10.1177/1524838005280506TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXXSwanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE, EMPLOYMENT,AND THE WORKPLACEConsequences and Future Directions

JENNIFER E. SWANBERGT. K. LOGANCAROLINE MACKEUniversity of Kentucky

The purpose of this article is to examine the literature on violence against womenand employment. After a brief discussion of the definition and consequences of in-timate partner violence, the article reviews the research and related literatures todescribe the (a) types of job interference tactics used by abusers, (b) employee-levelconsequences of partner violence, (c) victimized employee responses to intimatepartner violence, (d) organizational-level consequences of partner violence, and (e)employer responses to intimate partner violence. Future research directions andworkplace implications are discussed.

Key words: intimate partner violence, women’s employment, workplace policy

DURING THE PAST 30 YEARS, the percentageof women in the labor force has increased from44% in 1973 to 59.5% in 2003, and women cur-rently comprise 47% of the total labor force (U.S.Department of Labor, 2004). Yet the structureand culture of workplaces have failed to evolveas the needs of the contemporary workforcehave changed (Bailyn, 1993; Bailyn, Drago, &Kochan, 2001; Googins, 1991; Williams, 2000).Numerous organizations still adhere to policiesand practices that are explicitly and implicitlyladen with gendered assumptions (Swanberg,2004; Williams, 2000). As such, issues that dis-proportionately affect women compared to menhave been marginalized by management (Wil-liams, 2000). Research suggests organizations

that consider employees’ work and family con-cerns when making decisions pertaining toworkplace policy often reap positive results foremployees and employers (Bond, Galinsky, &Swanberg, 1998; Galinsky & Bond, 1998). More-over, theory and research have demonstrated areciprocal relationship between work and fam-ily, with the effects of one sphere positively ornegatively influencing the other (Frone, Rus-sell, & Cooper, 1994; Tenbrunsel, Brett, Moaz,Stroh, & Reilly, 1995). Regardless of the empiri-cal and theoretical findings, workplaces havebeen slow to consider the complex lives of to-day’s workforce when making organizationaldecisions (See Bailyn et al., 2001; Barnett, 1999).Such delays have critical implications for

1

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Please send correspondence to Jennifer E. Swanberg, Ph.D., College of Social Work, University of Kentucky, 663Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY 40506-0027; e-mail: jswanberg@uky.edu.

TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE, Vol. 4, No. X, Month 2005 1-DOI: 10.1177/1524838005280506© 2005 Sage Publications

women and families. In particular, organiza-tions have lagged behind in recognizing that in-timate partner violence is not just a domestic is-sue, but it has significant implications for theworkplace

According to data from the National ViolenceAgainst Women Study,1 lifetime prevalencerates of intimate partner violence have been es-timated at 22.1% for women (Tjaden &Thoennes, 2000). The study further indicatedthat approximately 1.3 million women are sub-jected to intimate partner violence annually inthe United States alone (Tjaden & Thoennes,2000). Other data suggest that women physi-cally assaulted by an intimate partner in thepast year were likely to experience 3.4 separateassaults (National Center for Injury Preventionand Control [NCIPC], 2003). Moreover, basedon an analysis of the National Violence AgainstWomen Survey (NVAWS) the NCIPC (2003) hasestimated that 4.5 million assaults occur annu-ally. Although these numbers are alarming, re-searchers believe that violence against womenis underestimated because victims mayunderreport intimate partner violence onsurveys (Bachman & Salzman, 1995; Straus &Gelles, 1990).

Data further indicate that intimate partner vi-olence has serious workplace implications. Ac-cording to the National Crime VictimizationSurvey (NCVS), between 1992 and 1996, an av-erage of 18,000 people were assaulted by an inti-mate partner at work each year (Warchol, 1998).Women were 5 times more likely than men to beattacked at work by a current or former intimatepartner (Bachman, 1994). Nearly 20% of allwomen fatally injured in the workplace were at-tacked by an intimate partner (Brownell, 1996).Research further purports that employees arealmost as likely to be victimized at work by anintimate partner as by a coworker and femaleemployees killed on the job are actually morelikely to be killed by a partner than by acoworker (Warchol, 1998).

The consequences of intimate partner vio-lence have major ramifications for the victim-ized employee (individual-level consequences)and the workplace where the victim is em-ployed (organizational-level consequence). Forinstance, in one research study (Swanberg,

Macke, & Logan, 2005), among employedwomen who recently filed domestic violence or-ders within the previous 12 months, 57% hadbeen harassed on the phone by an abusive part-ner and 40% had been harassed in person or onthe phone while on the job. Leone, M. Johnson,Cohan, and Lloyd (2004), using a random sam-ple of low-income women (N = 563), found thatas the physical violence increased in an intimaterelationship, so did the likelihood that the vic-tim would miss work. The short-term conse-quences of intimate partner violence on em-ployment may result in increased absenteeism,reduced productivity, or job loss (Leone et al.,

2 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

KEY POINTS OF THE RESEARCH REVIEW• Job interference tactics used by male abusers gen-

erally fall into two primary categories: work dis-ruption and on-the-job stalking and harassment.

• The consequences of job interference tactics havesignificant ramifications for victimized employ-ees (individual-level consequences) and theplaces where they work (organizational-levelconsequences).

• Studies on the effect of intimate partner violenceon victims’ employment may be categorized intotwo types: empirical studies of the relationshipbetween experiencing intimate partner violenceand employment patterns; and empirical studiesidentifying and documenting the extent to whichabusers’ actions interfere with victims’ ability towork and perform on the job.

• The reasons associated with whether and whywomen decide to tell someone at work about theabuse may depend on prevailing personal or or-ganizational attitudes about intimate partner vio-lence, the extent to which partner violence affectswork performance, and the subsequent availabil-ity of workplace supports.

• Organizational consequences associated with in-timate partner violence may result in higher pro-duction, health care, administration, and liabilitycosts.

• Organizational responses to intimate partner vio-lence when it traverses the boundaries ofwomen’s jobs appear to be unique to each organi-zation. The stigma associated with partner vio-lence may influence some employers’ decisions,whereas other organizations consider partner vi-olence a form of workplace violence.

• Limited extant research suggests that workplacesupports provided to victimized employees mayhave positive short-term effects on employmentoutcomes.

2004; Raphael, 1996; Riger, Raja, & Camacho,2002; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Tolman & Rosen,2001), and long-term consequences may resultin inconsistent work histories, underemploy-ment, and reduced actual and potential earn-ings (Brush, 2003; Tolman & Raphael, 2000). Ithas been estimated that in total, victims lose $18million annually in earnings (Greenfeld et al.,1998) and nearly $1 billion in lifetime earnings(NCIPC, 2003) because of missed work, job loss,and inability to maintain consistent employ-ment. Leaving a good paying job for safety rea-sons or encountering difficulties securingmeaningful work further complicates the eco-nomic hardships that women encounter whenleaving an abusive relationship (see Sullivan,Basta, Tan, & Davidson, 1992; Sullivan,Campbell, Angelique, Eby, & Davidson, 1994).

At the organizational level, intimate partnerviolence results in significant costs to the em-ployers in the form of decreased production andincreased medical and liability costs (M. Bellet al., 2002; Wisner, Gilmer, Saltzman, & Zink,1999). The Bureau of National Affairs (1990) hasestimated that employers spend $3 billion to $5billion dollars annually on consequences re-lated to partner violence spilling over into theworkplace. Expenditures include lost produc-tivity, employee turnover, and health-care-re-lated costs. Separating out the costs of lost pro-ductivity from paid work and household laborfrom the medical costs associated with partnerviolence, the NCIPC (2003) has estimated thatpartner violence costs nearly $1 billion in lostproductivity. Considering the costs to individu-als and organizations, workplaces need to rec-ognize intimate partner violence as an em-ployee issue, to establish workplace policiesand procedures that will assist employees whomay be experiencing partner violence, and toprevent or reduce the negative consequenceswhen it does spill over into the workplace.

In the past decade, public policy, organiza-tional psychologists, and management scholarshave been instrumental in raising the aware-ness of this issue and its implications forwomen’s financial security and for workplaces(Duffy, Scott, & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; Petty &Kosch, 2001; Tolman & Raphael, 2000; ViolenceAgainst Women Act [VAWA], 1994, 2000). How-

ever, only a limited number of studies in the sci-entific literature focus on the consequences ofintimate partner violence on victims’ employ-ment and the places where they work. To maxi-mize partner violence victims’ economic secu-rity by reducing the risks associated with thenegative affects of partner violence on women’slabor force participation and on workplaces, thefirst step is to clearly understand the conse-quences of intimate partner violence on femalevictims’ employment and on employers. To thisend, this article examines the literature on inti-mate partner violence and employment. The ar-ticle focuses on how violence against women af-fects women in their roles as paid employeesand the places in which they work. After theMethod section, intimate partner violence is de-fined and its consequences briefly summarized.The types of job interference tactics used bybatterers are reviewed, proceeded by a reviewof the employee-level consequences of intimatepartner violence, including its consequences onvictims’ employment patterns and job out-comes. The contexts associated with whetheremployees disclose their situation to someoneat work are also discussed. Finally, the article re-views the organizational consequences of vio-lence against women, including a discussion ofemployers’ responses to the situation. Based ona review of the literature, future researchdirections and workplace implications arediscussed.

METHOD

The literature on the relationship between in-timate partner violence, employed victims, andworkplaces were identified and collected usinga variety of means. Multiple searches were con-ducted using the Academic Search Premier En-gine, which includes access to nearly 4,200 jour-nals covering the social sciences, humanities,general science, multicultural studies, and edu-cation. Three thousand of the journals in Aca-demic Search Premier are peer reviewed, andsome journals in the database go back as far as1964. Key word searches using “domestic vio-lence” and “employment,” “domestic violence”and “work,” “intimate partner violence” and“employment,” and “intimate partner vio-

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 3

lence” and “work” were conducted. Books per-taining to intimate partner violence were re-viewed for chapters focused on workplaces oremployment. Books pertaining to workplace vi-olence were reviewed for chapters focused onintimate partner violence as a form of work-place violence. Reference lists from articles per-taining to intimate partner and work were re-viewed for relevant articles. In the end, articlesand book chapters that primarily focused on theintersection between partner violence and em-ployment were included in this review. In addi-tion, investigators contacted scholars, request-ing copies of relevant papers presented atacademic conferences. Statistical informationwas drawn from federal Web sites, includingthe Department of Justice, Centers for DiseaseControl (CDC), the Department of Health andHuman Services, and the Department of Labor.In total, this literature review assimilates 96 arti-cles, book chapters, and reports dating from1981 to 2004 that are specific to partner violenceand women’s employment. Other referencescited in the text were used for contextualpurposes.

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE

Definitions

Working definitions of intimate partner vio-lence vary from study to study. For this article’spurpose, the definition of intimate partner vio-lence was adopted from the CDC’s definition,which is based on research conducted bySaltzman, Fanslow, McMahon, & Shelley(1999). As defined by the CDC, intimate partnerviolence is actual or threatened physical or sex-ual violence or psychological and emotionalabuse directed toward a spouse, ex-spouse, cur-rent or former boyfriend or girlfriend, or cur-rent or former dating partner. Intimate partnersmay be heterosexual or of the same sex. Termsused to describe intimate partner violence aredomestic abuse, spouse abuse, partner violence,rape, and battering, among others. Although itis recognized that female intimate partner vio-lence against male intimates and same-sex inti-mate partner violence exist, for the purpose of

this article, intimate partner violence is specifi-cally referring to male intimate partner violenceagainst female intimates.

