Domestic Violence and Women's Employment - CiteSeerX

1

Domestic Violence and Women’s Employment Suzanne Franzway, Carole Zufferey and Donna Chung This research is funded and supported by the South Australian Government as part of the Women’s Safety Strategy, Office for Women.

Abstract Domestic violence has a severe impact on women’s paid employment. Little research exists in Australia that links the impact of domestic violence to paid work. This research project investigates the barriers and supports for women living with or escaping domestic violence whilst working or seeking employment. A qualitative action research methodology is used to identify responses by relevant agencies, including women’s services, trade unions, health services, employers, job network and income support providers, in relation to women’s experiences and to policy and the research literature. This paper will focus on the literature review, which provides a wide and comprehensive appraisal of literature in the areas of women, work and domestic violence, and how violence in the home can impact on women’s employment and their economic futures.

Introduction This paper discusses early responses to domestic violence by the feminist movement, examines key surveys and statistics about violence against women, reviews previous studies in the area of domestic violence and employment, discusses the impact of domestic violence on women’s employment including welfare dependency and outlines important international and Australian initiatives undertaken by employers, trade unions and in federal and state government policies. Terminology referring to ‘domestic violence’ in the literature is variable, depending on authors and reports. A number of different terms are used to refer to violence against women in intimate relationships, including ‘violence against women’ (such as ‘Violence Against Women Australia Says No’ Campaign) or gendered violence, which tends to be used by authors to clearly link gendered relations and violence; intimate partner violence (VicHealth, 2004); domestic violence (PADV reports, Chung et al, 2000 & 2004, Franzway & Chung, 2005); family or community violence (especially used when referring to violence in Aboriginal communities) and battered women and batterers (often used in the USA). Whilst acknowledging that there have been concerns raised and critiques of some of these terms (see Phillips, 2006), to be consistent with literature discussed, these terms are used interchangeably in this paper. The issues of workplace violence and domestic violence have usually been dealt with in separate literatures. The broad issue of workplace violence has been a major concern for communities and employers worldwide. Chappell & Di

2 Martino (2006:187) have identified three types of perpetrators of workplace violence: Type 1 is the external intruder, which often appears to be a community ‘crime’ problem but is also a workplace health and safety problem covered by OH&S legislation; Type 2 is violence related to dissatisfied customers and Type 3 is employee related violence. Along with robberies and so forth, ‘domestic violence’ when it affects the workplace (including physical assaults and psychological harassment of employees) is one component of Type 1 workplace violence, and requires a clear policy response by employers. Addressing violence against women is a community responsibility but employers also have a legal responsibility to maintain a safe work environment for their employees. At a global level, workplace violence and domestic violence are increasingly being recognised as not merely episodic, individual problems but structural, strategic problems embedded in wider social, economic, organisational and cultural factors, with enormous social and economic costs to victims, families, employers and the community (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006: 298). In Australia, in the nine years up to June 1998, 701 Australian women were killed by their intimate partner or other family member- 77 women per year, and 132 of these women were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander origin (Mouzos, 1999:19; Summers, 2003:79-83). Workplace and domestic or family violence is not a private, personal issue but a major public, political social problem that needs to move from ‘an issue for discussion to an issue for action’, and to be proactively addressed with a preventative, systemic and targeted approach (Chappell & Di Martino, 2006: 301). ‘Violence against women’ is the terminology used by the South Australian Office for Women because this enables workplace violence and domestic violence to be incorporated into a broader human rights framework that addresses all forms of violence against women. The beginnings The second wave of feminists brought violence against women to light in a series of stages. A strong ideology in Australia (and indeed across the world) that regards violence against women in the home and family as a private matter not to be meddled with by the state has functioned to silence women’s voices. To make visible violence against women requires strong advocacy (Weeks & Gilmore, 1996:141). During the 1970s, the Women’s Electoral Lobby (alongside the Women’s Liberation Movement) was influential in the political process and a number of women’s information and health services were opened (Weeks & Gilmore, 1996:142). Kinder (1980) documented the development of the Women’s Liberation Movement in Adelaide from 1969 to 1974. She noted that domestic violence and rape were not responded to until 1973 and 1974, when initially women in the Movement housed women escaping violence in their own homes, temporarily for 6-8 weeks (Kinder, 1980:94). In June 1974, women squatted in a vacant run down house on Torrens Road and set up the first Women’s Liberation Shelter, but disagreements between the collective and women on the roster meant that the three Women’s Liberationists withdrew from the shelter in December 1974 (Kinder, 1980: 128). Hope Haven also opened in June 1974 run by Reverend and Mrs Burns (with different aims), and the Women’s Electoral Lobby (WEL) opened a North Adelaide shelter with a paid coordinator in December 1974 (Kinder, 1980: 128).

