Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

February 25, 2014 – July 27, 2022 R42838

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act
July 27, 2022
(FVPSA): Background and Funding
Kara Clifford Billings
Family violence broadly refers to acts of physical and sexual violence perpetrated by individuals
Analyst in Social Policy
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. Generally speaking, victims tend
to be women, although a sizable share of men are also victimized. A 2015 survey conducted by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) found that approximately one-third of women and men had experienced sexual violence,
physical violence, and/or stalking in their lifetimes. It showed that women were more likely than men to have experienced
contact sexual violence (18% vs. 8%), stalking (10% vs. 2%), and severe physical violence (21% vs. 15%). Women were also
more likely than men to report an impact related to partner violence over their lifetimes (25% vs 11%). Such impacts
included having injuries, being fearful, being concerned for their safety, missing work or school, needing medical care, or
needing help from law enforcement.
Throughout much of the 20th century, domestic violence remained a hidden problem. Victims, or survivors, of this abuse
often endured physical and emotional abuse in silence out of fear of retaliation by their spouses or partners. In the 1970s,
women with personal experiences of abuse, 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 domestic violence and explore possible
responses. FVPSA was enacted in 1984 (Title III of P.L. 98-457), and has been reauthorized seven times—most recently by
the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).
FVPSA authorizes three primary sets of activities, all of which are administered by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). These activities are authorized through FY2015, per the 2010 reauthorization, and funds (which are
discretionary) have continually been appropriated in each subsequent year. Funding for FVPSA was approximately $220
million in FY2022. This was lower than the FY2021 amount (approximately $400 million), which reflected appropriations
under the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2). P.L. 117-2 also provided $250 million for two new grant programs
that are being administered under FVPSA to respond to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on sexual assault and
domestic violence survivors.
The bulk of FVPSA funding supports shelter and direct services for victims and their families, including victims in
underserved 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 safety plans, advocacy, legal advocacy, and
other services. This funding also supports state domestic violence coalitions that provide training and support for service
providers, and national resource centers that provide training and technical assistance on various domestic violence issues for
a variety of stakeholders. The second major FVPSA activity is a national domestic violence hotline that receives calls for
assistance related to domestic violence. The hotline provides crisis intervention and counseling, maintains a database of
service providers throughout the United States and the territories, and provides referrals for victims and others affected by
domestic violence. Third, FVPSA funds prevention efforts through a program known as Domestic Violence Prevention
Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA). The program supports efforts in selected communities to prevent
domestic violence.
FVPSA was the first federal law to address domestic violence. Since the law was enacted, it has retained 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. With the enactment of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA, P.L. 103-322), 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

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).1 FVPSA programs
are carried out by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS’s) Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
ACF administers most FVPSA programming, including grants to states,2 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 privately
operated national domestic violence hotline that responds to calls, texts, and web-based chats
from individuals seeking assistance. The funding for ACF also supports state domestic violence
coalitions that provide training for and advocacy on behalf of domestic violence providers within
each state, as well as multiple resource centers that provide training and technical assistance on
various domestic 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 Alliances (DELTA). The House Committee on Education and Labor 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 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 nonresidential services, and community-based
responses to prevent domestic violence. The report then discusses efforts under FVPSA to assist
children and youth exposed to domestic violence, including teen dating violence.
Finally, the report 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 of 1994 (VAWA, P.L. 103-322). FVPSA was the first federal law to address domestic
violence, with a focus on providing shelter and services for survivors. 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 appendices provide further detail about
FVPSA-related definitions and funding and statistics related to domestic violence victimization.3

1 The law is codified at 42 U.S.C. §10401 et seq. The regulations for the program are at 45 C.F.R. Part 1370. A final
rule from 2016 amended the regulations. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration
for Children and Families (ACF), “Family Violence Prevention and Services,” 81 Federal Register 212, October 14,
2015.
2 For the purposes of this report, the term states includes the District of Columbia.
3 For other CRS products about domestic violence, see CRS Report R45410, The Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA): Historical Overview, Funding, and Reauthorization, and CRS In Focus IF11592, Federal Support for
Providing Housing to Individuals Experiencing Domestic Violence.
Congressional Research Service