Extensive research pertaining to violenceagainst women indicates that partner violencehas deleterious effects on victims’ physical andmental health (for a review, see Campbell, 2002;Campbell et al., 2002; Plitcha, 1996). The short-and long-term physical consequences of inti-mate partner violence include bruises, brokenbones, loss of menstruation, bladder infection,concussions, migraine headaches, memory loss,and difficulty concentrating. Psychological con-sequences of intimate partner violence includeheightened rates of suicidal ideation, suicide at-tempts, drug and alcohol abuse, posttraumaticstress disorder, depression, and anxiety (Camp-bell, 2002; Campbell et al., 2002; Plitcha, 1996).Moreover, 41% of violent attacks by intimatepartners that cause injury require medical atten-tion, compared to 20% of stranger attacksinvolving injury (Bachman & Salzman, 1995).

Interference Tactics:Batterers’ Effect on Employment

Exerting control over victim’s employmentor job opportunities is a form of victimizationused by batterers’ to intimidate their partners(MacMillan & Gartner, 1999). Studies have esti-mated that 36% to 75% of employed intimatepartner violence victims were bothered by theirabusive partners while at work (Shepard &Pence, 1988; Swanberg et al., 2005; Taylor &Barusch, 2004). For instance, Shepard andSpence (1988) conducted an exploratory quanti-tative study to examine the effect of intimatepartner violence on women’s work and abilityto work. An employment survey was adminis-tered during two separate occasions to 71women attending battered women supportgroups. The survey included a series of ques-tions pertaining to employment status, effect ofabuse on job performance, and the ability to ob-tain and maintain employment. Results indi-cated that 57% of respondents were harassed byphone or in person by their abusers while atwork, with 21% stating that it occurred fre-quently. Similarly, another study focusing onthe effects of intimate partner violence and

4 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

women’s employment using a sample ofwomen (N = 758) who received domestic vio-lence orders (DVOs) in the Commonwealth ofthe Kentucky found that almost half reportedsometime job interference tactics, includingshowing up at respondents’ workplace or call-ing her incessantly (Swanberg et al., 2005). Jobinterference tactics identified in the literaturereviewed fall into two primary categories: workdisruption and on-the-job stalking and harass-ment. The following section reviews the threeforms of interference tactics.

Work Disruption

Work disruption consists primarily of actionsthat prevent the victim from reaching the work-place either on time or at all; as such, these ac-tions predominantly take place in the home oroff the workplace premises. The studies that fo-cus on this topic reported a variety of work dis-ruption behaviors (see, e.g., Brandwein, 2000;Brush, 2000, 2001; Libbus, Sable, Huneke, & An-ger, 1999; Raphael, 1995, 1996; Swanberg & Lo-gan, 2005; Taylor & Barusch, 2004). In particular,results from a national, 12-site welfare-to-workquantitative evaluation indicated that partici-pants’ abusers disrupted employment effortsby depriving victim of sleep; refusing to care forchildren while participant went to work; hidingor destroying clothing, books, or car keys; in-flicting physical injury on participant prior towork; turning off the alarm clock; cutting offparticipants’ hair; preventing her from going towork; or creating an embarrassing or threaten-ing situation at participants’ work (Raphael,1995, 1996). Among women in three domesticviolence shelters located in urban settings, 46%of their partners prohibited them from getting ajob (Riger, Ahrens, Blickenstaff, & Camacho,1998). Qualitative studies reported similar find-ings. Brandwein (2000) conducted a qualitativestudy of 24 ethnically diverse battered womenreceiving public assistance in two regionallydisparate states. The study collected its focusgroup sample of women from mental healthprograms, domestic violence shelters, and wel-fare-to-work programs during a 3-year period.Respondents reported such sabotage tactics ashiding clothes, not showing up to care for

young children, or beating women prior towork, thereby preventing her from reporting toher job. Moe and M. Bell’s (2004) qualitativestudy of women residing in domestic violenceshelters (N = 19) suggests similar themes. Thesample was diverse with respects to race, eth-nicity, age, education, socioeconomic status,and occupation. In particular, 20% of the samplereported being poor or homeless, 53% as low in-come or working class, and 21% as middle class.Physical ramifications of the abuse (bruises,cuts, ripped clothing) was a primary way thatabusers disrupted women’s employment. Forinstance, one respondent, who had worked invarious full-time jobs, reported that her workhistory was “sporadic because he had no prob-lem beating me up. I could not move on so Iwould have to call in and say I could not makeit” (Moe & M. Bell, 2004, p. 40). In an investiga-tion of the effects of partner violence on Blackand White women’s employment, Brush (2001)discovered that “poor White and Black womenface somewhat different efforts by men to con-trol behavior . . . directly efforts to control orpunish women for seeking work outside thehouse seemed more characteristic of the experi-ences of White women” (p. 83).

On-the-Job Stalking and Harassment

Stalking is generally defined as the unwel-come and repeated harassing or threatening be-havior directed at one individual (Tjaden &Thoennes, 1997; Westrum & Fremouw, 1998).Examples of stalking behavior include follow-ing a person, appearing outside a person’shome or place of business, leaving written mes-sages or objects, or vandalizing a person’s prop-erty. Analysis of the NVAWS reveals that 81% ofwomen who were stalked by an intimate alsoreported physical assault by that same partner,and 31% also reported sexual assault by thatpartner (National Institute of Justice & Centersfor Disease Control, 1998). Lifetime prevalencerates suggest that between 5% and 8% ofwomen will be stalked at some time in their life(Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2000). Recent preva-lence (within the past 12 months) rates suggestthat between 0.5% and 1.0% of women suffer at

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 5

the hands of a stalker (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998,2000).

Although the formal definition of stalking in-cludes harassing behaviors, we have explicitlyidentified both types of job interference behav-iors within this one category because the re-search examining the intersection of intimatepartner violence and employment often de-scribes on-the-job stalking behaviors separatelyfrom on-the-job harassment behaviors. For in-stance, examples of stalking incidences identi-fied in the literature included perpetrator look-ing into the window of the workplace,perpetrator waiting for the victim at the end ofthe workday, or perpetrator waiting for victimalong her commuting route (Raphael, 1996;Swanberg & Logan, 2005). On-the-job harassingincidents were identified as events whereby theperpetrator physically appeared on the work-place premises or when the perpetrator madetelephone calls to victims, their coworkers, orsupervisors.

Workplaces are popular places to hassle vic-tims among perpetrators because the work lo-cation often remains unchanged even when theresidence has changed (i.e., when women leavetheir partners), and they know where their part-ners or former partners are located during cer-tain time periods (Chenier, 1998; Libbus et al.,1999). In the literature reviewed, the prevalenceof on-the job stalking ranged from 35% to 52%(Raphael, 1996; Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg& Logan, 2005; Tolman & Rosen, 2001).Swanberg et al.’s (2005) previously describedstudy revealed that 35% of the employed or re-cently employed victims of intimate partner vi-olence had been stalked by their abusive part-ner within the past year. Raphael’s (1996) studyof a dozen welfare-to-work programs, also pre-viously described, identified stalking as a fre-quent interference tactic used by batterers. Sim-ilar patterns emerged in Swanberg and Logan’s(2005) qualitative study of employed or recentlyemployed victims of partner violence. Using across-section sample of women (N = 34) resid-ing in the community, in shelters, or in drugtreatment programs, the authors interviewedand conducted focus groups during a 6-monthperiod to better understand how partner vic-timization affected their job and to determine

the context surrounding the decision pertainingto disclosure. Fifty-two percent of participantsreported specifically being stalked at work. Afew participants stated that partners’ stalkingbehaviors created more stress and anxiety thanharassing at her at work because the former be-havior is “so unpredictable.” This finding is notsurprising because the creation of elevatedstress and anxiety is common among stalkingvictims (Schell, 2003). Finally, an employer-based survey of 46 Canadian corporations sheda slightly different perspective on stalking in theworkplace (Schell, 2003). The cross-sectionstudy took place from January 1995 throughJanuary 2000, during which time 46 firms wererandomly selected from 1,782 corporationslisted in a Canadian-based human resource di-rectory to participate in a survey focused on theprevalence of stalking and sexual harassmentamong employees. Eight of the 46 firms re-ported stalking incidents in their organizations.In total, 19 stalking incidents were reported tohuman resource professionals in the 5-yearspan of the study. A spouse or boyfriendperpetrated 32% of report stalking cases.

The prevalence of on-the-job harassmentranged from 8% to 75% (see, e.g., Brush, 2000,2002; Friedman & Couper, 1987; Stanley, 1992;Swanberg et al., 2005; Taylor & Barusch, 2004;Tolman & Rosen, 2001). On-the-job harassmentbehaviors included appearing at work, disal-lowing employed victims to complete workfunctions (Brush, 2002; Friedman & Couper,1987; Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan,2005; Taylor & Barusch, 2004), or making fre-quent telephone calls to victims, coworkers, orsupervisors (Brush, 2000; Friedman & Couper,1987; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). For instance,one study conducted by the Victim ServicesUnit in New York surveyed employed or re-cently employed intimate partner victims (N =50) to better understand how violent partnersinterfere with women’s work (Friedman &Couper, 1987). Seventy-five percent of respon-dents reported that their abusive partner ha-rassed them on the job either in person or on thephone during the previous 12 months. Compa-rable findings were reported by Stanley’s (1992)study of women victimized by their partnersand receiving services from a domestic violence

6 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

intervention service agency (N = 118) in Tulsa,Oklahoma. Among the sample of employed orrecently employed respondents (n = 82), 70%were telephoned excessively while at work.Swanberg et al. (2005), in their previously men-tioned study, reported that in the previous 12months, 40% of respondents were harassed inperson by an intimate partner, 34% had beenthreatened at work, and 24% reported that anintimate partner bothered their coworkers onthe job. Similar results emerged from an in-depth, descriptive study of long-term welfarerecipients (Browne, Salomon, & Bassuk, 1999).Through a random sampling selection processusing a population of women who had receivedpublic assistance for at least 36 months, women(N = 285) were interviewed in person to identifythe barriers to employment. Among thissample, 42% had been harassed at work duringthe previous year.

Other research investigations indicated thaton-the-job harassment occurred less frequently.Using the first wave of the Women’s Employ-ment Study, a three-wave study of welfare re-cipients in an urban Michigan county, Tolmanand Rosen (2001) examined the prevalence ofdomestic violence and its association withhealth, mental health, and economic well-being.The sample (N = 753) were all recipients of wel-fare in February 1997, racially mixed singlemothers between the ages of 18 and 54, and resi-dents of the one Michigan county. Lifetimeprevalence of on-the-job harassment was 23%and recent prevalence 6%. Similarly, Lloyd’s(1997) analysis of data from a random house-hold survey designed to determine the effects ofdomestic violence on the labor force participa-tion (N = 824) of women living in a low-incomeChicago neighborhood revealed comparable re-sults. Among the sample of female respondents(employed and unemployed) who were or hadbeen in a adult relationship with a man (n = 802),8.7% of the sample reported on-the-job harass-ment by phone and 7.8% reported on the job ha-rassment in person during their lifetime. In an-other study (Brush, 2000), among 122 womenenrolled in a 4-week job-training program, 21%percent of participants were threatened or ha-rassed at work by phone or in person. The sig-nificantly lower percentages of on-the-job

harassment in these studies may be partly ex-plained by the sample selection criteria.

Victimized Employee-Level Conse-quences of Partner Violence

The consequences of job sabotage tacticshave significant ramifications for victimizedemployees (individual-level consequences) andthe workplaces where they are employed (orga-nizational-level consequences). This section ofthe article discusses the individual-level conse-quence of intimate partner violence spillingover into the workplace and then examines re-sponses that victims take to manage thesituation at work.

