intimate
partner violence. Violence Against
Women, 20(11), 1321-1337.
AQ7:
Logan, T. K., Shannon, L.,
Cole, J., & Swanberg, J.
(2007). Partner stalking
and implications for
women's employment.
Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 22(3), 268-291.
Showalter, K., Maguire-Jack, K., Yang, M. Y.,
& Purtell, K. M. (2019). Work outcomes for
mothers experiencing intimate partner
violence: The buffering effect of child care
subsidy. Journal of Family Violence, 34(4),
299-308.
Brush, L. D. (2000).
Battering, traumatic
stress, and welfare-to-
work transition.
Violence
Against Women, 6(10),
1039-1065.

Showalter et al. 3
experience IPV (Black et al., 2010)[AQ: 10], many mothers must maintain employment
to afford the cost of housing, utilities, and basic necessities for themselves and their fami-
lies. In Borchers et al’s. (2016) qualitative study of the entanglement of economic hard-
ship, employment, and IPV, one survivor explains, “I didn’t have anywhere to go (live). . .
My ex offered for me to stay where he was staying. . .I didn’t want to have to take care of
four kids by myself (p. 474).” The current study focuses on two forms of employment
instability in a sample of mothers: missing weeks of work and unemployment.
Missing weeks of work
Absence from employment for weeks or months is not uncommon for IPV survivors. In
a three-year study of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients eligi-
ble for welfare-to-work activities in California, participants worked a significantly
lower mean number of weeks when they had a need for IPV services (Meisel et al.,
2003). While this is the only known study that has focused on survivors’ weeks of work,
several additional studies have found that women who experience IPV work fewer
months than women who do not experience IPV (see Adams et al., 2012; Crowne et al.,
2011; Riger et al., 2004; Staggs and Riger, 2005; Staggs et al., 2007). For instance,
survivors in the Adams et al. (2012) study who experienced IPV recently (i.e. in the past
two years) work 3.06 fewer months than women who did not experience IPV and, sur-
vivors whose IPV ended within the last three years work 2.9 fewer months than women
who did not experience IPV. If findings from Adams et al. (2012) are converted to
weeks, one would expect experiences of IPV in the past two to three years to cost sur-
vivors about 12 weeks of work annually. Note that Meisel et al.’s (2003) study as well
as Adams et al.’s (2012) [AQ: 11]study both have samples of low-income mothers
indicating that the consequences of IPV on hours worked may be especially detrimental
for parents.
Unemployment
Unlike other forms of employment instability, findings of the effect of IPV on unemploy-
ment are inconsistent. Variation between study findings may be due to the long-term
impact of IPV on employment (Lindhorst et al., 2007), differences in IPV measurement,
and/or confounding variables related to employment outcomes. Stylianou (2018) recently
found that the likelihood of being employed decreased if participants had experienced
economic, psychological, or physical abuse but not sexual abuse. In the same study,
motherhood was not related to any violence outcome (Stylianou, 2018). Kimerling et al.
(2009) also report differences in IPV type, finding psychological IPV was a significant
predictor of unemployment but physical IPV was not. Still, other researchers have found
no effect of IPV on employment status in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses (see
Adams et al., 2012; Browne et al., 1999; Bryne et al., 1999; Rosen, 2001)[AQ: 12].
Further advanced statistical examination is needed to understand these relationships.
Employers should be equally invested in understanding survivors’ employment instabil-
ity as IPV comes at a high monetary price.
Correct
Correct
Can remove
Rosen

4 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Theoretical support
The cognitive theory of stress and coping (Folkman and Lazarus, 1984) poses that when
people sense control over stressful situations they are more likely to cope with stressors.
If applied to IPV survivors’ employment instability, the lack of control survivors have
over their own lives may prevent them from coping with IPV and in turn miss weeks of
work or suffer from unemployment. However theorists go onto assert that the pathway
between control and stressors could be influenced by multiple factors (e.g. environment,
individual persistence, locus of control, emotional regulation ) and thus not everyone
who feels control will avoid stressors (Folkman, 1984). In this, survivors may believe
that they have enough control over their abusive relationships to maintain employment
but because of factors outside of their control (e.g. social support, cognitive awareness of
IPV, personal and religious beliefs, and children) they may still continue to experience
employment instability for prolonged periods (Rizo et al., 2017).
The current study
Conceptually, the current study examines the effect of IPV on survivors’ employment
outcomes over time, including annual weeks worked and employment status. More spe-
cifically, the model focuses on the lagged effect of IPV from when the mothers’ child was
born (Time 1), on the employment outcomes of mothers at Time 2 (two years later), Time
3 (four years later), and Time 4 (eight years later). Only one prior study has examined
these outcomes over time but utilized path analysis (Adams et al., 2012) and therefore did
not remove measurement error from latent variables (Bowen and Guo, 2011)[AQ: 13].
Other studies (e.g. Adams et al., 2012; Browne et al., 1999; Bryne et al., 1999; Tolman and
Wang, 2005) have found that employment instability outcomes are directly related to IPV
over time but relationships have not been confirmed using a growth curve model. Thus,
by using a growth curve model, the current study adds to existing findings by exploring
the ways in which individual employment outcomes change over time for mothers that
experienced IPV compared with those mothers who did not. Further, through this model
we are able to identify the point in survivors’ lives in which IPV has the greatest effect on
their employment outcomes and therefore the time period that assistance from employers,
human resources, and EAPs may be most beneficial.
Methods
Design
The current study included a secondary analysis of longitudinal data from mothers who
participated in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing study (FFCW). The FFCW is a
study designed to explore parental capabilities, relationship characteristics, and child
well-being among families who are disproportionately experiencing economic hardships
while oversampling for unmarried mothers (McLanahan, 2009). Public data of individ-
ual-level characteristics, relationship experiences, and health and well-being of children
and parents are available for six time periods of data (covering the time period from birth
to age nine of the focal child; Vartanian, 2011).
Correct

