Family Violence Prevention and Services Act
(FVPSA): Background and Funding
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
February 25, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42838
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Summary
Family violence broadly refers to acts of physical and sexual violence and emotional abuse
perpetrated by individuals against family members. The federal government has responded to
various forms of family violence, including violence involving spouses and other intimate
partners, children, and the elderly. The focus of this report is on the federal response to domestic
violence under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA). “Domestic violence”
is used in the report to describe violence among intimate partners, including those involved in
dating relationships. A survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and
Prevention found that approximately 7 million women and 5.7 million men (5.9% and 5.0% of all
women and men, respectively) experienced physical violence, rape, and/or stalking by their
intimate partners in 2010. Also that year, 16.6 million women (13.9%) and 20.5 million men
(18.1%) experienced emotional abuse by their intimate partners, such as attempting to keep
victims from communicating with loved ones. Domestic violence is associated with multiple
negative outcomes for victims, including mental and physical health effects.
Throughout much of the 20th century, domestic violence remained a hidden problem. Survivors of
this abuse often endured physical and emotional abuse in silence out of fear of retaliation by their
spouses and other intimate partners. In the 1970s, former battered women, civic organizations,
and professionals began to open shelters and provide services to abused women and their
children. As a result of these efforts and greater national attention to domestic violence, Congress
conducted a series of hearings in the early 1980s to understand the scope of this violence and
explore possible responses. In 1984, Congress passed FVPSA (Title III of P.L. 98-457). FVPSA
has been reauthorized seven times, most recently through FY2015 (P.L. 111-320).
Congress appropriates funding for three sets of activities under FVPSA to address domestic
violence. First, a national domestic violence hotline receives calls for assistance related to this
violence. The hotline maintains a database of services throughout the United States and
territories, and it provides referrals for victims and others affected by family violence. Second,
FVPSA supports direct services to victims and their families, including victims in underserved
and minority communities and children exposed to domestic violence. Most of this funding is
awarded via grants to states, territories, and tribes, which then distribute the funds to local
domestic violence service organizations. These organizations provide shelter and a number of
services—counseling, referrals, development of a safety plan, advocacy, legal advocacy, and
other services. This funding also supports state domestic violence coalitions that provide training
for service providers and advocacy for victims, and nine national resource centers that provide
training and technical assistance on various family violence issues for a variety of stakeholders.
Third, FVPSA funds efforts to prevent domestic violence through a program known as Domestic
Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Allies (DELTA). The most recent
iteration of DELTA supports efforts in selected communities to prevent domestic violence.
FVPSA activities are administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
and are funded at $143.2 million in FY2014.
Enacted in 1984, FVPSA was the first federal law to address domestic violence. It has continued
to have a primary focus on providing shelter and services for survivors, and has increasingly
provided support to children exposed to domestic violence and teen dating violence. Since the
1994 enactment of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the federal response to domestic
violence has expanded to include investigating and prosecuting crimes and providing additional
services to victims and abusers. VAWA activities are administered by multiple federal agencies.
Congressional Research Service
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Definitions ................................................................................................................................. 1
Risk Factors for Domestic Violence .......................................................................................... 3
Profiles of Survivors .................................................................................................................. 3
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey ...................................................... 4
National Crime Victimization Survey ................................................................................. 5
Effects of Domestic Violence .................................................................................................... 6
Domestic Violence: Development of the Issue ................................................................................ 6
Congressional Response ............................................................................................................ 8
FVPSA Overview ............................................................................................................................ 9
Funding .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Formula Grants to States, Territories, and Tribes .......................................................................... 13
Selected Grant Conditions Pertaining to Use and Distribution of Funds ................................ 14
Selected Grant Conditions Pertaining to Victims .................................................................... 16
State Domestic Violence Coalitions ............................................................................................... 16
National and Special Issue Resource Centers ................................................................................ 18
National Domestic Violence Hotline ............................................................................................. 18
Prevention Activities (DELTA) ...................................................................................................... 19
DELTA ..................................................................................................................................... 20
DELTA Prep............................................................................................................................. 21
DELTA FOCUS ....................................................................................................................... 21
Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence ...................................................................... 22
Background.............................................................................................................................. 22
Specialized Services for Abused Parents and Their Children/Expanding Services for
Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence ............................................................. 23
Support for Runaway and Homeless Youth Demonstration Grant .......................................... 24
Enhanced Services for Children Who Have Been Exposed to Domestic Violence
Semipostal Stamp ................................................................................................................. 24
FVPSA Interaction with Other Federal Laws ................................................................................ 25
Child Abuse and Neglect ......................................................................................................... 25
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) ................................................................................... 27
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) ................................................................................................ 28
Federal Coordination ..................................................................................................................... 28
Figures
Figure 1. Summary of Activities Authorized and Funded Under the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) ....................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Amount and Share of FY2013 Funding for Shelter, Support Services, and
Program Support ......................................................................................................................... 13
Congressional Research Service
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Tables
Table 1. Funding for FVPSA Activities, FY1993-FY2014 ............................................................ 11
Table A-1. Definitions of Family Violence and Related Terms ..................................................... 30
Table B-1. Lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of Violence Committed by an Intimate
Partner ......................................................................................................................................... 31
Table C-1. FVPSA Formula Grant Funding for Services and Shelter for States and
Territories, FY2012 and FY2013 ................................................................................................ 35
Table C-2. National and Special Issue Resource Centers Funded Under FVPSA, FY2013 .......... 37
Appendixes
Appendix A. Definitions ................................................................................................................ 30
Appendix B. Research on Prevalence and Effects of Domestic Violence, the Need for
Shelter and Services .................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix C. Funding for Selected FVPSA Activities ................................................................... 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 40
Congressional Research Service
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Introduction
This report provides an overview of the federal response to domestic violence—defined broadly
to include acts of physical and nonphysical violence against spouses and other intimate
partners—through the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA). FVPSA programs
are carried out by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ACF administers
most FVPSA programming, including grants to states, territories, and Indian tribes to support
local organizations that provide immediate shelter and related assistance for victims of domestic
violence and their children. ACF also provides funding for a national domestic violence hotline
that responds to nearly 250,000 calls each year. Other ACF assistance supports state domestic
violence coalitions that provide training for and advocacy on behalf of domestic violence
providers within each state; and nine national resource centers that provide training and technical
assistance on various family violence issues for a variety of stakeholders. The CDC funds efforts
to prevent domestic violence through a program known as Domestic Violence Prevention
Enhancement and Leadership Through Allies (DELTA). The House Committee on Education and
the Workforce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee have
exercised jurisdiction over FVPSA.
The report begins with background on the definitions of domestic violence, family violence, and
related terms. This background section also describes the risk factors for domestic violence and
estimates of the number of victims. The next section of the report addresses the history leading up
to the enactment of FVPSA, and the major components of the act: a national domestic violence
hotline, support for domestic violence shelters and non-residential services, and coordination
efforts to prevent domestic violence. The report then discusses recent efforts under FVPSA to
assist children and youth exposed to domestic violence, including teen dating violence. Finally, it
provides an overview of FVPSA’s interaction with other federal laws, including the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).1 FVPSA
was the first federal law to address domestic violence, with a focus on providing shelter and
services for survivors; however, since the enactment of VAWA in 1994, the federal response to
domestic violence has expanded to involve multiple departments and activities that include
investigating and prosecuting crimes and providing additional services to victims and abusers.
FVPSA also includes provisions that encourage or require program administrators to coordinate
FVPSA programs with related programs and research carried out by other federal agencies. The
appendixes provide further detail about FVPSA-related definitions, research, and funding.
Background
Definitions
For purposes of this report, “domestic violence” is used to describe “family violence” that
involves intimate partners and “dating violence,” and generally refers to physical and nonphysical
1 For further information, see CRS Report R42499, The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and
Federal Funding, by Lisa N. Sacco.
Congressional Research Service
1
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
violence and emotional abuse perpetrated by individuals among current or former romantic
partners.
The FVPSA statute focuses on “family violence,” which can involve many types of family
relationships and forms of violence. FVPSA defines the term as acts of violence or threatened acts
of violence, including forced detention, that result in physical injury against individuals
(including elderly individuals) who are legally related by blood or marriage and/or live in the
same household.2 This definition focuses on physical forms of violence and is limited to abusers
and victims3 who live together or are related by blood or marriage; however, researchers and
others generally agree that family violence is broad enough to include nonphysical violence and
physical violence that occurs outside of an intimate relationship.4 Such a definition can
encompass a range of scenarios—rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by a current
or former spouse or intimate partner who may or may not live in the same household; stalking by
a current or former spouse or partner; abuse and neglect of elderly family members and children;
and psychologically tormenting and controlling a spouse, intimate partner, or other member of the
household.
While family violence can encompass child abuse and elder abuse, FVPSA programs focus on
individuals abused by their spouses and other intimate partners. Further, FVPSA references the
terms “domestic violence” and “dating violence” as they are defined under VAWA, and discusses
these terms alongside family violence. The VAWA definition of “domestic violence” encompasses
forms of intimate partner violence—involving current and former spouses or individuals who are
similarly situated to a spouse, cohabiting individuals, and parents of children—that are outlawed
under state or local laws. VAWA defines “dating violence” as violence committed by a person
who has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and where
the existence of such a relationship is determined based on consideration of the length of the
relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the individuals
involved. (Table A-1 in Appendix A provides a summary of these and related terms.)
The federal government responds to child abuse and elder abuse through a variety of separate
programs. Congress authorizes and funds a range of activities to prevent and respond to child
abuse and neglect under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act and CAPTA.5 Separately,
the Older Americans Act (OAA), the major federal vehicle for the delivery of social and nutrition
services for older persons, has authorized projects to address elder abuse. In addition, the OAA
authorizes and Congress funds the National Center on Elder Abuse to provide information to the
public and professionals regarding elder abuse prevention activities, and provides training and
technical assistance to state elder abuse agencies and to community-based organizations.6 The
2 42 U.S.C. §10402(4) (Definitions).
3 This term is sometimes used interchangeably with the word “survivors.”
4 Roger J.R. Levesque, Culture and Violence: Fostering Change Through Human Rights Law (Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 2001), p. 13.
5 For further information, see CRS Report RL34121, Child Welfare: FY2013 Budget Request of the President and
FY2013 Funding, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
6 For further information, see CRS Report RL33880, Funding for the Older Americans Act and Other Aging Services
Programs, by Angela Napili and Kirsten J. Colello; and U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Women’s Health,
Overview of Violence Against Women Activities 2010-2011, June 25, 2012, http://www.womenshealth.gov/
publications/federal-report/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Social Services Block Grant, as amended, also includes elder justice provisions, including several
grant programs and other activities to promote the safety and well-being of older Americans.7
Risk Factors for Domestic Violence
The evidence base on domestic violence does not point strongly to any one reason that it is
perpetrated, in part because of the difficulty in measuring social conditions (e.g., status of
women, gender norms, and socioeconomic status) that can influence this violence. Still, the
research literature has identified two underlying influences: the unequal position of women and
the normalization of violence, both in society and some relationships.8 Certain risk variables are
often associated—but not necessarily the causes—of domestic violence. Such factors include a
pattern of problem drinking, poverty and economic conditions, and early parenthood.9 For
example, substance abuse often precedes incidents of domestic violence. A study that examined
the connection between alcohol and drug use and domestic violence, including homicide or
attempted homicide, found that substance abuse was more prevalent among male perpetrators of
violence than non-perpetrators; however, the study did not determine how substance use
influenced the violence, if at all.10
Profiles of Survivors
Estimating the number of individuals involved in domestic violence is complicated by the varying
definitions of the term and methodologies for collecting data. For example, some research counts
a boyfriend or girlfriend as a family relationship while others do not; still other surveys are
limited to specific types of violence and whether violence is reported to police. Certain studies
focus more broadly on various types of violence or more narrowly on violence committed among
intimate partners. In addition, domestic violence is believed to be underreported. Survivors may
be reluctant to disclose their victimization because of shame, embarrassment, fear or belief that
they may not receive support from law enforcement.11
Overall, two studies—the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) and the
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—show that violence involving intimate partners is
not uncommon, and that both women and men are victimized sexually, physically, and
7 For further information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding , by Karen
E. Lynch.
8 Rachel Jewkes, “Intimate Partner Violence: Causes and Prevention,” The Lancet, vol. 359 (April 20, 2002), pp. 1423-
1429.
9 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, “Causes and Consequences of
Intimate Partner Violence.” http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx.
10 Phyllis Sharps et al., “Risky Mix: Drinking, Drug Use, and Homicide,” NIJ Journal, no. 250 (November 2003),
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250d.pdf. The abused women studied were between ages 18 and 50 years old and
were romantically or sexually involved with the perpetrator at some time during the past two years. A woman was
categorized as abused if she had been physically assaulted, threatened with serious violence, or stalked by a current or
former intimate partner.
