Intersectional and Trauma-Informed Approaches to Employment Services: Insights From Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Service Providers

Abstract

This article presents qualitative findings from a constructivist grounded theory study that examines intimate partner violence and employment-seeking from the perspectives of 10 service providers. Three distinct themes emerge through analysis: (a) understanding the intersecting barriers to employment faced by survivors, (b) integrated approaches to employment services, and (c) barriers to providing employment services. Findings have important theoretical implications on the intersectional nature of employment-seeking and provide insight into IPV service responses.

Keywords

intimate partner violence (IPV)employment intervention/treatment

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide issue that affects one in three women in their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2017). IPV is defined as any coercive and controlling behavior in an intimate relationship that causes physical, emotional, sexual, or economic harm (Black et al., 2011; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2016; Stark, 2007). IPV service providers and researchers have highlighted the impact of economic abuse, financial instability, and employment insecurity on IPV survivors for several decades now (Adams et al., 2008; Gelles, 1976; Postmus et al., 2012; Voth Schrag et al., 2019; Weaver et al., 2009). More recent studies have found that IPV survivors report economic abuse and financial dependence as primary barriers that prevent them from leaving abusive partners (Adams et al., 2015; Sanders, 2015).

Economic abuse refers to the control over a survivor’s ability to use, acquire, or retain financial resources in a manner that interferes with their economic stability and self-sufficiency (Adams et al., 2008). Literature on the effects of economic abuse have found it to be as prevalent as physical, sexual, or psychological abuse (Adams et al., 2008; Outlaw, 2009; Postmus et al., 2018; Terrazas-Carrillo & McWhirter, 2015). Some scholars have described it as an “invisible” form of violence that impacts employment, education, finances, and well-being (Postmus et al., 2016). Abusive partners use varying economic abuse tactics ranging from employment or education interference and sabotage to financial control, exploitation, and restriction such as withholding financial resources (Ali et al., 2016; Goodman et al., 2009; Stylianou et al., 2013). Employment sabotage (e.g., actions that lead to missed work, forced resignation) can have long-term consequences on career development and often force women out of the workforce (Moe & Bell, 2004; Postmus et al., 2012; Swanberg et al., 2007). This can result in job and wage loss and long-term effects such as chronic unemployment, underemployment, financial insecurity, poverty, reduced career prospects, and limited opportunities for upward financial mobility (Showalter, 2016).

IPV service providers are most often trained to address survivors’ immediate safety concerns including shelter/housing, legal, children’s services, as well as the emotional impact of abuse (e.g., trauma, anxiety, depression; Kulkarni et al., 2012; Mengo et al., 2019; O’Neal & Beckman, 2017; Sullivan et al., 2018). Career counseling and employment services tend to be viewed as secondary services and service providers often refer survivors to outside employment specialists and organizations. Service providers may informally discuss economic and employment needs as part of their work; however, limited research has been conducted on understanding how service providers respond to and approach employment needs of survivors (Stylianou et al., 2013). A recent study of IPV social workers in the United States found that only 30% of practitioners inquired about financial concerns of their clients (Hageman & St. George, 2018). Employment services, which generally refer to support toward securing paid employment, is essential for survivors’ well-being (Costello et al., 2005; Krigel & Benjamin, 2021). Studies suggest that timely, high-quality interventions that focus on empowerment, increased social supports, and financial resources can help provide stability and freedom from violence (Goodman & Epstein, 2009; Messing et al., 2015; Wuerch et al., 2019).

This article summarizes IPV and employment-related literature, proposes a theoretical and practice framework, and presents findings from a grounded theory study that explores how service providers conceptualize employment practices with survivors of IPV.

Overview of the Literature

IPV and Career Counseling

Important research on IPV and employment-seeking has emerged over the last few decades, with the publication of several qualitative studies about the experiences of survivors who received a short-term career counseling intervention (Chronister et al., 2008; Gianakos, 1999; Ibrahim & Herr, 1987; Lantrip et al., 2015). A smaller number of quantitative studies that examine the effectiveness of career counseling groups (Brush, 2000; Chronister & McWhirter, 2006; Davidson et al., 2012; Javaherian-Dysinger et al., 2016), including the intervention known as ACCESS—Advancing Career Counseling and Employment Support of Survivors of Domestic Violence (Chronister & McWhirter, 2006). ACCESS evaluates short-term group career counseling seminars, with the model designed to raise critical awareness of power dynamics, expanding knowledge and skills, and supporting the empowerment of others (Chronister & McWhirter, 2003). The study has been replicated (Chronister et al., 2008; Davidson et al., 2012) and remains one of the few to evaluate a career counseling intervention designed for survivors of IPV. The ACCESS approach utilizes micro-level theoretical frameworks such as Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Bandura, 1977, 2006; Lent et al., 1994, 2000) and their findings highlight positive individual outcomes such as increases in self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Emerging Economic Empowerment Initiatives

Empowerment-focused IPV interventions centered on understanding the effects of economic abuse have become more common. These interventions focus primarily on helping survivors achieve individual empowerment through gains in financial knowledge and skills (Postmus et al., 2013; Sanders et al., 2007). Only two such programs, the Redevelopment Opportunities for Women’s Economic Action Program (REAP; Sanders et al., 2007) and the Allstate Foundation’s Moving Ahead through Financial Management curriculum (Hetling & Postmus, 2014; Postmus et al., 2013), have been the subject of systematic studies that measure the impact of economic empowerment. Evaluations of both programs found that participants gained personal self-efficacy (Sanders et al., 2007), enhanced their knowledge of financial management (Hetling & Postmus, 2014), and increased ability to save money (Sanders, 2015).

Diverse Employment-Seeking Experiences

Xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and racism all have the potential to impact the employment-seeking process (Scheer & Poteat, 2021). Survivors of IPV with diverse and marginalized identities face multiple employment barriers and require employment support that recognizes their unique experiences. Marginalized survivors tend to be disadvantaged within the labor market and at greater risk of exposure to precarious employment such as temporary work, low wages, jobs with few benefits, and jobs with little career mobility (Scott-Marshall et al., 2007). IPV survivors who are refugees, women of color, trans, queer, and/or experiencing homelessness are at greater risk of chronic stress (e.g., poverty, violence, financial insecurity, discrimination), mental health challenges, (e.g., depression, anxiety, trauma), and/or physical health problems (e.g., chronic pain) than those in more advantaged social positions (see, for example, Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999; Morey, 2018; Rothman et al., 2007; Staggs & Riger, 2005; Tolman & Rosen, 2001). This is an important facet of IPV and employment that has been insufficiently researched.