Showalter et al. 5
Five FFCW collection years were used in the study to explore mothers’ employment
trajectories from Time 1 (collected 1999-2001) to Time 4 (collected 2007-2010). When
the project began, data was not available for Time 5 (collected when the child was fifteen-
years-old). Data collected at FFCW baseline are used in the current study because the
researchers did not want to exclude mothers who failed to participate at Time 1 but did
participate in subsequent waves.
Sampling
Researchers of the FFCW used a multi-staged, stratified random sampling strategy.
Sampling was not geographic but rather informed by policy environments and labor
market conditions of 77 US cities with a population of at least 200,000 persons in 1998
(Reichman et al., 2001). Researchers believed it was important to build knowledge on
unwed parents and economic disadvantage because of the economy’s impact on maternal
employment and mothers’ ability to provide for their families (Osborne and Knab, 2007).
Of the 75 hospitals selected to be in the study, 4,898 families or births were selected, of
which 4,897 are included in this study based on full information maximum likelihood
(FIML) qualifications that participants have data for at least one measured variable
(Vartanian, 2011). The sample size was the same (i.e. N=4,897) for both employment
outcomes analyzed. Mothers did not have to be experiencing IPV to be included in the
study.
Measurement
Employment instability. The outcome variable for the study is employment instability and
was measured using two items: annual weeks worked and employment status (whether
the participant was working at all). Outcome data was analyzed at Time 1- Time 4 with
a focus on Time 4 employment outcomes.
Weeks worked was measured at each Time by determining the self-reported number
of weeks participants worked in the past 12-months and range from 0 to 52 at each Time.
If participants reported that they had never worked for two consecutive weeks, had not
worked since their child’s birth, or did not work the last 12 months, they skipped the
weeks worked question and were coded as having worked zero weeks.
Employment status was measured using a categorical variable as observed in related
literature (Douge et al., 2014; Kimerling et al., 2009; Shepard and Pence, 1988)
[AQ: 14]. The employment status item selected asked participants, “Last week, did you
do any regular work for pay? Include any work you might have done in your own busi-
ness (or military service) where you got a regular paycheck.” The employment status
variable was dichotomously coded in which participants were determined to be employed
(1) and unemployed (0) at each time of data collection.
Intimate partner violence. Experiences of IPV among mothers served as the key inde-
pendent variable in the study. In the FFCW study, mothers were asked about their experi-
ences of IPV with the father of the focal child or their current partner (if not the father).
IPV items were based on seven items adapted from the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS;
Correct

6 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Straus, 1979) and questions developed by experts in the IPV field (Lloyd, 1997). The
CTS (Straus, 1979) is a widely accepted IPV measurement tool and has demonstrated a
stable factor structure, moderate reliability and concurrent validity, and excellent con-
struct validity (Lloyd and Taluc, 1999). Additionally, Lloyd’s (1997) questions have
shown reliability in repeated studies of IPV.
When answering IPV items, participants were asked to consider how their partner
behaved towards them. For every item, participants reported how often their partner
behaved in each way by responding “often,” “sometimes,” or “never.” In the selected
sample, Chronbach’s alpha at every time was below the acceptable value for IPV meas-
urement with the father of the child and IPV measurement with a current partner (T1:
0.564, 0.639; T2: 0.565, 0.513; T3: 0.599, 0.502; T4:0.569; 0.541). Although interitem
reliability was relatively low, the current Chronbach’s alphas are consistent with previ-
ous IPV studies using FFCW data (Showalter et al., 2017) [AQ: 15]and findings that
family violence behaviors do not typically overlap (Straus et al., 1990). [AQ: 16]
Each IPV experience was recoded with the values of two for responses of often, one
for responses of sometimes, and zero for responses of never. Remaining responses of
“don’t know” and “refuse” were coded as missing. Using the recoded values, a total
score of each item was calculated for participants by summing the seven-items to find an
IPV frequency value. The scoring process of IPV items was the same for survivors in a
relationship with the father of the focal child and in a relationship with a current partner.
If participants responded that they were not currently romantic with the father or a cur-
rent partner and did not live with the partner most of the time they were asked to skip
both sets of IPV questions and were coded as having zero experiences of IPV.
Demographics. Several variables have been selected as covariates due to their known
association with IPV and employment instability (Hart and Klein, 2013; Swanberg et al.,
2006). Age, race, ethnicity, education level, income, household size, relationship status,
receipt of government assistance and mental health problems served as control variables.
The control variables of income, household size, and relationship status were time-vary-
ing and age, race, ethnicity, education level, receipt of government assistance and mental
health problems were time invariant. Age, income, and household size were treated as
continuous variables. Race, ethnicity, education level and relationship status were treated
as categorical variables and condensed into categories based on distributions. Of note,
relationship status followed a modified version of the skip pattern to account for changes
in relationship status during the course of the study and living arrangements with abusive
partners. Mothers were considered to be in a relationship if they were married, romanti-
cally involved, or living together most of the time with the father of their child or their
current partner. Mental health problems and receipt of government assistance were
treated as a dichotomous variables with an option for the variable being applicable to the
participant (e.g. experienced mental health problems) and an option for the variable not
being applicable to the participant (e.g. did not experience mental health problems).
Mental health problems included generalized anxiety disorder or depression using the
Composite International Diagnostic Interview—Short Form (CIDI-SF; Kessler et al.,
1998) that is based on DSM-III-R criteria and has shown excellent reliability and validity
in studies of the population (Wittchen et al., 1995).
Showalter, K., Maguire-
Jack, K., & Barnhart, S.
(2017). Investigating the
potentially protective
effects of neighborhood
processes in intimate
partner violence. Journal
of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma,
26(10), 1090-1103.
Correct