11 Michele C. Black et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/
violenceprevention/nisvs/. (Hereinafter, Michele C. Black et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
Survey: 2010 Summary Report.)
Congressional Research Service
3
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
psychologically. Women tend to first be victimized at a younger age than men. Further, minority
women and men tend to be victimized at higher rates than whites.
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey provides information on the
prevalence of domestic violence among individuals during their lifetime and in the past 12
months prior to the survey. The study was fielded in 2010, and was conducted by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.12 The survey examines multiple aspects of intimate partner
violence—including rape, physical violence, stalking, sexual violence other than rape,
psychological aggression, and other forms of violence that may or may not be reported as a crime.
Selected findings of the report are summarized in Table B-1 in Appendix B. Generally speaking,
victims tended to be women; however, a significant share of men reported being victims. When
asked about their experiences in the 12 months prior to the survey, 5.9% of women and 5.0% of
men reported that they had experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by their intimate
partner. Just over 2.0% of women (2.3%) and men (2.5%) experienced sexual violence other than
rape in the previous year. More men (18.1%) than women (13.9%) experienced any psychological
aggression over that one-year period. More than one-third (35.6%) of women and more than one-
quarter (28.5%) of men in the United States reported that they experienced rape, physical
violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.13
The NISVS also found that domestic violence tends to occur first among women at a younger age
than for men. About seven out of ten women were under the age of 25 (22.4% were ages 11 to 17
and 47.1% were ages 18 to 24). By contrast, men tended to be young adults or adults when first
victimized (38.6% were ages 18 to 24 and 30.6% were ages 25 to 34). Women and men of color,
particularly American Indians and Alaska Natives, are more likely to experience intimate partner
violence. Among women, more than half (53.8%) of women who identify as multi-racial and
nearly half (46.0%) who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native reported being victimized
by their intimate partners. Similarly, males who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native
(45.3%) or multi-racial (39.3%) were more likely than men of other racial and ethnic groups to
report being victims of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner.
In addition to reporting on intimate partner violence among various demographic groups, NISVS
examined the prevalence of this violence based on how adult respondents identified their sexual
orientation (heterosexual or straight, gay or lesbian, or bisexual).14 The study found overall,
bisexual women had significantly higher lifetime prevalence of rape and sexual violence other
than rape by an intimate partner when compared to both lesbian and heterosexual women.
12 Ibid. The NISVS is a national random telephone survey of the non-institutionalized English and/or Spanish-speaking
U.S. population age 18 and older. The study is coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
developed and fielded with support from the Department of Justice and Department of Defense. Terms such as physical
violence and stalking are defined in the report.
13 Intimate partners may include cohabiting or non-cohabiting romantic or sexual partners and opposite or same sex
couples. See Appendix B for further definitions.
14 Mikel L. Walters, Jieru Chen, and Matthew J. Breiding, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey:
2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2013. For some types of violence, prevalence estimates for
particular groups (e.g., gay or bisexual men and lifetime prevalence of rape by any perpetrator) were too small to
produce reliable estimates and were not reported.
Congressional Research Service
4
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Lesbian women and gay men reported levels of intimate partner violence equal to or higher than
those of heterosexuals.
Finally, the NISVS surveyed women on active duty in the military and the wives of active duty
men, also in 2010. These women were asked to respond to whether they experienced intimate
partner violence over their lifetime and during the three years and 12 months prior to the survey.
The study found that the majority of women affiliated with the military were less likely to be
victims of intimate partner violence compared to women in the general population. For example,
53.7% of active duty women and 48.6% of wives of active duty men experienced psychological
aggression in their lifetime, compared to 57.0% of women in the general population. However,
active duty women who were deployed during the three years prior to the survey were
significantly more likely to have experienced intimate partner violence during this period and
over their lifetime compared to active duty women who were not deployed. Among those who
deployed, 12.2% had been victims of physical violence, rape, or stalking by an intimate partner
during the past three years and 35.2% had experienced victimization over their lifetime. This is
compared to 10.1% (during the past three years) and 27.5% (lifetime prevalence) of women who
had not deployed.15
National Crime Victimization Survey
The National Crime Victimization Survey is an ongoing survey coordinated by the U.S.
Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics within the Office of Justice Programs. NCVS
surveys a nationally representative sample of households. It is the primary source of information
on the characteristics of criminal nonfatal victimization and on the number and types of crimes
that may or may not be reported to law enforcement authorities. NCVS surveyed respondents
about whether they have been victims of a violent crime, including rape/sexual assault, robbery,
aggravated assault, and simple assault; and for victims, the relationship to the perpetrator.16 The
survey reports the share of crimes that are committed by an intimate partner (current or former
spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends), other family members, friends/acquaintances, or strangers.
The 2012 survey found that nearly 811,000 individuals were victims of intimate partner violence.
The rate of intimate partner violence remained stable from 2011 (3.3 per 1,000 individuals age 12
and older) to 2012 (3.1).17
An earlier NCVS study (that was supplemented with homicide data) focused on victims murdered
by an intimate partner and on the prevalence of domestic violence by characteristics such as
income, marital status, and the presence of children in the home.18 The study examined changes
over time, either 1976 or 1993 to 1998. The study found that the number of female victims of
domestic violence declined from 1993 to 1998, from 1.1 million to 900,000 violent offenses. In
15 Michele C. Black and Melissa T. Merrick, Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, and Stalking
among Active Duty Women and Wives of Active Duty Men—Comparisons with Women in the General Population,
2010, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March
2013.
16 These terms are defined at U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, “All
Terms and Definitions,” http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tda.
17 U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2012, Table 1,
September 2011; and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2013, Table 1, http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245.
18 Callie Marie Rennison and Sarah Welchans, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, Intimate Partner Violence, Special Report, May 2000.
Congressional Research Service
5
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
addition, the number of murders by an intimate partner declined over the period from 1,600
murders in 1976 to 1,317 murders in 1998. Further, NCVS data showed that rates of domestic
violence were inversely related to income over the 1993-1998 period, with rates seven times
higher among women living in households with the lowest annual income (20.3 per 1,000
females) compared to those with the highest annual income (3.3 per 1,000). Marital status was
also found to be associated with domestic violence. The rate of domestic violence was highest
among those who were divorced or separated (31.9 per 1,000 females and 6.2 per 1,000 males)
compared to those who were never married (11.3 and 1.6) or married (2.6 and 0.5). An equal
share of victims (43%) had children under age 12 in the household or did not have children under
age 12 in the household; the presence of children was unknown for the remaining victims. (See
below for research on children exposed to domestic violence.)
Effects of Domestic Violence
Domestic violence is associated with multiple negative outcomes for victims, including mental
and emotional distress and health effects. The 2010 NISVS study found that these effects
appeared to be greater for women. Nearly 3 in 10 (28.8%) women and 1 in 10 (9.9%) men have
experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least
one impact as a result of this violence. Both women and men most frequently reported that they
felt fearful (25.7% of women and 5.2% of men); exhibited post-traumatic stress symptoms
(22.3% and 4.7%); and were concerned for their safety (22.2% and 4.5%).19 A separate study of
domestic violence among welfare recipients in two California counties found that their ability to
find work was impaired by their victimization.20 At the end of one year of participating in
welfare-to-work activities, about 1 out of 10 (12%) welfare recipients who experienced serious
domestic violence were working at least 26 hours a week, compared to more than a quarter (28%)
who did not experience this type of victimization.
Domestic Violence: Development of the Issue
Early marriage laws in the United States permitted men to hit their wives, and throughout much
of the 20th century family violence remained a hidden problem.21 Victims, mostly women, often
endured physical and emotional abuse in silence. These victims were hesitant to seek help
because of fear of retaliation by their spouses/partners and concerns about leaving their homes,
children, and neighborhoods behind. Women were worried that they would be perceived as
deviant or mentally unstable or would be unable to get by financially.22 In addition, victims were
often blamed for their abuse, based on stereotypical notions of women (e.g., demanding,
aggressive, and frigid, among other characteristics).
19 Michele C. Black et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 Summary Report.
20 Sandra Naylor Goodwin, Daniel Chandler, and Joan Meisel, Violence Against Women: The Role of Welfare Reform,
California Institute for Mental Health for the U.S. Department of Justice, April 11, 2003.
21 Ola W. Barnett, Cindy L. Miller-Perrin, and Robin D. Perrin, Family Violence Across the Life Span, 3rd ed.
(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2011), pp. 14-15. (Hereinafter, Ola W. Barnett, Cindy L. Miller-Perrin, and
Robin D. Perrin, Family Violence Across the Life Span.)
22 Susan Schechter, Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement
(Boston: South End Press, 1982), pp. 12-20. (Hereinafter Susan Schechter, Women and Male Violence: The Visions and
Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement.)
Congressional Research Service
6
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
In the 1960s, shelters and services for victims of domestic violence became available on a limited
basis; however, these services were not always targeted specifically to victims per se. Social
service and religious organizations provided temporary housing for displaced persons generally,
which could include homeless and abused women. In addition, a small number of organizations
provided services to abused women who were married to alcoholic men. Beginning in the 1970s,
the “battered women’s movement” began to emerge; it sought to heighten awareness of women
who were abused by spouses and partners. The movement developed from influences both abroad
and within the United States. In England, the first battered women’s shelter, Chiswick Women’s
Aid, galvanized support for similar types of services. In addition, the feminist movement in the
United States increasingly brought greater national attention to the issue.23
As part of the battered women’s movement, former battered women, civic organizations, and
professionals opened shelters and began to provide services to victims, primarily abused women
and their children.24 Shelters were most often located in old homes, at Young Women’s Christian
Association (YWCA) centers, or housed in institutional settings, such as motels or abandoned
orphanages. In addition to providing shelter, groups in the battered women’s movement organized
coalitions to combine resources for public education on the issue, support groups for the victims,
and services that were lacking. For example, the YWCA and Women in Crisis Can Act formed a
hotline for abused women in Chicago. These and other groups convened the Chicago Abused
Women’s Coalition to address concerns about services for battered women. The coalition spoke to
hundreds of community groups and professional agencies about battered women’s stories,
explained the significance of violence, detailed how violence becomes sanctioned, dispelled
common myths, and challenged community members to provide funding and other support to
assist abused women. The coalition mobilized around passage of a state law to protect women
and require police training on family violence, among other accomplishments.
Based on a survey in the late 1970s, 111 shelters were believed to be operating across all states
and in urban, suburban, and rural communities. These shelters generally reported that they
provided a safe and secure environment for abused women and their children, emotional support
and counseling for abused women, and information on legal rights and assistance with housing,
among other supports. Approximately 90 of these shelters fielded over 110,000 calls for
assistance in a given year.25
Around this same time, the public became increasingly aware of domestic violence. In 1983, Time
magazine published an article, “Wife Beating: The Silent Crime,” as part of a series of articles on
violence in the United States. The article stated: “There is nothing new about wife beating…What
is new is that in the U.S. wife beating is no longer widely accepted as an inevitable and private
matter. The change in attitude, while far from complete, has come about in the past 10 to 15 years
as part of the profound transformation of ideas about the roles and rights of women in society.”26
In 1984, then-U.S. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti established the Department of Justice
Task Force on Family Violence, which issued a report examining the scope and impact of
domestic violence in America. The report also provided recommendations to improve the nation’s
23 Ola W. Barnett, Cindy L. Miller-Perrin, and Robin D. Perrin, Family Violence Across the Life Span, p. 15.
24 Susan Schechter, Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement.
25 Albert B. Roberts, Sheltering Battered Women: A National Study and Service Guide (New York: Springer Publishing
Company, 1981), pp. 7-11.
26 Jane O'Reilly, Barbara B. Dolan, and Elizabeth Taylor, “Wife Beating: The Silent Crime,” Time, September 5, 1983.
Congressional Research Service
7
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
law enforcement, criminal justice, and community response to offenses that were previously
considered “family matters.”27
Congressional Response
As a result of efforts by advocates and the Justice Department, Congress began to take an interest
in domestic violence issues. The House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families
conducted a series of hearings in 1983 and 1984 on child abuse and family violence throughout
the country, to understand the scope of family violence better and explore possible federal
responses to the problem. The committee heard from victims, domestic violence service
providers, researchers, law enforcement officials, and other stakeholders about the possible
number of victims and the need for additional victim services. In 1984, Congress enacted the
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) as Title III of the Child Abuse
Amendments of 1984 (CAPTA, P.L. 98-457).Title I of that law amended the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), and most of the seven subsequent reauthorizations of
FVPSA have occurred as part of legislation that reauthorized CAPTA.28 This includes the most
recent reauthorization (P.L. 111-320), which extends funding authority for FVPSA through
FY2015. As discussed later in this report, Congress subsequently broadened the federal response
to domestic violence via the Violence Against Women Act, enacted in 1994.
