Abstract: The Search for the Ideal Victim: Does Stigma of Residing with the Abuser Impact Receipt of Waivers Among IPV Survivors? (Society for Social Work and Research 23rd Annual Conference - Ending Gender Based, Family and Community Violence)

Schedule:

Friday, January 18, 2019: 5:45 PM

Union Square 18 Tower 3, 4th Floor (Hilton San Francisco)

* noted as presenting author

Jordan Steiner, MA, MSW, Graduate Research Assistant, Center on Violence Against Women and Children, NJ

Kristina Nikolova, PhD, PhD Candidate, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Judy Postmus, PhD, Professor, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

Andrea Hetling, PhD, Associate Professor, Rutgers University, 08901, NJ

Laura Johnson, PhD, Assistant Research Professor, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

Purpose: To determine whether advocates’ recommendations for waivers to welfare requirements for intimate partner violence (IPV) survivors is impacted by their personal biases related to the victim living with the abuser as opposed to case characteristics.

Methods: Advocates completed 237 risk assessments to inform the decisions of welfare workers considering granting waivers to welfare requirements for IPV survivors. The risk assessments are designed to help advocates determine whether the survivor’s risk level necessitates the advocate to make a recommendation for the waiver to welfare workers; but the final recommendation is made by the advocate.

This study used classification and regression tree (CART) analyses to differentiate between survivors who were recommended for waivers and those who were not. Survivors’ risk levels, mental health, and socio-demographic characteristics were included as predictors, including whether the survivor continued to reside with the abuser.

Results: For 2 of 3 waivers, advocates were significantly less likely to recommend waivers for women who continued to reside with the abuser or those who had left the relationship within the past week, even when controlling for abuse severity and type.

Conclusions: Despite significant experience in IPV, advocates can still exhibit biases against survivors who do not fit the mold of the perfect victim.