Showalter et al. 7
Analysis
The study uses a latent growth curve (LGC) model that estimated developmental patterns
of change over time (Curran et al., 2010). This analytical approach allowed for the exam-
ination of changes in employment outcomes between mothers as well as changes in
employment outcomes for each individual mother over time. Each outcome (i.e., weeks
worked, employed) was analyzed separately. Although the outcomes differed in the mod-
els, each model tested the same paths on the relationship between IPV and employment
(See Path Diagram in Figure 1).
Model fit was estimated using the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA), the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) for all
models. Guided by previous research, RMSEA values less than 0.05, CFI values larger
than 0.9, and TLI values larger than 0.95 were considered good model fit (Bollen, 1989;
Hu and Bentler, 1999). However, experts have found that fit indices are not equally
dependable and so models were considered to have good fit when one fit indices was
inconsistent with cut-off values (Yu, 2002).
In terms of missingness, all variables at Time 1- Time 3 met model requirements for
using full information maximum likelihood (FIML) with missing data. Although in Time
4, all outcome variables exceeded missing data assumptions due to attrition of partici-
pants over time, they do so incrementally and so it was believed, based on the efficiency
Time 1
IPV
Time 2
IPV
Time 3
IPV
Time 4
IPV
Time 1
Employment
Instability
Time 2
Employment
Instability
Time 3
Employment
Instability
Time 4
Employment
Instability
Intercept Slope
Controls:
Mental
health
problems
Government
assistance
Controls:
Age
Race
Ethnicity
Education
Figure 1. Path diagram of survivors’ employment instability.

8 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
and accuracy of FIML to alternative missing data approaches, that it was appropriate to
proceed (Enders and Bandalos, 2001). Descriptive statistics were conducted using SPSS
Software version 24 (IBM Corp., 2016) and LGC [AQ: 17] models were estimated
using Mplus 8 (Muthén and Muthén, 2018).
Results
Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics of the study variables can be found in Table 1. On average, mothers
in the sample were 25 (SD=12.15) years old and had at least a high school education
(65.4%) when baseline data was collected. Approximately half (47.6%) of the sample
identified as being Black and a majority of participants were Non-Hispanic (68.7%).
Most mothers reported being in a relationship at Time 1 (78.7%), Time 2 (76.0%), Time
3 (74.8%), and Time 4 (66.4%). The average participant reported receiving government
assistance during at least one of the four time points (62.0%) and was considered to be
experiencing anxiety or depression during at least one wave (69.5%). The average
income of survivors gradually increased over the four time points starting with $38,340.00
(SD=272.54) annually at Time 1 and ending with $47,980.00 (SD=382.28) at Time 4.
Participants had an average of about four people living in their household at Time 1
(M=3.50, SD=1.65), Time 2 (M=3.48, SD=1.62), and Time 3 (3.54, SD=1.62) and three
people living in their household at Time 4 (M=2.77, SD=1.56).
On a scale from 0-14 with 14 indicating IPV happens very often, mothers reported an
average IPV frequency score of 0.58 (SD=1.20) at Time 1, 0.52 (SD=1.12) at Time 2,
0.45 (SD=1.04) at Time 3, and 0.41 (SD=1.01) at Time 4, indicating seldom experiences
of IPV at each time period. Approximately 25% of the total sample (N=1,234) did not
experience IPV at any time period. In every time period, IPV is positively skewed which
is consistent with IPV experiences in the general population (Dutton and Kerry, 1998)
[AQ: 18]. Of note, experiencing IPV at each time point was significantly correlated with
having experienced IPV at the previous time point for both outcomes.
In the sample, mothers who were working on average, appear to be working more
than part-time most of the year at every time period of data. At each time period of data,
approximately half of the sample was currently employed (i.e. 52.9-62.1%). Mothers at
each Time appear to be working at least half of the year with a Time 1 average of 24.6
(SD=8.24) weeks, Time 2 29.3 (SD=8.47) weeks, Time 3 31.2 (SD=8.52) weeks, and
Time 4 32.4 (SD=8.49) weeks.
Latent growth curve models
The two models showed that both employment status and weeks worked significantly
increased in the sample over time, while accounting for covariates, such as age, race/
ethnicity, education level, mental health problems, and government assistance. Table 2
presents the standardized coefficients for covariates in both models. In the weeks worked
model, age was associated with a lower initial number of weeks worked (β=-0.089,
p=0.000) while identifying as Black (β=0.203, p=0.000), Hispanic (β=0.075, p=0.000),
LGC Is
defined in the
first sentence
of this
section. LCG
should not
appear in the
paper
Dutton, D. G., & Kerry, G.
(1998). Modus operandi and
personality disorder in
incarcerated spousal killers.
International Journal of Law
and Psychiatry, 22(3 -4), 287
-300. doi:10.1016/
S0160-2527(99)00010-2