3

In Sydney, the women’s refuge movement also began in the 1974 when a group of women squatted in an empty house, established legal tenancy and convinced the Church of England to allow them to stay there rent free until they could get money from the federal government (Weeks & Gilmore, 1996:141). In the mid 1970s, rape and sexual assault were increasingly being acknowledged, the Sydney Rape Crisis was the first established in Australia (in 1974) and the Women Against Rape lobby was active in Melbourne (Weeks & Gilmore, 1996:143). More currently, in the period 2002/03, there were 286 government (SAAP) funded accommodation services for women escaping domestic violence (AIHW, 2003) and in 2004-5 there were 283 (AIHW, 2006:89). Background: Violence Against Women Two national surveys have been key to documenting violence against women in Australia: the Women's Safety Survey (WSS) in 1996 followed by the Personal Safety Survey (PSS) in 2005. In these surveys, violence was defined as any incident involving the occurrence, attempt or threat of either physical or sexual assault, which would be deemed an offence under criminal law (ABS, 1996:2). The WSS included approximately 6,300 female respondents while the PSS sampled approximately 11,800 females and 4,500 males (ABS, 1996, 2006). In 1996, 23% of women reported experiencing violence in an intimate relationship (ABS 1996). The PSS found that since the age of 15, 20% of women had been physically assaulted by a male and 5% by a female, while 28% of males had experienced assault by another male and 9% by a female (ABS, 2006). Violence in general and in intimate relationships is primarily committed by men- men are responsible for 91% of homicides, 90% of assaults and nearly all sexual assaults and robberies (Chung & Bagshaw, 2000). The percentage of physical assaults reported to police increased between 1996 and 2005 from 19% to 36% (ABS, 1996, 2006). However, these statistics are under reported because both surveys found that women were less likely to report recent assaults to police if they were by a current partner or boyfriend, and 67% of the physical assaults by males on females were committed by a partner, including a current or previous partner or boyfriend/date (ABS, 1996, 2006). According to the ABS Personal Safety Survey, 55% to 70% of women that have and are experiencing some form of violence (stalking, harassment, physical assault and threat, sexual assault, violence by current and previous partners) are working full or part time (ABS, 2006). American research found that 50% to 74 % of employed battered women were harassed by their partners while they were at work (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 1998). Furthermore, labour force participation for women has steadily increased, which means that violence against women by an intimate partner is increasingly extending to the workplace, with an impact on the individual, the employer, work colleagues and the community. This research builds on Chung, Colley and Zannettino’s report funded by the Australian Government under Partnerships Against Domestic Violence (PADV) titled ‘Effective Integrated Approaches in the Delivery of Services and the Responses for Women Experiencing Domestic Violence’ (2004), that recommended increasing collaboration between domestic violence and

