Intimate Partner Violence and Employment-Seeking: A Multilevel Examination of Barriers and Facilitators

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) impacts career development and negatively influences employment prospects, education attainment, and financial earnings; yet there is a gap in research exploring the experiences of employment-seeking from the perspectives of survivors. An intersectional and social ecological perspective provides an important framework and highlights the multiple intersecting barriers of IPV and employment ranging from mental health concerns such as trauma, anxiety and depression to lack of shelter and childcare, limited access to employment services, and other forms of discrimination. This article responds to this gap in research and provides findings from a constructivist grounded theory study of 16 employment-seeking survivors of IPV. To theorize and understand IPV and employment utilizing an intersectional and social ecological framework, the following research question were addressed: (a) What are the contextual barriers or facilitators that shape the employment-seeking process of survivors of IPV? (b) How do the experiences of discrimination shape the employment-seeking experience of survivors of IPV? (c) What employment services were helpful or unhelpful during the employment-seeking process? Two main themes emerged from analysis: (a) Multilevel barriers to employment and (b) Employment barriers/facilitators to employment-seeking. Findings indicate that survivors of IPV face multiple barriers to employment at the intrapersonal (e.g., depression, anxiety, trauma, low self-esteem), interpersonal (e.g., ties to an abusive partner, responsibilities related to childcare), community (lack of social support, few employment opportunities, poverty), and structural/institutionalized levels (e.g., racism, sexism, transphobia). Implications from these findings illustrate that employment-seeking is shaped by structural inequities, intersecting stigma, individual level barriers, and social identities, as well as experience of abuse, which is an important contribution to IPV research. This study provides insight into the complexities of employment-seeking and helps improve knowledge on the social ecological and intersecting barriers of employment from the perspectives of survivors.

Keywords

domestic violence cultural contexts intervention/treatment violence against LGBT

Introduction and Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV)—the physical, sexual, emotional, coercive, and economic abuse of intimate partners (e.g., spouses, domestic or dating partners; Center for Disease Control [CDC], 2019)—impacts one in three women in their lifetime (World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). IPV disproportionately effects lower-income women, foreign-born women, as well as ethnic, racial, sexual and gender minorities, including women in same-sex relationships and transgender women (Davila et al., 2017). IPV can have long-lasting, debilitating effects on the psychological well-being, physical health, and economic security of women (Black et al., 2011; WHO, 2017). Economic abuse is widely reported among survivors of IPV and over the last two decades has been conceptualized as a distinct form of abuse (Stylianou, 2018). It is broadly defined as the persistent control, exploitation, and sabotage of a partner’s economic resources and employment (Adams et al., 2008; Postmus et al., 2018). Economic dependency is one of the main factors that prevents survivors from leaving abusive relationships (Sanders, 2015). Abusive partners can use a range of tactics to interfere with and restrict finances and workforce participation, which can impact employment prospects.

Employment provides survivors with financial independence and the resources to leave abusive partners. However, even after leaving the abusive relationship, survivors can often face multiple barriers that interfere with the employment-seeking process. These barriers include limited work experience, lack of education, welfare restrictions, immigration status, racial bias, homophobia, and transphobia (Calton et al., 2016; Chronister et al., 2018). A survivor’s particular social locations (e.g., race, sexuality, age, immigration status, culture) can increase the risk of exposure to adverse economic conditions that can negatively impact employment outcomes (Ballou et al., 2015). Survivors with diverse social locations, understood here as the social positioning of an individual within society, are frequently disadvantaged in the labor market and vulnerable to precarious employment. Precarious employment encompasses jobs that are temporary, provide low wages and few benefits, and are devoid of prospects for career mobility (Crenshaw, 1989; Scott-Marshall et al., 2007).

Review of the Literature

Over the last two decades, researchers have examined the interrelationships between IPV and employment by primarily focusing on the prevalence of economic abuse tactics (e.g., job interference, on the job harassment, workplace disruptions) that impede survivors’ ability to secure employment (see Albaugh & Nauta, 2005; Alexander, 2011; Brown et al., 2000; Costello et al., 2005; Duffy, 2015; Showalter, 2016; Swanberg et al., 2007). These studies contributed to expanding academic and policy debates about economic abuse and employment, while also setting the ground for further research on the topic. Other studies examined how changes in US welfare policies adversely affected the ability of low-income survivors to remain eligible for public or community-based shelter programs while trying to find and maintain sustainable employment (see Meisel et al., 2003; Moe & Bell, 2004; Staggs et al., 2007; Tolman & Wang, 2005).

Research conducted since the passage of the “Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act” in 1996 documents survivors’ struggles with the welfare system and employment promotion programs (Showalter, 2016). The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) initiative, a federally funded program, was created to incentivize employment by requiring recipients to work for their benefits (Scott-Marshall, 2013). The majority of studies on IPV, employment, and TANF focused on the experiences of survivors who received welfare and the specific barriers to employment that impacted their ability to find work. Researchers identified barriers that included homelessness, welfare eligibility requirements, childcare, transportation, poor social support, lack of specific job skills (e.g., technology/IT, math, reading, writing) or higher education, physical injuries, and psychological issues (e.g., depression, anxiety, trauma, addiction; Ballou et al., 2015; Chronister et al., 2018; Chronister & McWhirter, 2006; Davidson et al., 2012; Prescod & Zeligman, 2018; Tolman & Rosen, 2001). Research has also found that the programs’ strict requirements and time-limited welfare benefits negatively impacted survivors’ ability to secure well-paid, living wage employment (Peled & Krigel, 2016).

Findings from the IPV and economic abuse literature have influenced policy debates, programs, and interventions (Kulkarni & Ross, 2016; Lozano et al., 2013; Swanberg et al., 2007; WHO, 2013). However, employment issues faced by women impacted by IPV are significantly understudied and gaps in our understanding of the consequences and scope of IPV on employment persist. These gaps highlight the need for research that provides a deeper understanding of the employment-seeking experiences of survivors of IPV and the broader, structural factors and barriers that impact their experiences. In this context, an approach that relies on an intersectional feminist lens allows to better understand structural aspects of oppression and marginalization (Crenshaw, 1989).

Theoretical Framework

Intersectionality.