Showalter et al. 9
Table 1. FFCW participants descriptive statistics (N=4,897).
Mean (SD) or % Range
Age 25 (3.49) 15-43
Household size
Time 1 3.50 (1.65) 0-15
Time 2 3.48 (1.62) 0-13
Time 3 3.54 (1.62) 0-13
Time 4 2.77 (1.56) 0-14
Relationship status
Time 1 78.7
Time 2 76.0
Time 3 74.8
Time 4 66.4
Income
Time 1 $38,340 (272.54) $0-$500,000
Time 2 $41,040 (342.75) $0-1,000,000
Time 3 $41,200 (320.28) $0-800,000
Time 4 $47,980 (382.28) $0-$900,000
Race and ethnicity
White 52.4
Black 47.6
Hispanic and other races 31.3
Education
Less than high school 34.6
High school 30.3
More than high school 35.1
Mental health problem 69.5
Government assistance 62.0
Intimate partner violence
Time 1 0.58 (1.20) 0-14
Time 2 0.52 (1.12) 0-14
Time 3 0.45 (1.04) 0-13
Time 4 0.41 (1.01) 0-14
Annual weeks worked
Time 1 24.57 (8.24) 0-52
Time 2 29.93 (8.47) 0-52
Time 3 31.17 (8.52) 0-52
Time 4 32.36 (8.49) 0-52
Employment Status
Time 1 52.9
Time 2 56.1
Time 3 59.0
Time 4 62.1

10 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
having a high school education (β=0.227, p<0.000) or more than a high school educa-
tion (β=0.287, p=0.000) were associated with a higher initial number of weeks worked.
Receiving government assistance (β=-1.167, p=0.000) and reporting a mental health
problem (β=-0.088, p=0.000) were both related to a decrease in the number of weeks
mothers worked over time. In the employment status model, increase in age was nega-
tively related to employment (β=-0.141, p=0.000) at the initial time point, while identify-
ing as Black (β=0.456, p=0.000), Hispanic (β=0.387, p=0.000), having a high school
education (β=0.458, p=0.000) or more than a high school education (β=0.640, p=0.000)
were positively related to the initial employment status. Receiving government assis-
tance (β=-0.265, p=0.000) and reporting a mental health problem (β=-0.154, p=0.001)
were both related to a decrease in employment over time.
Annual weeks worked. Overall model fit of the conditional model was acceptable, despite
a low TLI value (RMSEA=0.03, 90% CI:[0.027, 0.033]; CFI=0.932; TLI=0.902). At
Time 2, experiences of IPV were related to significant fewer weeks worked (β=-0.065,
p=0.000), but there was no lagged effect. A smaller household size was negatively related
to the number of weeks mothers worked at every time point while higher income was
positively related to the number of weeks mothers worked at every time point. Of note,
relationship status was associated with fewer weeks worked at every time point except
Time 2. The standardized coefficients and 95% confidence intervals for paths between
IPV, time-varying covariates, and annual weeks worked are presented in Table 3.
Table 2. Standardized coefficients of time invariant covariates for employment outcomes
(N=4,897). [AQ: 19]
Annual Weeks Worked Employment Status
Intercept β
[95% CI]
Slope β
[95% CI]
Intercept β
[95% CI]
Slope β
[95% CI]
Age –0.089*
[–0.137,–0.065]
– –0.141*
[–0.070,–0.032]
–
Race and Ethnicity
Black 0.203*
[0.750, 1.114]
– 0.456*
[0.557, 0.770]
–
Hispanic 0.075*
[0.174, 0.563]
– 0.387*
[0.492, 0.725]
–
Education
High school 0.227*
[0.962, 1.300]
– 0.458*
[0.631, 0.822]
–
More than high
school
0.287*
[1.197, 1.563]
– 0.640*
[0.873, 1.082]
–
Mental health
problems
– –0.088*
[–0.154, –0.048]*
– –0.154*
[–0.151,–0.056]
Government
assistance
– –0.167*
[–0.242, –0.123]*
– –0.265*
[–0.234,–0.104]
* Indicates a significant relationship.
p<0.05

Showalter et al. 11
Employment status. The model fit was determined to be good (RMSEA=0.029, 90% CI=
[0.026, 0.033]; CFI= 0.999 TLI=0.993; WRMR=0.735). At Time 2, experiencing IPV
was significantly associated unemployment (β=-0.048, p=0.019). Time 2 IPV experi-
ences were also related to unemployment six years later at Time 4 (β=-0.050, p=0.041).
Table 3. Standardized coefficients of time-varying covariates for annual weeks worked
(N=4,897). [AQ: 20]
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
β [95% CI] β [95% CI] β [95% CI] β [95% CI]
Time 1
IPV –0.008
[–0.101, 0.057]
–0.016
[–0.122,0.038]
–0.022
[–0.145, 0.027]
–0.017
[–0.141,0.048]
Income 0.187*
[0.256, 0.361]
Relationship
status
–0.029
[–0.430, –0.029]
Household size –0.102*
[–0.244,–0.150]
Time 2
IPV –0.065*
[–0.260,–0.102]
–0.031
[–0.180, 0.001]
–0.005
[–0.123,0.091]
Income 0.188*
[0.211,0.295]
Relationship
status
0.000
[–0.185,0.181]
Household size –0.040*
[–0.120,–0.033]
Time 3
IPV –0.001
[–0.093, 0.085]
0.005
[–0.132, 0.126]
Income 0.165*
[–0.180, 0.001]
Relationship
status
–0.010
[–0.268, 0.116]
Household size –0.050*
[–0.143,–0.053]
Time 4
IPV –0.023
[–0.175,0.024]
Income 0.120*
[0.100,0.191]
Relationship
status
–0.041
[–0.495,–0.076]
Household size –0.077*
[–0.222,–0.100]
* Indicates a significant relationship.
p<0.05