Gaps in Literature

Most IPV and employment-related studies focus on individual experiences and outcomes, but few consider structural-specific factors. Study recommendations suggest that programs designed to enhance survivors’ economic stability should integrate a greater awareness of the impact of violence on intrapersonal and interpersonal knowledge, beliefs, and skills as well as structural-level factors (Peled & Krigel, 2016). Many studies also recommend that service providers place a greater emphasis on services that help survivors secure economic and employment stability (Goodman & Epstein, 2009; Wuerch et al., 2019), but the complexity of responding to the employment challenges of survivors is rarely explored. Only a few studies have exclusively examined the perspectives of service providers and their views on employment service provision (Costello et al., 2005; McLaren, 2013).

Theoretical Framework

This qualitative study aims to address these knowledge gaps by understanding how service providers in a large, Northeastern city in the United States respond to the employment needs of IPV survivors they serve. This study uses a critical feminist, social-ecological perspective to explore how service providers are conceptualizing IPV and employment services. A key contribution of this piece is a discussion of the utility of adopting different theoretical approaches to the issue of IPV and employment and proposed recommendations for practice in this area.

Social-Ecological Perspective

Scholars have widely applied social-ecological perspectives to analyze experiences of violence as the approach emphasizes the complexity of relationships and interconnectedness of systems that significantly impact survivors of IPV (CDC, 2019; Heise, 1998). The social-ecological approach allows for an exploration of individual and interpersonal experiences of violence while linking them to community and structural experiences of oppressions such as racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia. A social-ecological model also helps conceptualize the multi-layered experiences of survivors seeking employment by expanding the analysis of human development (e.g., mental health, experiences of trauma), impact of relationships (e.g., abusive partner, colleagues, professional mentors), and contextual factors (e.g., community supports, welfare policies) while also taking into consideration the interconnected nature of these systems (Chronister et al., 2012).

Intersectionality

This article will also be informed by intersectionality theory (Crenshaw, 1989; Hill Collins, 2000) which recognizes the multiple intersecting identities of women such as gender (cisgender, transgender), sexual orientation, immigration status, and language/linguistic heritage and consider the experiences produced by structural inequities such as racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and poverty. An intersectional approach challenges the notion of a universal or shared common experience of IPV and cautions against utilizing a one-size-fits-all model (Baird et al., 2021). Survivors’ lives are multidimensional and complex, and no single experience, identity, or inequity should be privileged over another (Hankivsky, 2012). Intersectionality theory conceives of all these characteristics as interconnected, simultaneously shaping experiences and opportunities (Crenshaw, 1991; Hill Collins, 2000).

Intersectional Stigma

Intersectional stigma is a theoretical concept that illuminates the interconnected experiences of inequalities based on factors such as race, gender, sexuality, class, and ability. Stigma refers to the negative attitudes/stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination toward individuals with marginalized identities/background. This concept is often utilized in medical and public health research (Logie et al., 2019) but can be extended to a theoretical model of IPV and employment to highlight dynamics of intersecting stigmas influencing access to employment for survivors of IPV. The concept of intersectional stigma helps to explain how barriers to employment are uniquely experienced among employment-seeking survivors who are women of color, immigrant, queer, transgender, or a combination of these identities/experiences, among others. As stigma also operates at the individual, relational, community, and structural level, understanding multi-level stigma is complementary to the social-ecological model (Logie et al., 2011). For example, survivors can face structural stigma in the form of employment discrimination and individual stigma and self-stigmatization related to experiences of trauma and depression (Mizock & Mueser, 2014).

Trauma-Informed Practice

Finally, a consideration of trauma-informed practices (Harris & Fallot, 2001) is essential to any IPV service. A trauma-informed perspective recognizes the role of trauma in the lives of survivors of IPV (Knight, 2015) and can be applied in the context of employment-seeking. Service providers who use a trauma-informed lens are sensitive to survivors’ traumatic experiences and can support them by normalizing their reactions to traumatic experiences (Kulkarni, 2019). Service providers can also help survivors explore the impact of trauma on the employment-seeking process and support them in managing these challenges (Knight, 2015).

Purpose

Research is scant in this area from the perspectives of IPV service providers who support employment-seeking survivors of IPV to investigate how experiences of marginalization are understood and responded to. In response to this research gap, this study addressed the following research questions:

Research question 1: How do IPV service providers understand the employment-seeking experiences of survivors with different identities and experiences of marginalization?

Research question 2: In what ways do IPV service providers respond to the employment services for survivors of different identities and experiences of marginalization?

Research question 3: What are the service challenges experienced by service providers who engage in employment-related services?

Method

Using a feminist constructivist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014) allows us to develop mid-level theory to explore and understand IPV service providers’ approaches to employment services for survivors. More detailed descriptions of the larger study, including methodology and samples, can be found elsewhere (Tarshis, 2020). All research materials were approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board.

Recruitment

Theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2014) was used to recruit service providers who worked directly with woman-identified survivors of IPV seeking employment. Theoretical sampling focused on ensuring that the sample represented a variety of IPV organizations including mainstream/large, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ), smaller/community-specific organizations to develop a broader understanding of IPV and employment experiences. Strategies also included recruiting service providers who provided structured, employment services (e.g., career counseling, resume/cover letter assistance, vocational training) and service providers who offer informal employment support to survivors of IPV. In addition, service providers who work in community-specific organizations such as immigrant, trafficking, system-involved organizations were also recruited. To be eligible for an interview, participants had to meet specific inclusion criteria, namely, were older than 18 years of age at the time of the interview, and had worked in the field of IPV for at least 3 years as either a paid service provider professional, graduate-level intern, or community volunteer. The data collection and data analysis process was done iteratively, which informed theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2014).

