Decriminalizing Domestic Violence. Leigh Goodmark
is one of the most, if not the most, significant correlates of partner violence.”14 Intimate partner violence is particularly prevalent among women on welfare. Between 40 percent and 60 percent of the welfare population has been subjected to intimate partner violence at some time.15
Intimate partner violence is also associated with indicators of material deprivation: food insufficiency, lack of stable housing, and utility disconnection, for example. Women subjected to abuse are more likely to be materially deprived than women who have not been abused. Upon leaving abusive relationships, some women struggle financially, finding it difficult to meet their basic needs; material deprivation may continue for as long as three years after the abuse has ended. Sophie’s story is illustrative. After Sophie obtained a protective order, her partner, Henry, “emptied the entire apartment, turned off the utilities, cancelled the lease (which was only in his name), and moved to another state. ‘So there I was,” Sophie recalled, “’in an empty apartment, eight months pregnant, with a toddler, with no job.” Over time, Sophie’s economic status deteriorated. “I couldn’t keep a job. I’d try to get a job and I’d lose it because I couldn’t handle myself at work. . . . I had no money, I had no food, I had no brain, I had no time, I had no friends, I had no church.” Court appearances cost Sophie job after job, and her inability to keep a job prevented her from seeking full custody of her children after losing them to Henry.16
Women subjected to abuse earn less than other women, with those effects beginning as early as adolescence. Being abused in a teen dating relationship depresses women’s adult earnings, a deficit attributable to their lower educational attainment. Women subjected to abuse earn $3,900 less annually than women who had not experienced violence17 and are paid 76 cents per hour less than nonabused women.18 Women who sought protective orders saw their wages decrease 53 cents per hour after doing so.19 The more severe the violence to which they are subjected, the less women earn. Women may also experience material deprivation because programs for women subjected to abuse are sometimes reluctant to provide services to very poor women, particularly if they are considered deviant in some way (for example, if they are homeless or substance users).20
Intimate partner violence is more frequent and more severe for low-income women and is particularly acute among low-income women of color, for reasons that may be tied to neighborhood disadvantage. A number of studies have found that intimate partner violence is more prevalent and more serious among couples who live in low-income neighborhoods, with rates of intimate partner violence highest among those in the lowest-income locations. Women who live in economically disadvantaged communities and are struggling financially are at greatest risk of intimate partner violence.21The overrepresentation of people of color in economically stressed neighborhoods likely accounts for the high rates of intimate partner violence among low-income women of color.
There is a reciprocal relationship between intimate partner violence and neighborhood disadvantage. Intimate partner violence is more prevalent in low-income neighborhoods, and couples experiencing intimate partner violence are more likely to be economically vulnerable and to live in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Both couples who are financially overextended and those who believe themselves to be financially strained are at greater risk for intimate partner violence. Moving to a better resourced neighborhood does not eliminate the risk. Economically vulnerable couples always have higher rates of intimate partner violence than those with fewer economic constraints (as much as three times higher, according to one study), regardless of where they reside. The combination of neighborhood disadvantage and subjective feelings of economic strain is particularly problematic, however; 14 percent of couples living in low-income neighborhoods and reporting acute economic stress experience intimate partner violence, as opposed to 7 percent of high-strain couples living in advantaged neighborhoods. The relationship between community income levels and intimate partner violence is not a function of who lives in low-income neighborhoods or the individual characteristics of the men living in those neighborhoods. The relationship is instead a result of the neighborhood context—living in a low-income neighborhood in and of itself increases the risk of intimate partner violence.22
ECONOMIC ABUSE
Economic abuse is defined as “behaviors that control a woman’s ability to acquire, use, and maintain economic resources, thus threatening her economic security and potential for self-sufficiency.”23 Economic abuse includes economic control (blocking the acquisition of assets, controlling how resources are distributed, and monitoring how they are used), economic exploitation (depleting women’s resources), and employment sabotage.
Most women who are subjected to other forms of abuse are also economically abused. Estimates of the prevalence of economic abuse range from 68 percent in a 2004 study of a shelter-based population24 to 100 percent of women receiving services from a community-based antiviolence organization in a 2015 study.25 Ninety-four percent of participants in a financial literacy program for women subjected to abuse had experienced economic abuse.26 Between 79 percent and 92 percent reported economic control, 79 percent experienced economic exploitation, and between 78 percent and 88 percent had their employment sabotaged. Most women report that their partners are responsible for their economic problems.27
Economic abuse takes a number of forms. Economic control includes restricting or preventing access to joint bank accounts or other sources of income, refusing to contribute financially, forcing a person to make deposits into an abusive partner’s bank account, withholding funds or providing a strict allowance, denying access to financial information, demanding to know how money is spent, or making economic decisions without consulting a partner. When Darlene asked her husband for money to buy shoes for her children and grandchildren, for example, her husband responded, “I’ve decided that this is my money. I’ll do what I want to do with my money. I don’t have to give you any money, spend money on you, I don’t have to pay the bills ‘cause I don’t live here. . . . And by the way, I took your name off the checking account and the savings account. So that’s it. If you want some money . . . if you think you need some money, then you need to ask me for some money. And if I have it I’ll give you half of what you ask for.”28 Increases in economic control often correlate with decreases in the self-sufficiency of the person subjected to abuse.
Economic exploitation includes paying bills late, spending money intended to pay rent or bills, stealing money, creating costs by destroying property, failing to pay taxes or putting tax liability in a partner’s name, or generating debt. Kara was forced to declare bankruptcy when her partner ruined her credit; Louise lost her home after her partner insisted that she add him to the title, then took out a second mortgage on the home, which he failed to pay.29 Sixteen percent of the women living in Humboldt Park, Chicago, reported economic control and exploitation in a 1999 study: their partners withheld money from them, made them ask for money, or took their money.30 Note that this study surveyed all women living in the area—not solely those who reported intimate partner violence.
Coerced debt—amassing and using consumer debt to exercise control over a partner—is a particularly pernicious type of economic abuse with long-term consequences for people subjected to abuse. Coerced debt can take a number of forms: obtaining credit through the use of fraud or duress; secretly taking out credit cards using a partner’s name; pressuring or forcing a partner to sign loan documents; tricking a partner into relinquishing rights to property, such as a family home; refusing to allow a partner access to credit; and borrowing knowing the partner will be liable for the debt. Coerced debt may not be discovered until after people subjected to abuse have left their relationships, when the debt is already delinquent or is close to being delinquent. Bankruptcy filings provide an interesting perspective on this problem. Data from the 2007 Consumer Bankruptcy Project indicate that 18 percent of the married or cohabiting women who filed for bankruptcy were subjected to intimate partner abuse in the year prior to filing, suggesting that coerced debt plays a significant role in bankruptcy filings for women with partners. Coerced debt is problematic not just because of the immediate financial hardship it imposes on people subjected to abuse (which can include losing assets, like homes, that are used for collateral), but also because those debts are recorded on credit reports, which are used by everyone from employers to landlords and utility companies to