Previous feminist theorists have made important contribution to IPV research (e.g., the battered women’s movement) but also have their limitations, namely the narrow understanding of gender, the exclusion of racial and minority women, and constrained service practices that overlook employment needs (Crenshaw, 1989; Kulkarni, 2019). An intersectional perspective aims to redress these limitations by recognizing that women with differing identities have experiences of structural inequities (e.g., discrimination) that can influence their employment-seeking experiences (Hill Collins, 2000). Survivors’ multiple identities and experiences often make them vulnerable to different forms of employment bias and discrimination, including race, gender, sexual identity, immigration status, and status as mother/single parents. These multiple identities and experiences tend to shape the bias and discrimination they are confronted with. A central proposition of this study is that survivors of IPV with diverse identities and experiences of oppression have different employment-seeking experiences which are not captured in the current literature.

Social Ecological Model.

A social ecological model explores interpersonal, structural, and systemic experiences of violence, while linking them to oppressions such as racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. A social ecological perspective suggests that violence occurs as a result of a complex network of individual, social, and societal risk factors (CDC, 2020). Its emphasis on the complex relationships and interconnectedness of systems and experiences that impact survivors has made it a useful approach for scholars studying IPV (Heise, 1998).

A social ecological model can help conceptualize the multilayered experiences of survivors seeking employment by expanding the analysis of human development (e.g., experiences of trauma), impact of relationships (e.g., abusive partner), community (social supports, welfare policies), and structural (discrimination, oppression) factors while also taking into consideration the interconnected nature of these systems.

Purpose and Research Questions

This study responds to gaps in research by seeking to understand how IPV and experiences of oppression relate to employment-seeking. To do so it addresses the following research questions:

What are the contextual barriers and facilitators that shape the employment-seeking process of survivors of IPV?

How do the experiences of discrimination shape the employment-seeking experience of survivors of IPV?

What employment services were helpful or unhelpful during the employment-seeking process?

Methods

This study employs a qualitative study design with a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2014). Grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) is a qualitative methodology that studies underresearched social phenomena inductively from the subjective perspectives of research participants (Charmaz, 2014). Constructivist perspectives understand that knowledge and research are constructed by participants (Charmaz, 2014) and recognizes the unique experiences of women and IPV. This perspective also considers the position of the researcher as being part of the process and not as a neutral observer (Charmaz, 2014).

This study received institutional ethics approval. All participants completed a written informed consent process prior to participating in the interview. Participants were carefully prescreened to ensure that participating in the study would not create safety risks (e.g., ensuring participants were no longer in abusive relationships or were currently engaged in IPV support services).

To ensure that the research is responsive to the needs of the population, a multidisciplinary IPV community advisory board (CAB) was developed to consult with throughout the research process. The inclusion of an IPV CAB provided an opportunity to present challenges and receive feedback and support when conducting research with IPV survivor participants. Feminist research methodologies often include the addition of a CAB to consider the privacy and safety concerns of survivors and ensure that researchers captured participants’ perspectives (Padgett, 2016).

Study Setting and Recruitment

The research was conducted between March, 2018 and July, 2018 in a large American Northeastern urban city that is well resourced with a variety of services. Using theoretical sampling, a form of purposive sampling (Charmaz, 2014), recruitment began with women who experienced violence and engaged in employment-related services at IPV organizations. Theoretical sampling then focused on recruiting women from varied sexual orientations, socioeconomic statuses, ethnoracial backgrounds, abilities, and immigration experiences to ensure that different identities and experiences would be represented in the data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). Purposive recruitment considerations were also carried out to illuminate employment-seeking experiences among those who were actively job-seeking and those who had already secured employment.

Participants were recruited through study flyers that were circulated at multiple IPV organizations across a large American Northeastern urban city. Since women from LGBTQ communities are at an even higher risk of experiencing violence, participants who identified as female (e.g., cisgender female, trans female) were also recruited from LGBTQ organizations. A prescreening tool was utilized to ensure participants met specific criteria, were at least 18 years of age, spoke English, and identified as women (cisgender/transgender). Eligible participants were required to have received or currently be engaged in IPV counseling or support services, and be either employed (full-time, part-time) or currently seeking employment. It should be noted that this study did not aim to essentialize the identities of different women, but rather sought to identify various identities and experiences that are frequently excluded from mainstream IPV research. Research on women can essentialize the category of “women” because it assumes shared experiences and perspectives. A focus on gender can obfuscate the interacting identities associated with race, ethnicity, linguistic backgrounds, sexual identity, and ability, which are critical to achieving a fulsome explanation of the person in contexts that is too often excluded in social sciences research (Hankivsky et al., 2010).

Data Collection and Analysis

Data collection

A semi-structured interview guide was developed in consultation with the thesis committee and IPV CAB. The interview guide included open-ended questions that elicited the survivor’s views on IPV and employment, as well as barriers and facilitators to employment, and access to employment services. Interviews lasted between 40 minutes and 2 hours at the location of the participant’s choice (e.g., a private room at the IPV support agency, a private office at an affiliated university, coffee shop etc.).

Data analysis

Initial (open, line-by-line) coding was applied to the first interview transcripts to yield a broad set of emerging codes and categories before the researcher applied focused and selective coding at later stages of analysis to identify salient themes (Charmaz, 2014). Codes emerged from the data and were not imposed a priori (Flick, 2014). A constant comparison analysis of cases was applied until theoretical saturation was reached, the point at that continued coding no longer lead to new theoretical insights (Charmaz, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1998).The final stage of analysis included focused coding to identify emerging theoretical concepts that supported the identification of major themes (Charmaz, 2014).

Trustworthiness

To ensure dependability of the data (Drisko, 1997), all participant interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and uploaded into NVivo 12 qualitative software for analysis. Constructivist grounded theory methods are interactive in nature and analysis alternates between conducting interviews and transcribing, conducting analysis, and conducting subsequent interviews (Charmaz, 2014). Memo writing began with the first interview and continued throughout the research. After the interviews, impressions, reflections, and descriptions of the setting were recorded and reviewed by the researcher to explore additional insights on the data and identify any changes to the interview guide. The use of direct quotations that support study themes and findings demonstrates confirmability of the data (Drisko, 1997). Throughout the study, the researcher also engaged in peer debriefing with the IPV CAB and thesis committee members, who supported the interpretation of findings which also helped ensure data trustworthiness.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity was exercised throughout the research process, using memo writing to examine intentions and ensure that research was not conducted exploitatively (Drisko, 1997; Finlay, 2002). These activities were aimed to help uncover any theoretical discrimination such as racism, sexism, ableism, classism, and homophobia during the research process (Few, 2007). Given the status of the primary investigator as a white, male-partnered, able-bodied, cisgender woman, it was particularly important to be explicit about the motivations underlying the research as well the investigator’s long-term goals of social change, empowerment of women, and contributions to research and theory.