12 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
At each time point, a larger household size and being in a relationship were related to
being unemployed while income was related to being employed. The standardized coef-
ficients and 95% confidence intervals for paths between IPV, time-varying covariates,
and employment status are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Standardized coefficients of time-varying covariates for employment status
(N=4,897). [AQ: 21].
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
β [95% CI] β [95% CI] β [95% CI] β [95% CI]
Time 1
IPV –0.060*
[–0.084, –0.016]
–0.012
[–0.052, 0.029]
–0.031
[–0.090, 0.012]
0.010
[–0.072, 0.112]
Income 0.253*
[0.115,0.148]
Relationship
status
–0.043*
[–0.203,–0.006]
Household size –0.115*
[–0.094,–0.045]
Time 2
IPV –0.048*
[–0.093, –0.008]
–0.017
[–0.082, 0.036]
–0.050*
[–0.212,0.000]
Income 0.169*
[0.066, 0.096]
Relationship
status
–0.052*
[–0.203,–0.006]
Household size –0.114*
[–0.110,–0.054]
Time 3
IPV –0.012
[–0.075, 0.041]
0.019
[–0.067,0.153]
Income 0.135*
[0.069, 0.111]
Relationship
status
–0.067*
[–0.377, –0.086]
Household size –0.097*
[–0.128,–0.052]
Time 4
IPV –0.039
[–0.192, 0.012]
Income 0.143*
[0.083, 0.164]
Relationship
status
–0.048*
[–0.457,–0.023]
Household size –0.118*
[–0.253, –0.102]
* Indicates a significant relationship.
p<0.05

Showalter et al. 13
Discussion
The current study examined the effect of IPV on mothers’ employment outcomes over
time. Informed by previous literature, the analysis concentrated on two forms of survi-
vors’ employment instability: missing weeks of work and unemployment. Results indi-
cated that for mothers with a three-year-old child, experiencing IPV is associated with
missing weeks of work annually, unemployment, and a lagged effect on unemployment
six years after abuse has occurred.
There are similarities between the findings from the current study and previous known
literature of survivors’ employment instability (Kimerling et al., 2009; Meisel et al.,
2003; Stylianou, 2018). Similar to Meisel et al. (2003), the current study found an asso-
ciation between weeks worked and IPV. However, unlike Meisel et al. (2003) not all
participants in the current study were receiving welfare, indicating the effect of IPV on
weeks worked may be experienced by survivors across incomes. The current study also
compares to at least two studies (Kimerling et al., 2009; Stylianou, 2018) finding a
within-time correlation between unemployment and IPV. However, knowledge of survi-
vors’ unemployment over time is expanded upon. The current study found a lagged-
effect of IPV on employment status that related longitudinal research has not found (see
Adams et al., 2012; Browne et al., 1999; Bryne et al., 1999). The unique finding that IPV
significantly increases mothers’ likelihood of unemployment six years after abuse has
occurred could be the result of LGC model used to examine employment status trajecto-
ries. In this, it may be that in order to detect an effect of IPV on employment status one
must look longitudinally at the most critical time points in survivors’ lives and compare
those time points to women who do not experience abuse.
Both weeks worked and employment status increased over time. This is consistent
with what is known about maternal employment, that as children get older mothers
obtain employment and work more frequently (Hynes and Clarkberg, 2005). Missing
weeks of work showed significant individual variation in rate of change. This is impor-
tant because beyond demographic characteristics, the study sample and findings repre-
sent women who work various proportions of weeks and times during the year.
Several control variables were significantly associated with employment outcomes.
In both models, income was positively related to the employment outcomes at nearly
every time point. This finding seems intuitive given the financial reward of being
employed. In the annual weeks worked model as well as the employment status model,
an increase in household size was negatively correlated with employment outcomes.
Having a larger household could lead mothers to miss more weeks of work if they stay
home to take care of children or to be terminated from work if they are consistently late
due to parenting responsibilities (e.g. taking children to school or daycare).
Implications
Due to the vital opportunity of financial independence employment creates, future
researchers should continue to study survivors’ employment instability trends over time.
First, researchers should build on the current study by analyzing survivors’ employment
trajectories over their lifespan. Determining the moments in survivors’ lives when IPV is