Testimony from Victim of Domestic Violence at a 1984 Hearing by the Select
Committee on Children, Youth, and Families
“I met Andy just before I left for New York. He visited me ... often, bringing special treats…. But Andy had a violent
streak. During Christmas vacation of my senior year, Andy knocked me out in the front seat of his car and raped me.
After graduation from Good Shepherd, I tried to attend G.W. University, but Andy wouldn’t leave me alone. He
constantly harassed me. I left the university to work in a law office downtown … [and we] were married June 9,
1962. In March 1963 our daughter was born, 19 months later my son was born…. Andy’s violence got progressively
worse. He would tie me up and beat me several times a week. But when he started doing this in front of the children,
I was determined to get away from him. I was 5 months pregnant when he threatened to kill me and the baby with a
knife. I tried to escape and he threw me down the stairs. I called a lawyer who advised me to leave under
constructive desertion. I left with my children to Colorado but Andy followed in less than two days and brought us
home again. At my insistence, Andy final y agreed to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist advised me to leave Andy
after Andy attacked him.... On the advice of my psychiatrist and my gynecologist, I admitted myself to Springfield State
Hospital … in order to get both the necessary medical treatment for delivery of the baby and the psychological
evaluation that would eventually be necessary to get custody of my children…. A few weeks after leaving the hospital
I found a room and a job in Bethesda and began the 3-year battle for custody and divorce…. Andy [had] disappeared
with my children.”
Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, “Violence and Abuse in
American Families,” hearing, 98th Congress, 2nd Session.
27 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office on Violence Against Women, The History of the
Violence Against Women Act, http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/docs/history-vawa.pdf.
28 CAPTA was originally enacted in 1974 (P.L. 93-247) to create a federal focus for responding to child abuse and
neglect and authorize support for training and technical assistance to improve child protective services.
Congressional Research Service
8
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
FVPSA Overview
As originally enacted, FVPSA included both a social service and law enforcement response to
preventing and responding to domestic violence. Grants were authorized for states, territories, and
Indian tribes to establish and expand programs to prevent domestic violence and provide shelter
for victims. In addition, Congress authorized grants to provide training and technical assistance to
law enforcement personnel, and this funding was ultimately used to train law enforcement
personnel throughout the country.29 Over time, FVPSA was expanded to include support of other
activities—including state domestic violence coalitions and grants that focus on prevention
activities; however, authorization of funding for FVPSA law enforcement training grants was
discontinued in 1992, just before the 1994 Violence Against Women Act was enacted and
included funding authority for this purpose.30
As outlined in Figure 1, FVPSA currently authorizes three major activities—domestic violence
shelters and support, the national domestic violence hotline, and domestic violence prevention
activities under a program known as DELTA. The Family and Youth Services Bureau in HHS’s
Administration for Children and Families administers funding for the domestic violence shelters
and support and the hotline. HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention administers the
DELTA Program. Funding authorization extends through FY2015.
29 From FY1986 through FY1994, funding for these grants was transferred from HHS to the Department of Justice,
which carried out the grants under the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). DOJ funded 23 projects to train law
enforcement officers on domestic violence policies and response procedures, with approximately 16,000 law
enforcement officers and other justice system personnel from 25 states receiving this training. The training emphasized
officers as participants working with other agencies, victims, and community groups in a coordinated response to a
crime problem. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, Report to
Congress, July 1996, https://www.ncjrs.gov/ovc_archives/repcong/welcome.html and Lisa C. Newmark, Adele V.
Harrell, and William Adams, Evaluation of Police Training Conducted Under the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act, Urban Institute, June 26, 1995.
30 The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) authorizes funding for training and support of law enforcement officials
under the Services, Training, Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP) Grant program. For further information, see CRS
Report R42499, The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and Federal Funding, by Lisa N. Sacco.
FVPSA requires state domestic violence coalitions—a statewide nongovernmental nonprofit domestic violence
organization comprised primarily of domestic service providers—to work with law enforcement agencies.
Congressional Research Service
9
Figure 1. Summary of Activities Authorized and Funded Under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
CRS-10
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Funding
Table 1 includes funding from FY1993 to FY2014 for the three major FVPSA activities. Overall,
appropriations have ranged from about $25.0 million (in FY1993) to $143.2 million (in FY2014).
Appropriations for shelter, victim services, and program support increased fourfold from FY1993
to FY2000, peaking at just over $130.0 million in FY2010 and declining to $121.2 million in
FY2013. The FY2014 appropriation is $133.5 million, an increase of over $12.0 million dollars
from the FY2013 appropriation. Appropriations for the hotline grew an initial amount of $1.0
million in FY1995 to $4.5 million in FY2014. DELTA appropriations have decreased from nearly
$6 million in FY1999, the year it was first funded, to $5.2 million in FY2014.
Table 1. Funding for FVPSA Activities, FY1993-FY2014
Shelter, Services, National Domestic
and Support
Violence Hotline
DELTA
Total
FY1993 $24,678,619 N/A N/A
$24,678,619
FY1994 $32,645,000 N/A N/A
$32,645,000
FY1995 $32,645,000
$1,000,000 N/A
$33,645,000
FY1996 $47,642,500
$400,000 N/A
$48,042,500
FY1997 $72,800,000
$400,000 N/A
$73,200,000
FY1998 $86,642,206
$1,200,000 N/A
87,842,206
FY1999 $88,778,000
$1,200,000
$5,998,000
$95,976,000
FY2000 $101,118,000
$1,957,000
$5,866,000
$108,941,000
FY2001 $116,899,000
$2,157,000
$5,866,000
$124,922,000
FY2002 $124,459,000
$2,157,000
$5,866,000
$132,482,000
FY2003 $124,459,000
$2,157,000
$5,828,000
$132,444,000
FY2004 $125,648,000
$2,982,000
$5,303,000
$133,933,000
FY2005 $125,630,000
$3,224,000
$5,258,000
$134,112,000
FY2006 $124,643,000
$2,970,000
$5,181,000
$132,794,000
FY2007 $124,731,000
$2,970,000
$5,110,000
$132,811,000
FY2008 $122,552,000
$2,918,000
$5,021,000
$130,491,000
FY2009 $127,776,000
$3,209,000
$5,511,000
$136,496,000
FY2010 $130,052,000a $3,209,000 $5,525,000
$138,786,000
FY2011 $129,792,000
$3,202,000
$5,423,000
$138,417,000
FY2012 $129,547,000
$3,197,000
$5,411,000
$138,155,000
FY2013b $121,225,000
$2,992,000
$5,130,000
$129,347,000
FY2014 $133,521,000
$4,500,000
$5,200,000
$143,221,000
Source: U.S. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY1998-
FY2013 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees; and Congressional Research Service
correspondence with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau and Centers for Disease
Congressional Research Service
11
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Control and Prevention, September and November 2012; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, ACF All-Purpose Table – FY2012-2013 and Centers for Disease Control,
FY 2013 Full Year CR Operating Plan; and U.S. Congress, House Committee on Rules, 113th Cong., 2nd sess.,
Committee Print 113-32 to the Senate Amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547),
which was enacted as P.L. 1113-76.
Notes: Funding is allocated for shelter, support services, and program support and the Domestic Violence
Hotline via HHS/Administration for Children and Families; and for DELTA via HHS/Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. N/A means not applicable.
a. Funding for FY2010 was just over $130 million ($130,052,000). When FY2010 dol ars were appropriated in
December 2009, FVPSA required that “a portion of the excess” (of funds for shelter, support services, and
program support) above $130 mil ion was to be reserved for projects to address the needs of children who
witness domestic violence. FVPSA was reauthorized in December 2010, and this provision was changed to
require that when the appropriation exceeds $130 million, HHS must first reserve 25% of the excess
funding for specialized services for abused parents and children exposed to domestic violence. This rule was
triggered in FY2010 and the excess funding went to a grant program, Expanding Services for Children and
Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence. For further information, see the section of this report on children
exposed to domestic violence.
b. Funding for FY2013 was provided through a series of continuing resolutions. The final continuing resolution
was the Consolidated and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6). The FY2013 funding levels
provided were based on the operating plan provided by DOL to Congress. This funding included a 0.2%
rescission, per P.L. 113-6, and a sequestered amount of 5.0%, per the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-
25), as amended by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-240).
Funding for shelter, support services, and program support encompasses multiple activities:
formula grants to states and territories; grants to tribes; state domestic violence coalitions; nine
national and special issue resource centers; evaluation, monitoring and administration; and
discretionary activities. Figure 2 displays FY2013 funding (the most recent year available) for
these activities, most of which are described further below.
Congressional Research Service
12
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Figure 2. Amount and Share of FY2013 Funding for Shelter,
Support Services, and Program Support
$90,000,000
$84,857,678 (70.0%)
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$12,122,525 (10%)
$12,122,125 (10.0%)
$7,887,770 (6.5%)
$10,000,000
$4,234,775 (3.5%)
$0
Formula Grants to States and
Formula Grants to Indian
State Domestic Violence
National and Special Issue
Evaluation, Monitoring, and
Territories
Tribes
Coalitions Formula Grants
Resource Centers
Administration
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, February 2014.
Formula Grants to States, Territories, and Tribes
No less than 70% of FVPSA appropriations for shelter and support must be awarded to states and
territories through a formula grant. The formula grant supports the establishment, maintenance,
and expansion of programs and projects to prevent incidents of domestic violence and to provide
shelter and supportive services to victims of domestic violence. Each of the territories—Guam,
American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—
receives no less than one-eighth of 1% of the appropriation, or, in combination, about one-half of
1% of the total amount appropriated. Of the remaining funds, states (including the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico) receive a base allotment of $600,000 and additional funding based on
their relative share of the U.S. population.31 Table C-1 in Appendix C provides funding in
FY2012 and FY2013 for states and territories.
31 42 U.S.C. §10405 (Allotment of funds).
Congressional Research Service
13
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
In addition, no less than 10% of FVPSA appropriations for shelter and support are awarded to
Indian tribes. Indian tribes have the option to authorize a tribal organization or a nonprofit private
organization to submit an application for and to administer FVPSA funds. Nearly all of the same
requirements that pertain to states and territories also pertain to tribes. Tribes generally provide
the same services, except that they also tend to provide services to both victims and
perpetrators.32 FY2013 funding was $12.1 million for tribes.
In applying for grant funding, states (including territories and Indian tribes) must make certain
assurances pertaining to use and distribution of funds and to victims.
Selected Grant Conditions Pertaining to Use and Distribution
of Funds33
States may use up to 5% of the grant funding for state administrative costs. The remainder of the
funds are used to make subgrants to eligible entities for programs and projects that meet the goals
of the grant program. No less than 70% of sub-grant funding is to be used to provide shelter,
shelter expenses, and programming and services to adult and youth victims of domestic violence
and their dependents. Shelter includes the physical space in which victims reside as well as the
expenses of running shelter facilities.34 Related supportive services are listed below. In addition, a
minimum of 25% of subgrants must be used for these services.35
• Assisting in the development of safety plans, and supporting efforts of victims to
make decisions about their ongoing safety and well-being;
• Providing individual and group counseling, peer support groups, and referrals to
community-based services to assist victims and their dependents in recovering
from the effects of domestic violence;
• Providing services, training, technical assistance, and outreach to increase
awareness of domestic violence and increase the accessibility of these services;
• Providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services;
• Providing services for children exposed to domestic violence, including age-
appropriate counseling, supportive services, and services for the non-abusing
parent that support that parent’s role as caregiver (which may include services
that work with the non-abusing parent and child together);
• Providing advocacy, case management services, and information and referral
services concerning issues related to domestic violence intervention and
prevention, including providing assistance in accessing federal and state financial
assistance programs; legal advocacy; medical advocacy, including provision of
referrals for appropriate health care services (but not reimbursement for any
32 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth & Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, “Tribal Domestic Violence Services, 2011.”
33 42 U.S.C. §10407 (State application).
34 42 U.S.C. §10408(b) (Subgrants and uses of funds).
35 For example, of the 70% set-aside for shelter and supportive services, all of it could be used for shelter; however, an
additional 25% must be used for supportive services.
Congressional Research Service
14
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
health care services); assistance in locating and securing safe and affordable
permanent housing and homelessness prevention services; and transportation,
child care, respite care, job training and employment services, financial literacy
services and education, financial planning, and related economic empowerment
services; parenting and other educational services for victims and their
dependents; and
• Providing prevention services, including outreach to underserved populations.36
What Are “Eligible Entities” That Can Receive Funding from States/Territories?