Sample and Demographics

All recruited participants were either engaged in employment programs, had completed employment programs, or were actively job-seeking (see Table 1). 16 survivors of IPV were interviewed in this study. Most survivors were employed (n = 10; part-time n = 4; full-time n = 6) and those who were not employed (n = 6) were all actively job-seeking or engaged in a paid internship (n = 2) or volunteer work (n = 1). Survivors who were employed worked in a variety of employment sectors (e.g., food service, beauty, health). Annual average income was $24,000 per year which is close to the poverty threshold based on the cost of living in a large northeastern city (e.g., one parent and one child need to make at least $22,000 per year in order to be considered out of poverty; Office for Economic Opportunity, 2018). The mean age of participants was 36 years old (SD = 7.6). More than half (n = 9) of the survivors had children and had caregiving responsibilities.

The sample included cisgender women (n = 13) and trans women (n = 3). A total of 15 survivors identified as heterosexual and one identified as queer. Out of the 15 women, 11 women were born outside the United States and five were born in the United States. The level of education of participants ranged from university (master’s degree, n = 2; bachelor’s degree, n = 5), to some post-secondary (some college, n = 3), to high school/GED (n = 6). Less than a third of participants identified as white (n = 5), and the remainder identified as people of color including Black/African American (n = 4), South Asian (n = 2), Latin American (n = 2), Arab (n = 1), East Asian (n = 1), and mixed/other (n = 1).

Table 1.

Sample Demographics (n = 16).

Demographic Information	Participants (%)
Age
20–29	5 (31)
30–39	6 (38)
40–49	4 (25)
50–59	1 (6)
Gender
Cisgender female	13 (81)
Trans female	3 (19)
Sexual orientation
Straight	12 (75)
LGBTQ	4 (25)
Ethnicity/cultural background
White/European	5 (31)
Black/African American	4 (25)
Hispanic/Latin American	2 (13)
South Asian	2 (13)
East Asian	1 (6)
Arab	1 (6)
Other	1 (6)
Country of birth
USA	5 (31)
Other	11 (69)
Highest completed educational level
High school/GED	6 (38)
Some college	3 (19)
Bachelor	5 (31)
Master	2 (12)
Number of children
0	7 (44)
1	7 (44)
2	0
3	1 (6)
4	0
5	1 (6)
Household income range
Under $10,000	3 (19)
$10,000-$19,999	5 (31)
$20,000-$29,999	3 (19)
$30,000-$39,999	1 (6)
$40,000-$49,000	3 (19)
$50,000 and above	1 (6)
Employment status
Employed	10 (62)
Part-time	6 (60)
Full-time	4 (40)
Unemployed	6 (38)
Occupation
Beauty	1 (10)
Non-profit/government	2 (20)
Food service	1 (10)
Private (legal, financial firms)	2 (20)
Health	2 (20)
Self-employed	2 (20)

Findings

Two main themes emerged from the data: (a) Multilevel barriers to employment and (b) Employment supports/facilitators to help secure employment. The themes and subthemes are described in the following sections. The study findings are also presented in a conceptual diagram (Figure 1) that builds an integrated framework to better understand employment barriers and supports inductively derived from the data. Exemplary quotes are presented in text.

Figure 1.

An intersectional and social ecological approach to understanding IPV and employment-seeking.

Barriers to Employment

Survivors recalled an overwhelming number of barriers during the process of seeking employment. The study identifies over 30 barriers at the social ecological level (see Table 2). They discussed these barriers at the individual (e.g., mental health, self-esteem), interpersonal (e.g., IPV, childhood violence, sexual violence), community (lack of social networks, limited community resources), and structural (e.g., sociopolitical, historical, economic) levels. Multiple barriers had significant impact on their employment-seeking and contributed to periods of underemployment and unemployment.

Individual.

Survivors reflected on individual challenges such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, as well as a lack of work experience, specific skills, and education that made finding employment more difficult. Many survivors described years of psychological distress resulting from abusive relationships, which contributed to depression and interfered with employment and education. As this survivor reflected:

Because with the depression, you’re depressed, and you don’t want to study, and you don’t want to do anything” (Participant 14).

The impact of victimization on mental health was so profound for some survivors that looking for work became secondary as they needed to first stabilize their mental health and well-being. Some survivors with severe depression were unable to secure employment immediately after leaving the abusive relationship because they needed time to recover and heal from the abuse. One survivor summarized the dynamic as follows:

I was depressed when I broke off with him, I went to the hospital to stay in the psychiatric ward for two months, and then I was very depressed and then I was living in a shelter, I didn’t get a job (Participant 07).

Nearly all survivors referred to a plunge in their self-esteem after years of abuse and emotional victimization. Abusers used a variety of tactics that chipped away at survivors’ self-esteem, including verbal abuse and insults that impacted their confidence in their own ability to get a job, as described by this survivor:

Yes, it was challenging being that everyone, when they go through a domestic violence situation, you are in an emotional state. You lose confidence in yourself, you lose the motivation that you had to survive that you had, so it’s difficult to get back into the workforce (Participant 12).

The psychological impact of low self-esteem interfered with their motivation and contributed to patterns of negative thinking and self-doubt.

Interpersonal.

Survivors described how their interpersonal relationship with their abusive partner became a significant barrier to employment. Many survivors were unable to work entirely because of the controlling nature of their partners. In some cases, survivors were expected to take care of the house, clean, cook, and care for children and denied the opportunity to work. For others who were employed during the abusive relationship, they discussed how abusers sabotaged their jobs. This survivor struggled with physical injuries that prevented her from work:

It was times where I would get into fights on occasion with him and I would have to call my work due to bruises my face. I was a customer service representative, so I dealt with customers face-to-face and I didn’t want my customers, my former colleagues, to see bruises and scars so I just had to call my work multiple times (Participant 12).

Other complexities in the relationship between survivors and their abusers also created barriers to employment and help-seeking. In one instance, a survivor’s abusive partner used her precarious immigration status as a threat. This experience contributed to feelings of isolation, shame, and increased fear which prevented her from leaving:

He kicked me a lot but I didn’t call the police…And he’s threatening me about my documentation. He said, he going to take me all of my stuff. So, I have nobody here (Participant 06).

This survivor discussed the challenges of disclosing abuse to her employer and recalled:

Yes, I just had to confide in my general manager, my district manager, and she understood, but it’s certain things that I told her, certain things I just kept to myself because the shame and embarrassment, and I didn’t want to bring my issues from home to work (Participant 12).

The responsibility of caring for children was also major barrier to employment. Survivors overwhelmingly identified their struggles with childcare responsibilities and emphasized that the lack of affordable, safe, and reliable childcare as one the most daunting barrier to employment.

