Order Code RS20662
Updated May 16, 2001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Law and Domestic Violence
Jacqueline Cooke and Vee Burke
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
The Family Violence Option (FVO) of the 1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) permits
state programs of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to waive federal
rules regarding required work, time limited benefits, and child support cooperation for
victims of domestic violence. The purpose of the FVO is to enable states to help victims
of domestic violence without subjecting them to TANF rules that might “unfairly
penalize” them or put them at further risk of abuse. Out of 54 jurisdictions with TANF
programs, 44 have adopted the FVO. In the first annual state TANF reports, California
estimated that it granted 2,042 good cause waivers under FVO in FY2000, New York
said it gave 4,755 waivers during CY1999, and one state (Pennsylvania) said most of its
waivers concerned child support cooperation, not work rules. However, most states
provided no waiver data. This report details the history, implementation and implications
of the FVO. It will be updated for legislative developments or new data.
Introduction
The 1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) replaced the entitlement program of Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other related programs with the block
grant program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). To receive their full
share of federal funding, states must enforce some federal requirements on parents:
minimum work participation rates, a 60-month time limit on federally-funded benefits, and
cooperation in child support enforcement.1
1 Failure by a state to achieve the required work participation rate is to result in a decrease in
funding of 5% for the first year of noncompliance, increasing by 2% for each subsequent year that
compliance is not achieved, not to exceed 21%. The penalty may be reduced based on the severity
of noncompliance or if noncompliance is due to extraordinary circumstances such as a natural
disaster or regional recession. Penalty for violating the 60-month time limit is a 5% decrease in
federal funds. If a state is not enforcing penalties against individuals who fail to cooperate in
procedures to enforce child support orders, federal funding is to be decreased by not more than 5%.
However, none of these penalties may be imposed if the state is determined to have reasonable
cause for noncompliance. (Section 409(b)(2) of the Social Security Act).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
Federal statute does not provide for any automatic exemption of individuals from
program requirements but does enable states to extend the 60-month benefit cutoff for
20% of the state’s caseload on grounds of “hardship” or the family’s inclusion of an
individual who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty. Individuals who have
a history of domestic violence can be classified by the state as hardship cases within the
20% cap. In addition, a provision called the Family Violence Option (FVO) allows states
to exempt qualifying victims of domestic violence from any TANF rule. States that certify
that they have adopted the FVO have a greater capacity to exempt other “hardship” cases
from the time limit without risk of penalty.
Family Violence Option
The Family Violence Option is an optional certification in a state TANF plan,
specifying that the state has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to
screen and identify TANF recipients with a history of domestic violence, will refer such
individuals to counseling and supportive services, and will provide “good cause” waivers
of normal program requirements when compliance would make it more difficult to escape
domestic violence or unfairly penalize them. The FVO provision defines “domestic
violence” as having the same meaning as the term “battered or subject to extreme cruelty”
in the time-limit hardship language.2
For persons with a history of domestic violence or who are at risk of further violence,
the FVO allows states to waive program requirements. If a state that has granted good
cause domestic violence waivers under the FVO fails to meet the minimum work
participation rate, it may receive penalty relief on grounds of “reasonable cause” for the
failure. These cases still count in the final calculation of the state’s work participation rate,
but they are eligible for removal from calculation of penalties. The state also will not be
penalized for failure to enforce child support cooperation if enforcement would put the
victim at risk of further abuse.
States with FVO certification can give time limit extensions above the 20% hardship
cap to families that have federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers. The
60-month federal time limit clock does not stop despite these waivers, but the time limit
can be extended for so long as necessary without penalty. Families that have received
ongoing cash assistance through a state TANF program since July, 1997, mandatory start
date for TANF, will lose federal cash assistance in July, 2002 unless they are extended by
the state under the 20% hardship cap or have been granted a good cause domestic violence
waiver. (In the many states that began TANF before the deadline, the time limit will be
reached earlier than July 2002.)
For federal recognition of good cause domestic violence waivers, the state must
provide: 1) individualized responses and services strategies consistent with the needs of
2 Section 408 (a)(7)(C)(iii) of the Social Security Act defines battered or subject to extreme cruelty
as having been subjected to physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result in, physical injury
to the individual; sexual abuse; sexual activity involving a dependent child; being forced as the
caretaker relative of a dependent child to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or activities; threats
of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse; mental abuse; or neglect or deprivation of medical
care.