A local public agency, or nonprofit private organization—including faith-based and charitable organizations,
community-based organizations, tribal organizations, and voluntary associations—that assists victims of domestic
violence and their dependents and has a documented history of effective work on this type of violence; or a
partnership of two or more agencies or organizations that includes an agency or organization described above and
an agency or organization that has a demonstrated history of serving populations in their communities, including
providing culturally appropriate services.
States must “give special emphasis” to supporting community-based projects of “demonstrated
effectiveness” that are carried out by nonprofit organizations that operate shelters for victims of
domestic violence and their dependents; or that provide counseling, advocacy, and self-help
services to victims. States have discretion in how they allocate their funding, so long as they
provide assurances that grant funding will be distributed equitably within the state and between
urban and rural areas of the state.
States must also provide assurances that they will consult with and facilitate the participation of
state domestic violence coalitions in planning and monitoring the distribution of grants and
administering the grants (the role of state domestic violence coalitions is discussed further
below).37 States must describe how they will involve community-based organizations, whose
primary purpose is to provide culturally appropriate services to underserved populations,
including how such organizations can assist states in meeting the needs of these populations.
States must further provide assurances that they have laws or procedures in place to bar an abuser
from a shared household or a household of the abused persons, which may include eviction laws
or procedures, where appropriate. Such laws or procedures are generally enforced by civil
protection orders.
Subgrantees must provide a non-federal match—of not less than $1 for every $5 of federal
funding—directly from the state or through donations from public or private entities.38 The
matching funds can be in cash or in kind. Further, federal funds made available to a state must
36 Appendix B provides information from a survey of domestic violence shelters of the types of services provided. Not
all of these shelters received FVPSA funding when they were surveyed.
37 Tribes do not necessarily have domestic violence coalitions and therefore related provisions do not apply; however,
as discussed below, state domestic violence coalitions must collaborate with Indian tribes and tribal organizations (and
corresponding Native Hawaiian groups or communities) to address the needs of Indian (including Alaska Native) and
Native Hawaiian victims of domestic violence. 42 U.S.C. §10411(d)(8). The Violence Against Women Act authorizes
funding for tribal domestic violence coalitions under the Tribal Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions Grant
(42 U.S.C. §3796gg-1). The program is funded by statutory set-asides from the VAWA-authorized STOP program and
Sexual Assault Services program.
38 42 U.S.C. §10406(c) (Formula grants to states-grant conditions).
Congressional Research Service
15
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
supplement, and not supplant, other federal, state, and local public funds expended on services for
victims of domestic violence.
States have two years to spend funds. For example, funds allotted for FY2014 may be spent in
FY2014 or FY2015. The HHS Secretary is authorized to reallocate the funds of a state, by the end
of the sixth month of a fiscal year that funds are appropriated, if the state fails to meet the
requirements of the grant. The Secretary must notify the state if its application for funds has not
met these requirements. State domestic violence coalitions are permitted to help determine
whether states are in compliance with these provisions. States are allowed six months to correct
any deficiencies in their application.
Selected Grant Conditions Pertaining to Victims39
Other requirements of the grant program for states address the individual characteristics and
privacy of participants and shelters. Both states and subgrantees funded under FVPSA may not
deny individuals from participating in support programs on the basis of disability, sex, race, color,
national origin, or religion. In addition, states and programs may not impose income eligibility
requirements on individuals participating in these programs. Further, states and programs must
protect the confidentiality and privacy of victims and their families to help ensure their safety.
These entities are prohibited from disclosing any personally identifying information collected
about services requested, and from revealing personally identifying information without the
consent of the individual, as specified in the law. If the identity of the individual is compelled by
statutory or court mandate, states and programs must make reasonable attempts to notify victims,
and they must take steps to protect the privacy and safety of the individual. States and programs
may share information that has been aggregated and does not identify individuals, and
information that has been generated by law enforcement and/or prosecutors and courts pertaining
to protective orders or law enforcement and prosecutorial purposes. In addition, the location of
confidential shelters may not be made public, except with written authorization of the person(s)
operating the shelter. Subgrantees may not provide direct payment to any victim of domestic
violence or the dependent(s) of the victim. Further, victims must be provided shelter and services
on a voluntary basis. In other words, providers cannot compel or force individuals to come to a
shelter, participate in counseling, etc.
State Domestic Violence Coalitions40
Since 1992, FVPSA has authorized funding for state domestic violence coalitions (SDVCs),
defined under the act as a statewide nongovernmental, nonprofit private domestic violence
organization that (1) has a membership that includes a majority of the primary-purpose domestic
violence service providers in the state;41 (2) has board membership that is representative of
domestic violence service providers, and which may include representatives of the communities
in which the services are being provided; (3) has as its purpose to provide education, support, and
technical assistance to such service providers so they can maintain shelter and supportive services
39 42 U.S.C. §10406(c) (Formula grants to states-grant conditions) and 42 §10408(d) (Subgrants and use of funds-
conditions).
40 42 U.S.C. §10411 (Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions).
41 SDVCs may include representatives of Indian tribes and tribal organizations. §42 U.S.C. 10411(h).
Congressional Research Service
16
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
for victims of domestic violence and their dependents; and (4) serves as an information
clearinghouse and resource center on domestic violence for the state and supports the
development of policies, protocols, and procedures to enhance domestic violence intervention and
prevention in the state.
Funding for SDVCs is available for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and the four territories (American Samoa, Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Each jurisdiction has one SDVC, and these coalitions are
designated by HHS. Funding is divided evenly between these 56 jurisdictions. SDVCs must use
FVPSA funding for specific activities, as outlined below:
• working with local domestic violence service programs and providers of direct
services to encourage appropriate and comprehensive responses to domestic
violence against adults or youth within the state, including providing training and
technical assistance and conducting needs assessments;
• participating in planning and monitoring the distribution of subgrants and
subgrant funds within the state under the grant program for states and territories;
• working in collaboration with service providers and community-based
organizations to address the needs of domestic violence victims and their
dependents who are members of racial and ethnic minority populations and
underserved populations;
• collaborating with and providing information to entities in such fields as housing,
health care, mental health, social welfare, or business to support the development
and implementation of effective policies, protocols, and programs that address
the safety and support needs of adult and youth victims of domestic violence;
• encouraging appropriate responses to cases of domestic violence against adult
and youth victims, including by working with judicial and law enforcement
agencies;
• working with family law judges, criminal court judges, child protective service
agencies, and children’s advocates to develop appropriate responses to child
custody and visitation issues in cases of child exposure to domestic violence, and
in cases where this violence is concurrent with child abuse;
• providing information to the public about prevention of family/domestic/dating
violence, including information targeted to underserved populations; and
• collaborating with Indian tribes and tribal organizations (and corresponding
Native Hawaiian groups or communities) to address the needs of Indian
(including Alaska Native) and Native Hawaiian victims of domestic dating
violence, as applicable in the state.42
42 A SDVC is not required to use funds for certain purposes (i.e., working with judicial and law enforcement agencies,
family law judges, criminal court judges, child protective service agencies, and children’s advocates) if it receives
funding to carry out these activities authorized under the Violence Against Women Act. These activities include grants
to help states, state and local courts, state domestic violence coalitions, and other entities develop and strengthen
effective law enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women and develop and
strengthen victim services. See 42 U.S.C. §3796gg et seq. and 42 U.S.C. §3796gg(c).
Congressional Research Service
17
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
National and Special Issue Resource Centers
As originally enacted, FVPSA authorized a national information and research clearinghouse on
the prevention of domestic violence. As part of the act’s reauthorization in 1992, the language
about the clearinghouse was struck and replaced with authorization for resource centers on
domestic violence, including resource centers to address key areas of domestic violence.
Reauthorization of FVPSA in 2010 included authorization for a national resource center on
American Indian women and three culturally specific resources, which had previously been
funded through discretionary funds.43 The 2010 law also authorized resource centers to address
disparities of domestic violence in states with high proportions of Indian or Native Hawaiian
populations, and training and technical assistance that address emerging issues related to
domestic violence.
Pursuant to FVPSA, HHS established the two national resource centers—the National Resource
Center on Domestic Violence and the National Indian Resource Center Addressing Domestic
Violence and Safety for Indian Women (known as the National Indigenous Women’s Resource
Center)—and seven special issue resource centers, three of which focus on racial and ethnic
minority victims of domestic violence. The purpose of these resource centers is to provide
information, training, and technical assistance on domestic violence. This assistance is provided
to multiple stakeholders—individuals, organizations, governmental entities, and communities—
so that they can improve their capacity for preventing and responding to domestic violence.
Table C-2 summarizes the activities and FY2013 funding for these nine resource centers. The
nine centers comprise the Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN), which works
collaboratively in responding to domestic violence. The DVRN is a project of the National
Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
National Domestic Violence Hotline44
As amended by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994, FVPSA directs the HHS
Secretary to award a grant to one or more private entities to operate a 24-hour, national, toll-free
hotline on domestic violence. Since 1996, HHS has competitively awarded a cooperative
agreement to one organization, the National Council on Family Violence in Texas, to operate the
National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH).45 The agreement was most recently awarded in
FY2010 for a five-year period ending in FY2014.
FVPSA requires that the hotline provide information and assistance to adult and youth victims of
domestic violence, family and household members of victims of such violence, and “persons
43 This is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau,
September 2012.
44 42 U.S.C §10413 (National Domestic Violence Hotline Grant).
45 The National Council on Family Violence is a nonprofit organization and receives funding from multiple federal,
state, and private sources. For further information, see National Council on Family Violence, “About the Hotline,”
http://www.thehotline.org/about-support/.
Congressional Research Service
18
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
affected by victimization.” As required under FVPSA, the National Council on Family Violence
carries out multiple activities:
• It employs, trains, and supervises personnel (paid staff and volunteers) to answer
incoming calls; provides counseling and referral services; and directly connects
callers to service providers. In FY2013, NDVH received 248,530 calls and
answered 198,629 (79.9%) of these calls.46 The average wait time for a call was
37 seconds. According to HHS, the number of calls to the hotline is increasing as
the result of media outreach, public awareness campaigns, and the impact of the
recession.47
• The National Council on Family Violence maintains a database of domestic
violence services for victims throughout the United States, including information
on the availability of shelter and services. This database includes information on
services for victims of domestic violence, including the availability of shelters to
which callers may be referred or directly linked to throughout the United States.
• The National Council on Family Violence provides assistance and referrals for
family and household members who are victims and persons affected by
victimization. This includes information on domestic violence, children exposed
to domestic violence, sexual assault, intervention programs for batterers, and
related issues.
• The National Council on Family Violence provides assistance to meet the needs
of special populations, including underserved populations (not defined in
FVPSA), individuals with disabilities, and youth victims of domestic and dating
violence. The hotline provides access to personnel for callers with limited
English proficiency and persons who are deaf and hard of hearing. Since 2007,
the National Council on Family Violence has operated a separate hotline for
youth victims of domestic violence, the National Teen Dating Abuse Helpline.
Prevention Activities (DELTA)
Since 1994, FVPSA has authorized the HHS Secretary to award cooperative agreements to state
domestic violence coalitions that coordinate local community projects to prevent domestic
violence, including such violence involving youth. Congress first awarded funding for prevention
activities in FY1996 under a pilot program carried out by the CDC. The pilot program was
formalized in 2002 under a program now known as the Domestic Violence Prevention
Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA) program. The focus of DELTA is
preventing domestic violence before it occurs, rather than responding once it happens or working
to prevent its recurrence.48 The program has had three iterations—DELTA, which was funded
46 Based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, February 2014.
47 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families FY2013 Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees.
48 Primary prevention strategies attempt to stop both first-time perpetration and victimization by responding to the
various factors that influence domestic violence, including (1) individual-level influences (e.g., attitudes and beliefs
that support domestic violence, isolation, and a family history of violence), (2) relationship-level influences (e.g.,
relationships with peers, intimate partners, and families), (3) the community (e.g., social relationships in schools,
workplaces, and neighborhoods), and society (e.g., larger, macro-level factors such as gender inequality, religious or
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
through FY2012 and involved 14 states; DELTA Prep, which extended from 2008 through June
2012 and involved 19 states that did not receive DELTA funds; and DELTA FOCUS, which
extends the work of DELTA and DELTA Prep and was first funded in FY2013.
DELTA49
The DELTA program was competitively awarded for the first time in 1996, and 14 domestic
violence coalitions received funding under the original solicitation.50 Funding was non-
competitively awarded to these 14 coalitions under subsequent grant solicitations through
FY2012. The program provided funding and technical assistance to the coalitions to support local
efforts to carry out prevention strategies and work at the state level to oversee these strategies.