And if I wanted to work in a restaurant and actually make money, that would be nights. I applied for lunch shift at some restaurants, but it never worked out. I didn’t have consistent safe childcare at night, I didn’t (Participant 16).

Some survivors were overburdened by the responsibility of caring for numerous children, finding it challenging to manage childcare and employment-related responsibilities. Ultimately, some survivors were unable to focus on their employment or educational needs because they had to prioritize their children’s well-being. This survivor described it this way:

That’s another one that I’m facing right now. If I start the (employment training program) courses, who will pick up the children from the school? Because I have childcare for the little one, but who is going to pick up the children from school? That’s difficult (Participant 5).

Community

Survivors reflected on several community barriers that interfered with finding employment including lack of housing or living in shelter, lack of affordable childcare, lack of affordable employment training, lack of population-specific services (e.g., LBGTQ-specific), as well as legal and public assistance requirements that contributed to time constraints. Notably, the inaccessibility and lack of employment support programs posed as a major barrier for many survivors. Survivors cited factors such as long waitlists, high costs, specific eligibility requirements (e.g., immigration status, income level, education level) that restrict those who can enroll. Survivors expressed their wish to find employment support programs, but noted that these services were often unavailable as described by this survivor:

Basically there aren’t any programs, and if there were programs, there are barriers to them… if there was um, a group of two hundred women probably only 10 women would (be eligible; Participant 15).

One survivor noted that while there were some free job training programs, many of them required a certain income level in order to be eligible to participate:

I want to maybe try to do medical billing, something else that is a skill that I can have. That’s something that if you get that, you can get a job in many places, you can work from home, I tried to get into one of those courses and they were like, sorry you’re not eligible for the free one, you have to pay thousands of dollars (Participant 16).

Survivors also discussed struggles accessing community-specific services. One commented on the lack of support available for women who are trafficked. This survivor described her isolation and struggle to find support services. She described:

For me I didn’t know about help until I saw on TV, but I remembered in the back of my head, trafficking, that is who is doing this to me and finally realized my situation…I had no one reach out to me when I had problems with abuse or arrest. No one to tell me, nothing (Participant 10).

One survivor who identified as queer commented on the lack of support services available to survivors in same-sex relationships.

Number one, there’s just an invisibility of violence between same gender couples. There isn’t as much written on it, there isn’t as much organizing. And so I feel like I was vulnerable to that, being like a little bit outside the narrative (Participant 08).

Structural.

Survivors described various experiences of structural factors influenced by, immigration status, gender, age, sexual identity, class, and single-parent status as interfering with employment. Many of these experiences intersected with each other and posed additional challenges to leaving abusive relationships and finding employment. One survivor, who identified as a Black, heterosexual, cisgender female commented on difficulties leaving her abusive Black, cisgender male partner due to intersections of IPV and fear of police brutality. This highlights the complexity for Black couples in abusive relationships about seeking help from the police or law enforcement agencies. Not only was she concerned about her partner being arrested or harmed by the police, she was also worried for her own safety as a Black woman. This survivor set aside her own needs for safety to protect her Black partner, illustrating the complexity of her experiences and concerns for racial violence. This survivor felt compelled to remain in an abusive relationship that impeded her ability to leave and focus on her career.

So, I shut my mouth…The cops were called to (the) house regularly. I never pressed charges because his mom told me in America, you don’t let a Black man get arrested. So, I dealt with it a little bit more (Participant 09).

Intersecting identities of gender and race have implications for employment. One survivor, an immigrant, woman of color reflected on the realities of racial discrimination and employment:

I heard some people talking about their experience, how they couldn’t get a [job] because they were Black (Participant 03).

Notably, nearly half of survivors in this study were immigrants. This aspect of survivors’ intersecting identities created additional barriers to employment. Several immigrant survivors had extensive educational and employment experience in their home countries, but those experience were largely unrecognized by American employers. These factors highlight the additional challenges and impact of immigration on employment-seeking for survivors of IPV. This participant discussed the challenges transitioning to the United States:

My situation was hard and complicated. I was in a new country, with a different language, different tradition, different customs, different attitudes. It’s so different, you have to learn everything, and at 37 years old, it’s not easy (Participant 02).

For some survivors, gender norms including patriarchy and views on women’s employment were problematic and, in some cases, prevented women from seeking higher education or getting a job.

And when it’s bad it’s just toxic. And so, with that being said, even if I wanted to go back to school, I don’t think I had the support. And I wasn’t very vocal at times about what was going on, because in Caribbean culture it’s kind of like, yeah, the man goes out and works, and yeah you stay home and take care of the children (Participant 11).

Several survivors were also single parents and the primary caretakers of their children. This participant recalled being discriminated against during a job interview and was asked whether she had children. She was not offered the job.

The only thing that I have run a lot into is the fact that I have kids… I could do whatever they want me to do. I had interviewers tell me that they wouldn’t hire me because I have kids… I had childcare. But they still wouldn’t take me because they said that they couldn’t take me because they wanted someone else that isn’t going to call out if something happens to the children or anything (Participant 05).

Trans and queer survivors described experiencing significant employment discrimination and systemic inequities. Some participants commented on trans stigma and experienced negative attitudes from employers due to their identity. This trans survivor experienced stigma towards her trans identity while job-seeking:

Sometimes I do feel that, I’m not sure, like I told you I sent 150 résumés, is it because something is wrong with me or is it because something is wrong with the résumé or is it because something is wrong with my gender (Participant 07).

One survivor described the nexus of being trans, involved in sex work, and experiencing incarceration. She described the challenges of transitioning from sex work to mainstream employment:

That’s why I don’t, I, you know, then when it comes to getting a job, after I’ve been a sex worker my whole life, it’s challenging. Because when people ask for a resume, I got no skills. Sex…doesn’t apply in résumés (Participant 13).

Employment supports/facilitators to help secure employment

Individual.

Survivors who found employment (n = 10) described processes of individual change and community support that helped them secure employment. Personal processes ranged from improving mental health (e.g., reduced depression and/or anxiety, identifying trauma), restoring self-esteem, acquiring new skills, and leaving abusive relationships. Many survivors reflected on how improved mental health and the development of personal motivation such as regaining self-esteem, and acquiring skills, work experience, and education helped them find employment.

The motivation. For me, when I was living in the shelter I said, I must find a job, if I don’t have a job, I’m going to stay in the shelter forever until they find me a job. So I had to push myself, every day I had to go to the library, make myself send out résumés and make sure that I sent at least five a day (Participant 07).