Data Collection and Analysis

A semi-structured interview guide was developed in consultation with an IPV Community Advisory Board (CAB) which consisted of IPV key informants (e.g., IPV service providers, policy advocates). The interview guide included open-ended questions that elicited the views of service providers on IPV and employment, barriers and facilitators to employment, and service response. The first author conducted all individual, in-depth interviews with each participant. Participants were asked to review the study information sheet, sign the consent form, and complete a demographic questionnaire which included basic questions (e.g., gender, race, age, degree, years employed in IPV services). Interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes and took place at a location of the participant’s choice (e.g., private office in an IPV organization). No incentives were offered. Theoretical saturation was initially identified after eight interviews, when the data provided no new information. Two more interviews were conducted to ensure there were no additional theoretical insights that might have been missed (Charmaz, 2014).

Interview data were analyzed by the first author using grounded theory and a constructivist approach (Charmaz, 2014) which was done iteratively, alternating between conducting interviews, transcribing, analysis, and then conducting additional interviews. Initial (open, line-by-line) coding was applied to interview transcripts to yield a broad set of emerging codes and categories before applying focused and selective coding at later stages of analysis to identify salient themes related to employment barriers and employment service delivery (Charmaz, 2014). Codes emerged from the data and were not imposed a priori. A constant comparison analysis of cases was applied until theoretical saturation was reached which is the point when continued coding does not lead to new theoretical insights (Charmaz, 2014). And, the construction of theory related to employment-seeking and service delivery was also theorized from the perspectives of service providers.

Trustworthiness was ensured by the use of direct quotations to support themes that demonstrate confirmability and by debriefing of the results with all authors and IPV colleagues (Drisko, 1997). Prolonged engagement with the data, memoing, and consultation with the IPV CAB were also techniques used to ensure data trustworthiness and credibility (Drisko, 1997). It is important to note that the researcher’s own social location, as a White, cisgender female, middle-class social worker, provides many privileges and power. Therefore, the researcher engaged in an ongoing practice of critical reflexivity and reflection throughout the research process. In particular, engaging and collaborating with an IPV CAB was essential (Gilgun, 2015). Feminist research also includes an exploration of the researcher’s position of power and positionality and highlights the importance of paying attention to factors such as researcher bias, objectivity, reflexivity, and ethics (Flick, 2014).

Participants

Service providers (n = 10) were recruited for in-depth interviews from April 2018 to March 2019 (see Table 1). All service providers worked directly with survivors of IPV (n = 8) or a combination of survivors and other marginalized groups (n = 2). Half of the service providers held senior management positions and the remainder identified as one of the following: middle manager, coordinator, supervisor, advocate/case manager, or economic empowerment specialist. Service providers averaged 10 years of professional IPV experience (ranging from 3 to 30 years). All identified as cisgender female, heterosexual (n = 8), or queer or lesbian (n = 2). The mean age was 36 years, ranging from 26 to 59 years. Service providers identified as White (n = 3), Asian (n = 3), Black or African American (n = 3), or other/mixed race (n = 1). Service providers held professional degrees including MSW (n = 7), BA (n = 2), and MSW in progress (n = 1). All participants worked with adult survivors of IPV. Service providers worked at large, mainstream (n = 5), LGBTQ (n = 2), trafficking or system-involved (e.g., formally incarcerated; n = 2), and financial empowerment (n = 1) organizations. Service providers worked with survivors holding various identities (e.g., immigrant, LGBTQ, homeless/low-income, system-involved) with experiences of violence such as interpersonal violence, sex trafficking, political violence, and female genital cutting (FGC).

Table 1.

IPV Service Provider Demographics.

Demographic information		Participants (%)
Age (years)	20–29	2 (20)
	30–39	5 (50)
	40–49	2 (20)
	50–59	1 (10)
Gender	Female (cisgender)	10 (100)
Race	White	3 (30)
	Asian	3 (30)
	Black/African American	3 (30)
	Mixed	1 (30)
Sexual orientation	Heterosexual	8 (80)
Sexual orientation	Queer/Lesbian	2 (20)
Country of birth	USA	8 (80)
Country of birth	Other	2 (20)
Highest completed education	MSW	7 (70)
	MSW in progress	1 (10)
	BA	2 (20)
Years providing IPV services	0–3	1 (10)
	4–7	4 (40)
	7–10	2 (20)
	10 and up	3 (30)
Type of IPV organization	Large, mainstream	5 (50)
	LGBTQ	2 (20)
	Trafficking, system impacted	2 (20)
	Financial/Economic Empowerment	1 (10)
Current position	Director	5 (50)
	Supervisor, manager, or coordinator	3 (30)
	Case manager/advocate	2 (20)

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning.

Findings

Three main themes emerged from the data following a series of focused, layered analyses. These were as follows: (a) understanding the intersecting barriers to employment faced by survivors, (b) an integrated practice approach to employment services, and (c) challenges providing employment services.

Understanding the Intersecting Barriers to Employment Faced by Survivors

All service providers (n = 10) described the importance of considering multiple aspects of survivors’ identity and overlapping experiences of violence (e.g., interpersonal, structural) to fully grasp the complexity of the employment-seeking process. Aspects of identity such as gender, race, sexual identity, class, sexual orientation, immigration status, and experiences of employment discrimination were identified—all of which are compounded by experiences of violence. Many referenced violence and intersecting identities as they relate to clients’ employment-seeking experiences. One service provider broadly described aspects of identity and layered experiences of violence:

A person might experience intimate partner violence can also experience sexual violence can also experience hate violence because of their immigration status because of you know their gender identity, their sexual orientation, you know there are so many, there are so many things at so many points where people can experience multiple layers of abuse and violence, and it’s almost endless sometimes, unfortunately. But these things all work and intersect and interact in different ways, that are complicated and not straight forward. (Participant 05)

More than half of the service providers (n = 6) pointed out that survivors with identities such as lesbian, trans, or gender nonconforming faced additional employment challenges in comparison to heterosexual and cisgender survivors. Service providers reported that their clients experienced homophobia and transphobia while job-seeking and at the workplace. They described both the subtle and direct forms of discrimination that their clients experienced while job searching. One service provider described the process in this way:

It’s not so overt a lot of the times [discrimination], especially our trans and gender nonconforming community members face a ton of discrimination going into job interviews. Merely deciding whether to use their given name on a résumé or their chosen name is a huge source of anxiety. (Participant 01)

