Understanding the Decision to Disclose Intimate Partner Violence Among Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’ Recipients: Clarifying the Role of the Neoliberal State in IPV Disclosure

Background. The relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is complicated, which is further obfuscated by the role of the neoliberal state and its actors (i.e., caseworkers). Caseworkers have substantial power to enforce sanctions, screen for waivers, and exercise discretion, highlighting the power disparity between TANF caseworkers and TANF recipients struggling with IPV. While caseworkers have requirements and responsibilities outlined by the state, these are not always clear to the TANF recipients who attribute challenges to their specific caseworkers. Understanding the relationship between TANF recipients and caseworkers becomes vital when considering the challenges of IPV disclosure. This study aims to explore the role of the neoliberal state in the lives of TANF recipients with IPV histories from their perspectives.

Methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eleven former TANF recipients with a history of IPV to explore their lived experiences and perspectives on the role of their caseworkers and the state government. A phenomenologically informed thematic analysis approach identified key themes and patterns.

Results. The major themes that emerged regarding disclosing IPV to caseworkers included caseworker ambivalence and indifference, caseworker unpreparedness for disclosure, empathy and support, and hostility and judgment. While discussions about disclosing IPV to their caseworkers came easily, many of the participants struggled to address and define their relationship to the state; however, themes that describe that relationship included the state’s obligations, frustrations with the state, government control over cases, and the participants’ responsibilities to the state. However, parsing out their caseworkers from the state and program proved to be the most challenging; participants emphasized the labor aspects of casework and conflated the caseworker with the state, including enacting bureaucratic violence, assisting with program navigation, and hostility.

Conclusions and Implications. This study's findings offer implications for policy and practice. Regarding policy, as previous studies have found, clear guidelines for implementing IPV screening across states are needed. Additionally, several participants alluded to programmatic transparency, noting the importance of caseworkers guiding them through the program and the bureaucratic violence of unclear and burdensome requirements.