---

CRS-3
individual victims; 2) temporary waivers (not to exceed 6 months); and 3) in lieu of
program requirements, alternative services for victims consistent with individualized
responses and service strategies. Waivers are available only to individuals in states that
have adopted the FVO in their state plan. Outside of the state plan, states also can request
approval from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for FVO certification
in corrective action plans, which are submitted by states that have failed to meet a federal
requirement. This procedure is to deter states from using the FVO as a “quick fix” to
avoid penalties instead of as a broad strategy to best serve victims of domestic abuse.
States also must comply with a reporting rule to gain federal recognition of good
cause domestic violence waivers. In an annual report, first required for FY2000 of states
requesting recognition of good cause domestic violence waivers, states must provide a
description of the strategies and procedures in place to serve victims of domestic violence
and the aggregate number of good cause domestic violence waivers granted.
Recipients with waived program requirements under the FVO can receive assistance
indefinitely, subject to redetermination at least every 6 months. Each recipient must have
an appropriate services plan that is developed by a person trained in domestic violence,
reflects individualized assessment and is designed to lead to work. The development of
an appropriate services plan by a trained professional requires that state TANF programs
train staff in domestic violence or coordinate with an agency/organization for assistance
in developing individualized plans.
State Implementation of FVO
As of mid-May, 2001, all TANF jurisdictions except ten (Connecticut, Maine,
Michigan, Ohio, South Dakota, Vermont, the Virgin Islands, Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming) had adopted the FVO. Illinois was the most recent state to take the option; in
March, after the Illinois House voted unanimously to require the state human services
department to adopt the option, the department said it would do so administratively.
Among the states with FVO certification, there is great variation in procedures for
notification and screening, statewideness, service delivery by professionals trained in
domestic violence, waivers of requirements, and length of waiver. States also vary in how
they inform recipients of the domestic violence good cause waiver. Some inform
recipients orally, encouraging the recipient’s oral disclosure of an abusive situation or
history; others rely on questions on application forms and/or supplemental brochures and
pamphlets. The different procedures could affect which recipients are notified and how
willing a victim is to disclose her history.
As is consistent with the devolution of many state TANF programs, a state that has
adopted the FVO is not mandated to have statewide implementation. Colorado has
certified adoption of the FVO but defers to each county the option to adopt FVO
compliant procedures. Many states defer service development and implementation of
domestic violence services to the counties under standards set by the state. Most states
grant waivers on a case-by-case basis so there is great flexibility for the caseworker to
either deny or pursue a good cause waiver.
In complying with the FVO requirement for development of an appropriate services
plan by a trained professional, some states have provided training for caseworkers within