Service providers discussed homophobia and transphobia as powerful and pervasive challenges while seeking employment. These service providers discussed overt forms of workplace discrimination which impacted clients’ safety and ability to work. This service provider highlighted workplace concerns for trans and non-gender conforming survivors of IPV and the risk of further traumatization:

Traumatic workplace experiences where [LGBTQ survivors] had been harassed or even experienced [physical] violence in their place of work, how that then impacts their job search and ability to stay in a job and find a job in the future. And if you’re experiencing that on top of intimate partner violence, that’s again another compounding variable, barrier. (Participant 01)

Most service providers worked with racially diverse clients and almost all noted pervasive racism and xenophobia which influenced job-seeking. They described the far-reaching effects of racism on their clients and considerable racial inequality and employment discrimination that remains pervasive in the United States. Service providers described experiences of hiring discrimination experienced by racially diverse survivors of IPV and discussed how employers are more likely to discriminate against candidates with ethnic or Black-sounding names. One noted,

Sometimes employers will discriminate against potential candidates because of their name, like if their name sounds especially, um, ethnic, or if it’s challenging to pronounce, you’ll be less likely to move that, that candidate forward, than if it’s a name that they’re more familiar with, or that is honestly less ethnic. (Participant 07)

Service providers described how implicit bias remains prevalent and the reality of systemic racism in the United States. Black communities continue to experience widespread racism and marginalization and often have limited access to employment opportunities. One service provider discussed the lasting legacy of slavery and abusive labor practices continuing to effect access to employment opportunities in the present day:

This is America and the foundation it was built on was on the backs of people’s bodies being commodified and sold, and people of color being treated with less value, like all of these are very real things that happened that still affect how professional space is experienced today by people of color and by people who are white. So it’s, it’s like, it doesn’t then become like this kind of like hopeless, like “Oh my God, racism is forever and I’ll never succeed.” (Participant 07)

Service providers stressed the importance of recognizing the negative impact of racism in the lives of their clients and its impacts on their employment-seeking experiences.

Most worked with immigrant IPV survivors who faced the challenge of lacking legal immigration status or a work permit. As one service provider described it:

I think, it’s never easy to be poor or brown [or] an immigrant and look for jobs when you’re competing against people who are none of those things. (Participant 08)

Survivors who are without status are sometimes unable to work because their partners’ interfered with their attempt to secure a work visa. These clients often have fewer economic resources and social supports as a result of their status. As one service provider put it:

Many of my clients do not have a legal immigration status, they may have come here with a visa to join their husbands, but then because of the domestic violence the husband can refuse to represent them. So, they stay in a situation that doesn’t allow them to go to work, so they are not eligible to do any work here. (Participant 09)

Overlapping barriers and multiple forms of discrimination made it extremely challenging for immigrant survivors to seek employment. Fewer opportunities were available to them, a reality that places them at risk for further victimization. As one service provider explained,

So for immigrants, language could be the first barrier, so language for sure, education, and of course immigration status, which makes them more vulnerable to exploitation, sort of more victimization. (Participant 03)

An Integrated Practice Approach to Employment Services

To meet the needs of their clients with varied life experiences, IPV service providers described an integrated approach to employment services that included various practice and theoretical perspectives. They discussed utilizing holistic, individualized perspectives that consider a trauma-informed and intersectional lens and cautions against the one-size-fits-all mentality.

Nearly all service providers (n = 8) stressed the importance of utilizing holistic and survivor-centered approaches to services. They describe a survivor-centered or client-centered approach as being guided by the knowledge and expertise of clients. One service provider said, “I think trauma-informed and client-centric support is really important” (Participant 01) and described how this approach should be tailored to the individual needs and challenges the client is experiencing. She also stated, “You can’t get employment if you don’t have a place to live so we really try and take a holistic approach to how can we support someone to get to a place where they’re able to live independently” (Participant 01).

Service providers recommended considering other services clients require besides employment. They described this approach as holistic, since it calls for a comprehensive assessment of survivors’ needs. For instance, service providers described how survivors leaving violent relationships often need additional supports, resources, and stability before looking for employment. Clients’ experiences of immediate crisis, homelessness, and precarious immigration status were identified as common obstacles that make it difficult to focus on employment. This provider stated,

We work with families as a whole and we do a holistic approach when working with the client, it’s not only focusing on [employment needs], when the client is in need of an order of protection or shelter or food or immigration or something else. We look at the client from systems theory, from a wholeness, to respond to the needs of the family. (Participant 09)

Almost all service providers also highlighted the need to expand trauma-informed approaches to include employment services. Nearly all reported that many survivors of IPV struggle with the effects of trauma which impacted employment-seeking. One described how these symptoms can manifest in a job interview:

I had a client who would have a panic attack every time that she went to a job interview because the door would be closed, and she couldn’t be in an enclosed room. But, how do you tell somebody in a job interview that you would like the door to be open? (Participant 04)

Service providers were sensitive to the impact trauma had on employment and their past victimization. Many described being open to conversations with clients on trauma and how to address managing traumatic experiences through strategies such as mindfulness or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to help them connect their feelings and experiences. This was considered to be an important tool to help clients learn how to relax, self-soothe, and manage intense feelings, especially during a job interview.

Service providers noted how many organizations that offer nonemployment IPV services (e.g., counseling, crisis intervention, housing, case management) have moved toward a trauma-informed lens in service provision. This service provider discussed the process of an agency-wide trauma-informed approach: “We just went through all of our assessments and took things out or added things to make sure that it was trauma-informed” (Participant 10). But service providers felt that services were not always consistent. Another provider noted that “all services really need to be consistently trauma informed” (Participant 03). A lack of consistency in trauma-informed approaches was apparent.

As noted earlier, service providers described employment-seeking as being shaped by multiple aspects of survivors’ identity and experiences of discrimination—aspects which are essential to understanding their unique employment challenges. Service providers privileged an intersectional approach that considered factors such as race, immigration status, gender expression, sexual orientation, and experiences of discrimination.