1

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Federal Support for Domestic Violence in the Context of COVID-19
Empirical research and anecdotal information from organizations that serve domestic violence victims indicate that
disasters and emergencies can heighten the frequency and severity of abuse.4 In the context of the Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, some abusers may exert further power and control over their partners
because of the stress caused by economic and other uncertainties surrounding the pandemic.5 Victims may be less
likely to use crisis hotlines with their abusers close by, and may face repercussions if they reach out for help.6
Federal lawmakers addressed domestic violence in multiple COVID-19 response laws. Enacted in March 2020, the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) provided additional FY2020
funding of $2 mil ion for the national domestic violence hotline and $45 mil ion for FVPSA formula grants—both
available through September 30, 2021. The law specified that FVPSA subgrantees are not required to provide a
match as they usually would be with regular appropriations. Also enacted in March 2020, the Coronavirus
Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-123) provided general funding to the
CDC to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19—available through September 30, 2022—and the
agency used $1.6 mil ion of such funds for Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through
Alliances (DELTA) grants.7
Subsequently, the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2), enacted in March 2021, provided additional
funding for FVPSA activities in FY2021—$198 mil ion for shelter, services, and support and $2 mil ion for the
hotline. It also authorized and provided funding for two new grant programs to support survivors of sexual assault
($198 mil ion) and “culturally specific populations” ($49.5 mil ion), and $2.5 mil ion for HHS’s administrative costs
associated with the new grants. In October 2021, ACF issued guidance implementing the grants. Funding to
support survivors of sexual assault was allocated to states, territories, and tribes on a noncompetitive basis using
the FVPSA funding allocation formula (funding available through September 30, 2025), to be used to help rape
crisis centers and other sexual assault program operators transition to virtual services and meet the emergency
needs of survivors.8 Funding for culturally specific populations (available through September 30, 2025) was
awarded competitively to multiple resource centers9 to oversee and make subawards to community-based
organizations providing culturally relevant and linguistically appropriate services to victims from racial and ethnic
minority groups and underserved populations.10
In addition to distributing additional funding during the COVID-19 pandemic, ACF issued guidance that advised
how FVPSA funds can be expended, including for staff, food, toiletries, and supplies at shelters, among other
items.11 Per an existing requirement, funds may not be given directly to victims.12 ACF has also issued other
guidance that provides flexibilities for applicants and grantees in programs conducting human service activities
related to COVID-19.13 Separately, FVPSA-funded training and technical assistance centers are sharing resources
for serving victims during the pandemic.
Background
Definitions
The FVPSA statute focuses on family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence. Family
violence can involve many types of family relationships and forms of violence. FVPSA defines

4 Julie A. Schumacher et al., “Intimate partner violence and Hurricane Katrina: Predictors and Associated Mental
Health Outcomes,” Violence and Victims, vol. 25, no. 5 (2010), pp. 588-603; Alisha Haridasani Gupta and Aviva Stahl,
“For Abused Women, a Pandemic Lockdown Holds Dangers of Its Own,” New York Times March 24, 2020; National
Domestic Violence Hotline, “Staying Safe During COVID-19,” March 13, 2020, https://www.thehotline.org/2020/03/
13/staying-safe-during-covid-19.
5 National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, “Power and Control Wheel,” http://www.ncdsv.org/images/
PowerControlwheelNOSHADING.pdf.
6 MJ Lee, “Visits to New York City’s domestic violence website surged amid coronavirus pandemic,” CNN.com, April
7, 2020, https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/us/nyc-domestic-violence-website-surging/index.html.
7 Based on correspondence with HHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), September 2020.
8 HHS, ACF, Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB), “2021 FVPSA American Rescue Plan $198 million Grants to
Support Survivors of Sexual Assault Funding Program Instruction Guidance Memo,” October 29, 2021,
Congressional Research Service