14 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
most likely to impact employment would help to understand when employer support is
most needed. Additionally, future research should build on the current study by exploring
workplace supports and interventions to help survivors avoid losing their jobs and annual
weeks worked. It seems that mothers with a child who is three-years-old are particularly
vulnerable to employment instability. Thus, researchers could focus on examining the
effectiveness of evidence based interventions for unemployment (i.e. ACCESS;
Advancing Career Counseling and Employment Support for Survivors of Domestic
Violence; Chronister and McWhirter, 2006; Davidson et al., 2012), zero-tolerance
employer policies (Martinez, 2015), or organizational protocols (Futures Without
Violence, 2018) for mothers at this specific life stage.
After World War II, paid employment for women in the US consisted of managerial
authority systems and informal behaviors to govern workplace culture (Vallas, 2011).
Workplace culture historically has not supported a “work-life balance” with women
reporting more often than men that they cannot meet both their demands of work and
families (Lim and Misra, 2019). Thus, the first challenge of advocating for IPV survivors
in the workplace, is supporting women (particularly caregivers) in general by building
acceptance of work-life balance. Second, from the top down, organizational hierarchies
that more actively support their employee’s safety, and acknowledge that IPV is an issue
that impacts work, invest in the organizational culture and employee well-being which
may be related to increased productivity. Simply understanding there are severe financial
costs of partner abuse for individual employees and employers (i.e. $727.8 million dol-
lars annually for employers or $110 billion dollars for every 7,000 survivors over their
lifetimes) might compel organizational leaders [AQ: 22] (CDC, 2003; Peterson et al.,
2018) [AQ: 23]. Third, organizational policy and procedure that routinely supports IPV
survivors can be adopted as described below.
The current findings have important implications for organizational, state, and federal
policies protecting survivors. Formal organizational or company policies that could keep
survivors working are underutilized, costing both individuals and employers (Maurer,
2012; Peterson et al., 2018). Therefore, adopting existing guidelines like those suggested
by national and global violence experts (see Futures Without Violence, 2018; Pillinger,
2020) [AQ: 24]could help retain and protect employees. This support from employers
could help reduce employee stress levels which may increase employment stability and
productivity (Yragui et al., 2012) [AQ: 25]. Further, current findings suggest state poli-
cies that allow IPV survivors protection from being fired or discriminated against are
likely to be especially crucial for mothers of young children but are underutilized with
less than four states in total having this type of legislation as of 2015 (Laharnar et al.,
2015). Perhaps the solution here is not to rely on states to individually pass protective
legislation but for federal policymakers to take action. Last, if FVO [AQ: 26] are indeed
underutilized (Swanberg et al., 2012) then the current study leads one to assume that
mothers experiencing IPV are not only are at-risk for losing government assistance when
their child is three but also six years later.
It is also worth noting that this study has implications for HR staff and EAPs
[AQ: 27]working with survivors. Job settings may be the only places outside of the
home that survivors interact with people who are not their abusive partner and so it is
crucial that employee-wellbeing-gatekeepers receive the IPV training they need (Maurer,
Add the following to the end
of the sentence,
to support IPV survivors to
keep them employed over
time.
CDC 2003 should be
removed and
replaced with
Brieding et al., 2003
Breiding, M., Basile, K.
C., Smith, S. G., Black,
M. C., & Mahendra, R.
R. (2015). Intimate
partner violence
surveillance: Uniform
definitions and
recommended data
elements. Version 2.0.
Remove
Correct
Family Violence
Options
Employee Assistance
Program

Showalter et al. 15
2012). Specifically, EAPs are thought to be a primary support source for survivors (Falk
et al., 2019) [AQ: 28]and referral to community or counseling services could greatly
assist survivors. However, EAPs do not have universal methods for addressing IPV and
generally rely on self-disclosure of abuse (Hardison Walters et al., 2012). Systematic
support from workplaces, emotionally, financially, or physical time off from work could
keep survivors working and potentially more prepared to leave dangerous relationships.
Support feasibility is likely impacted by employer size (EAPs exist only at employers
with 50+ employees), resources, or environment and so developing formal policy and
procedures for supporting survivors may be the best way to assist employees across all
positions and fields.
Overall, one intervention point may not be enough but a host of services, including
workplaces, could greatly change survivors’ reality. In this, not all victims use victim
services (only 18%), receive medical care (34%), or call police (56%) but most of them
need to work to support themselves, particularly those with children (Truman and
Morgan, 2014). Economic well-being supports victims, families [AQ: 29] but also con-
tributes positively to communities and reduces the need for other programs (MacGregor
et al., 2019).
Limitations
While the current study offers considerable knowledge regrading survivors’ employment
trajectories, it is limited in measurement of time points, measurement of variables and
the age and focus of the data. First, the current study looks at eight years of time in a
mothers’ life but it does not look at data for each year individually. Given that findings
show a critical effect of IPV when mothers have a three-year-old child, it would be ben-
eficial to know if the previous and following years are also critical. Similarly, there could
be a later point in survivors’ lives when they also experience employment instability that
is not captured in the current analysis. Second, while the CTS (Straus, 1979) is a widely
accepted tool for measuring IPV, it has been critiqued for failing to include some types
of IPV and for not taking into account the context of abusive incidents (Lloyd and Taluc,
1999). It is also possible that survivors did not want to admit they had experienced IPV
given the stigma attached to abuse or were not given the survey questions if they had
separated from an abusive partner. In this, the current study might not fully capture par-
ticipants’ experiences of IPV and could be missing a form of abuse that effects employ-
ment. The measurement of employment outcomes is also limited. It would be meaningful
to know more about the type of employment that survivors had so that specific recom-
mendations by sector could be made, but this data was not available. Further, given the
low Chronbach’s alpha scores found, the CTS (Straus, 1979) might not be the best fit for
the current sample. Last, because the most recent wave of FFCW data analyzed was col-
lected in 2010, findings might not reflect changes in employment policy and specifically
more recent protections for public employees that exist in states (Legal Momentum,
2013; Swanberg et al., 2012) [AQ: 30] [AQ: 31]. It is also true that FFCW concen-
trated on a sample of mothers who lived in large urban areas and were economically
disadvantaged, so results do not reflect the general population.
Remove legal momentum, Swanberg
2012 is correct.
Yes,
Economic well-being
supports victims and their
families
The correct citation is:
Falk et al., 2001
Falk, D. R., Shepard, M. F., &
Elliott, B. A. (2001). Evaluation of
a domestic violence assessment
protocol used by employee
assistance counselors.
Employee Assistance Quarterly,
17(3), 1-15.