More than half described how they apply an intersectional lens in their practice. Service providers acknowledged that IPV survivors have a broad spectrum of life experiences influenced by multiple identities:

Our community members have multiple intersecting identities so a lot of the immigrants that come in are also queer women and/or trans women so we’re trying to work to make the program a little less population-specific so that more of our programming fits for all of our population. (Participant 01)

Some service providers noted the importance of addressing racism and discrimination upfront with survivors. One provider suggested that “When it comes to our clients looking for jobs . . . we’re very open about the potential for discrimination and racism to, kind of being mixed up in this process” (Participant 07). This provider further discussed being critically reflective and engaging in ongoing discussions of race, discrimination, and violence:

We learned that we need to provide space for people to reflect in the moment on what we’re bring up about race discrimination, because it is so loaded, and because people have lots of feelings about the things that you are bringing up, right? (Participant 07)

One service provider described how these discussions can contribute to the recovery process and highlighted the importance of teasing apart experiences of violence, racism, and identity. This provider discussed an instance with a client:

I had conversations with a client, when we said so this was your victimization and this is racism. And even when you heal, racism is still going to be there but now how are you going to relate to that, right? Again it’s a bit of a separate issue the DV and of course it’s nestled in an experience that’s also about their racial identity. (Participant 03)

Some service providers described how poverty intersects and overlaps with IPV and influences employment prospects. One provider discussed how low-income survivors already have limited employment opportunities compared to middle-class women. She highlighted the disparity:

So it’s not the DV that made them poor. They’ve been poor and they’ve experienced domestic violence which is a little different, I think, from, for instance, a middle-class woman who has been able to enjoy all the privileges that come with a middle-class upbringing and status that they may need to work themselves up, back up versus you’ve never been up. (Participant 03)

Challenges Providing Employment Services

Service providers reported numerous programmatic challenges related to providing employment services. Obstacles included lack of formal training and education, organizational barriers (e.g., limited funding, waitlists, capacity), and structural factors such as the current U.S. political climate and rising anti-immigrant sentiment.

Most service providers lacked any previous professional training or educational experience related to employment services (e.g., career counseling), which meant that they needed to learn how to navigate this area via direct experiences and interactions with clients while on the job. One provider unexpectedly ended up in employment services and enjoyed doing the work. She described her experiences:

And so that’s kind of how I ended up here but I didn’t necessarily like know what was going to happen . . . and I realized that it was actually extremely interesting work that not a lot of people are doing and there was a lot of room to try some, some new stuff. And I got really excited and that’s kind of how I ended up here but, I hope to be here for a while. (Participant 04)

All service providers engaged in employment-related support with clients. Some practitioners provided employment services formally while others did so informally. This provider stated, “Employment is not really my area of expertise. It’s kind of tangential to the work that I do” (Participant 10). Another provider stated,

Informally in the sense of work, in all the work that I’ve done directly with clients, whether it’s more clinically driven or case management, the issue of course of employment has come up. And so whether it’s making referrals, talking to them about obtaining jobs or issues that they’re facing as survivors, all of that has been part of my work. (Participant 03)

Several discussed organizational barriers such as limited funding, long waitlists, capacity issues, and limited services for LGBTQ and immigrant clients. Funding was a primary concern for several service providers. One service provider described, “I think also just in terms of programs being cut back. You know, it becomes an issue too” (Participant 02). Cutbacks and program limitations reduce resources such as incentives, grants, and scholarships for clients. This provider recommended,

More funding in general, just to do more incentives, more services money, being able to, I would love to see us have a scholarship fund to go back to college, I would love to see that for survivors. A lot of different things. (Participant 04)

And while service providers had many ideas for program growth, capacity limitations remained a challenge. This provider stated, “We need more staff!” (Participant 04). Programs are understaffed and underfunded, a continual condition which restricts expansion. Others expressed hopes for program expansion, with one service provider indicating:

We want to definitely build out and get more capacity for because it’s something people always come to us and say, do you do training, can we do a training, we want to know more about this. (Participant 01)

Programs were not only limited by capacity and by service providers’ lack of training but also by a lack of inclusivity. In particular, service providers reported on the lack of services for LGBTQ survivors of IPV. Some described how trans women had been discriminated against by IPV organizations with respect to receiving services. This service provider discussed the exclusion of trans women from employment services:

And you have organizations who are solely serving cis women, and don’t necessarily include trans women, you have a, a situation where you also then have a lot of discrimination against a group of people who aren’t able to get into a training program. (Participant 06)

More than half of the service providers (n = 6) explicitly discussed challenges related to the current political environment and referenced increasing anti-immigrant sentiment. Many commented that clients were afraid to access services for fear their precarious immigration status would put them at risk. Some survivors were afraid to file for legal immigration status, a process that could help them gain new employment opportunities. This provider stated,

I think also people are, are really nervous about, right now, with the current administration like immigration status and you know, if their status is, you know, going to be quote/unquote “good enough,” I mean I can’t tell you the number of people who, after the [2016 presidential] election, who had green cards, who were like terrified they would get deported. So, um, you know, I think that’s a, that’s a barrier. I think that’s something that scares people. (Participant 08)

Service providers also commented on how immigrant survivors were fearful and less likely to reach out for services, despite needing the support. This provider described, “You know, because the fears people had, particularly last year when the threats of ICE raids were really troubling, people were really afraid” (Participant 02). In some circumstances, service providers described immigrant survivors of IPV who were afraid to leave the house.

However, one service provider discussed how immigrant survivors are also likely to increase access to services during this challenging political climate. One provider reported,

I think initially after the current administration, I think we saw that it can be, depending on what’s happening, we can see either an influx of outreach, for instance, at our anti-trafficking program of what is happening or, also a reduction in reporting because they’re afraid. Survivors may be afraid of deportation and therefore not reach out for any kind of help. (Participant 03)

Discussion

This article applies a constructivist grounded theory approach to conceptualize the responses of service providers to the employment needs of survivors (Charmaz, 2014), Interviews with service providers confirm previous research that found IPV to have broad effects on employment at the individual, relational, and community levels (Chronister & McWhirter, 2006; Davidson et al., 2012; Javaherian-Dysinger et al., 2016). The study compliments existing economic empowerment (Postmus et al., 2013) and career counseling interventions (Chronister & McWhirter, 2006) by focusing on the perspectives of services providers and their experiences with employment services. It also builds on previous IPV and employment-seeking studies with service providers (Costello et al., 2005; McLaren, 2013) by closely examining the multiple intersecting barriers to employment, unique service approaches, and service challenges.