Local prevention efforts were referred to as coordinated community responses (CCRs). The CCRs
were led by domestic violence organizations and other stakeholders across multiple sectors,
including law enforcement, public health, and faith-based organizations. The coalitions funded
CCRs, and provided training and technical assistance to assist CCRs with building their capacity
to implement and evaluate primary prevention strategies. For example, the Michigan Coalition
Against Domestic and Sexual Violence supported two CCRs—the Arab Community Center for
Economic and Social Services and the Lakeshore Alliance Against Domestic and Sexual
Violence—that focused on faith-based initiatives. Both CCRs held forums that provided resources
and information about the roles of faith leaders in preventing the first-time occurrence of
domestic violence. According to the CDC, the forums heightened the focus of faith leaders on
healthy and respectful relationships in their premarital counseling activities and at
congregational events.
Each of the 14 state coalitions also developed partnerships across their respective states with
multiple stakeholders to provide technical assistance to their partners. For example, coalitions
worked closely with their state public health agencies. The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and
Domestic Violence partnered with the state public health agency to expand the CDC’s Choose
Respect Campaign, which encourages healthy relationships for youth. Other state coalitions, such
as the Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence and the North Carolina Coalition Against
Domestic Violence, partnered with the public school system to provide curricula on dating and
domestic violence for students.
The 14 state domestic violence coalitions developed five-to-eight year domestic violence
prevention plans known as Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Plans. These plans were
developed with multiple stakeholders, and they discuss the strategies needed to prevent first-time
perpetration or victimization and to build the capacity to implement these strategies. The CDC
(...continued)
cultural belief systems, or economic or social policies that influence domestic violence). For example, prevention
strategies that target individual-level influences are often designed to promote attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that
support intimate partnerships based on mutual respect and trust, such as through education and life skills training.
Further, strategies that target community-level influences can be designed to affect the climate and policies in a given
system, such as through social marketing campaigns.
49 42 U.S.C. §10414. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The
Delta Program: Preventing Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
pdf/DELTA_AAG-a.pdf; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, “Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA),”
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/delta/index.html.
50 These states include AK, CA, DE, FL, KS, MI, MT, NC, ND, NY, OH, RI, VA, and WI.
Congressional Research Service
20
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
issued a brief that summarizes the plans and identifies the successes and challenges for state
domestic violence coalitions in supporting and enhancing intimate partner violence prevention
efforts. Overall, the report found that states improved their capacity to respond to intimate partner
violence through evidence-based planning and implementation strategies.51
DELTA Prep
DELTA Prep was a project that extended from 2008 through June 2012, and was a collaborative
effort between the CDC, the CDC Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.52
Through DELTA Prep, CDC extended the DELTA Program to 19 states53 that were not receiving
DELTA funds. State and community leaders in these other states received training and assistance
in building prevention strategies, based on the work of the 14 state domestic violence coalitions
that receive DELTA funds. DELTA Prep states are integrating primary prevention strategies into
their work and the work of their partners, and building leadership for domestic violence
prevention in their states.
DELTA FOCUS54
DELTA FOCUS (Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United within States) continues the
work of DELTA and DELTA Prep by providing funding to 10 state domestic violence coalition
grantees for implementing and evaluating strategies to prevent domestic violence. Funding is
provided by the coalitions to 18 community response teams that are engaging in carrying out
these strategies. DELTA FOCUS differs from DELTA and DELTA Prep by placing greater
emphasis on implementing prevention strategies rather than building capacity, since grantees are
characterized as already having “high capacity.” DELTA FOCUS also puts more emphasis on
evaluating the program to help build its evidence base. This program was funded for the first time
in FY2013, and will support grantees for five years.
51 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Taking Action to
Prevent Intimate Partner Violence: Creating Statewide Prevention Plans, 2013. For further information about DELTA
evaluation activities from 2003 through 2010, see Pamela J. Fox et al., “Strengthening Systems for the Primary
Prevention of Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence: CDC’s DELTA and EMPOWER Programs,” Journal of
Family Social Work, vol. 13, no. 4, 2013.
52 The CDC Foundation is a nonprofit organization established by Congress that creates programs in partnership with
the CDC for fighting threats to health. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is a philanthropic organization that
focuses on public health issues.
53 These states include AL, CT, DC, ID, IA, IN, KY, MA, MN, MI, NE, NH, NJ, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, and WA.
54 This information is based on correspondence with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, February 2014; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, “Funding Opportunity, DELTA FOCUS (Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement
Leadership Through Alliances, Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United with States);” and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “The DELTA Focus Program: Intimate
Partner Violence is Preventable,” http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/deltafocus/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
21
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence
Background
FVPSA references, but does not define, children exposed to domestic violence.55 According to the
research literature, this exposure can include children who see and/or hear violent acts, are
present for the aftermath (e.g., seeing bruises on a mother’s body, moving to a shelter), or live in a
house where domestic violence occurs, regardless of whether they see and/or hear the violence. In
addition, young people may be exposed to violence in their dating relationships.56 FVPSA
references the definition of dating violence that is in VAWA, which means violence committed by
a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the
victim, and where the existence of the relationship is determined based on the length, type, and
frequency of interaction between the persons in the relationship.57
Estimates of children exposed to adult domestic violence and teen dating violence vary based on
the definition of these terms and methodology. A frequently cited estimate is that between 10%
and 20% of children (approximately 7 million to 10 million children) are exposed to adult
domestic violence each year.58 Researchers have separately estimated that 20% to 30% of
teenagers are exposed to verbal or psychological abuse and 9% are exposed to physical violence
by their intimate partners each year.59 The literature about the impact of domestic violence is
evolving. The effects of domestic violence on children can range from little or no effect to severe
psychological harm and physical effects, depending on the type and severity of abuse and
protective factors, among other variables.60
Multiple FVPSA programs are intended to provide support for children exposed to family and
related violence:
55 A separate federal program authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education (ESEA) defines “witnessing
domestic violence” for purposes of a program whose purpose is to combat the impact of experiencing or witnessing this
violence by elementary and secondary school children. Under this program, witnessing domestic violence refers to
directly observing or being within earshot of an act of domestic violence that constitutes actual or attempted physical
assault; a threat or other action that places the victim in fear of domestic violence; or the aftermath of these acts. See 20
U.S.C. §7275. The program has not been funded. The statute references an outdated statute that defines “domestic
violence” (42 U.S.C. §3796gg-2) under VAWA. This term is now defined at 42 U.S.C. §134925(a)(6)).
56 Jeffrey J. Edleson, Narae Shin, and Katy K. Armedariz Johnson, “Measuring Children’s Exposure to Domestic
Violence: The Development and Testing of the Child Exposure to Domestic Violence (CEDV) Scale,” Children and
Youth Services Review, vol. 30, November 6, 2007, p. 502-521. (Hereinafter Jeffrey J. Edleson, Narae Shin, and Katy
K. Armedariz Johnson, “Measuring Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence: The Development and Testing of the
Child Exposure to Domestic Violence (CEDV) Scale.”)
57 42 U.S.C. §13925(a)(8).
58 Jeffrey J. Edleson, Narae Shin, and Katy K. Armedariz Johnson, “Measuring Children’s Exposure to Domestic
Violence: The Development and Testing of the Child Exposure to Domestic Violence (CEDV) Scale.”
59 Carrie Mulford and Peggy Giordano, Teen Dating Violence: A Closer Look at Adolescent Romantic Relationships,
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute for Justice, October 27, 2008, http://www.nij.gov/journals/261/teen-
dating-violence.htm#note2; and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, 2011 Results, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/index.htm.
60 Alice Summers, Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence: A Guide to Research and Resources, National Council
of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006, pp. 5-6, http://www.safestartcenter.org/pdf/childrensexpostoviolence.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
22
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
• One of the purposes of the formula grant program for states is to provide
specialized services (i.e., counseling, advocacy, and other assistance) for these
children.61
• The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence is directed to offer domestic
violence programs and research that include both victims and their children
exposed to domestic violence.
• The national resource center that addresses mental health and trauma issues is
required to address victims of domestic violence and their children who are
exposed to this violence.
• State domestic violence coalitions must, among other activities—work with the
legal system, child protective services, and children’s advocates to develop
appropriate responses to child custody and visitation issues in cases involving
children exposed to domestic violence.
In addition to these provisions, the FVPSA statute authorizes, and HHS funds, a program for
specialized services for abused parents and their children. FVPSA activities for children exposed
to domestic violence have also been funded through discretionary funding and funding leveraged
through a semipostal stamp.
Specialized Services for Abused Parents and Their
Children/Expanding Services for Children and Youth
Exposed to Domestic Violence62
Since 2003, FVPSA has specified that funding must be set aside for activities to address children
exposed to domestic violence if the appropriation for shelter, victim services, and program
support exceeds $130 million.63 Under current law, if funding is triggered, HHS must first reserve
not less than 25% of funding above $130 million to make grants to a local agency, nonprofit
organization, or tribal organization with a demonstrated record of serving victims of domestic
violence and their children. These funds are intended to expand the capacity of service programs
and community-based programs to prevent future domestic violence by addressing the needs of
children exposed to domestic violence.
In FY2010, funding for shelter and services was just over $130 million. HHS reserved the excess
funding as well as FVPSA discretionary funding (under shelter, victim services, and program
support) to fund specialized services for children through an initiative known as Expanding
Services for Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence. HHS also used discretionary
money to fund the initiative in FY2011 and FY2012. Total funding for the initiative was $2.5
million. This funding was awarded to five grantees—four state domestic violence coalitions and
61 In the 2012 one-day census count of domestic violence shelter and service providers, 80% reported providing
services and advocacy for children. See, National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), Domestic Violence
Counts 2012, http://nnedv.org/downloads/Census/DVCounts2012/DVCounts12_NatlReport_Color.pdf.
62 42 U.S.C. §10406.
63 This was enacted as a provision under the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36). The 2010
reauthorization of FVPSA (P.L. 111-320) created a new section, specialized services for abused parents and their
children, which has the same purpose as the original provision.
Congressional Research Service
23
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
one national technical assistance provider—to expand supports to children, youth, and parents
exposed to domestic violence and build strategies for serving this population.64 For example, the
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault used the funding to address the lack of
coordination between domestic violence agencies and the child welfare system. Their work
involved developing an integrated training curriculum and policies, and creation of a multi-
disciplinary team of child welfare and domestic violence stakeholders in four communities.
Support for Runaway and Homeless Youth Demonstration Grant
From FY2007 through FY2009, HHS used FVPSA discretionary funding (through shelter, victim
services, and program support) to support eight grantees65 that received funding through the
Runaway and Homeless Youth program.66 The FVPSA discretionary funds assisted grantees with
developing services for runaway and homeless youth experiencing or at risk of experiencing
dating violence. The initiative was created because many runaway and homeless youth are
believed to come from homes where domestic violence occurs and they may be at risk of abusing
their partners or becoming victims of abuse. The initiative funded projects carried out by faith-
based and charitable organizations that advocated or provided direct services to runaway and
homeless youth or victims of domestic violence. The grants funded training for staff at these
organizations to enable them to assist youth in preventing dating violence. The initiative resulted
in the development of an online toolkit for advocates in the runaway and homeless youth and
domestic and sexual assault fields to help programs better address relationship violence with
runaway and homeless youth.67
Enhanced Services for Children Who Have Been Exposed to
Domestic Violence Semipostal Stamp
The Stamp Out Domestic Violence Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-67) directed the U.S. Postal Service
(USPS) to issue a semipostal stamp68 (between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2006) to fund
services for domestic violence, and to transfer funding from USPS to HHS. HHS designated the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to administer the stamp act funds. The sale of
the semipostal stamp generated $3.2 million. From FY2005 through FY2007, HHS used this
revenue to provide FVPSA programming for nine states and local communities69 to identify,
64 The grantees were New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women, Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence,
and Family Violence Prevention Fund.
65 The grantees were Council of Churches of Greater Bridgeport, Bridgeport, CT; Youth In Need, St. Charles, MO;
Texas Network of Youth Services, Austin, TX; Hoyleton Youth & Family Services, Washington Park, IL; Family
Violence Prevention Center, Raleigh, NC; Youth Services of Tulsa, OK; LUK Crisis Center, Inc., Fitchburg, MA; and
Center for Community Solutions, San Diego, CA.
66 For further information about this population and HHS’ Runaway and Homeless Youth program, see CRS Report
RL33785, Runaway and Homeless Youth: Demographics and Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
67 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Runaway & Homeless Youth and Relationship Violence Toolkit,”
http://www.nrcdv.org/rhydvtoolkit/index.html.
68 For further information about semipostal stamps, see CRS Report RS22611, Common Questions About Postage and
Stamps, by Kevin R. Kosar.