Another survivor discussed the significance of having a purpose and personal strength:

Because it is important to have purpose. You must be able … there must be a reason for you to get up and brush your teeth. Must be a reason for you to get up and brush your hair. It sounds primitive how I’m telling you. But if you don’t have a reason to get up and shower, bathe, brush your hair, or a person, a reason, your kid or whatever to live for, you just stop living (Participant 09).

This survivor discussed feeling personally empowered. She described:

I think that if somebody feels empowered they know that they can take that next step, they can learn, they are adaptable, if they do feel that way about themselves then they will most definitely, well maybe not most definitely, but most likely apply for a job (Participant 16).

Relational.

Another survivor described how the impact of leaving the abusive relationship helped regain her confidence and self-esteem. This survivor reflected on what allowed her to pursue a new life violence free and focus on getting a living wage job.

For one, I left my abuser, so I don’t have to live in fear every single second. So, it’s something that I could just be free and enjoy my kids and enjoy my life. The other one is that I have more things to offer. As to a job, I don’t have to go and apply for a little cashier or coffee shop. I have computer skills. So, my self-esteem is a little bit better (Participant 05).

Notably, several survivors discussed the importance of relationships with IPV service providers who supported them while employment-seeking. They commented on supportive staff, who became somewhat of a role model and mentor to women. One survivor described how she came to depend and rely on program staff:

I don’t know how, I depend on them, sometimes I don’t know what to do and I just go, (program staff member], I’m lost, should I do this? She is kind of my mentor and if there was no organization like (name of organization), I really don’t know what to do, maybe I’m lost, and I don’t know what to do (Participant 07).

Another survivor discussed the importance of LGBTQ sensitive organizations and advocating for the needs of LGBTQ survivors of IPV. She described her experiences:

I recognized immediately that she was an advocate for LGBT for women … And there’s a trans program there too now. And I don’t know who does that. But that’s essential also. And umm so I also recognized in her like … that was really important. And so she was my career counselor (Participant 08).

Survivors also commented on the importance of positive and healthy personal relationships (e.g., family, friends, and safe partners) and professional relationships (e.g., role models, mentors, peers) which indirectly contributed to them finding employment.

And being in an environment where there are people who are focused, there are people who are ambitious, people who are driven, it makes you want to jump on the same wagon… And so being there and being around my peers, there’s so many who are much more established, but I know because I’m already there that I too can attain those things. So, I’m encouraged (Participant 11).

Community.

Several survivors discussed the importance of community support (e.g., IPV organizations, public assistance, employment services) that directly or indirectly helped them find employment. Survivors described services such as IPV counseling, employment placement programs, childcare assistance, religious communities, and professional networks. Survivors who were eligible for public assistance could apply for a childcare voucher that covered the costs of childcare so women could engage in a formal job training programs. This survivor described the importance of reliable childcare.

I had childcare near where I was in shelter so I was just going back and forth and it was reliable day care from 7:00 to 6:00 p.m., so, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00, so I was able to have him there while I was at (employment training program; Participant 12).

Another commented on the financial support from public assistance that helped support her with transportation, childcare, and professional licensing.

You can go, and they (public assistance) provide you with a Metro card, they provide you with childcare. I think that’s really helpful. Or they go into the … getting license like a CNA or something for … it’s really, these things they really help. I think they’re already out there, the people just have to be more knowledge that those things are existing, and they have to use it (Participant 14).

Several discussed the significance of a sense of belonging to a community with other survivors who experienced violence while in employment programs.

And there were many times that we would meet and we would have lunch but we would talk. And there were women from different states that just shared similar stories. And although our self-esteems were low, we found a common thread. And that strengthened us, telling our stories to each other (Participant 11).

This survivor described the importance of being a part of community of women with shared trans identity:

And they are all transgender, and then you make friends from there and then you build a community. You make more friends…So, I made new friends and we go out, have a drink, coffee, and then become closer, and then we exchanged information and they tell me where there are new classes, and exchange more information. I made four or five new close friends, everybody we text (Participant 08).

Survivors described the practical benefits of engagement in employment-related programs. Many programs provided interview preparation, interview attire, professional networking, skills training, and internship opportunities. They discussed the importance of receiving interview preparation at a job training program. Some survivors recalled receiving professional clothing attire from an IPV organization that helped her feel prepared for interviews. One survivor commented that having a crisp new suit helped her land a job:

Because it’s crisp and it’s … the funniest thing is, when I had my interview and I became a little bit more of (name of employer) family, my coordinator and supervisor spoke to me one day and they said, that suit. When you came in and you sat down in that suit, we knew that you were the one (Participant 11).

Structural.

All women who participated in the study provided program and policy recommendations and suggestions around improving employment-related programs for survivors of IPV. Recommendations included more funding for programs, increased access to social supports and services (e.g., childcare onsite, housing support, grants and funding for education), and specialized employment-related training (IT, medical training, workers’ rights). This survivor stressed the importance of expanding assistance with childcare within employment programs. She suggested:

The only thing maybe is the childcare, that they should have it every day for other women that are struggling. Because there are a lot that struggle that don’t have anywhere to take the kids or anything like that (Participant 05).

Survivors highlighted the importance of accessible, specialized training programs. They recommended expanding employment services to include training in healthcare administration, IT, and advanced skills such as coding. This survivor described:

I think that there needs to be skills classes and I know that sounds probably so basic to some people, but offering Windows Office, the things that people would use in administrative positions, having that offered and having everybody go through that, if they don’t know it. Yes, and IT is in even greater demand, even bigger I would have them have coding and all that other stuff because that’s something that is hugely in demand (Participant 16).

For many survivors in shelter, finding housing continued to be a struggle. This survivor suggested changes to shelter stays which interfered with her employment training program.

I stayed with the baby for three months. But then after the three months, I had to do training, back to work programs, which is when I came to [IPV organization]. And then I couldn’t finish the cycle because [the shelter system] moved me around three or four times…The shelter, yeah. So, I had to restart all over again the last cycle that happened right now (Participant 05).

Additionally, survivors discussed the importance of expanding existing programs and increasing services for survivors with multiple identities and experiences, especially for women in same-sex relationships, trans women, women who have experienced trafficking, as well as survivors without immigration status. This survivor commented on the need to expand services for LGBTQ survivors of IPV.

I want (name of service provider) to have a bigger program. Umm, she couldn’t see my partner when my partner first moved here. Because by that time. I mean she was over capacity. How many people can she serve at a given time (Participant 08).