Information gleaned from the limited smallstudies suggests that 66% to 96% of employedvictims of partner violence report that employ-ment was disrupted in some way because of thepartner victimization (Friedman & Couper,1987; Stanley, 1992; Swanberg et al., 2005;Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Tolman & Rosen,2001). For example, in a previously describedstudy by Swanberg et al. (2005), 71% of respon-dents were unable to concentrate at work be-cause of partner victimization within the pastyear and 63% were unable to perform on the jobto the best of their ability within the past year.Forty-six of respondents went home sick be-cause they were too upset about the partner vic-timization during the previous 12 months. Stan-ley (1992) and Friedman and Couper (1987)reported similar findings. Respectively, 96% ofemployed victims of partner violence reportedthat their jobs were somehow affected by thevictimization, including missing work, a de-creased ability to concentrate at work, andbeing reprimanded by employers for problemsresulting from abuse.

Yet the research pertaining to the relationshipbetween partner violence and employment, in-cluding victims’ employment patterns, is com-plex. Studies focusing on the effect of intimatepartner violence on victims’ employment fallsinto two general categories: empirical studies ofthe relationship between experiencing intimatepartner violence and employment patterns; andempirical studies identifying and documentingthe extent to which abusers’ action interfere

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 7

with victims’ ability to work and perform on thejob.

Intimate Partner Violence and Employment Patterns

The studies focusing on the relationship be-tween partner violence and employment pat-terns are inconclusive; that is, it is difficult to de-termine at this time the effect that intimatepartner violence has on short-term and long-term job stability, employability, and earnings(for a review, see Riger & Staggs, 2004; Tolman& Raphael, 2000). In their comprehensive litera-ture review of research on welfare and domesticviolence, Tolman and Raphael (2000) reportedthat some victims of partner violence struggleto be employed, others manage to obtain em-ployment but fail to maintain it, and still otherscannot obtain employment at all. Thus, the au-thors conclude that partner violence does inter-fere with employment but does not necessarilyprevent it. That is, data suggest that partner vio-lence does not affect employment status; rather,it affects the victim’s ability to sustain consistentemployment for long periods of time. Danziger,Corcoran, Danziger, and Heflin (2000), in theirreview of the literature pertaining to welfare re-form and employment, suggested that individ-ual factors such as domestic violence were notsignificantly associated with employment. Butrather the combination of a multitude offactors was predictive of the probability ofemployment.

Two analyses of one cross-sectional sample(N = 824) of women in a randomly selectedhousehold survey in a low-income area of Chi-cago report no evidence to suggest that victimsof partner violence are employed at differentrates than their nonvictim counterparts (Lloyd,1997; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999). More specifically,Lloyd’s (1997) analysis indicated that womenwho experienced partner violence were as likel-y to be employed as women who had not expe-rienced such victimization. However, her find-ings further imply that victims of partnerviolence were more likely to have been unem-ployed in the past and that partner violencemay depress socioeconomic status and occupa-tional attainment over time. Correspondingly,using the same data set, Lloyd and Taluc’s(1999) multivariate analyses found additional

evidence to suggest that, “although womenwho experienced male violence were as likely tobe currently employed as those who did not,they were more likely to have been unemployedin the past . . . and to have higher rates of welfarereceipt” (p. 370). Meisel, Chandler, and Rienzi(2003), using a sample of women receiving Tem-porary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) inCalifornia (N = 632), found that women withbattering partners were less likely to be em-ployed, but if women were working, theyworked the same amount of hours as womenwithout battering partners.

Another study provides additional evidenceto suggest that the long-term relationship be-tween partner violence and women’s employ-ment is complex. Data from a longitudinalstudy of an ethnically diverse group of ex-tremely poor women (N = 285) were analyzed todetermine the relationship between partner vio-lence and work over a period of time (Browneet al., 1999). Controlling for demographic,psychosocial, and health factors, Browne, et al.(1999) found that “women who were victimizedby male intimate partners during the previousyear had only one third the odds of maintainingemployment for at least 30 hours per week for 6months or more during the subsequent year ascompared to women without victimization ex-periences” (p. 417). Furthermore, the authors re-ported that the effect was even greater forwomen working 40 hours or more per week.Specifically, women working full-time who hadbeen recently victimized (within the past year)were only about 20% as likely to work full-timefor 6 months or more the following year,compared to nonvictimized women.

Longitudinal research further underscoresthe complexity associated with partner victim-ization and employment. Honeycutt, Marshall,and Weston’s (2001) study of victimizationamong low-income women receiving Aid toFamilies with Dependent Children or foodstamps (N = 836) failed to reveal a direct rela-tionship between victimization and employ-ment. Victimization itself did not preventwomen from working. Rather, multiple regres-sion analyses reveal a more complex relation-ship; abuse by past partners was related to cur-rent employment only among White women,

8 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

whereas partner victimization (current or past)did not have any effect on Black women’s em-ployment. Votruba-Drzal, Lohman, and Chase-Lansdale’s (2002) investigation of the associa-tion between welfare, employment transition,and domestic abuse among 2,128 participantssuggest that women who remain on welfare(and unemployed) are subject to higher rates ofabuse, whereas women who successfully transi-tion into work experience have fewer inci-dences of partner violence. Partner violence inthis study was not associated with obtainingwork, but rather the prevalence of partner vio-lence was more predictive of long-term employ-ment. Riger, Staggs, and Schewe’s (2004) find-ings from the first three waves of a panel studyof welfare reform in Illinois (N = 962) imply thata lifetime of partner violence was not signifi-cantly associated with work stability.

Intimate Partner Violence andEmployee Outcome Consequences

Although it is difficult to draw persuasiveand strong conclusions about the relationshipbetween intimate partner violence and long-term employment because of the limited studiesconducted to date on employed partner vio-lence victims, studies that identify and docu-ment the extent to which abusers’ actions inter-fere with victims’ ability to work and performon the job appear to be more conclusive. Over-all, the research seems to be in agreement thatcompared to nonvictims, victims of partner vio-lence are more likely to report lower productiv-ity, higher absenteeism rates, more frequent tar-diness, and higher job turnover rates and joblosses (Raphael, 1996; Shepard & Pence, 1988;Tolman & Rosen, 2001). The following sectionreviews the research literature pertaining to thefollowing four negative job-related conse-quences of partner violence: reduced productiv-ity, increase absenteeism, increased tardiness,and job loss.

Productivity. Using absenteeism, tardiness,and the ability to concentrate as proxy measuresfor productivity, several cross-section studiesreport that the partner violence victims’ produc-tivity was compromised by partners’ victimiza-tion (Brush, 2000, 2002; Raphael, 1996; Stanley,

1992; Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan,2005). Swanberg et al. (2005) found that 71% ofemployed or recently employed women re-ported that they were unable to concentrate atwork because of the abuse. Twenty-three per-cent were unable to concentrate on a daily basisand 17.5% on a weekly basis. Sixty-three per-cent were unable to perform on the job to thebest of their ability during the previous year; 8%of the sample were affected daily and 9% wereaffected weekly. Likewise, Swanberg and Lo-gan’s (2005) study reported that more than halfof the participants interviewed were unable toconcentrate in the past year because of partnervictimization. In one case, the woman eventu-ally lost her job despite her determination tostay focused at work. The lack of concentrationmay result from before-work circumstances,on-the-job harassment, phone harassment,stalking, or depression resulting from the abuse(Friedman, Tucker, Neville, & Imperial, 1996;Raphael, 1996; Stanley, 1992; Swanberg & Lo-gan, 2005). As an example, Stanley’s (1992)study of 82 battered employed women, whowere enrolled in domestic-violence-relatedtreatment services, reported that 70% of partici-pants were too distracted by the violence to per-form well at work. Data also suggest thatpartner violence victims’ inability to concen-trate is strongly associated with their fear of theperpetrator (Raphael, 1996; Swanberg & Logan,2005).

Absenteeism. Partner violence victims alsohave significant absenteeism rates (Brush, 2002;H. Johnson, 1995; Sable, Libbus, Huneke, & An-ger, 1999; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Swanberget al., 2005). Research found that between 23%and 54% of employed partner violence victimsreported being absent from work because of theabuse, with between 4% and 6% reporting thatthis happened frequently (Allard, Albelda,Collen, & Cosenza, 1997; Friedman & Couper,1987; Raphael, 1996; Sable et al, 1999; Shepard &Pence, 1988; Stanley, 1992; Taylor & Barusch,2004; Tolman & Rosen, 2001). Friedman andCouper (1987) found that 54% of their em-ployed, victimized female sample had missedan average of 3 days of work per month becauseof injuries, shame, depression, or attending ap-

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 9

pointments with lawyers or law enforcementfor issues directly related to the partner vio-lence. Taylor and Barusch (2004) reported that36% of women receiving public assistance hadto stay home from work because of domestic vi-olence. Swanberg et al. (2005) found that 25% ofemployed or recently employed women apply-ing for domestic violence orders called in sick towork during the previous 12 months becausethey were “too upset to go in,” with 4% callingin weekly and 11% calling in at least monthly.

Other evidence suggesting that intimatepartner violence interferes with women’ssteady job attendance includes a cross-sectionstudy (N = 734) of women receiving public wel-fare in Massachusetts (Allard et al., 1997). Thisresearch study found that women were morelikely to be absent from work if their partner/boyfriend preferred that they not be employed.In addition, women reported having to workearly (Brush, 2002; Swanberg & Logan, 2005).Brush’s (2002) examination of women receivingwelfare recipients and enrolled in “work-first”activities in a Pittsburgh program site reportedthat 27% had to leave work early because of is-sues surrounding partner violence. The culmi-nation of similar findings led Raphael andTolman (1997) to conclude that victims with apartner who does not want them to beemployed were more likely to miss work orreport late.

Tardiness. Employed intimate partner vio-lence victims also experience significant tardi-ness rates (Friedman & Couper, 1987; Raphael,1996; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Swanberg et al.,2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005). The studiesconducted to date, using a sample of employedpartner violence victims, which are both smalland limited in scope, suggest that 50% to 65% ofpartner violence victims reported being late forwork or leaving work early because of the vic-timization (see, e.g., Friedman & Couper, 1987;Raphael, 1996; Shepard & Pence, 1988;Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Specifically, Fried-man and Couper (1987) found that almost twothirds of respondents reported that they werelate to work because of the abuse; specific rea-sons included being too exhausted after the vio-lent incidents occurring the night before,

needing extra time to don make up to cover thebruises, and waiting for pain medication to takeeffect. Moreover, 20% of the sample was late forwork because their partners tried to preventthem from going to work by engaging in a vari-ety of pre-work tactics. Raphael (1996) foundthat 13% of the victims who reported being lateto work also reported that this type of tardinessoccurred frequently. Similarly, Swanberg andLogan (2005) found that nearly two thirds ofparticipants reported to work late frequentlybecause of batterers’ pre-work tactics. Reportedreasons for tardiness in the last two studies in-cluded batterer turning off alarm clock, womenbeing too exhausted after violent or aggressiveincidents the night before, batterer physicallyrestraining women from leaving for work, bat-terer hiding her car keys, and batterer refusingat the last minute to assist with child care.

Job loss and turnover rates. Cross-sectionalstudies indicate that 5% to 27% of victims re-ported a job loss as a direct result of the partnerviolence (Riger et al., 2002; Romero, Chavkin,Wise, & Smith, 2003; Sable et al, 1999; Shepard &Pence, 1988; Stanley, 1992; Swanberg & Logan,2005) and, in some cases, partner violence vic-tims experience higher job turnover rates thannonvictims (Lloyd, 1997; Lloyd & Taluc, 1999;Romero et al., 2003; Zachary, 2000). Romeroet al.’s (2003) longitudinal study of low-incomemothers of children with chronic illness (N =504) found that women with victimization his-tories were more than twice as likely to lose a jobbecause of health issues than nonvictimizedwomen: 26% versus 10%, respectively. Shepardand Pence (1988) reported that 24% of their sam-ple of employed victimized women lost a job inthe past year as a direct result of the abuse. Simi-larly, 30% of participants in another study, de-scribed earlier, reported that the abuse hadcaused them to lose a job (Stanley, 1992).Swanberg et al. (2005) found that 27% of respon-dents quit a job in the past year because of inti-mate partner violence, and 12% reported thatthey lost a job or failed a class because of partnervictimization. And, finally, a descriptive studyof female Aid to Family with Dependent Chil-dren recipients (N = 404) living in Kansas City,Missouri, revealed that 5% had lost a job as a

10 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

direct result of the intimate partner violence(Sable et al., 1999).