69 The grantees were East Bay Community Foundation in Oakland, CA; Women’s Crisis and Family Outreach Center
in Castle Rock, CO; District of Columbia Department of Human Services in Washington, DC; Department of Human
Services in Lansing, MI; New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Albany, NY; Oklahoma Coalition
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
24
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
design, and test approaches for providing enhanced direct services for children whose parents
were victims of domestic violence. With the funds, grantees (1) expanded the capacity of
domestic violence programs to address the needs of children and youth coming into emergency
shelters; (2) expanded the capacity of these programs to address the needs of families not in
shelters; and (3) developed and enhanced community-based interventions for children exposed to
domestic violence whose parents had not sought services or support from a domestic violence
program. For example, the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Coalition provided new and
enhanced services to over 1,000 children and over 100 parents. In addition, approximately 300
public school personnel received comprehensive training on the impact of exposure to violence
on children and youth and how to effectively respond to their needs, among other activities.70
FVPSA Interaction with Other Federal Laws
Apart from CAPTA, FVPSA has been reauthorized by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
and shares some of that law’s purposes. In addition, FVPSA interacts with the Victims of Crime
Act (VOCA) because some FVPSA-funded programs receive VOCA funding to provide legal and
other assistance to victims.71 Further, FVPSA includes provisions that encourage or require HHS
to coordinate FVPSA programs with related programs and research carried out by other federal
agencies.
Child Abuse and Neglect
FVPSA does not focus on child abuse per se; however, in enacting FVPSA as part of the 1984
amendments to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), Members of Congress
and other stakeholders noted that child abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence are not
isolated problems, and can arise simultaneously.72 Recent research has focused on this
association. In a national study of children in families who come into contact with a public child
welfare agency through an investigation of child abuse and neglect, investigative caseworkers
(...continued)
Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault in Oklahoma City, OK; Womenspace, Inc. in Eugene, OR;
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence in Harrisburg, PA; and Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence
Action Alliance in Richmond, VA. For further information about the projects, see U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Family
and Youth Services Bureau, Family Violence Semipostal Stamp: Enhancing Services for Children and Youth Who Are
Exposed to Domestic Violence, Report to Congress, 2008, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fysb/content/docs/
fv_stamp_08.pdf.
70 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth, and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, Family Violence Prevention and Services Program,
Report to Congress FY2008-FY2009.
71 The majority of non-residential domestic violence programs participating in a 2011 survey reported that they
received FVPSA funding (65%) and other federal funding under the Victims of Crime Act (73%) or the Violence
Against Women Act (76%). FVPSA funding made up 18.0% of the programs’ budget; VOCA funding made up 21.0%
of the programs’ budget; and VAWA funding made up 14.6% of the programs’ budget. Eleanor Lynn, Jill Bradshaw,
and Anne Menard, Meeting Survivors’ Needs Through Non-Residential Domestic Violence Services & Supports:
Results of a Multi-State Study, University of Connecticut, School of Social Work and National Resource Center on
Domestic Violence, prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 2011.
72 U.S. Congress, House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, Violence and Abuse in American
Families, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., June 14, 1984. See for example, statement of Congressman David Marriott.
Congressional Research Service
25
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
identified 28% of the children’s caregivers as having a history of domestic violence (against the
caregiver) and 12% of those caregivers as being in active domestic violence situations. Further,
about 1 out of 10 of the child cases of maltreatment reported included domestic violence.73
CAPTA provides funding to states to improve their child protective services (CPS) systems. It
requires states, as a condition of receiving certain CAPTA funds, to describe their policies to
enhance and promote collaboration between child protective service and domestic violence
agencies, among other social service providers.74 Other federal efforts also address the association
between domestic violence and child abuse. For example, the Family Connections Grants
program, under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, provides funding to public child welfare
agencies and nonprofit private organizations to help children—whether they are in foster care or
at-risk of entering foster care—connect (or reconnect) with birth parents or other extended kin.
The funds must be used to establish or support certain activities, including family group-decision
making meetings that enable families to develop plans that nurture children and protect them
from abuse and neglect, and, when appropriate, to safely facilitate connecting children exposed to
domestic violence to relevant services and reconnecting them with the abused parent.75
A separate federal program—Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
Program—supports efforts to improve the outcomes of young children living in communities with
concentrations of domestic violence or child maltreatment, among other factors. The program
provides grants to states, territories, and tribes for the support of evidence-based early childhood
home visiting programs that provide in-home visits by health or social service professionals with
at-risk families.76
In addition, HHS and the Department of Justice supported the Greenbook Initiative in the early
2000s. The Greenbook was developed from the efforts of the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges,77 which convened family court judges and experts on child maltreatment
and domestic violence. In 1999, this group developed guidelines for child welfare agencies,
domestic violence providers, and dependency courts in responding to domestic violence and child
abuse in a publication that came to be known as the Greenbook. Soon after, HHS and DOJ funded
efforts in six communities to address domestic violence and child maltreatment by implementing
guidelines from the Greenbook.78 More recently, the Interagency Working Group on Child Abuse
and Neglect has convened the Domestic Violence and Children Subcommittee of the Interagency
73 Cecilia Casanueva et al., NSCAW II Baseline Report: Maltreatment, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Final Report, August 2011, pp.
5-6, 15. Those percentages include all children without regard to whether the child was subsequently removed from the
home. For children who stayed in the home following the investigation, the comparable percentages were the same
(28% and 12%); for children removed from the home following the investigation, the comparable numbers were
slightly higher (30% and 16%); however, this percentage difference was not statistically significant. The study did not
compare the prevalence of domestic violence for families generally. The 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey (NISVS), discussed in this report, found that more than one-third (35.6%) of women experienced
rape, physical violence, and/or stalking in their lifetime and 5.9% experienced them in the past year.
74 42 U.S.C. §5106a(a)(14).
75 42 U.SC. §627.
76 For further information, see CRS Report R40212, Early Childhood Care and Education Programs: Background and
Funding, by Karen E. Lynch and Gail McCallion.
77 42 U.SC. §627. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges is the operator of the FVPSA-funded
Child Protection and Custody Resource Center.
78 For further information, see National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, “The Greenbook Initiative,”
http://www.thegreenbook.info/contact_us.htm.
Congressional Research Service
26
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Work Group on Child Abuse and Neglect, which is co-chaired by the director of the FVPSA
program.79
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)80
FVPSA has twice been amended by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Both FVPSA and
VAWA are the primary vehicles for federal support to prevent and respond to domestic violence,
including children and youth who are exposed to this violence; however, FVPSA has a more
singular focus on prevention and services for victims, while VAWA’s unique contributions are
more focused on law enforcement and legal response to domestic violence.
VAWA was enacted in 1994 after Congress held a series of hearings on the causes and effects of
domestic and other forms of violence against women. Members of Congress and others asserted
that communities needed a more comprehensive response to violence against women generally—
not just against intimate partners—and that perpetrators should face harsher penalties.81 The
shortfalls of legal response and the need for a change in attitudes toward violence against women
were primary reasons cited for the passage of VAWA. Since the enactment of VAWA, the federal
response to domestic violence has expanded to involve multiple departments and activities that
include investigating and prosecuting crimes, providing additional services to victims and
abusers, and educating the criminal justice system and other stakeholders about violence against
women.
Although VAWA also addresses other forms of violence against women and provides a broader
response to domestic violence, some VAWA programs have a similar purpose to those carried out
under FVPSA. Congress currently funds VAWA grant programs that address the needs of victims
of domestic violence. These programs also provide support to victims of sexual assault, dating
violence, and stalking. For example, like the FVPSA grant program for states/territories and
tribes, VAWA’s STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) Violence Against Women
Formula Grant program provides services to victims of domestic/dating violence (and sexual
assault and stalking) that include victim advocacy designed to help victims obtain needed
resources or services, crisis intervention, and advocacy in navigating the criminal and/or civil
legal system.82 Congress appropriated $183 million for the STOP program in FY2014. Of STOP
funds appropriated, 30% must be allocated to victim services. STOP grants also support activities
that are not funded under FVPSA, including for law enforcement, courts, and prosecution efforts.
Another VAWA program, Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for Victims of Domestic
Violence, provides transitional housing services for victims, with the goal of moving them into
permanent housing.83 Congress appropriated $25 million to the program in FY2014. Through the
79 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Office on Women’s Health, Overview of Violence Against
Women Activities 2010-2011.
80 For further information, see CRS Report R42499, The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and
Federal Funding, by Lisa N. Sacco.
81 In their introduction to the Violence Against Women Act, then-Senator Joseph Biden and Senator Barbara Boxer
highlighted the weak legal response to violence against women by police and prosecutors. Senators Biden and Boxer,
“Violence Against Women,” Remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, June 21, 1994. See also Joseph Biden,
“Violence Against Women: The Congressional Response,” American Psychologist, vol. 48, no. 10 (October 1993), pp.
1059-1061; Barbara Vobejda, “Battered Women’s Cry Relayed Up From Grass Roots,” Washington Post, July 6, 1994,
p. A1.
82 University of Southern Maine, Muskie School of Public Service, STOP Formula Grant Program.
83 The 2013 reauthorization of VAWA (P.L. 106-386) authorized the program and codified it under the FVPSA statute
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
27
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
grant program to states/territories and tribes, FVPSA provides emergency shelter to victims of
domestic violence and authorizes service providers to assist with locating and securing safe and
affordable permanent housing and homelessness prevention services. Both programs are
administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Violence Against Women (OVW).
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
FVPSA requires that entities receiving funds under the grant programs for states/territories and
tribes use a certain share of funding for selected activities, including assistance in accessing other
federal and state financial assistance programs. One source of federal finance assistance for
victims of domestic violence is the Crime Victims Fund (CVP), authorized under the Victims of
Crime Act (VOCA) and administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Victims of Crime
(OVC). Within the CVF, funds are available for victims of domestic violence through the Victim
Compensation Formula Grants program and Victims Assistance Formula Grants program. The
Victims Compensation Grants may be used to reimburse victims of crime for out-of-pocket
expenses such as medical and mental health counseling expenses, lost wages, funeral and burial
costs, and other costs (except property loss) authorized in a state’s compensation statute. In recent
years, approximately 40% of all claims filed were for victims of domestic violence. The Victims
Assistance Formula Grants may be used to provide grants to state crime victim assistance
programs to administer funds for state and community-based victim service program operations.
The grants support direct services to victims of crime including information and referral services,
crisis counseling, temporary housing, criminal justice advocacy support, and other assistance
needs. In recent years, approximately 45% to 50% of victims served by these grants were victims
of domestic violence.84
Federal Coordination
Both FVPSA, which is administered within HHS, and VAWA, which is largely administered
within DOJ, require federal agencies to coordinate their efforts to respond to domestic violence.
For example, FVPSA authorizes the HHS Secretary to coordinate programs within HHS and to
“seek to coordinate” those programs “with programs administered by other federal agencies, that
involve or affect efforts to prevent family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence or the
provision of assistance for adults and youth victims of family violence, domestic violence, or
dating violence.”85 In addition, FVPSA directs HHS to assign employees to coordinate research
(...continued)
(Chapter 110 of Title 42). The law directed the HHS Secretary to award grants to provide assistance to individuals
fleeing a situation of domestic violence who are homeless or in need of transitional housing (and their dependents) and
for whom emergency shelter services are unavailable or insufficient. This program remained part of the FVPSA chapter
until it was struck by the FVPSA reauthorization law in 2010 (P.L. 111-320). Separately, the Prosecutorial Remedies
and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act, P.L. 108-21) codified the
program as part of the VAWA statute (Chapter 136 of Title 42) and directed the Attorney General to award grants to
states and other entities to carry out transitional housing programs.
84 42 U.S.C. 10408(b)(G)(1). Deposits to the CVF come from criminal finds, forfeited appearance bonds, penalties, and
special assessments collected by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, federal courts, and the Federal Bureau of Prisoners. For
further information, see CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of Crime, by Lisa
N. Sacco.
85 42 U.S.C. §10404(a)(5).
Congressional Research Service
28
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
efforts on family and related violence within HHS and research carried out by other federal
agencies.86 Similarly, VAWA requires the Attorney General to consult with stakeholders in
establishing a task force—comprised of representatives from relevant federal agencies—to
coordinate research on domestic violence and to report to Congress on any overlapping or
duplication of efforts on domestic violence issues.87
In 1995, HHS and DOJ convened the first meeting of the National Advisory Council on Violence
Against Women. The purpose of the council was to promote greater awareness on violence
against women and to advise the federal government on domestic violence issues. Since that time,
the two departments have convened subsequent committees to carry out similar work. In 2010,
Attorney General Eric Holder re-chartered the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against
Women, which had previously been established in 2006 under his predecessor.88 As stated in the
charter, the committee is intended to provide the Attorney General and the HHS Secretary with
policy advice on improving the nation’s response to violence against women and coordinating
stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels in this response, with a focus on identifying and
implementing successful interventions for children and teens who witness and/or are victimized
by intimate partner and sexual violence.