4 employment and training services. In the USA and the UK, a number of practice based initiatives and policy commitments to domestic violence and the workplace are evident. However, in Australia little evaluation and research has been specifically undertaken about the impact of domestic violence on the workplace (VCCAV, 2004). Consistent with the parameters of the South Australian government, this research focuses on metropolitan and rural South Australian responses to domestic violence and employment. The aim of this study is to link domestic violence and employment and bring together the perspectives of diverse stakeholders who support women experiencing domestic violence, including trade unions and employers. Costello, Chung and Carson’s (2005) exploratory study of the intersections between domestic violence and employment interviewed 10 workers from domestic violence and employment agencies in metropolitan Adelaide about service and interagency practices. They found that workers supported the employment of women affected by domestic violence (especially after leaving) and found that many employers aware of violence actively assisted women to deal with harassment. However, the health and emotional impact of domestic violence on women affected their ability to gain and maintain employment, such as for example their confidence and ability to work with males in situations of power inequality (Costello, Chung & Carson, 2005: 258). The domestic violence workers saw employment as a low priority, compared with therapeutic intervention and access to accommodation and welfare benefits, which was based on a crisis intervention model of practice and a client centred approach where women rarely requested assistance with education and employment. In contrast, job network providers (with one exception) did not consider women currently experiencing domestic violence as a significant part of their workload because they would be assessed as not ‘job ready’ and referred back to Centrelink for psychological reassessment (Costello, Chung & Carson, 2005: 259). The authors conclude that domestic violence and employment services fail to adequately address the employment and vocational education needs of women experiencing domestic violence due to limited funding and resources, narrow program focuses and short intervention periods (Costello, Chung & Carson, 2005). They recommended a larger scale study be conducted, incorporating the voices of women and a larger sample of practitioners and policy makers (Costello, Chung & Carson, 2005:264). Similarly, McLaren (2004: 34-36) explored the practices of six rural South Australian case managers in homeless services. These 6 participants case managed a total of 163 women, of whom over 40% were engaged in employment or training (n=11), seeking employment (n=13) and had a desire to seek employment or vocational education (n=42) (McLaren, 2004:iii). Again, employment and training was a low priority for workers compared to assisting with the psychological ramifications of abuse, accommodation and accessing welfare benefits (McLaren, 2004). Supporting and encouraging employment or vocational education was not considered to be a primary task in the case management of women, where the focus tended to be on parenting and homemaking skills (McLaren, 2004: iii). Gender biased practices can reinforce the feminisation of poverty and abuse because it reduces employment choices and financial independence for women, and women’s economic dependence on their partner often impacts on women’s ability to leave situations of domestic violence

5 (Franzway & Chung, 2005; McLaren, 2004). A key aim of this research is to explore economically sustainable futures for women escaping domestic violence. Also in South Australia, McInnes (2001:2) interviewed 36 sole parents, and of the 29 parents who had been partnered, found that in 72% of the cases gendered violence was the reason for separation. The mothers interviewed saw access to paid work as being a key factor to improving their financial circumstances in the long-term (McInnes, 2001:12). Ninety percent of the sole parent sample had been in the paid workforce at some time in their lives and eighty percent were engaged in work or study at the time of the interviews (McInnes, 2001:12). However, mothers who had survived ex-partner violence experienced increased barriers to paid work due to the compounding effects of poverty, social isolation, dislocation, the stress of managing continued threats and the impact of violence on their mental health and self esteem (McInnes, 2001:12). Impact of domestic violence on women’s employment McInnes’s findings reflect international research that found domestic violence is a barrier to accessing and sustaining work due to partners interfering and sabotaging employment through tactics of stalking, abusive phone calls and harassment of colleagues, which result in job losses, less productivity, absenteeism and illness (Raphael, 2001; Sachs 1999; Lyon, 1997, 2000). Riger and Staggs (2004) compared the prediction of the exchange theory, which assumes that increased resources would decrease abuse, with the backlash hypothesis, which assumes increased employment would threaten the partners’ power and increase intimate partner violence. They found that women getting a job or going on welfare is associated with higher levels of abuse by their partners (but so is going off welfare), yet when women stop work, abuse decreases, which tends to confirms the backlash hypothesis (Riger & Staggs, 2004:48-53). Women with a history of domestic violence have a more disrupted work history and are consequently on lower personal incomes, have had to change jobs more often and are employed at higher levels in casual and part time work (Raphael, 2001; Lyon, 1997; Pocock, 2003). Although more women are working, trends in women’s employment in Australia reflect an increasing casualisation of the workforce, particularly affecting women’s work conditions (such as job insecurity, lower pay) and women’s access to economically sustainable employment (ABS, 2006; Pocock, 2003). Women escaping and experiencing domestic violence are often the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in the labour market. Policy and legislative responses to income support, domestic violence and employment by the federal and state governments are important factors that affect women’s ability to escape violence and to access and maintain employment. The long term impacts of the recent Federal legislative changes to the Industrial Relations Laws called ‘WorkChoices’ (2006) have yet to be determined. However, using Bandura’s social cognitive career theory, Puller, Brown and Bradley (2006) argue that the WorkChoices legislation and ‘Welfare to Work’ initiatives will