Reasons women quit their jobs include feel-ing shame associated with the victimization sit-uation, fear for their own and their children’ssafety, embarrassment associated with abusers’continued on-the-job harassment, unreliabilityof child care, children’s health issues, or becauseabuser forced them to resign (Moe & M. Bell,2004; Riger et al., 2002; Romero et al., 2003; Sableet al., 1999; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Swanberg &Logan, 2005). More specifically, Moe and M. Bell(2004) found that battered women sometimesquit a job because the physical injuries sus-tained from abusers’ assaults were too severe tocontinue working or they feared for their life,and to avoid future victimization, they had toleave their jobs. One woman in the qualitativestudy, prior to being raped by her boyfriend,had been successfully attending school and bal-ancing motherhood with three jobs. However,she ultimately had to quit all three of her jobsand move cross-country by bus to flee from herabusive boyfriend. Riger et al. (2002) reportedsimilar findings. Using life narrative interviewswith 57 women recruited from three urban do-mestic violence shelters, Riger and her col-leagues set out to understand the multilayeredimpact that intimate partner violence has on itsvictims’ lives. With respects to employment,many of the respondents stated that they wereunable to complete their education or hold a jobbecause of the physical evidence of the partnerviolence. Physical injuries prevented womenfrom going to work, and sometimes womenwere asked to resign because of a visible injury.

Regardless of the reason, be it termination orresignation, intimate partner violence victimslose their jobs because of the abuse. The high jobturnover rates noted in the previously men-tioned studies may explain the more frequentspells of unemployment experienced by victimsin studies such as Lloyd and Taluc’s (1999). Inaddition, for some women the lack of consis-tent, long-standing employment may also inpart explain the lower relative personal incomeof partner violence victims as compared to non-victims (Lloyd & Taluc, 1999). Nonetheless, jobloss either by resignation or termination by em-ployers for behaviors related to partner victim-

ization is likely to compromise women’s eco-nomic security, leading some women to turn topublic assistance for financial assistance (Allardet al., 1997; Moe & M. Bell, 2004; Tolman & Ra-phael, 2000). Research has documented the im-portance of financial independence in overcom-ing violent relationships (Campbell, Rose, Kub,& Nedd, 1998; Gelles, 1976; Lloyd, 1997; Moe &M. Bell, 2004; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Strube &Barbour, 1984), yet for some women leaving ajob to secure safety may lead to another form ofinsecurity—economic insecurity. As an exam-ple, Moe and M. P. Bell (2004) found in theirqualitative study that several women quit high-paying jobs to secure safety for themselves andtheir family. Oftentimes, some women had torely on TANF, and other women took lower-paying jobs in new communities.

Employee Responses to Partner Violence:Disclosure—To Tell or Not to Tell

A body of research literature suggests thatemployees with social supports at work, be it acoworker or supervisor, are more likely to be“happy workers” and to have longer job ten-ures than employees without social supports(see T. D. Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton, 2000, forreview; Bond et al., 1998; Galinsky & Bond,1998). Specific to intimate partner violence, so-cial support can provide coping resources thatcan mitigate the effects of threatening eventsand experiences (Thoits, 1986). Moreover, re-search suggests that victimized women withhigh levels of perceived social support are morelikely to disclose to nonfamily members(Rhodes & McKenzie, 1998; Yoshioka, Gilbert,El-Bassel, & Baig-Amin, 2003) and, in combina-tion with other protective factors such as em-ployment, good health, and self-esteem, reportlower levels of anxiety and depression (Carlson,McNutt, Choi, & Rose, 2002). Yet, in many cases,the stigma associated with intimate partner vio-lence silences many of its victims and isolatesthem from support networks on the job. Assuch, this may prevent employed intimate part-ner violence victims from telling anyone atwork about their situation (Lemon, 2001;Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005;Swanberg & Van Kempen, in press).

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 11

Lemon (2001), in a legal argument for em-ployment rights of domestic violence victims,posited that employed victims of intimate part-ner violence often remain silent at work becausethey fear losing their job. Empirical studies con-cur with this claim. For instance, 33% of em-ployed or recently employed women victimswho recently filed a domestic violence orderagainst their partners did not tell their em-ployer (Swanberg et al., 2005). Some of the rea-sons why respondents remained silent at workabout their home situation included victims’embarrassment about the situation, victims notwanting to be stigmatized, victims felt it was apersonal issue not to be discussed at work, co-workers were partners’ friends, partner workedin the same workplace and she feared if she toldsomeone at work and her partner found thisout, the violence would escalate. Similar resultswere found in Swanberg and Van Kempen (inpress). Using cross-sectional data collectedfrom a workplace violence survey distributed toall employees at one organization located in thesoutheastern region of the United States (N =868), authors investigated the prevalence of in-timate partner violence at one job site and thecontexts associated with disclosure. Among thesample of employees with recent intimate part-ner violence histories (n = 34) 56% did not in-form someone at work about the partner victim-ization. Reasons for not disclosing fell into threemain categories: (a) victims felt partner violencewas a personal issue and should not be broughtinto the workplace (64%), (b) they felt embar-rassed and/or ashamed (32%), and (c) they didnot feel people at work could be trusted (3%). Ina related qualitative study pertaining to bat-tered women’s perceptions and experiences ofdisclosing their partner victimization historiesto case managers (N = 10), women identifiedseveral factors that influenced their decision todisclose (Busch & Wolfer, 2002). Perceptionsabout potential negative consequences of dis-closure, diminished perceptions of choice aboutwhether to disclose or not, and intuitive feelingsabout their case managers affected women’s de-cision about how and what to tell their casemanagers. Finally, Lemon (2001) suggested fourother reasons why victims may be reluctant tocome forward about their abuse-related situa-

tion, namely, (a) that the batterer may seekrevenge if he discovers that she revealed infor-mation to the employer; (b) that he may beresponsible for the abuse; (c) that the batterer,whom the victim may care about, will be harm-ed; and (d) that the employer may not careabout or have time for the abuse-related prob-lems” (p. 830).

Although issues of privacy and fear of jobloss concern some employed victims of partnerviolence, other victims found informing some-one at work to be a useful strategy (Swanberget al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Swanberg& Van Kempen, in press). The following sectionreviews three studies that specifically exploredthe context associated with whether employedvictims opt to tell someone at work about theirsituation.

In the first study previously described, 66%of employed or recently employed (N = 518)women who filed for domestic violence ordersin the Commonwealth of Kentucky reportedtelling someone at work about the partner vio-lence at home (Swanberg et al., 2005). Amongthe respondents who told someone at work (n =331), 59% told their immediate supervisor, 46%informed a coworker or fellow student, 6% tolda supervisor that was not their immediate su-pervisor, and fewer than 1% informed a humanresources professional, an employee assistanceprofessional, or security. Some of the reasonsemployees told someone at work included pro-viding reasons for why respondent quit her job,called in sick or appeared upset at work, need-ing someone to confide in, explaining physicalevidence of abuse, needing to inform someonethat she feared for safety, and wanting to ex-plain poor work performance to prevent beingfired.

Similar results emerged from the secondstudy, also described earlier in this article(Swanberg & Logan, 2005). Forty-six percent ofrespondents informed supervisors or managersand 43% informed a coworker about their vic-timization situation, despite women’s concernsabout the reactions and subsequent actions thatmight transpire. Safety concerns, needing timeoff, or wanting to explain workplace absenceswere reasons that influenced employees to tellsomeone at work. Respondents also opted to

12 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

disclose because they assumed people “figuredout what was going on.” The third study echoesfindings from the first two research investiga-tions (Swanberg & Van Kempen, in press).Forty-four percent of employed victims of inti-mate partner violence informed someone atwork about their home situation. Victims dis-closed to coworkers (64%), immediate supervi-sors (29%), non-immediate supervisors (21%),or other people within the workplace (14%).Reasons why respondents informed someone atwork included the need for advice/support(26%), support from friends (23.5%), expressingfeelings to someone (18%), legal protection orfor safety purposes (15%), informing supervisorof reason for seeming “stressed out” (12%), andtelling supervisor before someone else did(5.5%).

The limited available research pertaining todisclosure implies that a victim’s decision todisclose or not disclose in the workplace may bedependent on the possible prevailing personaland/or organizational attitudes about intimatepartner violence, the extent to which the inti-mate partner violence impacts their work per-formance, and the subsequent availability ofworkplace supports. Furthermore, as will bediscussed later in this article, the limited re-search to date suggests an overall positive expe-rience with disclosing victimization to someoneat work.

Organizational-Level Consequencesof Intimate Partner Violence andEmployer Responses

Until recently, intimate partner violence hasbeen a social problem that has virtually been ig-

nored by workplaces (Duffy et al., 2005; Fried-man et al., 1996; P. R. Johnson & Indvik, 1999;Petty & Kosch, 2001). Within the past decade,some organizations have become more aware ofintimate partner violence as a social problemand its associated economic and social costs andconsequences to workplaces. As a result, somefirms have taken action to combat this social is-sue at the workplace level. Data suggest that10,000 to 60,000 intimate partner violence inci-dents are perpetrated within the workplaceeach year (Bachman, 1994; Warchol, 1998). Asnoted in the information compiled from severalstudies pertaining to employer views of inti-mate partner violence by the Family ViolencePrevention Fund (2003), there is an awarenessof the problem but not a consensus on the work-place consequences associated with the socialproblem (see Table 1). There also appears to be alack of information about how to keep victimsand others safe at the workplace when violencespills over into the workplace.

The organizational consequences associatedwith intimate partner violence, when it is eitherignored as a personnel issue or disregarded as awork-related issue, have the possibility of cost-ing employers enormous sums of money (Bu-reau of National Affairs, 1990). In contrast,when the social issue is addressed as a work-place issue, the social and economic costs can besignificantly reduced (Friedman et al., 1996;Pereira, 1995; Petty & Kosch, 2001). Identifyingand quantifying these costs is a critical first stepin convincing organizations that intimate part-ner violence has major social and economic con-sequences for workplaces and that action isneeded to eradicate its radiating effects (Duffyet al., 2005). The following section reviews the

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 13

TABLE 1: Corporate Attitudes Pertaining to Partner Violence

• 57% of senior corporate executives believe partner violence is a major social problem• 33% of senior corporate executives believe partner violence has a negative impact on their companies’ bottom line• 40% of senior corporate executives reported that they were personally aware of employees and other individuals affected by partner

violence• 66% of senior corporate executives believe that their organization’s financial performance would benefit from addressing partner vio-

lence within the organization• 47% of senior corporate executives believe that partner violence has a negative impact on their organization’s productivity• 44% of senior corporate executives believe that partner violence increases the health care costs of the organization• 94% of security directors from 248 companies across 27 states ranked partner violence as “high” on the scale of security problems• 78% of human resource professionals polled by Personnel Journal said domestic violence is a workplace issue

SOURCE: Family Violence Prevention Fund (2003).

limited literature on the four types of organiza-tional costs associated with intimate partner vi-olence: production, medical, administrative,and liability costs; and it reviews the currentknowledge about employers’ responses tointimate partner violence.