Separately, the director for FVPSA programs and the deputy director of HHS’s Office on
Women’s Health provide leadership to the HHS Steering Committee on Violence Against
Women.89 This committee supports collaborative efforts to address violence against women and
their children, and includes representatives from the CDC and other HHS agencies. The members
of the committee have established links with professional societies in the health and social service
fields to increase attention on women’s health and violence issues. In addition to these
collaborative activities, multiple federal agencies participate in the Teen Dating Violence
Workgroup, which has met regularly since September 2006 to share information and coordinate
teen dating violence program, policy, and research activities to combat teen dating violence from
a public health perspective. The workgroup has funded a project to incorporate adolescents in the
process for developing a research agenda to address teen dating violence.90 Finally, the Office of
the Vice President coordinates federal efforts to end violence against women, including by
convening cabinet-level officials to address issues concerning domestic and other forms of
violence against women.91
86 42 U.S.C. §10404(b)(3)(C).
87 42 U.S.C. §14042(a).
88 U.S. Department of Justice, “National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women,”
http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/nac.html and “Charge to the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women,”
April 2006, http://www.justice.gov/archive/ovw/docs/final_nac_charge.pdf.
89 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office on Women’s Health, Overview of Violence Against Women
Activities 2010-2011, http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/federal-reports/OneDepartment-VAW-2010-
2011.pdf.
90 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, “Setting the Teen Dating
Violence Research Agenda,” http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/teen-dating-violence/research-
agenda.htm.
91 Office of the President, “1 is 2 Many,” http://www.whitehouse.gov/1is2many.
Congressional Research Service
29
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Appendix A. Definitions
Table A-1. Definitions of Family Violence and Related Terms
Term Definition
“Family Violence:” FVPSA defines this
Any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an individual, that
term at 42 U.S.C. §10402(4).
(1) results or threatens to result in physical injury; and (2) is committed by a person against
another individual (including an elderly individual) to or with whom such person is related
by blood, is or was related to by marriage, or was otherwise legally related to, or is or was
lawfully residing with.
“Domestic Violence:” FVPSA references
Felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the
the definition under the Violence Against
victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is
Women Act (VAWA), as amended, at
cohabiting with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person similarly
42 U.S.C. §134925(a)(6).
situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family violence laws of the
jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim
who is protected from that person’s act under the domestic or family violence laws of the
jurisdiction.
“Dating Violence:” FVPSA references the
Violence committed by a person who has been in a social relationship of a romantic or
definition under VAWA, as amended, at
intimate nature with the victim; and where the existence of such a relationship is
42 U.S.C. §134925(a)(8).
determined based on consideration of the length of the relationship, the type of
relationship, and the frequency of interaction between the persons involved.
“Elder abuse:” FVPSA references this
Any action against a person who is 50 years of age or older that constitutes the willful
term, but does not point to a specific
infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or cruel punishment with
definition. The term is defined under
resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish; or deprivation by a person, including a
VAWA, as amended, at 42 U.S.C.
caregiver, of goods or services with intent to cause physical harm, mental anguish, or
§134925(a)(8).
mental illness.
“Child abuse:” FVPSA references this
At a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which
term, but does not point to a specific
results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act
definition. The term is defined under the
or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act (CAPTA), at 42 U.S.C. §5101 note.
“Witness Domestic Violence:” FVPSA
To directly observe or be within earshot of an act of domestic violence that constitutes
references this term, but does not point
actual or attempted physical assault; a threat or other action that places the victim in fear of
to a specific definition. The term is
domestic violence; or the aftermath of these acts. (The term references an outdated statute
defined in an unrelated context under the
that defines “domestic violence” (42 U.S.C. §3796gg-2) under VAWA. This term is now
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
defined at 42 U.S.C. §134925(a)(6).)
(ESEA) for a program designed to combat
the impact of experiencing or witnessing
domestic violence for elementary and
secondary school children (20 U.S.C.
§7275).
“Stalking:” FVPSA references this term,
Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable
but does not point to a specific definition.
person to (1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or (2) suffer substantial
The term is defined under VAWA, as
emotional distress.
amended, at 42 U.S.C. §134925(a)(24).
“Sexual assault:” FVPSA references this
Any sexual abuse or aggregative sexual abuse (as proscribed under18 U.S.C. §§2241 et seq.),
term, but does not point to a specific
whether or not the conduct occurs in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
definition. The term is defined under
United States or in a federal prison and includes both assaults committed by offenders who
VAWA, as amended, at 42 U.S.C.
are strangers to the victim and assaults committed by offenders who are known or related
§134925(a)(23).
by blood or marriage to the victim.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service
30
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Appendix B. Research on Prevalence and Effects of
Domestic Violence, the Need for Shelter and
Services
Table B-1. Lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of Violence
Committed by an Intimate Partner
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2010
Lifetime
Past 12 Months
Weighted
Estimated
Weighted
Estimated
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Women
Rapea 9.4%
11,162,000
0.6%
686,000
Physical Violenceb 32.9%
39,167,000 4.0%
4,741,000
Stalking 2.1%
2,427,000
0.5%
519,000
Rape, Physical
35.6% 42,420,000
5.9% 3,53,000
Violence, and/or
Stalking
Other Sexual
16.9% 18,973,000
2.3% 2,747,000
Violencea
Psychological
48.4% 57,613,000
13.9% 16,578,000
Aggressionc
Men
Rape N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Physical Violenceb 28.2%
31,893,000 4.7%
5,365,000
Stalking 2.1%
2,427,000
0.5%
519,000
Rape, Physical
28.5% 32,280,000
5.0% 5,691,000
Violence, and/or
Stalking
Other Sexual
8.0% 9,050,000
2.5% 2,793,000
Violencea
Psychological
48.8% 55,249,000
18.1% 20,548,000
Aggressionc
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2010 Summary
Report, November 2011, Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, and 4.8; and Figures 4.3 and 4.4.
Notes: N/A means the estimate is not reported due to the high standard error or small sample size. Intimate
partners include cohabiting or non-cohabiting romantic or sexual partners who are opposite or same sex
couples. For purposes of the survey, rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for
women), or anal penetration through the use of physical force or threats of physical harm and includes times
when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Physical violence is defined as a
range of behaviors from slapping, pushing, or shoving to severe acts such as being beaten, burned, or choked.
Stalking is defined as a pattern of harassing or threatening tactics used by a perpetrator that is both unwanted
and causes fear of safety concerns in the victim. Other sexual violence includes that the victim was made to
Congressional Research Service
31
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
penetrate or sexual y coerced; or experience unwanted sexual contact or unwanted non-contact sexual
experiences. Psychological aggression encompasses both expressive aggression (i.e., the perpetrator acted in a
way that seemed dangerous; the victim was told they were a loser, a failure, or not good enough) and coercive
control (e.g., the perpetrator tried to keep the victim from seeing or talking to family or friends; the perpetrator
made threats to physically harm the victim).
a. The most prevalent type of sexual violence among women over their lifetime was sexual coercion (9.8%)
and rape (9.4%), and over the past 12 months was sexual coercion (1.7%). The most prevalent type of
sexual violence among males over their lifetime and over the past 12 months was sexual coercion (4.2% and
1.0%, respectively). Sexual coercion means victims were pressured in a non-physical way to have sexual
relations (e.g., threatening to end the relationship). Certain other estimates of sexual violence for women
and men were not reported due to high standard error or small sample size.
b. The most prevalent type of physical violence among women over their lifetime and the past 12 months was
being pushed or shoved (27.5% and 3.4%, respectively), slapped (20.4% and 1.6%, respectively), or slammed
against something (17.2% and 1.5%, respectively). The most prevalent type of physical violence among males
over their lifetime and the past 12 months was being pushed or shoved (19.4% and 3.8%, respectively),
slapped (18.3% and 2.7%, respectively), and hit with a fist or something hard (9.4% and 1.4%, respectively).
c. Among female victims, the most prevalent type of psychological aggression over their lifetimes was being
cal ed names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid (64.3%); tracked by where they were and what they were doing
(61.7%); and insulted, humiliated, or made fun of (58.0%). Among male victims, the most prevalent type of
psychological aggression over their lifetimes was being tracked by where they were and what they were
doing (63.1%); called names like ugly, fat, crazy, or stupid (51.6%); and insulted, humiliated, or made fun of
(58.0%).
Surveys of Domestic Violence Victims Receiving Shelter and
Supportive Services
One-Day Census
The majority of FVPSA funds are dedicated to shelter and services. The National Network to End
Domestic Violence, an advocacy and support organization for state domestic violence coalitions,
conducts a one-day census of domestic violence programs across the country. This count is
conducted in September of each year. In 2012, the one-day census of 1,646 domestic violence
programs (86.0% of all programs)92 identified victims and their children (39,541 victims and
24,783 children) who were in emergency shelters or transitional housing93 and/or receiving non-
residential assistance and services.94 On the day of the census, the greatest share of children and
adults received non-residential services (46.0%), followed by emergency shelter (35.0%) and
transitional housing (19.0%). The one-day census also found that domestic violence programs
provided the following services on the day of the census: support or advocacy for victims
(93.0%), support or advocacy for children (80%), emergency shelter (75.0%), transportation
(50.0%), court and legal advocacy (53.0%), group support and advocacy (48%), advocacy related
to housing and landlords (37.0%), transitional housing (34.0%), advocacy by a bilingual advocate
92 The FVPSA grants for states, territories, and tribes funded 1,564 domestic violence shelters and 1,196 non-residential
service sites in FY2012; some programs have both shelters and non-residential services. This information was provided
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, February 2014.
93 The Transitional Housing Assistance Grants for Victims of Domestic Violence is authorized and funded under
VAWA. The program directs the Attorney General to award grants to states and other entities to carry out transitional
housing programs.
94 National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), Domestic Violence Counts 2013. NNEDV has identified
1,924 local domestic violence programs in the United States.
Congressional Research Service
32
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
(31.0%), financial skills and budgeting assistance (25.0%), and job training and employment
assistance (20.0%). Providers reported that they provided these services throughout the year at
higher rates, except for transitional housing. Victims made 10,471 requests for services on the
census day that could not be provided because programs did not have the resources to offer these
services. Approximately 65.0% of these requests were made for emergency shelter and
transitional housing. Other unmet service requests sought help with transportation, child care, and
legal representation. The reasons the requested services could not be provided include that there
was not enough funding (42.0%) and staff (30.0%), among others.
Surveys of Domestic Violence Shelter and Service Providers
In addition to the one-day census, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and
Justice carried out studies in 2009 and 2011 that examined the characteristics of domestic
violence shelters and service providers, and the use and need for shelter and services. The studies
found that shelters and service providers offered a variety of services, including counseling,
parenting classes, case management, and assistance with obtaining protective or restraining
orders. The survey of the service providers inquired about funding sources, and the majority of
providers indicated they received funding through the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (FVPSA). A majority also received funding from other federal sources to address domestic
violence. Overall, survivors reported that they benefited greatly from these supports, although
some continued to have multiple needs.
The 2009 study surveyed 215 shelter programs across eight states and 3,410 shelter residents in
those programs.95 The study examined the characteristics of shelters, the needs of survivors, and
whether shelters met their needs, among other topics. On average, these shelters had a capacity of
25 and each had sheltered an average of 130 adults and 114 children over the previous year. The
median limit for length of stay was 60 days. Some shelters limited stays to 30 days while others
allowed stays up to two years. Shelters reported offering a range of services, including support
groups (97%), crisis counseling (96%), individual counseling (92%), parenting classes (55%),
counseling for children (54%), and child care (50%). Respondents completed a written survey
around the time that they both entered and exited the shelter. Nearly all (99.6%) were female.96
Approximately one-quarter had first heard of the shelter within a day or two of arriving at it,
which likely reflected that they came to the shelter in a crisis situation. Most (70%) respondents
were between ages 25 and 50, about 20% were under age 25, and 10% were age 50 and older.97
Approximately 60% of respondents were mothers. Participants stayed in the shelter for 33 days
on average.
The survey asked about 38 different possible needs at both entry and exit. At entry, the most
common needs they identified were safety (85%), affordable housing (85%), and learning about
their options (80%). At exit, the most common needs identified were personal safety (98%),
95 This included 81% of shelters in the eight states: CT, FL, IL, MI, NM, OK, TN, and WA. Eleanor Lyon, Shannon
Lane, and Anne Menard, University of Connecticut, School of Social Work and National Resource Center on Domestic
Violence, Meeting Survivors’ Needs: A Multi-State Study of Domestic Violence Shelter Experiences, prepared for the
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Final Report, February 2008.