The initial research questions were answered by describing three key themes: (a) understanding the intersecting barriers to employment faced by survivors, (b) an integrated practice approach to employment services, and (c) challenges providing employment services. Results from this study stress that service providers are sensitive to and cognizant of larger structural barriers such as the current political climate and pervasive employment discrimination, especially with IPV survivors who have diverse social locations and identities. For example, negative attitudes and behaviors of employers toward immigrants, LGBTQ survivors, and survivors of color limit employment opportunities. This has detrimental social, political, and economic consequences for survivors seeking employment resulting in unemployment, underemployment, and precarious employment (e.g., low-paid, part-time, few opportunities for job or economic mobility).

Strikingly, service providers’ participants described their expectations that survivors would experience some form of structural discrimination while job-seeking and, in turn, how they worked to prepare their clients for these occurrences. Given the additional risks of structural violence for LGBTQ and immigrant survivors (Scheer & Poteat, 2021), service providers sought to identify additional safety measures. This includes identifying safe employers, ensuring they file for immigration, accessing IPV services as needed, and locating services that are LGBTQ sensitive. The current findings signal institutional heterosexism, homophobia, and transphobia in the workplace that place LGBTQ survivors at further risk of victimization and re-traumatization (e.g., physical abuse, threats, discriminatory slurs, forced resignation, or termination). Findings also signal a challenging political climate for survivors with precarious immigration statuses, who are often afraid to leave their house, go to work, and access services over fears of arrest and deportation (Alessi & Martin, 2017; Morey, 2018).

This study also foregrounded intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989; Hill Collins, 2000), social-ecological theory (CDC, 2019; Heise, 1998), and components of intersectional stigma (Logie et al., 2011), and signaled the importance of a trauma-informed approach (Harris & Fallot, 2001). The findings lend support to the conceptualization of an integrated approach to practice, taking into account service provision challenges as developed from the perspective of service providers. Findings also support preliminary insights into mid-level theory and propose an integrated theoretical model that highlights social-ecological dimensions of employment, trauma-informed principles, and intersectional considerations that examine how structural racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia influence employment opportunities for survivors of IPV within social, historical, political, and economic contexts.

The concept of intersectional stigma (Logie et al., 2019) highlights how discrimination is experienced disproportionately and differentially by survivors at intersections of race, culture, class, ability, gender, immigration status, and sexuality. Intersectional stigma also supports a social-ecological framework by considering the interconnections between individual, interpersonal, and structural levels (Logie et al., 2011) In this context, discriminatory and oppressive social, political, and economic interactions can result in fewer employment opportunities for survivors (Logie et al., 2019).

A trauma-informed approach, while not its own distinct theoretical thread, should be a foundational practice approach for all IPV services (Knight, 2015). Acknowledging that the trauma of IPV and concomitant physical and psychological effects impact the employment-seeking experiences of survivors allows us to consider how experiences differ based on social location and structural identifiers of inequality. Using a trauma-informed approach to intersectionality, we can then draw on social-ecological theory to examine how social location influences exposure to risk and access to resources at different levels of social experience (individual, relational, community, and structural).

Service providers in this study also faced multiple programmatic challenges. Service providers cited lack of skills, training, and education related to employment services (e.g., small business training, career counseling). However, despite having little prior work experience in employment or career counseling, participants discussed how they learned to support employment-seeking survivors of IPV. Most participants drew from existing theoretical frameworks, professional values, and skills to guide their practice. They discussed concepts of social justice, anti-oppressive practice, and intersectionality, and acknowledged the extraordinary diversity and resilience of survivors of IPV. This finding suggests that service providers already have many of the skills and knowledge necessary to provide employment services but that they would benefit from additional training in career counseling (e.g., career assessments) and other employment-related training (e.g., small business, finances) in an integrated framework.

Service providers also described organizational limitations such as lack of funding, resulting in long waitlists, and lack of LBGTQ services which contribute to service limitations. These findings highlight the need for program expansion, more funding for employment-related services, and inclusivity of participant service providers or clients with diverse identities.

Implications for Practice, Education, and Research

This study raises several important considerations for practice, education, and research (see Table 2). Findings illustrate the importance of an integrated approach to employment services that consider trauma-informed, intersectional, and holistic approaches to working with survivors of violence. The connection between intersecting employment barriers and IPV remains an understudied area of research and would benefit substantively from further exploration. Further research on a trauma-informed framework to employment service may also help determine how trauma-related responses can help survivors as they seek employment.

Table 2.

Recommendations for Research and Practice.

Recommendations	Articles and resources of interest
For practice
- Include professional training and education in employment and career counseling services for students in IPV placements and professionals	Bandura (1977, 2006), Lent et al. (1994, 2000)
- Increase professional training and education in trauma-informed practices that link trauma, IPV, and employment for students and professionals	Harris and Fallot (2001), Knight (2015), Kulkarni (2019)
- Increase professional training and education in intersectional approaches that respond to larger structural contexts for students and professionals	Hill Collins (2000); Crenshaw (1989, 1991)
- Consult with survivors of IPV when considering employment programs (e.g., advisory boards, peer support, mentorship, alumni groups)	Kulkarni (2019)
- Utilize individualized assessment tools, provide individual career counseling, and offer a range of structured group programming (e.g., small business, IT training) - Design or seek programs that support survivors find career-track employment.	Holland Code; Keirsey Temperament Sorter; Meyers-Briggs; Strong Interest Inventory
For policy
- Increase funding and expand employment services for survivors of IPV - Focus on expanding employment services to include survivors with various identities (e.g., LGBTQ, immigrant trafficking, system-involved, different abilities)	NIH, U.S. Department of Labor
- Keep abreast of employment policies and IPV	https://legalmomentum.org
- Organize, support, and advocate for policy initiatives to challenge discriminatory employment practices	https://nnedv.org/ http://futureswithoutviolence.org
- Increase cross-sector partnerships and taskforces with other organizations, employers	http://www.ncadv.org/
- Educate the larger community on the impact of IPV on employment (e.g., potential employers, welfare offices)
For research
- Increase services, research, replication and evaluation on IPV and employment (e.g., community participatory research methods, program evaluations, mixed-methodologies)
- Other methodological considerations: larger sample sizes, geographic considerations (e.g., urban, rural service providers)

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence; LGBTQ = lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning.