6 negatively affect the ability of the most marginalised workers to secure sustainable quality employment. Welfare dependency There is a strong correlation between welfare dependency and domestic violence. For example, domestic violence is the highest cause of homelessness for women, and female-headed homeless families are the fastest growing segment of the homeless population (AIHW, 2003, 2004, 2006; Chung et al, 2000:21). Consistently, women account for 58% and men account for 42% of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) clients (AIHW, 2006). According to the ABS Personal Safety Survey, 25% to 45% of women who have experienced violence are not in work and 4.3% to 8.5% are unemployed, compared to 4.8% unemployment in the general population (ABS, 2006). American research indicates that up to 82% but consistently 50% to 60% of women receiving welfare have experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner at some point during their adult lives, and as many as 30% of women on welfare report abuse in a current relationship, compared to 22% of the general population (Family Violence Prevention Fund, The Facts on Welfare and Domestic Violence, 1998). Many women experiencing domestic violence want to work if they can do so safely, and many use welfare and work as a way to escape an abusive relationship. However, research indicates that violent partners sabotage women’s efforts to look for work (Franzway & Chung, 2005; Lyon, 1997, 2000; Sachs, 1999; Johnson & Gardner, 2000). In Australia, the new era of ‘welfare dependency politics’ is particularly evident in the policies of the federal government (Engel, 2006). The ‘Welfare to Work’ (2006) initiatives of the Australian Howard government that were implemented by Centrelink from the 1st of July 2006 will force women off welfare and into lower paid and less secure work (ACTU, 2006). This disadvantages women escaping domestic violence because forcing women into work can jeopardise their safety and the safety of their children (Costello, Chung & Carson, 2005). Some women escaping domestic violence require special considerations by welfare services (Lyon, 1997:10). However, a balanced consideration of individual circumstances is needed because the ability to find and maintain employment is also vital to independence for some women (Franzway & Chung, 2005:7; Lyon, 1997, 2000). Employers In Australia, under the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Legislation (OHS&W) legislation, employers are required to create a safe workspace for all employees. Domestic violence can impact on the workplace in a number of ways, with high costs (Henderson 2000; Laing & Bobic, 2002; Moe & Bell, 2004). For example, the offenders can stalk and harass the victim at work- with an detrimental impact on co-workers and the effect of domestic violence on the victim can result in performance issues such as lost productivity, absenteeism and tardiness (American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, 2005). As well, the abusers could use company equipment such as cars, telephones or emails to stalk victims, with legal repercussions for employers (American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, 2005). Employer policies and