96 Thirteen of the respondents were men. As noted in the study, most men receive services other than emergency shelter
from domestic violence programs, or obtain housing assistance through motel vouchers or safe homes and therefore
would not be included in the study.
97 Approximately 20% were under age 25 and 10% were ages 50 and older.
Congressional Research Service
33
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
learning about options (98%), and understanding domestic violence (97%). Most respondents
reported that they received the help they wanted across the most common needs; however, not all
respondents reported receiving all the help they needed. For example, 70% of those who wanted
help with learning about their options received all of the help they needed; 26% received some
help and 4% received no help. Survivors were asked to describe what they would have done if
they did not have access to a shelter. Many responded that they would have (1) been homeless
and may have returned to the abuser because of the need for financial support; (2) lost valuables,
jobs, and their children; (3) acted out of desperation, including resorting to violence against their
offenders; or (4) continued to remain with their abusive partner.
The 2011 study included 1,467 survivors of domestic violence who received non-residential
services at 90 domestic violence programs in four states and at culturally specific programs from
across the country.98 The purpose of the study was to learn more about the characteristics of
domestic violence programs, the extent to which services met their expectations, and survivors’
assessments of immediate outcomes associated with services. The programs had been in existence
for an average of 23 years, had an average staff size of 16, and offered support to between 26 and
8,519 survivors in 2010. Nearly 40% were independent domestic violence programs and about
one-quarter were dual domestic violence and sexual assault programs; the rest were part of a
larger social service or community agency. Some programs reported whether they received
FVPSA funding (65%) and other federal funding under the Victims of Crime Act (73%) or the
Violence Against Women Act (76%).99 The greatest share of services included support groups
(94%), crisis counseling (93%), case management (92%), and help with obtaining protective or
restraining orders (88%). The referrals most likely to be made to outside entities were long-term
housing (84%), disability issues (80%), and health care (80%).
Respondents were surveyed after having at least two contacts with the program. Most of the
respondents were female (95%), with the greatest share of respondents being white (39%). More
than half (53.1%) were ages 31 to 50, about one-quarter were ages 21 to 30; and about 10% were
under age 21 and 12% were over the age of 50. Nearly half (46%) reported that they came to the
United States from another country.100 Survivors were most likely to report that they wanted help
with talking to someone who understood their situation (98%), support to make decisions and
changes in their lives (94%), and information about who to call or where to get help (94%),
among other needs. For every need, the majority of survivors received all of the help they wanted.
Among those who wanted a certain type of help and could not get it, the highest percentage
wanted assistance with learning to drive; 29% got none of the help they wanted with driving.
Survivors generally reported that they were satisfied with the services received (with most
services being ranked as helpful or very helpful). Nine out of ten respondents reported that as a
result of the services they received, they felt more hopeful, knew ways to plan for their safety, felt
they would achieve their goals, and knew about their rights and options.
98 Eleanor Lynn, Jill Bradshaw, and Anne Menard, Meeting Survivors’ Needs Through Non-Residential Domestic
Violence Services & Supports: Results of a Multi-State Study, University of Connecticut, School of Social Work and
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, November 2011, http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/DVServicesStudy-FINALReport2011.pdf.
99 Less than half of the programs were able to provide data about what percentage of their budget came from specific
sources. Of those that responded about FVPSA funding, this funding made up 18.0% of their budget; of those that
responded about VOCA funding, this funding made up 21.0% of their budget; and of those responding about VAWA
funding, this funding made up 14.6% of their budget.
100 Though not addressed in the report, the high representation of individuals who came from another country may be
due to the oversampling of domestic violence programs that were culturally specific.
Congressional Research Service
34
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Appendix C. Funding for Selected FVPSA Activities
Table C-1. FVPSA Formula Grant Funding for Services and Shelter for States and
Territories, FY2012 and FY2013
State/Territory FY2012 FY2013
Alabama $1,505,670
1,409,947
Alaska 734,015
721,881
Arizona 1,806,120
1,693,227
Arkansas 1,150,209
1,095,468
California 7,629,510
6,956,462
Colorado 1,548,967
1,462,910
Connecticut 1,274,402
1,203,860
Delaware 769,433
752,982
District of Columbia
713,540
704,220
Florida 4,147,650
3,813,914
Georgia 2,427,979
2,255,263
Hawai 856,677
831,852
Idaho 895,790
867,296
Illinois 3,021,033
2,770,305
Indiana 1,823,439
1,699,031
Iowa 1,174,822
1,116,436
Kansas 1,138,359
1,084,213
Kentucky 1,418,802
1,336,860
Louisiana 1,455,409
1,371,512
Maine
850,651
823,989
Maryland 1,689,421
1,582,898
Massachusetts 1,835,483
1,710,939
Michigan 2,464,960
2,265,546
Minnesota 1,600,806
1,501,371
Mississippi 1,159,904
1,102,304
Missouri 1,730,060
1,613,658
Montana 786,694
768,339
Nebraska 944,615
910,748
Nevada 1,109,571
1,059,268
New Hampshire
848,407
822,304
New Jersey
2,258,957
2,087,623
New Mexico
988,550
951,152
New York
4,256,486
3,882,662
Congressional Research Service
35
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
State/Territory FY2012 FY2013
North Carolina
2,399,266
2,228,481
North Dakota
726,912
715,340
Ohio 2,776,842
2,546,971
Oklahoma 1,307,849
1,239,410
Oregon 1,322,892
1,252,960
Pennsylvania 2,996,833
2,748,993
Rhode Island
798,611
777,294
South Carolina
1,472,767
1,389,118
South Dakota
753,629
738,975
Tennessee 1,797,457
1,679,878
Texas 5,344,757
4,929,845
Utah 1,121,522
1,075,104
Vermont 718,072
705,643
Virginia 2,109,726
1,965,432
Washington 1,868,864
1,751,835
West Virginia
949,644
912,893
Wisconsin 1,673,087
1,563,247
Wyoming 706,352
695,813
Total States
88,861,473
83,147,672
American Samoa
129,547
121,225
Guam 129,547
121,225
Northern Mariana Islands
129,547
121,225
Puerto Rico
1,303,025
1,225,106
Virgin Islands
129,547
121,225
Total Territories
1,821,213
1,710,006
Total
$90,682,686
$84,857,678
Source: Congressional Research Service, based on data provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Family and
Youth Services Bureau, February 2014.
Note: Funding is appropriated to multiple tribal entities. Total funding for tribal entities was $12,931,071 in
FY2012 and $12,122,525 in FY2013.
Congressional Research Service
36
Table C-2. National and Special Issue Resource Centers Funded Under FVPSA, FY2013
FY2013
Center Description
Appropriation
National Resource Centers
National Resource Center on
NRCDV provides training and technical assistance to a variety of stakeholders; develops and disseminates information
$1,449,482
Domestic Violence (NRCDV)
packets that address a range of domestic violence issues; and publishes innovative intervention and model prevention
practices, protocols, and policies. NRCDV also operates VAWnet, an online resource center (with support from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). NRCDV’s Women of Color Network builds the capacity of women of
color advocates and activists responding to domestic violence in their communities. NRCDV is operated by an
organization of the same name, in Pennsylvania. The website is http://www.nrcdv.org/.
National Indian Resource Center
The National Indian Resource Center assists tribes and tribal organizations in responding to domestic violence. The
$1,111,269
Addressing Domestic Violence and resource center is engaged in public awareness, training and technical assistance, policy development, and research
Safety for Indian Women (National activities. The resource center also provides leadership on holding offenders accountable and ensuring that Native
Indian Resource Center)
women and their children are safe from violence in their homes and their communities. The resource center is
operated by the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, in Montana. The website is http://www.niwrc.org/.
Special Issue Resource Centers
Battered Women’s Justice Project
BWJP provides training to enhance local efforts at coordinating the response of the criminal justice system to domestic
$960,000
(BWJP): Criminal and Civil Justice
violence cases. Training also focuses on improving battered women’s access to civil justice options and quality legal
Centera
representation in civil court proceedings and advocacy for victims of domestic violence by military personnel, among
other topics. BWJP is operated by an organization of the same name, in Minnesota. The website is
http://www.bwjp.org.
National Health Resource Center
HRC supports health care practitioners, administrators and systems, domestic violence experts, survivors, and policy
$980,000
on Domestic Violence (HRC)
makers at all levels as they improve health care’s response to domestic violence. The HRC supports health care
leaders through groundbreaking models, education and response programs, advocacy, and technical assistance. The
HRC offers free culturally competent materials and in-person trainings that are appropriate for a variety of public and
private health professions, settings, and departments. The HRC is operated by Futures Without Violence in California,
and the website is http://www.futureswithoutviolence.org/.
Resource Center on Domestic
The Resource Center provides leadership and assistance to consumers and professionals dealing with the issue of child
$960,000
Violence: Child Protection and
protection and custody in the context of domestic violence. The Resource Center provides information products to
Custody (Resource Center)
those working in the fields of domestic violence, child protection, and custody; and technical assistance, training, policy
development, and other resources that are intended to increase the safety, promote stability, and enhance the well-
being of battered parents and their children. The Resource Center is operated by the National Council of Juvenile and
Family Court Judges in Nevada. The website is http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/view/129/250/.
CRS-37
FY2013
Center Description
Appropriation
National Center on Domestic
The National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health focuses on efforts to (1) promote dialogue
$970,000
Violence, Trauma & Mental Health
between domestic violence and mental health organizations, policy makers, and survivor/advocacy groups about the
complex intersections of domestic violence, trauma, and mental health and current strategies to enhance work in this
area, (2) build capacity among local agencies, state domestic violence coalitions, and state mental health systems, and
(3) provide recommendations on policies, practices, and collaborative models that will positively impact the lives of
survivors and their children, particularly in relation to trauma and mental health. The center is operated by an
organization of the same name, in Illinois. The website is http://www.nationalcenterdvtraumamh.org.
Special Issue Resource Centers: Culturally Specific Institutes
Asian and Pacific Islander Institute
The Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence is a national training and technical assistance provider
$539,000
on Domestic Violence (API
and a clearinghouse on gender violence in Asian, Native Hawai an, and Pacific Islander communities. It serves a national
Institute)
network of stakeholders working to eliminate violence against women. The API Institute’s strategic agenda for
programs, communities, and systems focuses on analyzing the issues that inform prevention and intervention on
violence against women. This is achieved by improving the cultural relevancy of services; providing the tools to
confront and change gender norms; and conducting research and policy reviews that increase access to systems. The
API Institute is operated by an organization of the same name, in California. The website is http://www.api dv.org.
Casa de Esperanza
Casa de Esperanza seeks to advance effective responses to eliminate violence and promote healthy relationships within
$539,000
Latina families and communities by increasing access for Latinos experiencing domestic violence through training and
technical assistance; producing culturally relevant tools for advocates and practitioners; conducting culturally relevant
research that explores the context in which Latino families experience violence; and interjecting the lived realities of
Latinas into policy efforts to better support Latino families. Casa de Esperanza is operated by an organization of the
same name, in Minnesota. The website is https://www.casadeesperanza.org/.
Institute on Domestic Violence in
IDVAAC is an organization focused on the unique circumstances and life experiences of African Americans as they
$379,019
the African American Community
seek resources and remedies related to the victimization and perpetration of domestic violence in their community.
(IDVAAC)
IDVAAC recognizes the impact and high correlation of intimate partner violence to child abuse, elder maltreatment,
and community violence. IDVAAC seeks to enhance society’s understanding of and ability to end violence in the
African American community. IDVAAC is operated by the University of Minnesota. The website is
http://www.idvaac.org/index.html.
Total
$7,887,770
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on a review of the center websites and the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence,
http://www.VAWnet.org. Funding information from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on
Children, Youth and Families, Family and Youth Services Bureau, February 2014.
a. The National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women is a sub-grantee of the Battered Women’s Justice Project. The National Clearinghouse provides
technical assistance (but not direct representation) to battered women charged with crimes and to members of their defense team. Most frequently, these cases
CRS-38
involve women who have defended themselves against life-threatening violence by their abuser and have been charged with assault or homicide. Some cases involve
women coerced into crime by their abuser and charged with “failing to protect” their children from their abuser’s violence or charged with “parental kidnapping”
after fleeing to protect themselves or their children from their abuser.
CRS-39
Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding
Author Contact Information
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara
Specialist in Social Policy
afernandes@crs.loc.gov, 7-9005
Congressional Research Service
40