---

CRS-4
the welfare agency. Others have chosen to have the welfare agency coordinate with
another agency or organization to develop a plan. (The state of Kansas defines staff who
have received training designed by the Kansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence and
Sexual Abuse as “persons trained in domestic violence.”)
States determine which requirements to waive on an individual basis as part of the
victim’s services plan. One state (Maryland) effectively stops the federal time clock for
victims by assisting them with state funds until the barriers caused by domestic violence
have been removed. Since domestic violence victims in Maryland are moved into a
separate state program, they are not subject to federal rules, and states cannot be penalized
for any exemption made for individuals assisted by a state-funded program. For domestic
violence victims in federally-funded TANF programs, the federal clock continues to tick.3
FVO waivers are the only way that domestic violence victims can be assured ongoing
federal cash aid after the 60-month time limit, unless the state includes them under the
20% “hardship” exception.
Federal regulations limit waivers to no longer than 6 months, subject to
redetermination. Most states provide waivers indefinitely, subject to biannual
redetermination. These redeterminations usually assess compliance with the individual’s
services plan as an indication of progress and grounds for an extended waiver. Some
states limit the length of a waiver of certain requirements. For example, Minnesota
exempts domestic violence victims from employment requirements for a lifetime maximum
of 12 months. Montana provides an exemption to its state time limit for up to 6 months.
Texas allows waiver of time limits, child support cooperation, and work requirements for
up to 1 year.
Some of the states choosing not to certify for the FVO, including Connecticut,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, have procedures in effect to identify and serve victims of
domestic abuse. In its 2000 state TANF report, Wisconsin said case managers work
closely with domestic violence victims and that the state’s strategy is supported by the
Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which has helped the state develop staff
training. Wisconsin also said it considered it counterproductive to categorically waive
program rules because in the past persons exempted from work rules often had received
no services. In Ohio, county departments have the responsibility for devising policy about
corroboration and assessment of domestic violence.
Data on Waivers
Initial annual state TANF reports (for FY2000) provide these data on good cause
waivers granted under the FVO: Arizona, 167; California, 2,042; Colorado, none;
Delaware, none; Kansas, 14; Kentucky 329; Maryland, 98; Minnesota, 635; Montana,
none from work rules; New Mexico, 9; New York, 4,755 in CY1999; Pennsylvania, 320
as of December 30, 2000 (223 from child support rules, 97 from work rules); Puerto Rico;
20 from child support rules, none from work rules; South Carolina, 27; and Texas, 195.
Florida said that although it granted no waivers, it gave domestic violence “deferrals” from
3 Many states have set benefit cutoff time limits shorter than 60 months, and some of them stop
their state clocks for victims of domestic violence; some others do not stop the state clock but
provide extensions once the time limit is reached.

---

CRS-5
work activity in 755 cases for a limited time (while alternate activity plans were
developed). Louisiana and Missouri said they were unable to provide the data, but
Missouri said it would provide data for the next report. Oregon, which gave no data, said
that for reasons of client safety, it had not created an identifier on the computer to track
FVO waivers. Tennessee, which reported no data, said that it imposed strict
“confidentiality boundaries” between the domestic violence counselor and the eligibility
counselor and that the latter was not always aware of the cause of a waiver.
History of the Family Violence Option
The Family Violence Option was enacted as part of the 1996 welfare reform law
(P.L. 104-193). The concept behind the FVO can be traced back to a 1995 Wellstone-
Murray amendment to H.R. 4, a version of TANF that was vetoed. The amendment
would have required states to adopt the FVO and excluded domestic violence victims with
waivers from the calculation of state work participation rates. This provision passed in the
Senate but was rejected by the House. Senator Wellstone proposed a similar amendment,
calling for mandatory state certification, in the 1996 legislation leading to P.L. 104-193.
The amendment passed in the Senate but was not included in the House version of the bill
that the Senate subsequently adopted. Since FVO enactment in 1996, the Senate has twice
passed a bill to forbid any numerical limit on time-limit hardship exemptions for domestic
violence victims, but the House has not followed suit. Representative Schumer proposed
bills twice (1996 and 1997) to require state certification of the FVO (H.R. 4324, H.R.
2861), and the Battered Women’s Economic Security and Safety Act of 1999, S. 1069,
proposed to prohibit numerical limits on time limit hardship exemptions for persons with
domestic violence waivers under the FVO and to exclude waivered individuals from the
calculation of state work participation rates.
Incidence of Domestic Violence and Effect on Employment
Numerous studies have attempted to document the prevalence of domestic violence
and implications on employment for welfare families. Conferees on P.L. 105-33 directed
the General Accounting Office (GAO) to submit a report on the impact of domestic
violence on the use of welfare. The GAO conducted an analysis of past studies of welfare
recipients and found that between 15% and 56% of the women surveyed reported that they
were or had been victims of physical domestic abuse in the 12 months preceding the survey
and that 55% to 65% had been physically abused by an intimate partner at some point in
their lives.4 The broad range reflects differences in survey techniques and sample
populations. This rate of abuse is significantly greater than that in the general population,
which was found in a 1998 survey to be 1.5% in the 12 months before the survey and 25%
at some time. The GAO report cited U.S. Department of Justice surveys that found
women aged 20 to 34, divorced or separated, and women with family incomes less than
$9,999 more likely to be victims of domestic violence than women in general. The state
of Kansas, in its 2000 TANF report, says that domestic violence issues were disclosed by
4.6% of TANF applicants/recipients (248 out of 5,330) who received information about
domestic violence services and were screened in the Topeka office by an “on-site
advocate.” Of these, 14 were determined to need a domestic violence waiver.
4 General Accounting Office. Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment
Among Welfare Recipients. GAO/HEHS-99-12. November 1998.