Finally, survivors discussed the need to reducing shame around experiences of violence and discrimination. This participant stated:

I think that people need to stop victim shaming. Just let them know, I’m proud of you for getting out of this, as a society we have to help build these people up and stop pointing fingers at the victim and start… So, as a society, that’s the main thing, stop victim blaming (Participant 16).

Another survivor brought up how trans women face employment discrimination that results in them resorting to survival sex work. She described:

I think a lot of transgender, they can’t find a job, this is what I feel, I believe they cannot find a job then they have no choice, they don’t want to go to the shelter and they need money, then they have to work as a sex worker. So, I believe if the world changed and they give transgenders a chance, I don’t think there are so many sex workers for transgender (Participant 07).

Table 2.

Multilevel Barriers and Facilitators to Employment for Survivors of IPV.

Barriers to Employment		Facilitators to Employment
Individual	Mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety, trauma & PTSD/trauma) Criminal background or history Lack of confidence and self-esteem Lack of education (e.g., high school/diploma or GED, college) Lack of work experience Lack of skills (e.g., IT, skills needed for living wage employment) Lack of income and resources	Individual	Improved mental health (e.g., reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma) Improved and nurtured confidence and self-esteem Acquisition of skills (e.g., IT, specific job training for desired field of employment) High school diploma/GED, completing university degree, seeking higher education Having faith (spiritual, religious connection) Financial stability
		Interpersonal	Leaving abusive situation
Interpersonal	IPV Childhood violence Sexual assault Experiences of being trafficked Lack of positive role models/mentors Responsibilities related to being the primary caretaker of children		Disconnecting from abusive or unsupportive family members Safe and healthy intimate partners Supportive family members Positive role models/mentors Building trust in others and forming positive relationship (e.g., employers, service providers, peers) Forming positive relationships (post-abuse
Community	Lack of safe, affordable childcare Lack of family support Lack of trust (friends, family, employers) Lack of social support (IPV services, employment-related services, workplace support) Lack of professional network Lack of stable or safe housing Legal obligations (e.g., ongoing child custody, divorce cases, immigration) Unemployment Public assistance requirements/appointment or lack of Public assistance due to immigration status	Community	Employment programs (e.g., job training, career counseling, internship programs) Various forms of social support Public assistance (e.g., childcare vouchers, housing/shelter support, cash and food assistance) Involvement in spiritual and religious communities Counseling services that focuses on repairing and healing self-esteem Trauma informed services Resolving legal cases, fewer court appointments Securing housing
Structural	Poverty Discrimination (e.g., sexism, racism, transphobia, homophobia) Social and cultural norms around violence and gender inequity Shame, fear stigma related to IPV, identity Lack of access to employment services and employment opportunities	Structural	Securing childcare Reducing shame and addressing stigma related to IPV/identity Addressing issues of discrimination, oppression, poverty Increased funding for employment programs Increased access to employment program Raising awareness and challenging social and cultural norms around violence and gender inequity

Discussion

The article aims to explore and conceptualize the experiences of employment-seeking survivors of IPV. It is based on data collected from the study and emphasizes the unique experiences of employment-seeking survivors of IPV including experiences of oppression and contextual barriers and supports. The article also builds mid-level theory and outlines implications and recommendations for practice.

A key contribution of this study is its social ecological (CDC, 2020) view of employment-seeking, which recognizes both the internal and the broader societal impacts of violence on employment. This study adds to the previous research by considering the unique experiences of employment-seeking survivors at the individual, relational, community, and structural levels. These dimensions intersect and interact with one another to produce specific, individual instances of economic abuse and barriers to employment that are pervasive across all dimensions. The study findings also confirm previous research that highlights barriers to employment and expands on them by comprehensively describing the multiple barriers and supports needed for survivors to secure employment (Chronister & McWhirter, 2004, 2006; Davidson et al., 2012; Lantrip et al., 2015). This study builds on the research by systematically conceptualizing multilevel barriers and facilitators at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, and structural) levels which directly relate to employment-seeking. It also identifies over 30 barriers to employment at each level (see Table 2). Some of the most pervasive barriers occurred at the intrapersonal level include depression, anxiety, trauma, low self-esteem, and lack of confidence. In line with previous research, nearly all survivors spoke about the impact of IPV on their self-esteem that influenced employment-seeking processes (Albaugh & Nauta, 2005; Davidson et al., 2012). All survivors who were able to find employment reported that getting a job was a significant factor in improving their self-esteem and overall well-being. This suggests there is a bidirectional relationship between self-esteem/well-being and finding employment.

At the interpersonal and community level, some of the most significant facilitators that assisted survivors in finding employment included interpersonal relationships (e.g., peers, mentors, role models, healthy relationships) and community supports available through community employment programs. For example, job training programs that provided résumé assistance, interview preparation (e.g., mock interviews), interview attire, job placement assistance, and internship programs were considered very valuable to survivors. Survivors also discussed how confidence and self-esteem can be nurtured through various relational experiences (e.g., leaving abusive relationship, forming positive relationships, connecting with peers). This study highlights the importance of peer support among survivors seeking employment which is consistent with previous IPV research (Postmus et al., 2018; Tolman & Wang, 2005). Interestingly, community resources such as public assistance was considered both a barrier and support to finding employment, a view that has also been documented in research (Peled & Krigel, 2016; Meisel et al., 2003; Staggs et al., 2007). Some survivors discussed the benefits of programs such as childcare assistance, food stamps, and housing that addressed immediate needs while seeking employment. However, other survivors described the challenges of public assistance programs including program restrictions and constraints, as well as the stigma associated with being a welfare recipient.

Another key contribution of the study is the intersectional perspective (Hill Collins, 2000) into the employment-seeking experiences of survivors of IPV which has been missing in the research yet recommended by previous studies (Davila et al., 2017; Edwards et al., 2015). This study included experiences of women who identify as a racial minority, immigrant, trans, and/or queer, and explored how they are impacted by larger sociopolitical contexts. The research highlights insights on the multiple intersections of oppressions (e.g., racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia) and intragroup differences of survivors which is influenced by other dimensions of identity (Crenshaw, 1989; Mizock & Mueser, 2014).

This intersectional lens illustrates the pervasive systemic racism (social, political), and employment discrimination (e.g., overlooked for jobs, overrepresentation in low paid service jobs) also adds to previous research. It also provides insight into experiences of immigrant survivors and their compounded and intersecting oppressions related to race, class, citizenship, language, and cultural perspectives when seeking employment. All participants in this study spoke English, but many as a second language, a factor that often further marginalized them during the search for employment. Without English proficiency, the benefit of work experience in the United States, or recognized educational credentials (e.g., degrees from non-Western countries), survivors faced even greater barriers to attaining living wage employment.