Organizational Costs

When partner violence spills over into theworkplace, in addition to affecting the primarytarget, negative consequences are likely totransfer to secondary victims (M. Bell, Moe, &Schweinle, 2002; Brownell, 1996; Kinney, 1995;Riger et al., 2002; Zachary, 2000). Secondary vic-tims are individuals who are not the intendedtarget of the aggressive or violent episode butrather are accidentally injured or harmed by it.In the workplace, this might include coworkersor supervisors of the primary target, customers,or other individuals who happen to be in thework area at the time of the partner violence epi-sode. Secondary victims may be traumatized orharmed by witnessing an event or sufferingfrom physical assault. As a result, they may suf-fer similar negative effects including physicaland psychological health problems (M. Bellet al., 2002; Brownell, 1996; Duffy et al., 2005;Kinney, 1995). In turn, these health effects mayresult in similar consequences as experiencedby the primary victims’ reduced productivity,increased tardiness, and increased turnover/job loss. Regardless of its victims, intimate part-ner violence has significant costs to workplaces,employees, customers, and other bystanders.The foremost organizational costs incurred be-cause of partner violence include productioncosts, medical costs, administrative costs, andliability costs (P. R. Johnson & Indvik, 1999;Reynolds, 1997; VAWA, 1998; Zachary, 2000).

Production costs. As was noted earlier, pri-mary and secondary victims of partner violenceoften display lowered productivity within theorganization as a direct result of intimate part-ner violence (M. Bell et al., 2002; Brownell, 1996;East, 1999; H. Johnson, 1995; Kinney, 1995; Ra-phael, 1996; Zachary, 2000). More than half ofintimate partner violence victims miss 3 or moreworkdays per month (Zachary, 2000). Loweredproductivity may result from partner violence

victims’ use of work time to secure resources ormake phone calls prohibited at home (Wilson,1997). Such lowered productivity at the individ-ual level results in an overall lowered produc-tivity of the company, involving a loweredquality and/or quantity of organizational out-put (Brownell, 1996; Chenier, 1998; P. R. Johnson& Indvik, 1999; Zachary, 2000).

Medical costs. The second prominent cost in-crease experienced by organizations because ofpartner violence occurs in the area of medicalexpenses. Primary and secondary victims ofpartner violence experience negative physicaland psychological effects of such abuse muchmore so than the general population (see Camp-bell et al., 2002; Plitcha, 1996, for review). As aresult, the physical and mental health effectsfaced by intimate partner violence victims re-sult in increased employee benefit costs, in-creased health insurance premiums, andincreased sick leave expenditures (M. Bell et al.,2002; Brownell, 1996; Chenier, 1998; Greenfeldet al., 1998; P. R. Johnson & Indvik, 1999;Reynolds, 1997; Wisner et al., 1999; Zachary,2000). An analysis of the NCVS2 conducted byGreenfeld et al. (1998) indicates that partner vio-lence victims incur $24 million annually in med-ical expenses, much of which again is borne byemployers. Wisner et al.’s (1999) analysis of thecomputerized cost data for 126 identified vic-tims of intimate partner violence in a largehealth plan in two Minnesota cities found that$1,775 more was spent on each intimate partnerviolence victim annually as compared to a ran-dom sample of female health plan enrollees.This cost differential can be accounted for bymore hospitalizations, higher general clinic use,higher mental health services use, and moreout-of-plan referrals for intimate partnerviolence victims as compared to their nonvictimcounterparts (Wisner et al., 1999).

Administrative and liability costs. Increased ab-senteeism, tardiness, and turnover of primaryand secondary victims result in increased ad-ministrative costs for the organization (M. Bellet al., 2002; Brownell, 1996; Chenier, 1998; P. R.Johnson & Indvik, 1999; Reynolds, 1997;Zachary, 2000). These administrative costs in-

14 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

clude leave or transfer costs, separation costs,and replacement costs (i.e., hiring and trainingcosts) (M. Bell et al., 2002).

Legal liability is also an important consider-ation for organizations managing the repercus-sions of partner violence. Employers are obli-gated to protect employees at work from“recognized hazards that are causing or arelikely to cause death or serious harm . . . . to em-ployees,” as is stipulated by the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)General Duty Clause (Chenier, 1998; P. R. John-son & Indvik, 1999; Petty & Kosch, 2001). Ac-cording to Petty and Kosch (2001), “employersare obligated to do everything reasonably nec-essary to protect the life, safety, and health ofemployees” (p. 461). This suggests that once anemployer has been informed of a potential part-ner-violence-related risk situation, they may beheld liable if reasonable steps were not taken toprotect the safety of the employees. If the orga-nization was aware of an impending danger yetdid not take steps to prevent it, OSHA may finethe organization between $25,000 and $70,000for serious health hazard (Petty & Kosch, 2001).Additional costs borne by employers as a resultof partner violence include increased securitycosts, increased workers’ compensation costs,increased legal costs, lost business, damagedreputation, and damaged property (M. Bellet al., 2002; Chenier, 1998; P. R. Johnson &Indvik, 1999).

Employer Responses

The previous cost assessments associatedwith partner violence expose the possible fiscalliability that organizations are likely to incur ifand when intimate partner violence is disre-garded as a workplace concern. Although morethan half of business executives recognize inti-mate partner violence as a workplace issue withsignificant organizational costs, research sug-gests that few organizations have taken an ac-tive stance against intimate partner violence orhave developed formal policies for dealing withit (P. R. Johnson & Indvik, 1999). Among the feworganizations that have taken the issue seri-ously, the Wall Street Journal (1995) suggestedthat a concern to “keep talent, reduce absentee-ism, and avoid liability” has been moving orga-

nizations to take action against domestic abuse(Pereira, 1995, p. B1). For instance, corporationsincluding Liz Claiborne, Polaroid Corporation,and CoreStates Financial Corporation have de-veloped a set of company-wide personnel andmanagement policies and support services spe-cifically tailored to victims of partner violence(Friedman et al., 1996). As a result, they have setan example for other businesses to follow(Friedman et al., 1996; Pereira, 1995; Petty &Kosch, 2001).

Although some firms are working to reducethe risk of intimate partner violence when it car-ries over into the workplace by creating preven-tion and protection programs, the limited num-ber of studies on the issue also suggests thatemployers sometime respond to intimate part-ner violence incidents by terminating the pri-mary victim (M. Bell et al., 2002; Browne et al.,1999; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Stanley, 1992). Forinstance, Shepard and Pence (1988) found that44% of their sample of battered women (N = 71)had been reprimanded or fired by their em-ployer for excessive absences, tardiness, andpoor productivity. Likewise, 12% to 56% of em-ployed partner violence victims experiencedsuch consequences in their lifetime (Friedman& Couper, 1987; Lloyd, 1997; Raphael, 1996).Furthermore, although participants did notidentify termination as the reason for job loss,Browne et al. (1999) reported that only one thirdof women in their study were able to maintain ajob for 6 months or more the year following apartner violence incident. Findings suggest thatthere is no one “typical” way that an organiza-tion responds to intimate partner violence as aworkplace problem. Although the stigma asso-ciated with intimate partner violence mightdrive the decisions of some employers, researchsuggests that others recognize intimate partnerviolence as a workplace problem comparable toother forms of violence that emerge withinwork settings, and thus actions need to be takento keep employees and customers safe.

Workplace Supports

During the past two decades, some organiza-tions have introduced workplace policies andprocedures, often referred to as “family-friendly policies,” to assist employees in man-

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 15

aging work and family responsibilities(Galinsky & Bond, 1998). “Family-friendly”supports generally take the form of either infor-mal or formal policies or programs. Examples ofinformal workplace supports might include asupervisor/coworker offering a listening ear orallowing occasional flexibility with starting andquitting times. Examples of formal workplacesupports include Employee Assistance Pro-grams (EAPs), flexible schedule arrangements,and management training programs pertainingto work/family issues (Swanberg et al., 2005;Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Swanberg & VanKempen, in press). Although research has re-ported positive individual and organizationaloutcomes with the adoption of family-friendlyworkplace practices (T. D. Allen et al., 2000, forreview; Bond et al., 1998; Galinsky & Bond,1998), few research studies have investigatedintimate partner violence spillover into theworkplace as a work/family issue. That is, veryfew studies have investigated the relationshipbetween intimate partner violence at work,workplace supports, and employee outcomes.Extant research on this topic suggests thatrather than immediately terminating an em-ployee on learning about her victimization, or-ganizations have other options including offer-ing formal and/or informal supports as astrategy to assist employees (Swanberg et al.,2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Swanberg &Van Kempen, in press).

Three studies were identified that specifi-cally examine whether organizations provideany form of workplace support to employedvictims of intimate partner violence. Specifi-cally, two of three studies (Swanberg et al., 2005;Swanberg & Van Kempen, in press) includedquestions in the survey instrument pertainingto the types of workplace supports received andthe level of satisfaction with the workplace sup-ports. Among the 331 respondents (employedor recently employed women who filed for adomestic violence order) who told someone atwork (Swanberg et al., 2005), the majority re-ceived either informal or formal supports fromcoworkers or supervisors. Examples of infor-mal supports received included a “listeningear” (90%), assistance from coworkers duringbreak times (62%), screening intrusive tele-

phone calls from the abusive partner (46.5%),assistance with creating a security plan shouldpartner threaten to come to the workplace(44%), general information about where to gofor help with violence at home (32%), escortingthe victim to her car at the end of the work shift(27%), and coworkers helping with out-of-workresponsibilities (36%). Formal supports offeredby workplaces and used by respondents in-cluded supervisor-approved schedule flexibil-ity to attend to personal matters (73%), work-load flexibility when preoccupied with personalmatters (49.5%), referral to counseling (15%),and an information brochure describing domes-tic violence services in the community (9%).Overall, 85% of respondents were satisfied withthe support they received from people at theirworkplace. Moreover, 72% of respondentsreported that the support helped them to keeptheir job, and 84% of women reported thathaving a job helped them to cope with the vio-lence at home.

Data suggest similar findings in the secondstudy, which inquired about types of supportsreceived and level of satisfaction with the sup-ports (Swanberg & Van Kempen, in press).Among the respondents who disclosed to some-one at work (n = 15), the most commonly offeredsupport was a listening ear (87%), followed bybreak time spent with coworkers (53%), co-worker assisting with personal matters (53%),information about resources (53%), a referral toa counselor (40%), schedule flexibility (40%), aninformational brochure (27%), workload flexi-bility (20%), help making a security plan in casebatterer showed up at workplace (13%), escortto car (13%), and phone call screening (7%).Overall, all employees who disclosed partnerviolence to someone in the workplace (27%)were extremely satisfied, and 73% were satis-fied with the supports offered to them. In addi-tion, 73% of participants reported that the work-place supports helped them stay employed, and87% reported that having a job helped themcope with the intimate partner violence.

In contrast, another study reported less posi-tive findings. Stanley’s (1992) study cited earlierindicated that only 20% of the research partici-pants had been offered any assistance by theiremployer. The quality of the assistance, as re-

16 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

ported by research participants, was eithervalue laden or simplistic in nature, as evidencedby such comments as “Why don’t you just leavehim?” The limited research available suggeststhat receiving both informal and formal work-place supports is valued and consequently pro-motes loyalty among employed victims. Yetgiven the extremely small sample size andstudy limitations, conclusions must be drawnwith caution.

Nonetheless, drawing on organizational re-search within the employee assistance field,Brownell (1996) recommended that employersmaximize workplace safety by instituting arange of formal employer policies specific topartner violence. Brownell offered a broaderdefinition of workplace supports. She catego-rized possible formal workplace supports asprevention, protection, or intervention services.Examples of such services are provided inTable 2.