2

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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.14 This definition focuses on physical forms
of violence and is limited to abusers and victims15 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.16 This broader 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. FVPSA references the terms
domestic violence and dating violence as they are defined under VAWA, and discusses these terms
alongside family violence. (The FVPSA regulations also define these terms as generally
consistent with VAWA, but recognize that the term “dating violence” encompasses additional
acts.)17 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 in common—that are outlawed under state
or local laws. VAWA defines “dating violence” as violence committed by a person who has been

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/fysb/grant-funding/2021-fvpsa-american-rescue-plan-198-million-grants-support-survivors-
sexual-0.
9 The Asian Pacific Institute on Gender Based Violence, Esperanza United/Casa de Esperanza, Ujima, Inc.: The
National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, the National Indigenous Women’s Resource
Center, and the Alaska Native Women’s Resource Center.
10 HHS, ACF, FYSB, “2021 FVPSA $49.5 Million American Rescue Plan Support for Survivors of Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault from Culturally Specific Populations Grants Program Instruction Guidance Memo,” October 29,
2021, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/fysb/grant-funding/2021-fvpsa-american-rescue-plan-culturally-specific-program-
instruction-guidance.
11 HHS, ACF, FAQs on Allowable Use of FVPSA Funds During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency,
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/fysb/news/faqs-on-allowable-use-of-fvpsa-funds-during-the-covid-19-public-health-
emergency; and HHS, ACF, FY 2020 CARES Act Supplemental Funding Guidance for FVPSA Formula Grantees:
Abbreviated Application Process Memo, Allowable Use of Funds, and Reporting Instructions, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/
fysb/resource/fvpsa-cares-act-supplemental-award-information-formula-grantees.
12 42 U.S.C. §10408(d)(1).
13 HHS, ACF, “ACF Grant Recipient COVID-19 Guidance,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/archive/grants-funding/acf-
grant-recipient-covid-19.
14 42 U.S.C. §10402(4) (Definitions).
15 This term is sometimes used interchangeably with the word survivors.
16 Roger J.R. Levesque, Culture and Violence: Fostering Change Through Human Rights Law (Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 2001), p. 13.
17 The 2016 final rule that amended the regulations for FVPSA notes with regard to “family violence” and “domestic
violence,” “the [social service] field and Congress have used the term interchangeably for decades.” The final rule also
notes that HHS sought to broaden the definition of “domestic violence,” stating that “given the continuum of behaviors
constituting ‘domestic violence’ identified in FVPSA, and the broader protections embodied in State and other
jurisdictional law, [HHS/]ACF will interpret ‘domestic violence’ as inclusive of additional acts recognized in other
Federal, State, local, and tribal laws, as well as acts in other Federal regulatory and sub-regulatory guidance.” Note that
this definition is not intended to be interpreted “more restrictively than FVPSA and VAWA but rather to be inclusive of
other, more expansive definitions.” HHS, Family Violence Prevention and Services,” 81 Federal Register 212,
November 2, 2016.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 35 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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.
(Appendix A provides a summary of these and related terms as they are defined in statute.)
The federal government responds to child abuse and elder abuse through a variety of separate
programs. Federal law 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.18
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 the federal government funds, the National Center on Elder
Abuse. The center provides 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.19 The 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.20
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, among others) 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.21 Certain risk
variables are often associated with—but not necessarily the causes—of domestic violence. Such
factors include a pattern of problem drinking, poverty and economic conditions, and early
parenthood.22 For example, substance abuse often precedes incidents of domestic violence. A U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) study found that substance abuse tracked closely with homicide,
attempted homicide, or the most severe violent incidents of abuse perpetrated against an intimate
partner. Among men who killed or attempted to kill their intimate partners, over 80% were
problem drinkers in the year preceding the incident.23