Queer and trans survivors described additional experiences of intersecting stigma while employment-seeking as a result their identities. The theoretical concept of intersectional stigma found in public health research explains how discrimination is experienced differentially by people at the intersection of their race, class, gender, and sexuality, among other parts of their identities (Logie et al., 2019). This approach may be particularly useful for understanding the experiences of diverse employment-seeking survivors of IPV. Insights from the few trans survivors that participated in the study found they faced widespread forms of employment and workplace stigma through harassment and discriminatory policies which mirror previous research (Mizock & Mueser, 2014). Strikingly, employers and prospective employers explicitly and implicitly discriminate against trans women by not hiring them for jobs they are qualified for or by conveying negative attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions towards them at work. Trans survivors also described fewer employment opportunities, most of which were limited to certain employment sectors (e.g., beauty industry, sex work, housekeeping, healthcare) due to the pervasive stigma against trans women. For sex workers in particular, it can be difficult to transition from sex work to the mainstream labor market without practical training, education, and IT skills.

Implications for Theory, Practice, and Research

While there has been a decisive call to enhance research, policies, and programs to meet the employment needs of survivors of IPV, to date there has been insufficient attention to career counseling and employment-related interventions in social work practice and research. There is a strong need for empirical research to further develop a knowledge base to inform IPV research, policy, and practice. The current study expands on existing IPV and employment conceptual models by considering an intersectional and social ecological perspective to deepen an understanding of employment-seeking. The social ecological model is frequently employed in IPV and a significant practice model that examines individuals within contexts of their social dimensions and applicable in employment-seeking contexts (CDC, 2020). It is also recommended that researchers, service providers, and policymakers consider multilevel employment interventions that address intersectional forms of stigma. Specific interventions include career counseling, career development and planning, education and training, and community efforts such as raising awareness and challenging employment discrimination related to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia.

Several policies are also very beneficial to IPV survivors. The Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA) and Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) offered protection to those particularly vulnerable to violence and exploitation (Ortega & Busch-Armendariz, 2013; Tahirih Justice Center, 2017). Legislation such as VAWA and TVPA are important to intersectional IPV services especially for female survivors that are also immigrants, LGBTQ and offer additional protection and support. It is also important to note that US policies at the structural/societal are of importance such as paid parental leave, equal pay, and increasing the minimum wage and valuable to IPV survivors. Policies and interventions should also be cognizant that for some survivors in crisis (e.g., recently leaving abuse), finding employment may be delayed until they have established safety and stability.

Existing IPV services need to better understand the experiences of women with varied social locations in order to help them find living wage, and safe and stable employment. For example, current employment-related interventions have not been able to fully integrate the needs of trans and queer survivors into mainstream IPV services. These findings suggest that IPV service providers should extend and expand employment support services to address barriers and intersecting stigma of survivors with differing identities and experiences. They may also consider a trauma-informed lens to employment-service provision that attends to racial and gender trauma. A better understanding of intersectionality and intersectional stigma can also inform the development and implementation of population-specific programs and policies to better meet women’s needs.

Limitations

While the study is one of the first to explore IPV and experiences of oppression of survivors who are job-seeking, there are limitations to the research. One limitation is the small yet diverse sample size (n = 16). While this study provides important information, these findings are not generalizable to other populations. All survivors lived in a major urban center that is rich in resources and program opportunities; thus, these findings are limited to women in resource-rich areas. Also, despite capturing the varied social locations of survivors, purposive sampling with too many categories such as immigrants, heterosexual, queer, cisgender/trans may limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about women with those specific IPV identities. Another potential limitation is that since survivors were recruited from IPV agencies, it is possible that survivors referred were at a more stable time in their lives (e.g., not in emergency or crisis shelter). All survivors had left their abusive partners and many had secured employment or were actively job-seeking and engaged in services. This could contribute to influence their discussions about self-confidence and empowerment.

Conclusion

This study focuses on the complexity of employment-seeking from the narratives of 16 survivors of IPV and explores how their experiences are shaped by abuse, social identities, and structural inequities. This research extends knowledge on IPV by exploring the multidimensional experiences of survivors and builds theory on the intersecting experiences of employment-seeking and violence. Findings highlight the interplay between intrapersonal, interpersonal, community, structural barriers, and intersectional stigma in employment-seeking, as well as supports necessary to help survivors find employment, including recommendations for employment services. This study consolidates insights from survivors to inform IPV practitioners, advocates, and researchers on the intersecting challenges seeking employment and specific barriers and supports needed to help them secure safe employment.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: The author is grateful for funding support from the Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) doctoral award.

ORCID iD

Sarah Tarshis

Author Biography

Sarah Tarshis, MSW, is a postdoctoral fellow at Carleton University School of Social Work. Her research interests focus on intimate partner violence (IPV), employment, trauma, and social work education and practice. Her research and program development are informed by over 10 years of community-based practice in Canada and the US.

References

Adams

A. E.

, Sullivan

C. M.

, Bybee

, & Greeson

M. R.

(2008). Development of the scale of abuse. Violence Against Women , 14 (5), 563–588.

Albaugh

, & Nauta

(2005). Career decision self-efficacy, career barriers, and college women’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Journal of Career Assessment , 13(3), 288–306.

Alexander

P. C.

(2011). Childhood maltreatment, intimate partner violence, work interference and women’s employment. Journal of Family Violence , 26(4), 255–261.

Ballou

, Balogun

, Gittens

, Matsumoto

, & Sanchez

(2015). Trauma and returning to work: Women’s lived experiences and its implications for vocational rehabilitation counseling. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling , 46(1), 25–33.

Black

M. C.

, Basile

K. C.

, Breiding

M. J.

, Smith

S. G.

, Walters

M. L.

, Merrick

M. T.

, & Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Brown

, Reedy

, Fountain

, Johnson

, & Dichiser

(2000). Battered women’s career decision-making self-efficacy: Further insights and contributing factors. Journal of Career Assessment , 8(3), 251–265.

Calton

J. M.

, Cattaneo

L. B.

, & Gebhard

K. T.

(2016). Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 17(5), 585–600.

Center for Disease Control. [CDC]. (2019). Preventing intimate partner violence. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact.html

CDC. (2020). The social ecological model: A framework for intervention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/publichealthissue/social-ecologicalmodel.html

10.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory . Sage Publications.

11.

Chronister

K. M.

, Luginbuhl

, Ngo

, Downey-McCarthy

, Wang

, Barr

, Aranda

, & Harley

(2018). The individual career counseling needs and experiences of female survivors of partner violence. Journal of Employment Counseling , 55(2), 84–94.