Prevention-focused formal supports, such assecurity personnel, are often already in placewithin medium and larger firms to assume theresponsibility of handling workplace violenceincidents (Schell, 2003). However, security per-sonnel may need to be trained on how to man-age partner violence when it spills over into the

workplace, or new personnel may need to behired to provide prevention and interventionsupports (Brownell, 1996). Protection-focusedformal supports such as flexible work arrange-ments, screening phone calls, or providingleave with job security are workplace policiesdesigned to keep employees safe and to keepthem working, whether it be at an alternate jobsite or an alternate work schedule. The thirdtype of formal workplace support includes pro-grams such as EAPs. EAPs, in particular, are es-pecially effective in assisting employees whoare experiencing partner violence (Chenier,1998). More specifically, EAPs can benefit em-ployees while also resulting in economic sav-ings for the employer by increasing productiv-ity, decreasing absenteeism, and strengtheningmorale (Chenier, 1998). The U.S. Department ofLabor concluded that every dollar invested inEAPs resulted in a savings of $5 to $16 (Chenier,1998).

Although several companies, such as Polar-oid, Liz Claiborne, and Marshall’s (Brownell,1996), have been pioneers in providing such for-mal workplace supports to their employees,there is no research indicating the outcomes ofsuch supports. Though it is speculated that suchsupports may enhance victims’ ability to main-

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 17

TABLE 2: Formal Employer Supports

Prevention Protection Intervention

• Partner violence education programsfor supervisors: helping supervisorsrecognize warning signs and enhanc-ing familiarity with community part-ner violence resources

• Partner violence education programsfor employees encouraging disclosure

• Partner violence education for secu-rity personnel.

• Leave time without penalty so em-ployee can keep court appointmentsor go to safe shelters

• Flexible work hours• Workplace transfers• Alter work schedule to confuse

perpetrator• Relocation of victim’s work station• Temporarily altering job responsibili-

ties/adjusting expectations• Observation of protection/restraining

orders• Provision of legal assistance• Provision of a cell phone• Phone call screenings• Silent alarms at victim’s work station• Providing photo of perpetrator to se-

curity personnel to spot intruder• Security camera• Security escort to vehicle• Priority parking near building• Enhanced parking lot lighting

• Employee Assistance Programs(EAPs) staffed with partner violenceprofessionals

• Counseling services through EAPs• Resource referrals to outside partner

violence services• Assistance with safety planning• Emergency funds for crisis situations

SOURCE:Bell et al.(2002),Brownell (1996),FamilyViolencePreventionFund (2003), Johnson& Indvik (1999),Kinney (1995),Reynolds (1997).

tain employment, empirical evidence is lacking.This clearly constitutes an area for furtherresearch.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this article is to examine theliterature on violence against women and em-ployment. Specifically, the literature review dis-cussed research pertaining to the (a) types of jobinterference tactics used by abusers, (b) em-ployee-level consequences of partner violence,(c) victimized employee responses to intimatepartner violence, (d) organizational-level con-sequences of partner violence, and (e) employerresponses to intimate partner violence. The as-sociation between victimization and employ-ment is complex (see Key Points of the ResearchReview). The research to date suggests that inti-mate partner violence does not prevent victimsfrom working; however, it does prevent victimsfrom maintaining long-term stable jobs becausewomen may need to leave jobs for safety rea-sons. Job interference tactics used by abusersfall into three types of actions: sabotage, stalk-ing, and on-the-job harassment. As a result ofthese behaviors, some victims of partner vio-lence struggle to be employed, others manageto obtain employment but fail to maintain it,whereas still others cannot obtain employmentat all. Employers spend an estimated $3 billionto $5 billion yearly on costs associated withpartner violence, including increased produc-tion, medical, administrative, and liabilitycosts. Employer responses to partner violencehave been mixed. That is, key organizationaladministrators have traditionally not viewedintimate partner violence as an issue needingorganizational attention, despite the organiza-tional costs associated with the social problem.The varied responses to victimization disclo-sure at work include job termination as well asthe provision of informal and/or formal sup-ports. Limited extant research suggests thatworkplace supports have positive short-termeffects on employment outcomes. Despite thepotential for positive outcomes resulting fromdisclosure, research suggests that not all partnerviolence victims feel comfortable informingsomeone at work, as they fear being fired or

they feel the problem is manageable on theirown. The following section sets an agenda forfurther research and practice interventions re-garding victimization and employment.

IMPLICATIONS: FUTURE DIRECTIONS FORRESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Research: Developing a Better Under-standing of the Relationships Between Inti-mate Partner Violence and Employment

Although research has revealed the complexnature of the intersection between intimatepartner violence and employment, extant litera-ture continues to be plagued by limitations andcaveats. These shortcomings as well as futureresearch directions are discussed below.

Research Limitations

One of the primary limitations of the studiesreviewed is that many are cross-sectional in na-ture and do not take into account temporal fac-tors such as the relationship between violentoutbursts and poor work performance (Browneet al., 1999). The one longitudinal study con-ducted to date (Browne et al., 1999) demon-strated a relationship between severe partnerviolence and job instability. Additional longitu-dinal studies are needed to further build on thisfinding. Another limitation of this review is thatmany of the studies of intimate partner violenceand employment rely on small samples. Assuch, it is difficult to draw general conclusionsfrom the findings. Thus, future research on thistopic warrants studies with large samples andrigorous methods.

A third limitation of intimate partner vio-lence and employment studies is that many in-vestigations are conducted using low-incomesamples. As such, in many of the studies, em-ployment outcome variables were strictly aboutjob attainment or job tenure. However, theremay be other employment and economic factorsthat are strongly related to partner violence. Forinstance, what are the long-term economic ef-fects of job instability resulting from partner vi-olence? Or for women who are able to maintainstable employment despite experiencing part-

18 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

ner violence, what effects do the consequencesassociated with the abuse have on performancereviews and promotional opportunities?

Future Research Directions

From the perspective of the employed victim,longitudinal research focusing on the complexnuances associated with partner violence andemployment is long overdue for three primaryreasons. First, authors concur with Browne et al.(1999); Corcoran, Danziger, Kalil, and Seefeldt(2000); Riger et al., 1998; and Riger and Staggs(2004) that future research is needed that fol-lows partner violence victims over time, specifi-cally documenting temporal relationships be-tween violent episodes and employmentfactors. As Danziger and Seefeldt (2002) noted,“studies [pertaining to domestic violence] thattake a snapshot of individuals at one point intime cannot address the extent to which barriers[to work] persist over time and the possible ef-fect of such persistent barriers on consistent em-ployment” (p. 77). Furthermore, H. Bell (2003)suggested that for some women, there is a verycomplicated cyclical relationship between abu-sive behavior, employment, and unemploy-ment. A more precise assessment between part-ners’ violent behaviors and employmentbehaviors will allow for more effective clinicalinterventions with victims and batterers, and itwill allow for accurate workplace interventionsaimed to prevent and protect people in theworkplace. Second, longitudinal researchshould include a focus on victims of partner vio-lence who manage to stay employed for longerperiods of time, as such research will help deter-mine what individual and workplace factorsmight contribute to stable employment. Andthird, a richer and more comprehensive under-standing of the effects of partner violence onemployment could be gathered if researchsamples included victims across economicbrackets, occupational levels, and all agegroups.

From the perspective of the workplace, fur-ther research is needed in three areas. First, thereviewed research demonstrates that partnerviolence has a significant impact on the work-place; however, there is limited information onthe employee prevalence of partner violence

and its effects on employment and job perfor-mance. More specifically, information is lackingabout the overall prevalence of intimate partnerviolence among the general workforce. Measur-ing how this social ill affects the overall em-ployed population could assist in building astrong rationale for employer involvement inaddressing this issue. Furthermore, althoughoutside the parameters of this article, work-places may incur costs related to perpetrators(Leone et al., 2004; Rothman, 2002). For in-stance, Rothman (2002) reported that organiza-tions incurred costs because of the absence ofemployed perpetrators as a result of time in jail,court, counseling, and meeting with probationofficers. Moreover, Barling and Rosenbaum(1986) and Melzer (2002) suggested that astressful work climate may contribute to part-ner violence. Thus, to understand the full effectsof intimate partner violence on partner-victim-ized women and on organizations, it is neces-sary to study the effects of perpetrators’ actionson organizations. In addition to the lack of in-formation pertaining to the incidence of partnerviolence in the general employed population,there is also a lack of information pertaining tothe effects of intimate partner violence onorganizations, including its effects when itspills over into the workplace. Duffy et al. (2005)suggested that

developing a better understanding of how intimatepartner violence affects organizations and employ-ees in the workplace should lead to more effectiveorganizational interventions that will minimizecosts and contribute to the overall efforts at reducingintimate partner violence’s devastating conse-quences. (p. 14)

Second, although OSHA has set out guidingregulations pertaining to workplace violenceand the handling of partner violence when itspills over into the workplace, very little re-search has been conducted on employers’knowledge of the consequences that intimatepartner violence may have on the workplace, at-titudes and perceptions about partner violence,and actions taken once partner-violence spill-over situations become apparent within theworkplace. Furthermore, no information couldbe found about the prevalence of employers

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 19

that implement intimate partner violence man-agement and staff education/training pro-grams. In addition, the reviewed literatureimplies that the stigma associated with intimatepartner violence sometimes prevents victimsfrom seeking assistance at the workplace. If em-ployees felt more comfortable coming forwardabout their domestic situations and coworkersand managers understood how to manage theinformation, then the workplace might becomea safer place to seek assistance. Thus, further re-search is needed to understand intimate partnerviolence from a workplace perspective, specifi-cally focusing on employers’ knowledge andattitudes about partner violence and the actionstaken when it spills over into the workplace.

Third, assuming other longitudinal data con-firms Browne et al.’s (1999) findings that part-ner violence does not prevent employment butrather affects job stability, further investigationinto the strategies employers could use to helpvictims of partner violence stay employed forlonger periods of time is warranted. For in-stance, research within the interdisciplinaryfield of work and family suggests that work-place supports (i.e., supervisor support, flexiblework schedules, alternate work hours) are asso-ciated with reduced job turnover, reduced tardi-ness, and increased job satisfaction (Bond et al.,1998; see T. D. Allen et al., 2000 for review). Assuch, considering Swanberg and colleagues’(Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005;Swanberg & Van Kempen, in press) researchand borrowing from research within the field ofwork and family, it seems plausible that work-place supports may also have positive workoutcomes for victims of intimate partner vio-lence. Thus, an intervention study focusing onthe relationship between workplace supportsand job outcomes among victims of partnerviolence is another important area of inquiry.

Practice: Applying Current Knowledgeto Community and Workplace Practice

Assisting Employed Victims ofIntimate Partner Violence

Research findings clearly suggest that inti-mate partner abuse is not isolated to the home.As such, social service workers can possible

play a role in helping victims manage the de-mands of work while also staying safe. Forinstance, social service workers might integrateinto their counseling interventions with em-ployed victims of partner violence (if they havenot already) a variety of topics pertaining towork. In fact, a study pertaining to the needsand the prioritization of help-seeking behaviorsamong survivors of partner violence 6 monthsafter leaving a shelter (N = 143) found that survi-vors reported that 60% wanted assistance withissues pertaining to employment and 63% ac-cessed community-based employment services(N. Allen, Bybee, & Sullivan, 2004). Partner vio-lence counselors and advocates may help vic-tims extend their safety plans to includeworkplaces (Petty & Kosch, 2001), and they mayassist survivors in finding employment (N.Allen et al., 2004). Counselors could also play arole in helping victims strategize whether to tellsomeone at work about their abusive situationand how. Research findings (Lemon, 2001;Swanberg et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005)reveal that partner violence victims might be re-luctant to tell someone at work about their situa-tion for a variety of reasons. Yet two studies im-ply that when victims asked for help fromcoworkers or supervisors, positive outcomes re-sulted. Thus, assisting employed victims incarefully considering the pros and cons of dis-closing this information to an employer couldbe enormously beneficial. Furthermore, socialservice workers, with the victim’s permission,could act as an intermediary between the victimand the employer (Lemon, 2001). That is, acounselor or victim’s advocate could speak tothe employee’s supervisor, educating him orher about partner violence and the employee’ssituation, as well as collaboratively creating aplan that aims to keep the employee and work-place safe while also allowing the employee tocontinue working.

