Implementation of state paid leave policies for addressing domestic violence

• In Event: Families and Exposure to Violence: Evidence from Social Policy and Institutional Interventions

Abstract

Background/Purpose: Domestic violence (DV) is prevalent and has substantial individual, community, and societal consequences. Paid family and medical leave (PFML) policies may reduce DV’s negative impact on work, decrease financial stress, mitigate relationship conflict, and enable survivors to seek safety and services. Since 2004, thirteen states and the District of Columbia have passed PFML policies, with several states explicitly including DV as a qualifying reason for leave. Despite growing policy momentum, there is limited evidence on how PFML is used or implemented in the context of DV. This study examined considerations for using PFML for DV and identified factors influencing its implementation. 

Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 state PFML staff and DV service providers (e.g., advocates, legal providers) in Washington and Oregon, two states with different PFML program structures. Interview topics included knowledge of PFML, survivor employment challenges, reasons for taking leave, and barriers to and facilitators of PFML use in the context of DV. Interviews were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis in Dedoose. Implementation factors were organized using domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which categorizes factors related to PFML design, organizational context, and broader policy environments. Domains include Innovation (PFML), Outer Setting (external factors), Inner Setting (settings where survivors interact with PFML), Individuals (survivors), and Implementation Process. 

Results: PFML staff described the context for the origins, staffing, structure, and benefits of state PFML programs (Innovation; Outer Setting). Both PFML staff and DV service providers identified multiple factors influencing survivors’ decisions to use PFML, including challenges with the verification process (e.g., providers’ reluctance to sign verification paperwork), privacy concerns related to employers and co-workers, delays in benefit payments, and availability of other preferred supports (e.g., crime victim compensation) (Innovation). Participants also highlighted the benefits of PFML, such as the ability for survivors to take extended time off to heal, safety plan, and care for children (Innovation). In Washington, where DV is not explicitly a qualifying reason for PFML, service providers emphasized the importance of allowing DV advocates to complete verification forms (Implementation Process). Participants noted variable training and knowledge of PFML and reported that survivors also often lack awareness of their eligibility or how to navigate PFML (Inner Setting; Individuals). Service providers additionally described being cautious in advising survivors to take PFML, balancing survivor autonomy and recognizing that employment can provide stability and safety (Outer Setting).   

Conclusions: These findings contribute to the limited empirical evidence on the implementation of structural policy interventions addressing DV. Participants highlighted the complex challenges DV survivors experience navigating work and the multilevel determinants of implementing PFML in the context of DV. While PFML policies are a promising structural intervention, further resources and attention to improve program awareness and uptake, administrative processes, and provider training are needed to ensure DV survivors can access protected leave while maintaining employment stability.

Authors

• Avanti Adhia, University of Washington
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Heather D Hill, University of Washington
  Presenting Author