---

CRS-6
The GAO report could not conclude that domestic violence affected the victim’s
likelihood of work. No study could isolate the effects of domestic violence on
employment status. A 1997 Massachusetts study of AFDC recipients found similar
employment rates for women who reported having been abused or not (8.8% and 7%,
respectively). However, a study of women in a low-income neighborhood in Chicago
found that women reported to have been subject to abuse at some point suffered more
spells of unemployment, greater job turnover, and significantly higher rates of receipt of
AFDC, Medicaid and food stamps. The GAO report said that women who currently
experience domestic violence may differ in their ability to obtain and maintain employment
from women who have safely escaped from past violence.
The GAO review suggests that abusers may hinder their victims from obtaining and
maintaining employment. Abusers often feel threatened by women’s efforts toward self-
sufficiency that might afford them the option to leave the abusive relationship. Between
16% and 60% of the women surveyed in five studies reported that their partner had
discouraged them from working, and 33% to 46% said their partner prevented them from
working. Abusive partners often attempt to sabotage women’s work efforts by becoming
violent, promising child care and then failing to deliver, destroying or hiding items needed
for women’s work activities, harassing them at their work site by phone or in person, and
inflicting visible signs of abuse so that women will be too embarrassed to attend their work
activity. Three studies found that 44% to 60% of respondents had been reprimanded at
work for behaviors caused by the abusive situation, and 24% to 52% said they lost their
jobs as a result of abuse. Further, domestic violence inflicts physical and emotional health
problems on women that can affect their ability to find and maintain employment. Studies
show that victims of domestic violence suffer from chronic health problems, low self-
esteem, greater anxiety and anger than nonabused women, depression and post-traumatic
stress disorder.
Implications of the FVO
Although most states have certified their adoption of the FVO, many may not need
federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers to escape fiscal penalties for
time limit or work participation failures. This is because many states appear unlikely to
exceed the 20% hardship cap on time limit extensions or to fail work participation rates,
which have been sharply lowered because of caseload reduction. However, because of the
sharp decline in caseload, fewer individuals can be exempted under the 20% hardship cap.
When states do request federal recognition of waivers, their reporting of domestic
violence need not be comprehensive. States are required only to describe the standards
and procedures they have established and the number of waivers for which they seek
federal recognition under the FVO. Domestic violence victims may be exempt from work
requirements through another category, such as having to care for a young child or
handicapped relative. They may also benefit through access to domestic violence services,
although not given an exemption from any welfare rule. Some states are developing
databases that can track the number of welfare assistance applicants disclosing past or
current domestic abuse, the number requesting waivers and the number of waivers granted.
These numbers will provide a more complete picture of the prevalence of domestic
violence among recipients and the assistance states provide them.

---