Workplace Applications3

Within the workplace, there are several stepsthat employers can take depending on the orga-nization’s size, commitment to the issue, and re-sources. Ideally, workplace partner violencepolicies should focus on prevention, protection,and assistance (Friedman et al., 1996; Hoffman

20 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

& Baron, 2001; Petty & Kosch, 2001). Petty andKosch (2001) recommended that workplace vio-lence policies include two key components: (a) azero-tolerance policy for any type of violent be-havior, including partner violence; and (b) aprocedure for confidential reporting of vio-lence-related matters. This policy can be ex-panded to include workplace partner violenceby explicitly identifying partner-violence-re-lated behaviors that are prohibited at the work-place and on its property and the specific proce-dures that will be taken if such actions arediscovered. As well, the policy should create aset of clear and simple steps that should betaken by managers, supervisors, security per-sonnel, and coworkers if partner violence inci-dents spill over into the workplace. It is recom-mended that all employees should be madeaware of workplace partner violence policiesand procedures and that the information shouldbe distributed and displayed in anonymouslocations.

Given the shame and stigma associated withpartner violence, demystifying the disgrace as-sociated with this social problem might encour-age employees to come forward and to conse-quently reduce or eliminate the risk of partnerviolence spilling over into the workplace. Strat-egies used by some companies to address thisissue include requiring all employees to attendgeneral information sessions on partner vio-lence that provide information about commu-nity resources, distributing information materi-als about partner violence and where to seekhelp, and posting materials in public and pri-vate places. Furthermore, Friedman et al. (1996)recommended that partner violence be incorpo-rated into all training seminars, including officesafety and employee health or employee bene-fits training, as a way to destigmatize the issue.

Numerous publications on workplace vio-lence strongly recommend that employers re-quire managers and supervisors to participatein workplace violence prevention training pro-grams (Hoffman & Baron, 2001; Lemon, 2001;Petty & Kosch, 2001). It is recommended thatthe workplace violence prevention programsinclude a component specifically about work-place intimate partner violence. Recommendedtopics include recognizing partner-violence-re-

lated symptoms among employees, employeeconfidentiality, organizational procedures forhandling partner violence incidents, OSHA’sgeneral duty-to-warn clause, EAPs, communityresources available to help employees, andworkplace policies and practices that are avail-able to accommodate victims’ needs (leaves ofabsences, flexible work hours, Family MedicalLeave Act).

Finally, specific personnel policies can be cre-ated to protect intimate partner violence victims(Akukwe, 1998; Friedman et al., 1996; Petty &Kosch, 2001). Policies might include paid timeoff, extended leave of absence, workplace relo-cation policies, flexible work hours that may al-low victims to apply for court orders or seeknew housing arrangements, or the provision ofescort services to and from employee’s car (seeImplications for Practice, Policy, and Research).

CONCLUSION

Intimate partner violence has significant so-cial and economic consequences for victims andthe organizations at which they work. The liter-ature reviewed suggests that intimate partnerviolence has a significant effect on employedvictims’ day-to-day work life, yet the long-termconsequences are still unclear. Moreover, inti-mate partner violence has serious economicconsequences for employers, especially whenindividuals feel stigmatized and are thereforeinhibited from disclosing the abuse to someoneat work or when intimate partner violence is notrecognized as a workplace problem. To fullycomprehend the social, psychological, and eco-nomic costs of intimate partner violence on em-ployees’ work performance and its costs whenit spills over into victims’ jobs and the placesthey work, further research is needed. Yet thereis enough information to suggest that increas-ing people’s awareness about the consequencesof intimate partner violence on women’s em-ployment and the organizations in which theywork might help reduce the economic andsocial costs of this issue. Likewise, expandingsocial services to include topics related to work-place safety planning could possibly assist vic-tims of intimate partner violence in keepingtheir job.

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 21

There are several limitations to this article.First, there may be other factors that are associ-ated with the intersection of intimate partner vi-olence and employment that were not includedin this article because of the fact that this topic isa fairly new area of inquiry. Second, because thisarea of research inquiry is new, there were lim-ited empirical studies from which to draw. Insome instances, the same articles were used toilluminate key topic areas. Third, despite an ex-haustive search, it is likely that not all of the rele-vant research studies were included in this re-

view. Even with these limitations, this articleprovides an overview and a synthesis of the ex-panding body of literature focused on victim-ization, employment, and organizational conse-quences. In addition, the review provides aframework that can be used to further the re-search in this area, and to enhance thecomprehensiveness of workplace and socialservice interventions.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, POLICY, & RESEARCH

Research

From the perspective of the employed victim,longitudinal research designs inclusive of thefollowing three issues may help to further un-derstand and address this social problem:

• assess the temporal relationships between vio-lent episodes and employment factors;

• determine the strategies and coping skills usedby short- and long-term employed partner vio-lence victims;

• include economically diverse samples that cutacross various occupational and age catego-ries.

From the perspective of the employer, furtherresearch is needed in three areas.

• More information is needed about the preva-lence of partner violence among the U.S.workforce and about the economic, social,and psychological costs of partner violencewhen it intersects with the workplace.

• Further research pertaining to employers’knowledge and attitudes about partner vio-lence is needed as well as the actions takenwhen partner violence interferes with work-place operations.

• Further research into the strategies employershave established to help victims of partner vio-lence maintain employment for longer periodsof time could serve as examples for other em-ployers.

Practice

• Social service workers could play a key role inhelping employed victims manage the de-mands of work while also staying safe by inte-grating into counseling sessions issuespertaining to work.

• Social service workers could also help victims ex-tend safety plans to include workplaces and helpvictims strategize about whether to and how to tellsomeone at work about the abuse.

• With the victim’s permission, social service workerscould act as an intermediary between the victim andthe workplace.

Workplace Policy

• Organizations could perhaps establish “work-place partner violence” policies that specifi-cally focus on prevention, protection, andassistance.

• Prevention policies could focus on zero toler-ance for any type of violent behavior, includ-ing partner violence.

• Protection policies could establish proceduresfor confidentially reporting violence-relatedmatters and supervisor and employee trainingthat educates people about partner violenceand resources available to assist people expe-riencing such issues.

• Personnel policies can be created to protectpartner violence victims. Such policies mightinclude paid time off, extended leave of ab-sence, flex-time, or workplace relocation poli-cies.

22 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

NOTES1. This is a national telephone survey on violence against

women conducted in the United States from November 1995 toMay 1996.

2. This is a survey maintained by the Department of Justice thatgathers data on criminal victimization from a national sample ofhousehold respondents.

3. For the purpose of this article, authors specifically addressworkplace partner violence policies that should be included with-in broader workplace violence policies.

REFERENCESAkukwe, C. (1998). The potential impact of the 1996 wel-

fare reforms on intimate partner violence. Family Com-munity Health, 20(4), 54-62.

Allard, M. A., Albelda, R., Collen, M. E., & Cosenza, C.(1997). In harm’s way? Domestic violence, AFDC receipt,and welfare reform in Massachusetts. Boston: University ofMassachusetts, McCormack Institute, and Center forSurvey Research.

Allen, N., Bybee, D., & Sullivan, C. (2004). Batteredwomen’s multiple needs. Violence Against Women, 10(9),1015-1035.

Allen, T. D., Herst, D. E. L., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. (2000).Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict:A review and agenda for future research. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 5(2), 278-308.

Bachman, R. (1994). Violence and theft in the workplace. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bachman, R., & Salzman, L. E. (1995). Violence againstwomen: Estimates from the redesigned survey (Bureau ofJustice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice.

Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold. New York: Free Press.Bailyn, L., Drago, R., & Kochan, T. (2001). Integrating work

and family life: A holistic approach. Cambridge, MA: MITSloan School of Management.

Barling, J., & Rosenbaum, A. (1986). Work stressors andwife abuse. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 346-348.

Barnett, R. (1999). A new work-life model for the twenty-first century. Annals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, 562(0), 32-46.

Bell, H. (2003). Cycles within cycles. Violence AgainstWomen, 9(10), 1245-1262.

Bell, M., Moe, A., & Schweinle, W. (2002). Partner violenceand work: Not just a domestic issue. Academy of Manage-ment Best Papers Proceedings, pp. 1-27.

Bond, J. T., Galinsky, E., & Swanberg, J. (1998). The 1997National Study Of The Changing Workforce. New York:Families and Work Institute.

Brandwein, R. A. (2000). Toward real welfare reform: Thevoices of battered women. Affilia: Journal of Women andSocial Work, 15(2), 224.

Browne, A., Salomon, A., & Bassuk, S. S. (1999). The impactof recent partner violence on poor women’s capacity tomaintain work. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 393.

Brownell, P. (1996). Domestic violence in the workplace:An emergent issue. Crisis Intervention, 3, 129-141.

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

Brush, L. (2001). Poverty, battering, race and welfarereform: Black-White differences in women’s welfare-to-work transitions. Journal of Poverty, 5(1), 67-89.

Brush, L. (2002). Work-related abuse: A replication, newitems and persistent questions. Violence and Victims,17(6), 743-757.

Brush, L. (2003). Effects of work on hitting and hurting. Vio-lence Against Women, 9(10), 1213-1230.

Bureau of National Affairs. (1990). Violence and stress: Thework/family connection (Special Report No. 32). Wash-ington, DC: Author.

Busch, N., & Wolfer, T. (2002). Battered women speak out.Violence Against Women, 5(8), 566-584.

Campbell, J. (2002). Health consequences of intimate part-ner violence. Lancet, 359(9314), 1331-1337.

Campbell, J . , Jones, A., Dienemann, J., Kub, J.,Schollenberger, J., O’Campo, P., et al. (2002). Intimatepartner violence and physical health consequences.Archives of Internal Medicine, 162(10), 1157-1164.

Campbell, J., Rose, L., Kub, J., & Nedd, D. (1998). Voices ofstrength and resistance: A contextual and longitudinalanalysis of women’s responses to battering. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 743(1).

Carlson, B., McNutt, L., Choi, D., & Rose, I. (2002). Intimatepartner abuse and mental health. Violence AgainstWomen, 8(6), 720-745.

Chenier, E. (1998). The workplace: A battleground for vio-lence. Public Personnel Management, 27(3), 557-568.

Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., Kalil, A., & Seefeldt, K. (2000).How welfare reform is affecting women’s work. AnnualReview of Sociology, 26, 241-269.

Danziger, S., Corcoran, M., Danziger, S., & Heflin, C.(2000). Work, income and material hardship after wel-fare reform. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(1), 6-30.

Danziger, S., & Seefeldt, K. (2002). Barriers to employmentand the “hard to serve”: Implications for services, sanc-tions and time limits. Focus, 22(1), 76-81.

Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. M. (2005). Theradiating effects of intimate partner violence on occu-pational stress and well-being. Research in OccupationalStress and Well-Being, 4, 30-57.

East, J. F. (1999). Hidden barriers to success for women inwelfare reform. Families in Society: The Journal of Contem-porary Human Services, 80(3), 295-305.

Family Violence Prevention Fund. (2003). Workplaceimpact : Fact sheet . Retrieved from http://www.fvpf.org/workplace/facts.html

Friedman, L. N., Tucker, S. B., Neville, P. R., & Imperial, M.(1996). The impact of domestic violence on the work-place. In G. R. VandenBos & E. Q. Bulatao (Eds.), Vio-lence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions(pp. 153-161). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-cal Association.

Friedman, L. N., & Couper, S. (1987). The cost of domestic vio-lence: A preliminary investigation of the financial costs ofdomestic violence. New York: Victim Services.

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 23

Frone, M., Russell, M., & Cooper, L. (1994). Relationshipbetween job and family satisfaction: Causal ornoncausal covariation? Journal of Management, 20(3),565-579.