7 procedures need to respond to staff who may be victims of violence, but also respond to staff who use violence, thus holding them accountable for their actions, and contributing to ending violence in the community (Taylor, 2004:25). Internationally, initiatives such as the ‘Corporate Alliance to End Partner Violence’ (USA), and the ‘Corporate Alliance Against Domestic Violence’ (UK), businesses and employers have ‘united’ and taken a stand against domestic violence. These employer initiatives acknowledge the impact of the problem of domestic violence on their workplaces, advocate for improved victim protection, assist employee ‘victims’, fund research and become involved in innovative strategies to address domestic violence. The Family Violence Prevention Fund, Strategic Employer Responses to Domestic Violence offered seven reasons why employers should address domestic violence: 1. Domestic violence affects nearly one third of American women and therefore, many employees 2. Domestic violence is a security and liability concern 3. Domestic violence is a performance and productivity concern 4. Domestic violence is a health care concern 5. Domestic violence is a management issue 6. Taking action in response to domestic violence works (for example, attending counselling reduces absenteeism) 7. Employers can make a difference Tebo (2005:2), a lawyer and writer for the American Bar Association Journal warns that employers may face tort liability if an employee is injured on company property, or a discrimination lawsuit if they fire an employee because of violence. One case of a ‘wrongful death’ action against an employer, La Rose v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co. who failed to respond to an employee’s risk of domestic violence on the job cost the employer $850,000 (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2006). International initiatives in the USA and the UK have recommended that all businesses have domestic violence policies, outlining how they will respond to abuse and domestic violence in the workplace, identifying steps to take to respond to violence and including resources for employers/employees to identify domestic abuse (see for example, Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department initiatives). Little acknowledgement of the impact of domestic violence on employment by employers exists in Australia. As an Australian example of employer initiatives, the CEO Challenge links businesses and community services using a mutually beneficial approach, which involves companies receiving free domestic violence training in exchange for financial aid, business skills training or the donation of equipment such as computers (Franzway & Chung, 2005:8). This research aims to document employer initiatives in South Australia that relate to responding to the impact of domestic violence on the workplace but to date, few initiatives have been found.

8 Trade Unions Domestic violence is a concern for the workplace and therefore also a concern for trade unions. Unions have a mandate to argue that employers provide safe workplaces for their employees. Unions are important advocates for developing initiatives to ensure the economic independence for women, including advocating for changes to organisational policies and contracts that are supportive of union members dealing with domestic violence, as well as undertaking the education of its members and officials, and working with key stakeholders to address violence against women in the workplace (Urban & Wagner, 2000, 2001). However, unions have to respond to both women who are victims of domestic violence in the workplace and to men who abuse at work. Union officers are required to fulfil their responsibility and ‘duty of fair representation’, whilst still considering safety issues, by referring both parties to appropriate services, advocating for the woman and letting the abuser know his violence is not acceptable (Urban & Wagner, 2000, 2001). This is similar to other workplaces issues such as sexual harassment, where both the victims and the perpetrators may be union members. Trade unions officials have to negotiate conflict skilfully and with the awareness of competing interests and needs. Most public service sector unions are likely to have high female membership. In America, the public service union, the American Federation State and County Municipal Employees (AFSCME), has incorporated domestic violence in the workplace as a key issue for their women members; they implemented a domestic violence campaign, undertook training and developed a resource guide for all unions (Urban & Wagner, 2000). UNISON, a large public sector union in the UK, has almost one million women members (over 2/3rds of their membership), and was the first in the UK to recognise domestic violence as an important issue for women workers. UNISON, working with Women’s Aid, collated a number of government and service responses to domestic violence in Europe and the UK in the ‘Raise the Roof on Domestic Abuse’ Guide to Campaigning Against Domestic Violence (1999). In 2003 UNISON developed a ‘Raise the Roof on Domestic Abuse’ pamphlet that clearly identified that domestic violence is a trade union and workplace issue. This pamphlet also stated that confidential financial assistance to escape domestic violence could be offered by the union. UNISON recently developed, and are implementing with employers, a ‘Model Workplace Agreement on Domestic Abuse’ (2006). In Australia, unions have supported issues raised for women at work but few have specifically advocated for domestic violence initiatives. For example, on their website the Australian Services Union (ASU) support the ‘say no to violence against women’ initiatives, including the White Ribbon Day, 16 days of Activism against Gendered Violence, promote the Reclaim the Night marches and offer information about ‘Violence Against Women in Australia’ (accessed 2006). In recent times, the impact of the ‘WorkChoices’ legislation has dominated concerns for unions in Australia. The focus on issues for women at work such as the worklife balance was evident when union websites were searched but no initiatives specific to domestic violence against women and how this impacts on the workplace were found.