The development of employment-related training (e.g., career counseling, small business, financial literacy, group work) has the potential to allow IPV service providers to better understand the employment needs of their clients. The study also has implications for any service provider who works in the field of IPV and seeks to expand their knowledge of structural employment challenges and consider the integration of employment services into practice.

Limitations

This study is a qualitative exploration of IPV service providers who engage in employment-related services with survivors of IPV. The study was designed to inductively broaden conceptual understanding of service providers’ experiences to guide future research and practice. However, there are some limitations to this study. This study had a relatively small but racially diverse sample of 10 IPV service providers with a range of professional experience working with survivors with multiple identities and a set of social locations which provided an important perspective to the IPV literature. Some service providers offered structured employment programming which is well funded, and others informally provide employment support often with few supports or resources. This does not allow for in-depth comparisons or analyses related to their specific identities or professional experiences. The study also took place in a major U.S. city in a particularly tense political context for immigrant populations. Transferring the findings of this study to other social, cultural, and political contexts should be done with caution.

This study provides some insight into employment-relevant practice responses. Using a larger sample and engaging in mixed methodology could yield additional results in the future and deepen our analysis and understanding of service providers who provide employment services. Despite limitations, the current study highlights important factors from a diverse group of service providers providing employment services to survivors of IPV. Future research can build on these limitations and expand knowledge of IPV and employment.

Conclusion

This article provides a snapshot of the experiences of IPV service providers who engage in employment services and assist survivors with diverse identities secure employment. The current study findings illustrate how service providers in the United States are conceptualizing employment practices for IPV survivors by considering intersecting employment barriers, utilizing intersectional and trauma-informed perspectives, while additionally addressing organizational, structural, and practice challenges. The perspectives of IPV service providers bring a unique view on practice trends and challenges in the field. Multiple, often overlapping forms of discrimination prevent many survivors from seeking and maintaining employment. Racism, sexism, gender discrimination, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and other factors remain pervasive, as reported by all service providers.

Findings from the present study demonstrate that IPV service providers recognize the critical importance of adopting an intersectional and trauma-informed perspective to the provision of employment services to survivors of IPV. To date, however, intersectional theory has been largely absent from the academic discourse around IPV and its impact on employment opportunities, despite the fact that it clearly represents a critical area for research as demonstrated by findings from the current study. This study also makes an important contribution to the literature by suggesting a trauma-informed approach to employment service provision. As a trauma-informed approach is frequently applied within IPV counseling services, service providers could conceivably integrate this framework into employment services relatively easily. It is recommended that IPV organizations continue to prioritize, expand, and fund employment-related services and ensure that services are inclusive for all survivors of IPV as they seek safe and secure employment in the aftermath of violence.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Carmen H. Logie is also affiliated with Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sarah Tarshis

Ramona Alaggia

Author Biographies

Sarah Tarshis, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at Carleton University School of Social Work in Ottawa, Canada. Her research interests focus on trauma, employment, and intimate partner violence (IPV), as well as social work education and practice. Her research is informed by over 10 years of practice experience in IPV and community-based organizations.

Ramona Alaggia, PhD, conducts research and teaches at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto with a focus on gender-based violence, trauma-informed practice, resilience, and mental health. She is best known for her work on child sexual abuse disclosures, child resilience, experiences of women disclosing and surviving IPV, and how services and systems can best respond.

Carmen H. Logie, PhD, is an Associate Professor at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto and an Adjunct Scientist at Women’s College Research Institute. Her research focus is health equity, and the associations between intersectional forms of stigma, access to care, and health outcomes among internally displaced women and youth, LGBTQ populations, and people living with HIV.

References

Adams

A. E.

Beeble

M. L.

Gregory

K. A.

(2015). Evidence of the construct validity of the scale of economic abuse. Violence and Victims, 30(3), 363–376.

Adams

A. E.

Sullivan

C. M.

Bybee

Greeson

M. R.

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

Alessi

E. J.

Martin

J. I.

(2017). Intersection of trauma and identity. In Eckstrand

Potter

(Eds.), Trauma, resilience, and health promotion in LGBT patients (pp. 3–14). Springer.

Ali

P. A.

Dhingra

McGarry

(2016). A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 31, 16–25.

Baird

S. L.

Alaggia

Jenney

(2021). “Like opening up old wounds”: Conceptualizing intersectional trauma among survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), 8118–8141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519848788

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Pajares

Urdan

(Ed.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Information Age.

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.

Brush

(2000). Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition. Violence Against Women, 6(10), 1039–1065.

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Intimate partner violence: Definitions. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html

11.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). The social ecological model: A framework for intervention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/socialecologicalmodel.html

12.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE.

13.

Chronister

Linville

Kaag

(2008). Domestic violence survivors’ access of career counseling services. Journal of Career Development, 34(4), 339–361.

14.

Chronister

K. M.

Harley

Aranda

C. L.

Barr

Luginbuhl

(2012). Community-based career counseling for women survivors of intimate partner violence: A collaborative partnership. Journal of Career Development, 39(6), 515–539.

15.

Chronister

K. M.

McWhirter

E. H.

(2003). Applying social cognitive career theory to the empowerment of battered women. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81(4), 418–425.

16.

Chronister

K. M.

McWhirter

E. H.

(2006). An experimental examination of two career interventions for battered women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), 151.

17.

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), 253–267.

18.

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, 140, 139–167.

19.

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

20.

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), 321–328.

21.

Drisko

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

22.

Flick

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

23.

Gelles

R. J.

(1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(4), 659–668.

24.

Gianakos

(1999). Career counseling with battered women. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 21(1), 1–14.

25.

Gilgun

J. F.

(2015). Beyond description to interpretation and theory in qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work, 14(6), 741–752.

26.

Goodman

L. A.

Epstein

(2009). Listening to battered women: A survivor-centered approach to advocacy, mental health, and justice. American Psychological Association.

27.