Galinsky, E., & Bond, J. T. (1998). The 1998 Business Work-Life Study: A sourcebook. New York: Families and WorkInstitute.

Gelles, R. J. (1976). Abused wives: Why do they stay? Jour-nal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 659-668.

Googins, B. (1991). Work/family conflicts: Private lives-public responses. New York: Auburn House.

Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A.,Perkins, C. A., & Ringel, C. (1998). Violence by inti-mates: Analysis of data on crimes by current or formerspouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.

Hoffman, S., & Baron, S. A. (2001). Stalkers, stalking, andviolence in the workplace setting. In J. A. Davis (Ed.),Stalking crimes and victim protection (pp. 139-159). Wash-ington, DC: CRC Press.

Honeycutt, T., Marshall, L., & Weston, R. (2001). Towardethnically specific models of employment, public assis-tance, and victimization. Violence Against Women, 7(2),126-140.

Johnson, H. (1995). The truth about white-collar domesticviolence. Working Woman, 20(3), 55.

Johnson, P. R., & Indvik, J. (1999). The organizational bene-fits of assisting domestically abused employees. PublicPersonnel Management, 28(3), 365-374.

Kinney, J. A. (1995). When domestic violence strikes theworkplace. HRMagazine, 40(8), 74.

Lemon, N. (2001). Domestic violence law (pp. 792-837). St.Paul, MN: West Group.

Leone, J., Johnson, M., Cohan, C., & Lloyd, S. (2004). Conse-quences of male partner violence on low-incomeminority women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66,472-490.

Libbus, M. K., Sable, M., Huneke, D., & Anger, K. (1999).Domestic violence and implications for welfare-to-work: A qualitative investigation. Employee AssistanceQuarterly, 14(4), 1-15.

Lloyd, S. (1997). The effects of domestic violence onwomen’s employment. Law & Policy, 19(2), 139-167.

Lloyd, S., & Taluc, N. (1999). The effects of male violence onfemale employment. Violence Against Women, 5(4), 370-392.

MacMillan, R., & Gartner, R. (1999, November). When shebrings home the bacon: Labor-force participation andthe risk of spousal violence against women. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 61, 947-958.

Meisel, J., Chandler, D., & Rienzi, B. (2003). Domestic vio-lence prevalence and effects on employment in two Cal-ifornia TANF populations. Violence Against Women,10(9), 961-990.

Melzer, S. (2002). Gender, work and intimate violence:Men’s occupational violence spillover and compensa-tory violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 820-832.

Moe, A., & Bell, M. (2004). Abject economics: The effects ofbattering and violence on women’s work and employ-ability. Violence Against Women, 10(1), 29-55.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003).Costs of intimate partner violence against women in theUnited States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Controland Prevention.

National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control.(1998, April). Research in brief. Stalking in America: find-ings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.Washington, DC: Author.

Pereira, J. (1995, March 2). Employers confront domesticabuse. Wall Street Journal, pp. B-1.

Petty, R. A., & Kosch, L. M. (2001). Workplace violence andunwanted pursuit: From an employer’s perspective. InJ. A. Davis (Ed.), Stalking crimes and victim protection (pp.459-485). Washington, DC: CRC Press.

Plitcha, S. B. (1996). Violence and abuse: Implications forwomen’s health. In M. M. Falik & K. S. Collins (Eds.),Women’s health: The Commonwealth Fund Survey (pp. 237-270). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Raphael, J. (1995). Domestic violence: Telling the untold wel-fare-to-work story. Chicago: Taylor Institute.

Raphael, J. (1996). Prisoners of abuse: Domestic violence andwelfare receipt. Chicago: Taylor Institute.

Raphael, J., & Tolman, R. M. (1997). Trapped by poverty/trapped by abuse: New evidence documenting the relation-ship between domestic violence and welfare. Chicago: TaylorInstitute and the University of Michigan ResearchDevelopment Center on Poverty, Risk, and MentalHealth.

Reynolds, L. (1997). Fighting domestic violence in theworkplace. HRFocus, 74(11), 8.

Rhodes, N., & McKenzie, E. (1998). Why do batteredwomen stay: Three decades of research. Aggressive Vio-lent Behavior, 3(4), 391-406.

Riger, S., Ahrens, C., Blickenstaff, A., & Camacho, J. (1998).Obstacles to employment of welfare recipients with abusivepartners. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illi-nois at Chicago.

Riger, S., Raja, S., & Camacho, J. (2002). The radiatingimpact of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interper-sonal Violence, 17(2), 184-205.

Riger, S., & Staggs, S. (2004). Welfare reform, domestic vio-lence, and employment. Violence Against Women, 10(9),961-990.

Riger, S., Staggs, S., & Schewe, P. (2004). Intimate partner vio-lence as an obstacle to employment among mothers affected bywelfare reform. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Romero, D., Chavkin, W., Wise, P., & Smith, L. (2003). Low-income mothers’ experience with poor health, hard-ship, work and violence. Violence Against Women, 10(9),1231-1244.

Rothman, E. (2002, July). Batterers in the workplace. Paperpresented at the University of New Hampshire FamilyViolence Conference, Durham, NH.

Sable, M., Libbus, K., Huneke, D., & Anger, K. (1999).Domestic violence among AFDC recipients: Implica-

24 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX

tions for welfare-to-work programs. Affilia, 14(2), 199-216.

Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Shelley,G. A. (1999). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uni-form definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta,GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Schell, B. (2003). The prevalence of sexual harassment,stalking, and false victimization syndrome cases andrelated human resource management policies in across-section of Canadian companies from January1995 through January 2000. Journal of Family Violence,18(6), 351-360.

Shepard, M., & Pence, E. (1988). The effect of battering onthe employment status of women. Affilia, 3(2), 55-61.

Stanley, C. (1992). Workplace efficiency: The effect of family vio-lence on work performance. Tulsa, OK: Domestic violenceIntervention Services.

Straus, M., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in Ameri-can families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145families. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.

Strube, M. J., & Barbour, L. S. (1984). Factors related to thedecision to leave an abusive relationship. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 46(4), 837-844.

Sullivan, C., Basta, J., Tan, C., & Davidson, W. (1992). Afterthe crisis: A needs assessment of women leaving adomestic violence shelter. Violence and Victims, 7(3), 267-274.

Sullivan, C., Campbell, R., Angelique, H., Eby, K., &Davidson, W. (1994). An advocacy intervention pro-gram for women with abusive partners: Six month fol-low-up. American Journal of Community Psychology, 11,101-122.

Swanberg, J. (2004). Illuminating gendered organizationassumptions: An important step in creating a family-friendly organization. A case study. Community, Work &Family, 7(1), 3-28.

Swanberg, J., & Logan, T. (2005, January). The effects ofintimate partner violence on women’s labor forceattachment: Experiences of women living in rural andurban Kentucky. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy, 10(1), 3-17.

Swanberg, J., Macke, C., & Logan, T. (2005). Intimate partnerviolence, women, and work: A descriptive look at work inter-ference tactics, coping with violence on the job, and informalworkplace support. Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Kentucky, Lexington.

Swanberg, J., & Van Kempen, C. (in press). The intersectionbetween intimate partner violence and the workplace:Consequences, disclosure rates and employer supports.Affilia.

Taylor, M. J., & Barusch, A. S. (2004). Personal, family, andmultiple barriers of long-term welfare recipients, SocialWork, 49(2), 175-183.

Tenbrunsel, A., Brett, J., Moaz, E., Stroh, L., & Reilly, A.(1995). Dynamic and static work-family relationships.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,63(3), 233-246.

Thoits, P. (1986). Social support as coping assistance. Jour-nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 416-423.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1997). Stalking in America: Find-ings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence, andconsequences of violence against women: Findings from theNational Violence Against Women Survey. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and conse-quences of intimate partner violence. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Tolman, R. M., & Raphael, J. (2000). Areview of research onwelfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues,56(4), 655-682.

Tolman, R. M., & Rosen, D. (2001). Domestic violence in thelives of women receiving welfare: Mental health, sub-stance dependence, and economic well-being. ViolenceAgainst Women, 7(2), 141-158.

U.S. Department of Labor, Women’s Bureau. (2004).Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/wb/faq38.htm

Violence Against Women Act of 1994. (1994). Retrievedfrom http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/vawo/laws/vawa/vawa.htm

Violence Against Women Act, HR3514 & S2110 U.S.C.A.Title 7, Sec. 701. (1998). Retrieved from http://www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/title7.pdf

Violence Against Women Act of 2000. (2000). Retrievedfrom http://www.acadv.org/vawabillsummary.html

Votruba-Drzal, E., Lohman, B., & Chase-Lansdale, P. L.(2002). Violence in intimate relationships as women transi-tion from welfare to work. Evanston: IL: NorthwesternUniversity, Institute for Policy Research.

Warchol, G. (1998). Workplace violence, 1992-1996. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms.

Westrum, D., & Fremouw, W. J. (1998). Stalking behavior: Aliterature review and suggested functional analyticassessment technology. Aggression and Violence Behavior,3, 255.

Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why work and familyconflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Wilson, K. J. (1997). When violence begins at home: A compre-hensive guide to understanding and ending domestic abuse.Alameda, CA: Hunter House.

Wisner, C. L., Gilmer, T. P., Saltzman, L. E., & Zink, T. M.(1999). Intimate partner violence against women: Dovictims cost health plans more? Journal of Family Prac-tice, 48(6), 439-443.

Yoshioka, M., Gilbert, L., El-Bassel, N., & Baig-Amin, M.(2003). Social support and disclosure of abuse: Compar-ing South Asian and Hispanic battered women. Journalof Family Violence, 18(3), 171-180.

Zachary, M.-K. (2000). Labor law for supervisors: Domesticviolence as a workplace issue. Supervision, 61(4), 23-26.

Swanberg et al. / IPV, EMPLOYMENT, AND THE WORKPLACE 25

Jennifer E. Swanberg, Ph.D., is assistant professor atthe College of Social Work, University of Kentucky. Herresearch focuses on the relationships between work, fam-ily, and organizational effectiveness, especially amongunder-studied populations including low-wage workers,victims of intimate partner violence, informal caregivers,and workers employed in nonprofit public organizations.She has published in journals such as Work, Family andCommunity, Nonprofit Management & Leadership,Journal of Economic and Family Issues, FamilyIssues, and Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-ogy. Her research has been funded by the Ford Founda-tion, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. She has lectured andpublished reports on creating work environments sup-portive of employees’ work, personal, and family needs.She has appeared as a work-family expert on national tele-vision and radio including MSNBC, CNN, NPR, BBC,CBC, and numerous radio stations throughout the UnitedStates.

T. K. Logan, Ph.D., is currently an associate professorin the Department of Behavioral Science at the Universityof Kentucky, with appointments in the Center on Drugand Alcohol Research. She has been funded by theNational Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and by the

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism(NIAAA) and has completed several drug court programevaluations as well as studies focused on intimate partnerviolence and divorce; intimate partner violence and cus-tody outcomes; stalking victimization and perpetration;health and mental health status, barriers, and service useamong women; HIV risk behavior; and health, mentalhealth, substance use, and victimization among rural andurban women. She is also senior author on several booksfocused on victimization, mental health, and substanceabuse among women and is coauthoring an evaluationtext.

Caroline Macke, MSW, is pursuing a doctoral degree insocial work at the University of Kentucky. While workingas a research assistant for Jennifer E. Swanberg, herresearch activities have focused predominantly on domes-tic violence and employment. She is also interested inattachment theory, particularly as it pertains to violentrelationships. She obtained her MSW from the Universityof Kentucky. Before coming to the University of Kentucky,she was a student at Thomas More College, where shereceived a bachelor’s degree in economics, business, andinternational studies as well as an associate’s degree inpolitical science.

26 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / Month XXXX