16 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Conclusion
Employment presents an opportunity for abusive partners to control and sabotage survi-
vors’ independence, especially for mothers who are financially responsible for children.
The current study established a within-time and longitudinal effect of IPV on employ-
ment when looking at the employment trajectories of mothers. Unemployment and miss-
ing weeks of work were significantly more likely to occur among women who experienced
IPV when mothers had a three-year-old child, indicating that services are critical for
women at this time. Employers should explore ways in which to support women with
young children experiencing IPV so that they maintain employment. Specifically, related
literature shows that survivors would like to be approached and asked if they are okay
(Yragui et al., 2012), a zero-cost solution to supporting survivors. Similarly, practitioners
should include employment-specific services for mothers of young children, such as
advocating to employers on survivors’ behalf for time off to seek safety. Lastly, state-
level protection for IPV survivors should be more widespread. Currently, less than ten
states [AQ: 32] have legislation that prohibits discriminating or terminating an
employee who is a survivor of IPV (Swanberg et al., 2012).
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Adams AE, Tolman RM, Byee D, Sullivan CM and Kennedy AC (2012) The impact of intimate
partner violence on low-income women’s economic well-being: the mediating role of job
stability. Violence against Women 18(12): 1345–1367.
Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, et al. (2010) The
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Bollen KA (1989) A new in cremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological
Methods and Research 17(3): 303–316.
Borchers A, Lee RC, Martsolf DS and Maler J (2016) Employment maintenance and intimate
partner violence. Workplace Health & Safety 64(10): 469–478.
Bowen NK and Guo S (2011) Structural Equation Modeling. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Browne A, Salomon A and Bassuk SS (1999) The impact of recent partner violence on poor
women’s capacity to maintain work. Violence against Women 5(4): 393–426.
Bryne CA, Resnick HS, Kilpat rick DG, Best CL and Saunders BE (1999) The socioeconomic
impact of interpersonal violence on women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
67(3): 362–366.
Chronister KM and McWhirter EH (2006) An experimental examination of two career interven-
tions for battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology 53(2): 151–164.
Crowne SS, Juon H, Ensminger M, Burrell L, McFarlane E and Duggan A (2011) Concurrent
and long-term impact of intimate partner violence on employment stability. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 26(6): 1282–1304.
Curran PJ, Obeidat K and Losardo D (2010) Twelve frequently asked questions about growth
curve modeling. Journal of Cognition and Development 11(2): 121–136.
Change to only a
few states

Showalter et al. 17
Davidson MM, Nitzel C, Duke A, Baker C and Bovaird JA (2012) Advancing career counseling
and employment support for survivors: an intervention evaluation. Journal of Counseling
Psychology 59(2): 321–328.
Douge N, Lehman EB and McCall- Hosenfeld JS (2014) Social support and employment status
modify the effect of intimate partner violence on depression symptom severity in women:
results from the 2006 behavioral risk factor surveillance system survey. Women’s Health
Issues 24(4): 425–434.
Enders CK and Bandalos DL (2001) The relative performance of full information maximum likeli-
hood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling
8(3): 430–457.
Falk DR, Shepard MF and Elliott BA (2001) Evaluation of a domestic violence assessment pro-
tocol used by employee assistance counselors. Employee Assistance Quarterly 17(3): 1-15.
[AQ: 33]
Folkman S (1984) Personal control and stress and coping processes: a theoretical analysis. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 46(4): 839–852.
Folkman S and Lazarus RS (1984) Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer.
Futures Without Violence (2018) Workplaces respond to domestic and sexual violence: a national
resource center. Available at: https://www.workplacesrespond.org/ [AQ: 34]
Hardison Walters JL, Pollack KM, Clinton-Sherrod M, Lindquist CH, McKay T and Lasater BM
(2012) Approaches used by employee assistance programs to address perpetration of intimate
partner violence. Violence and Victims 27(2): 135–147.
Hart JD and Klein A (2013) Practical implications of current intimate partner violence research
for victim advocates and service providers. Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/
grants/244348.pdf [AQ: 35]
Hu LT and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal 6(1): 1–55.
Hynes K and Clarkberg M (2005) Women’s employment patterns during early parenthood: a
group-based trajectory analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family 67(1): 222–239.
IBM Corp (2016) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 24.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, Ustun TB and Wittchen HU (1998) The World Health
Organization composite international diagnostic interview short-form (CIDI-SF).
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 7: 171–185.
Kimerling R, Alvarez J, Pavao J, Mack KP, Smith MW and Baumrind N (2009) Unemployment
among women: examining the relationship of physical and psychological intimate partner
violence and posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24(3): 450–463.
Laharnar N, Perrin N, Hanson G, Anger K and Glass N (2015) Workplace domestic violence
leave laws: implementation, use, implications. International Journal of Workplace Health
Management 8(2): p109–128.
Lim M and Misra J (2019) Work/life balance. In: Lim M and Misra J (eds) Sociology. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lindhorst T, Oxford M and Gillmore-Rogers M (2007) Longitudinal effects of domestic violence
on employment and welfare outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22(7): 812–828.
Lloyd S (1997) The effects of domestic violence on women’s employment. Law and Policy 19(2):
139–167.
Lloyd S and Taluc N (1999) The effects of male violence on female employment. Violence against
Women 5(4): 370–392.
MacGregor JC, Oliver CL, MacQuarrie BJ and Wathen CN (2019) Intimate partner violence and
work: a scoping review of published research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Epub ahead of
print 15 October. DOI: 10.1177/1524838019881746.
Accessed
3/20/21
Accessed
4/15/2019
Keep; previous Falk
intext was incorrect