9 Government policy responses Government policy responses to domestic violence in the workplace include developing initiatives and programs, as well as ‘setting the example’ for other employers. The Federal Government’s Partnerships Against Domestic Violence (PADV) funding commenced in 1997, after the 1996 national Women’s Safety Survey, but PADV has since been dismantled (ABS, 1996; Phillips, 2006:205). PADV responded to the issues of domestic violence and work by funding a training manual, booklet and pamphlet titled: ‘Domestic Violence and the Workplace’ (Taylor, 2004). The Australian Government’s Office of the Status of Women funded the ‘Domestic Violence and the Workplace Training Manual’ (2004) for employers. This was modelled on Taylor’s (2000) ‘Domestic Violence in the Workplace: An Information and Training Manual’ developed by the Gold Coast Domestic Violence Service. The Commonwealth funded training manual, CD and workplace handbook for employers offers information about domestic violence that assist employers to use the 3Rs of domestic violence management: to ‘recognise’, ‘respond’ to and ‘refer’ victims and perpetrators of domestic violence to appropriate services (Taylor, 2004). This resource offers a comprehensive ‘model’ management plan for employers that involves four key elements: legal compliance to create a safe environment, policy and procedure development, domestic violence training and information in the workplace and victim safety and support which includes effective risk management (Taylor, 2004:21). However, offering a critique of current conservative trends in Australian government policies, Phillips (2006) noted that Australian policies and PADV funding favoured the term ‘family violence’, which disguises the sexual politics of domestic violence. In the later stages of the program, PADV mainly funded perpetrator related research and programs and since most perpetrators are male, the result is to fund research and programs devoted to men rather than women. Tackling perpetrators can benefit women, but women’s needs continue and support services are stretched, as evident in waiting lists to access women’s shelters and limited ‘exit points’ for women in SAAP (Chung et al, 2000). Trends in government funding indicates that Australian government policies are moving away from focusing on gendered inequalities and community responses, to focusing on individual responsibility and ‘the family’ as a site for intervention. In South Australia, the Women’s Safety Strategy initiatives of the Government of South Australia, Office for Women was modelled on the Victorian Women’s Safety Strategy (2002). The Women’s Safety Strategy indicates a strong commitment to women’s safety in South Australia, and to addressing violence against women, which includes domestic violence and violence against women in the workplace. After consultation with over 300 workers and community members in metropolitan and rural South Australia in 2004, the Government of South Australia released a Discussion paper called ‘Towards a Women’s Safety Strategy for South Australia’. This strategy has four key directions: the prevention of violence against women, the provision of services to those who need them, the protection for women experiencing violence, and performance, which involved

10 the monitoring and evaluating of the Women’s Safety Strategy (OFW, 20052007). On International Women’s Day, the 8th of March 2005, the 5 year Strategy: ‘Our Commitment to Women’s Safety in South Australia’ was launched, which included the creation of a Women’s Safety Strategy Community Education Grant Fund that provides one off grants up to $10,000 for local groups to undertake community education about violence against women. This research is supported by the OFW through the ‘Women, Work and Violence’ working group under the Women’s Safety Strategy. This research explores women’s safety in South Australia by examining how diverse organisations in South Australia are addressing concerns about the impact of domestic violence on women’s employment. Conclusion Violence against women is a major social problem worldwide. The impact of domestic violence on women in the home and in the workplace has major social and economic repercussions. Domestic violence impacts on women’s lives, the workplace and the community in substantial ways, by reducing the ability of women to access and maintain employment, increasing welfare dependency, increasing poverty in female-headed families and contributing to high risks of homelessness for women and children. The impact of domestic violence on the workplace is gaining recognition as a serious issue in Australia, and is especially likely to be exacerbated by recent changes to workplace legislation. Internationally, some innovative responses to domestic violence in the workplace are evident but few initiatives exist in Australia at national and state levels. International and local initiatives discussed in this paper provide a background for this South Australian research. This research aims to explore the barriers and support for women living with or escaping from domestic violence who are seeking employment, identify policy and program responses in South Australia and what needs to change for women affected by violence to be able to maintain economic stability and have sustainable futures.