12.

Chronister

K. M.

, & McWhirter

E. H.

(2004). Ethnic differences in career supports and barriers for battered women: A pilot study. Journal of Career Assessment , 12(2), 169–187.

13.

Chronister

K. M.

, & McWhirter

E. H.

(2006). An experimental examination of two career interventions for battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 53(2), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.2.151

14.

Costello

, Chung

, & Carson

(2005). Exploring alternative pathways out of poverty: Making connections between domestic violence and employment practices. Australian Journal of Social Issues , 40(2), 253.

15.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum , 1, 139–167.

16.

Creswell

J. W.

, & Plano Clark

V. L.

(2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

17.

Davidson

M. M.

, Nitzel

, Duke

, Baker

C. M.

, & Bovaird

J. A.

(2012). Advancing career counseling and employment support for survivors: an intervention evaluation. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 59(2), 321.

18.

Davila

A. L.

, Johnson

, & Postmus

J. L.

(2017). Examining the relationship between economic abuse and mental health among Latina intimate partner violence survivors in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517731311

19.

Drisko

(1997). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports: Standards to promote academic integrity. Journal of Social Work Education , 33(1), 185–197.

20.

Duffy

(2015). Achieving a sustainable livelihood after leaving intimate partner violence: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Family Violence , 30(4), 403–417.

21.

Edwards

K. M.

, Sylaska

K. M.

, & Neal

A. M.

(2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychology of Violence , 5(2), 112.

22.

Few

(2007). Integrating black consciousness and critical race feminism into family studies research. Journal of Family Issues , 28(4), 452–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X06297330

23.

Finlay

(2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research , 2(2), 209–230.

24.

Flick

(2014). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

25.

Hankivsky

, Reid

, Cormier

, Varcoe

, Clark

, Benoit

, & Brotman

(2010). Exploring the promises of intersectionality for advancing women’s health research. International Journal for Equity in Health , 9(1), 1–15.

26.

Heise

L. L.

(1998). Violence against women an integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women , 4(3), 262–290.

27.

Hill Collins

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment . Routledge.

28.

Kulkarni

(2019). Intersectional trauma-informed intimate partner violence (IPV) services: Narrowing the gap between IPV service delivery and survivor needs. Journal of Family Violence , 34(1), 55–64.

29.

Kulkarni

, & Ross

T. C.

(2016). Exploring employee intimate partner violence (IPV) disclosures in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health , 31(4), 204–221.

30.

Lantrip

K. R.

, Luginbuhl

P. J.

, Chronister

K. M.

, & Lindstrom

(2015). Broken dreams: impact of partner violence on the career development process for professional women. Journal of Family Violence , 30(5), 591–605.

31.

Logie

C. H.

, Williams

C. C.

, Wang

, Marcus

, Kazemi

, Cioppa

, Kaida

, Webster

, Beaver

, de Pokomandy

, & Loutfy

(2019). Adapting stigma mechanism frameworks to explore complex pathways between intersectional stigma and HIV-related health outcomes among women living with HIV in Canada. Social Science & Medicine , 232, 129–138.

32.

Meisel

, Chandler

, & Rienzi

B. M.

(2003). Domestic violence prevalence and effects on employment in two California TANF populations. Violence Against Women , 9(10), 1191–1212.

33.

Mizock

, & Mueser

K. T.

(2014). Employment, mental health, internalized stigma, and coping with transphobia among transgender individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity , 1(2), 146.

34.

Moe

A. M.

, & Bell

M. P.

(2004). Abject economics: The effects of battering and violence on women’s work and employability. Violence Against Women , 10(1), 29–55.

35.

Office for Economic Opportunity. (2018). NYC opportunity 2018 poverty report. Author. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/opportunity/pdf/NYCPov-Brochure-2018-Digital.pdf

36.

Ortega

, & Busch-Armendariz

(2013). In the name of VAWA. Affilia , 28(3), 225–228.

37.

Padgett

D. K.

(2016). Qualitative methods in social work research . Sage Publications.

38.

Peled

, & Krigel

(2016). The path to economic independence among survivors of intimate partner violence: A critical review of the literature and courses for action. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 31, 127–135.

39.

Postmus

J. L.

, Hoge

G. L.

, Breckenridge

, Sharp-Jeffs

, & Chung

(2018). Economic abuse as an invisible form of domestic violence: A multicountry review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 21(2), 1–23.

40.

Prescod

D. J.

, & Zeligman

(2018). Career adaptability of trauma survivors: The moderating role of posttraumatic growth. The Career Development Quarterly , 66(2), 107–120.

41.

Sanders

C. K.

(2015). Economic abuse in the lives of women abused by an intimate partner: A qualitative study. Violence Against Women , 21(1), 3–29.

42.

Scott-Marshall

(2013). A commentary on “A randomized controlled trial to improve health among women receiving welfare in the US: The relationship between employment outcomes and the economic recession”. Social Science & Medicine , 80, 141.

43.

Scott-Marshall

, Tompa

, & Trevithick

(2007). The social patterning of underemployment and its health consequences. International Journal of Contemporary Sociology , 44(1), 7–34.

44.

Showalter

(2016). Women’s employment and domestic violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 31, 37–47.

45.

Staggs

S. L.

, Long

S. M.

, Mason

G. E.

, Krishnan

, & Riger

(2007). Intimate partner violence, social support, and employment in the post-welfare reform era. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22(3), 345–367.

46.

Strauss

, & Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

47.

Stylianou

A. M.

(2018). Economic abuse within intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Violence and Victims , 33(1), 3–22.

48.

Swanberg

, Macke

, & Logan

T. K.

(2007). Working women making it work: Intimate partner violence, employment, and workplace support. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 22(3), 292–311.

49.

Tahirih Justice Center. (2017). Tahirih Recommendations for protecting survivors of violence. https://www.tahirih.org/pubs/tahirih-recommendations-for-protecting-survivors-of-violence/

50.

Tolman

R. M.

, & Rosen

(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.

51.

Tolman

R. M.

, & Wang

H. C.

(2005). Domestic violence and women’s employment: Fixed effects models of three waves of women’s employment study data. American Journal of Community Psychology , 36(1–2), 147–158.

52.

World Health Organization. (2013). Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women: WHO clinical and policy guidelines. WHO Press. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/85240/1/9789241548595_eng.pdf?ua=1

53.

World Health Organization. [WHO]. (2017). Violence against women: Fact sheets. Author. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women