Goodman

L. A.

Smyth

K. F.

Borges

A. M.

Singer

(2009). When crises collide: How intimate partner violence and poverty intersect to shape women’s mental health and coping? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(4), 306–329.

28.

Hageman

S. A.

St. George

D. M. M.

(2018). Social workers, intimate partner violence (IPV), and client financial concerns. Journal of Social Service Research, 44(3), 391–399.

29.

Hankivsky

(2012). Women’s health, men’s health, and gender and health: Implications of intersectionality. Social Science & Medicine, 74(11), 1712–1720.

30.

Harris

Fallot

R. D.

(2001). Using trauma theory to design service systems. Jossey-Bass.

31.

Heise

L. L.

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

32.

Hetling

Postmus

(2014). Financial literacy and economic empowerment of survivors of intimate partner violence: Examining the differences between public assistance recipients and nonrecipients. Journal of Poverty, 18(2), 130–149.

33.

Hill Collins

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

34.

Ibrahim

F. A.

Herr

E. L.

(1987). Battered women: A developmental life-career counseling perspective. Journal of Counseling & Development, 65(5), 244–248.

35.

Javaherian-Dysinger

Krpalek

Huecker

Hewitt

Cabrera

Brown

. . . Server

(2016). Occupational needs and goals of survivors of domestic violence. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 30(2), 175–186.

36.

Knight

(2015). Trauma-informed social work practice: Practice considerations and challenges. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(1), 25–37.

37.

Krigel

Benjamin

(2021). From physical violence to intensified economic abuse: Transitions between the types of IPV over survivors’ life courses. Violence Against Women, 27(9), 1211–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220940397.

38.

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.

39.

Kulkarni

S. J.

Bell

Rhodes

D. M.

(2012). Back to basics: Essential qualities of services for survivors of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 18(1), 85–101.

40.

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.

41.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(1994). Monograph: Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.

42.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Hackett

(2000). Contextual supports and barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 36–49.

43.

Lloyd

(1997). The effects of domestic violence on women’s employment. Law & Policy, 19(2), 139–167.

44.

Lloyd

Taluc

(1999). The effects of male violence on female employment. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 370–392.

45.

Logie

C. H.

James

Tharao

Loutfy

M. R.

(2011). HIV, gender, race, sexual orientation, and sex work: A qualitative study of intersectional stigma experienced by HIV-positive women in Ontario, Canada. PLOS Medicine, 8(11), Article e1001124.

46.

Logie

C. H.

Williams

C. C.

Wang

Marcus

Kazemi

Cioppa

. . . 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.

47.

McLaren

(2013). Domestic violence, housing and employment: Workers’ perspectives on employment assistance in supported accommodation. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 415–433.

48.

Mengo

Beaujolais

Kulow

Ramirez

Brown

Nemeth

(2019). Knowledge and perspectives of domestic violence service providers about survivors with mental health disability. Journal of Family Violence, 35, 181–190.

49.

Messing

J. T.

Ward-Lasher

Thaller

Bagwell-Gray

M. E.

(2015). The state of intimate partner violence intervention: Progress and continuing challenges. Social Work, 60(4), 305–313.

50.

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.

51.

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.

52.

Morey

B. N.

(2018). Mechanisms by which anti-immigrant stigma exacerbates racial/ethnic health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 108(4), 460–463.

53.

O’Neal

E. N.

Beckman

L. O.

(2017). Intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender: Reframing knowledge surrounding barriers to social services among Latina intimate partner violence victims. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 643–665.

54.

Outlaw

(2009). No one type of intimate partner abuse: Exploring physical and non-physical abuse among intimate partners. Journal of Family Violence, 24(4), 263–272.

55.

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.

56.

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), 261–283.

57.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S. B.

McMahon

Murshid

N. S.

Kim

M. S.

(2012). Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(3), 411–430.

58.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S. B.

McMahon

Zurlo

K. A.

(2013). Financial literacy: Building economic empowerment with survivors of violence. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 34(3), 275–284.

59.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S. B.

Stylianou

A. M.

(2016). Measuring economic abuse in the lives of survivors: Revising the Scale of Economic Abuse. Violence Against Women, 22(6), 692–703.

60.

Rothman

E. F.

Hathaway

Stidsen

de Vries

H. F.

(2007). How employment helps female victims of intimate partner violence: A qualitative study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 136–143.

61.

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.

62.

Sanders

C. K.

Weaver

T. L.

Schnabel

(2007). Economic education for battered women: An evaluation of outcomes. Affilia, 22(3), 240–254.

63.

Scheer

J. R.

Poteat

V. P.

(2021). Trauma-informed care and health among LGBTQ intimate partner violence survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), 6670–6692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518820688.

64.

Scott-Marshall

Tompa

Trevithick

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

65.

Showalter

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

66.

Staggs

S. L.

Riger

(2005). Effects of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s health and employment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36(1–2), 133–145.

67.

Stark

(2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. Oxford University Press.

68.

Stylianou

A. M.

Postmus

J. L.

McMahon

(2013). Measuring abusive behaviors: Is economic abuse a unique form of abuse? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3186–3204.

69.

Sullivan

C. M.

López-Zerón

Bomsta

Menard

(2018). “There’s just all these moving parts”: Helping domestic violence survivors obtain housing. Clinical Social Work Journal, 47, 198–206.

70.

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.

71.

Tarshis

(2020). Intimate partner violence and employment-seeking: A multilevel examination of barriers and facilitators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520962075

72.

Terrazas-Carrillo

E. C.

McWhirter

P. T.

(2015). Employment status and intimate partner violence among Mexican women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(7), 1128–1152.

73.

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.

74.

Voth Schrag

R. J.

Robinson

S. R.

Ravi

(2019). Understanding pathways within intimate partner violence: Economic abuse, economic hardship, and mental health. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(2), 222–242.

75.

Weaver

T. L.

Sanders

C. K.

Campbell

C. L.

Schnabel

(2009). Development and preliminary psychometric evaluation of the domestic violence—Related financial issues scale (DV-FI). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(4), 569–585.

76.

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

77.

Wuerch

M. A.

Zorn

K. G.

Juschka

Hampton

M. R.

(2019). Responding to intimate partner violence: Challenges faced among service providers in northern communities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(4), 691–711.