11

References American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence (2005), A Guide for Employers: Domestic Violence in the Workplace, accessed 22/12/2006. http://www.abanet.org/domviol/workviolence.html. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1996) Women’s Safety Australia, Catalogue No.4128.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2005), Personal Safety Survey, Catalogue No.4906.0, Commonwealth of Australia (2006), Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2006) Trends in Women’s Employment, Catalogue No.4102.0, Canberra. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2003) ‘Homeless people in SAAP: SAAP National Data Collection annual report 2002-03’ Australia AIHW cat. No. HOU 91. Canberra: AIHW (SAAP NDCA Series 8) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2004) ‘Homeless people in SAAP: SAAP National Data Collection annual report 2003-04’ Australia. AIHW cat. No. HOU 126. Canberra: AIHW (SAAP NDCA Report Series 9) Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2006) ‘Homeless people in SAAP: SAAP National Data Collection annual report 2004-05’ Australia. AIHW cat. No. HOU 132. Canberra: AIHW (SAAP NDCA Report Series 10) Bagshaw, D and Chung, D (2000) Women, Men and Domestic Violence, University of SA and PADV Commonwealth of Australia. Carrington, Kerry and Phillips, Janet (2003, updated 2006) ‘Domestic Violence in Australia-an Overview of the Issues’ Parliament of Australia, e-brief, address: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/Dom_Violence.htm Chappell, Duncan and Di Martino, Vittorio (2006) Violence at Work (Third Edition), International Labour Office, Geneva. Chung, D., Kennedy, R., O’ Brien, B. and Wendt, S. (2000) Home Safe Home The link between domestic and family violence and women’s homelessness, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra Chung, D., Colley, D. and Zannettino, L. (2004) Effective Integrated Approaches in the Delivery of Services and Responses for Women Experiencing Domestic Violence, Research and Education Unit on Gendered Violence, University of South Australia and Partnerships Against Domestic Violence (PADV), Commonwealth of Australia. Commonwealth of Australia (2004) The Cost of Domestic Violence to the Australian Economy: Part I and Part II. A report prepared for the Australian Government ‘s Office of the Status of Women by Access Economics Pty Ltd funded by Partnerships Against Domestic Violence. Costello, Mayet, Chung, Donna and Carson, Ed (2005) ‘Exploring alternative pathways out of poverty: making connections between domestic violence and employment practices’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol.40, No.2, p.253-267. Engels, Benno (2006) ‘Old Problem, New Label: Reconstructing the Problem of Welfare Dependency in Australian Social Policy Discourse’, Just Policy, No.41, p.5-14. Family Violence Prevention Fund, Fact Sheets: The Facts on Welfare and Domestic Violence; The Facts on the Workplace and Domestic Violence; Strategic Employer Responses to Domestic Violence, accessed 22/12/2006 via www.endabuse.org. Family Violence Prevention Fund (1998) ‘The Workplace Guide for Employers, Unions and Advocates’, San Francisco, CA