18 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
McLanahan S (2009) Fragile families and the reproduction of poverty. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 621: 1111–1131.
Martinez KS (2015) Not just domestic violence: the role of the workplace in mitigating abusers.
University of Maryland Journal of Race, Religion, Gender & Class 15: 170.
Maurer R (2012) When domestic violence comes to work: 65 percent of employers don’t have a
plan for domestic violence. Society for Human Resources Management. Available at: https://
www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/risk-management/pages/domestic-violence-
workplace-nfl-ray-rice.aspx [AQ: 36]
Meisel J, Chandler D and Rienzi B (2003) Domestic violence prevalence and effects on employ-
ment in two California TANF populations. Violence against Women 9(10): 1191–1212.
Muthén BO and Curran PJ (1997) General longitudinal modeling of individual differences
in experimental designs: a latent variable framework for analysis and power estimation.
Psychological Methods 2(4): 371–402.[AQ: 37]
Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2015) Mplus User’s Guide, 7th Edition. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.[AQ: 38]
Muthén LK and Muthén BO (2018) MPLUS (Version 8.2) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Osborne C and Knab J (2007) Work, welfare, and young children’s health and behavior in
the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Children and Youth Services Review 29:
6762–6781.
Peterson C, Liu Y, Kresnow MJ, Florence C, Merrick MT, DeGue S, et al. (2018) Short-term lost
productivity per victim: intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 55: 106–110.
Reichman NE, Teitler JO, Garfinkel I and McLanahan SS (2001) Fragile families: sample and
design. Children and Youth Services Review 23: 303–326.
Riger S and Staggs SL (2004) Welfare reform, domestic violence, and employment: what do we
know and what do we need to know? Violence against Women 10(9): 961–990.[AQ: 39]
Riger S, Staggs SL and Schewe P (2004) Intimate partner violence as an obstacle to employment
among mothers affected by welfare reform. Journal of Social Issues 60(4): 801–818.
Rizo CF, Givens A and Lombardi B (2017) A systematic review of coping among heterosexual
female IPV survivors in the United States with a focus on the conceptualization and measure-
ment of coping. Aggression and Violent Behavior 34: 35–50.
Shepard M and Pence E (1988) The effect of battering on the employment status of women. Affilia
3(2): 55–61.
Staggs SL and Riger S (2005) Effects of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s health
and employment. American Journal of Community Psychology 36(1–2): 133–145.
Staggs SL, Long SM, Mason GE, Krishnan S and Riger S (2007) Intimate partner violence, social
support, and employment in the post-welfare reform era. Journal of Interpersonal Violence
22(3): 345–367.
Straus M (1979) Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales.
Journal of Marriage and Family 41(1): 75–88.
Straus MA, Gelles RJ and Smith C (1990) Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors
and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Stylianou AM (2018) Economic abuse experiences and depressive symptoms among victims of
intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence 33(6): 381–392.
Swanberg JE, Macke C and Logan TK (2005) Intimate partner violence, employment, and the
workplace: consequences and future directions. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 6(4): 286–312.
[AQ: 40]
Remove
REmove
Remove
Remove
Accessed
11/19/2019

Showalter et al. 19
Swanberg JE, Macke C and Logan TK (2006) Intimate partner violence, women, and work: coping
on the job. Violence and Victims 21(6): 561–578.
Swanberg JE, Macke C and Logan TK (2007) Working women making it work: intimate part-
ner violence, employment and workplace support. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22(3):
292–311.[AQ: 41]
Swanberg JE, Ojha MU and Macke C (2012) State employment protection statutes for victims of
domestic violence: public policy’s response to domestic violence as an employment matter.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27(3): 587–619.
Tolman RM and Rosen D (2001) Domestic violence in the lives of women receiving welfare:
mental health, substance dependence, and economic well-being. Violence against Women
7(2): 141–158.
Tolman RM and Wang H (2005) Domestic violence and women’s employment: fixed effects mod-
els of three waves of women’s employment study data. American Journal of Community
Psychology 36: 147–158.
Truman J and Morgan R (2014) Nonfatal domestic violence, 2003–2012. Special Report, U.S.
Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006) Survey of Workplace Violence
Prevention, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.[AQ: 42]
Vallas S (2011) Sociology of Work and Employment. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vartanian TP (2011) Secondary Data Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wittchen HU, Kessler RC, Zhao S and Abelson J (1995) Reliability and clinical validity of
UM-CIDI DSM-III-R generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Resources 29:
95–110.
Yragui NL, Mankowski ES, Perrin NA and Glass NE (2012) Dimensions of support among abused
women in the workplace. American Journal of Community Psychology 49(1): 31–42.
Yu CY (2002) Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary
and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, Los
Angeles, CA.
Kathryn Showalter is Assistant Professor in the College of Social Work at the University of
Kentucky. Her research focuses on the employment of women who experience intimate partner
violence. Dr. Showalter aims to identify the ways in which abusive partners harass and sabotage
employment in order to create workplace support responses. Her current research includes: (1)
examining nursing professionals’ abuse experiences during COVID-19; (2) investigation of state
employment policies for supporting abuse survivors; and (3) measurement development of abuser-
initiated workplace disruptions.
Susan Yoon is Assistant Professor at The Ohio State University College of Social Work. Her
research promotes resilience and well-being in children who have experienced early childhood
trauma, including child maltreatment and exposure to intimate partner violence. Her current
research includes (1) an exploration of the conceptualization and measurement of resilience;
(2) investigation of the developmental pathways from child maltreatment to behavioral risks
and resilience; and (3) the role of fathers in resilient development of youth with trauma
history.
TK Logan is Professor at the University of Kentucky, Department of Behavioral Science. Her
research focuses on stalking/cyberstalking, partner abuse, coercive control, sexual assault, firearms
Remove
Remove

20 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
in the context of partner abuse, and personal safety. Dr. Logan is an author on over 175 scholarly
publications and serves on the editorial board of two international journals. Dr. Logan’s books
include: Women and Victimization: Contributing Factors, Interventions, and Implications
(American Psychological Association Press) and Partner Stalking: How Women Respond, Cope,
and Survive (Springer Publisher). [AQ: 43]
Date submitted October 2020
Date accepted June 2021