12 Franzway, Suzanne and Chung, Donna (2005) ‘Domestic Violence and Work’. Paper for the Australian Sociological Association, Annual Conference, Community, Place and Change, University of Tasmania, 5th-8th December, 2005. Government of South Australia (2004) Valuing South Australia’s Women, Towards a Women’s Safety Strategy for South Australia, A Discussion Paper. Henderson, Monika (2000) Impacts and Costs of Domestic Violence on the Australian Business/Corporate Sector. A report to the Lord Mayor’s Women’s Advisory Committee, Queensland. Iyer, Mythiley (DV RC) and Taylor, Betty (DV Service, Gold Coast) ‘Domestic Violence: A Workplace Response’ Paper presented at Conference in Crime Prevention, Australian Institute of Criminology and the National Campaign against Violence and Crime, Hobart, 25-27 February 1998. Johnson, Pamela and Gardner, Susan (2000) ‘Domestic Violence invades the workplace’, Women in Management Review, Vol 15 (4), p.197-206. Kinder, Sylvia (1980) ‘Herstory of the Adelaide Women’s Liberation 1969-74’, Salisbury Education Centre, Adelaide. Laing, Lesley and Bobic, Natasha (2002) Economic Costs of Domestic Violence, Literature Review, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse. Lyon, Eleanor (2000) ‘Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New Research and its Implications’ Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, Publication #11, A Policy and Practice Paper, National Resource Centre on Domestic Violence, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Lyon, Eleanor (1997) ‘Poverty, welfare and battered women: what does research tell us?’, Welfare and Domestic Violence Technical Assistance Initiative, National Resource Centre on Domestic Violence, p 1-11. McInnes, Elspeth (September 2001) Single Mothers, Social Policy and Gendered Violence, Paper presented to ‘Seeking Solutions’ Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Conference. McLaren, Helen (2004) ‘Women who have experienced domestic violence: A pilot study on assistance to women in supported accommodation with job search, job training and employment’, United Care Wesley, Adelaide. Moe, A.M. and Bell, M.P (2004) ‘Abject Economics: The Effects of Battering and Violence on Women’s Work and Employability’, Violence Against Women, 10(1), p29-55. Mouzos, Jenny (1999) ‘Femicide: The Killing of Women in Australia 1989-1998’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Phillips, Ruth (2006) ‘Undoing an activist response: feminism and the Australian government’s domestic violence policy’, Critical Social Policy, Vol 26 (1), p. 192-219. Pocock, Barbara (2003) The work/life collision: what work is doing to Australians and what to do about it, Federation Press, NSW. Puller, D, Brown, K and Bradley, L. (2006) ‘Transitions from Domestic Violence to Sustainable Employment in an era of WorkChoices’ Paper presented at ‘Our Work…Our Lives: National Conference on Women and Industrial Relations’, QLD Working Women’s Service and Griffith University Business School, Brisbane, 12-14 July 2006. Raphael, J (2001) ‘Domestic Violence as a Welfare-to-Work Barrier: Research and Theoretical Issues’ in Renzetti, Claire, Edleson, Jeffrey & Bergen Raquel Kennedy, Sourcebook on Violence Against Women, Sage Publications, California, p443-457. Riger, Stephanie and Staggs, Susan (October 2004) ‘The Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Women’s Labour Force Participation’, National Institute of Justice, Chicago.

13 Sachs, Heidi (1999) ‘Domestic Violence as a Barrier to Women’s Economic Self Sufficiency’, Welfare Information Network, Vol 3(10), p. 1-8 Summers, Anne (2003) ‘The End of Equality Work, Babies and women’s Choices in 21st Century Australia’, Random House, NSW. Taylor, Betty (2004) ‘Domestic Violence and the Workplace Training Manual’ Australian Government’s Office of the Status of Women, Commonwealth of Australia. Tebo, Margaret Graham (September 2005) ‘When Home Comes to Work’, American Bar Association Journal, p14. Urban, B.Y and Wagner, K.C (2000, 2001) ‘Domestic Violence: A Union Issue. A Workplace Training Resource Kit for Unions’, San Francisco, CA: The Family Violence Prevention Fund. VicHealth (2004) The Health Costs of Violence –A Summary of Findings, Department of Human Services, State Government of Victoria, The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Victorian Community Council Against Violence (VCCAV) (2004) Family Violence is a Workplace Issue, Workplace Models to Prevent Family Violence, State of Victoria. Weeks, Wendy and Gilmore, Kate (1996) ‘How violence against women became an issue on the national policy agenda’, Chapter 9 in Dalton, T., Draper, M., Weeks, W. & Wiseman, J., Making Social Policy in Australia, Allen and Unwin, Australia, p.141-153.