18 For further information, see CRS Report R43458, Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their
Current Funding.
19 For further information, see CRS Report R43414, Older Americans Act: Overview and Funding; and HHS, Office on
Women’s Health, Overview of Violence Against Women Activities 2010-2011, June 25, 2012 (hereinafter, “HHS,
Office on Women’s Health, Overview of Violence Against Women Activities 2010-2011”).
20 For further information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding.
21 Rachel Jewkes, “Intimate Partner Violence: Causes and Prevention,” The Lancet, vol. 359 (April 20, 2002), pp.
1423-1429.
22 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), “Causes and
Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,” http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/Pages/
welcome.aspx.
23 Phyllis Sharps et al., “Risky Mix: Drinking, Drug Use, and Homicide,” NIJ Journal, no. 250 (November 2003). The
abused women studied were between the ages of 18 and 50 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.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 36 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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 other research does not; 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 generally 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.24
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
psychologically.25 Women tend to first be victimized at a younger age than men. Further, Native
American and Black women and men tend to be victimized at higher rates than their White,
Hispanic, and Asian counterparts.
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
NISVS provides information on the prevalence of domestic violence among individuals during
their lifetimes and in the past 12 months prior to the survey. The CDC conducted the study
annually in each of 2010-2012 and in 2015.26 The survey examines multiple aspects of intimate
partner violence—including contact sexual violence, which encompasses rape and other acts;
physical violence, including slapping, kicking, and more severe acts like being burned; and
stalking, which is a pattern of harassing or threatening tactics. Select findings from the study are
summarized in Table B-1. Generally, the 2015 survey found that women and men were
victimized at similar rates over their lifetime.27 Over one-third of women (36%) and men (34%)
in the United States reported that they experienced sexual violence, physical violence, and/or
stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes. However, women were more likely than men to
experience certain types of intimate partner violence, including contact sexual violence (18% vs.
8%), stalking (10% vs. 2%), and severe physical violence (21% vs. 15%). Women were also
much more likely than men to report an impact related to partner violence over their lifetimes

24 Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report,
HHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (Hereinafter, Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate
Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report.)
25 Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief - Updated
Release, HHS, CDC, November 2018 (hereinafter, “Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual
Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief - Updated Release”). See also, Jennifer L. Truman and Rachel E. Morgan, Criminal
Victimization, 2016, Table 2, DOJ, OJP, BJS, December 2017 (hereinafter, “Jennifer L. Truman and Rachel E. Morgan,
Criminal Victimization, 2016”).
26 Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report.
The NISVS is a national random telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized English and/or Spanish-speaking U.S.
population age 18 and older. The study is coordinated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at
HHS, and developed and fielded with support from DOJ and the Department of Defense (DOD). Terms such as
“physical violence” and “stalking” are defined in the report. Over the 2010-2012 period, more than 41,000 interviews
were completed; and in 2015 more than 10,000 interviews were completed. National estimates were derived based on
statistical weights applied to the percentages of respondents who experience domestic violence.
27 In addition, about 5% of women and men had experienced these acts within the past year. Sharon G. Smith et al., The
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief - Updated Release.
Congressional Research Service

5

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

(25% vs 11%). Such impacts included having injuries, being fearful, being concerned for their
safety, missing work or school, needing medical care, or needing help from law enforcement.
Women and men of color, particularly individuals who are multiracial, tended to experience
domestic violence at higher lifetime rates. As reported in the 2010 NISVS, women who are
multiracial (57%) were most likely to report contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or
stalking by an intimate partner, followed by American Indian or Alaska Native women (48%),
Black women (45%), White women (37%), Hispanic women of any race (34%), and Asian or
Pacific Islander women (18%).28 Among men, those who were Black (40%) and multiracial
(39%) were more likely to experience intimate partner violence than White (32%) and Hispanic
(29%) men; estimates were not reported for American Indian or Alaska Native or Asian or Pacific
Islander males because the data were unreliable.
Special Populations
The 2010 NISVS examined the prevalence of this violence based on how adult respondents
identified their sexual orientation (heterosexual or straight, gay or lesbian, or bisexual). The study
found that overall, bisexual women had significantly higher lifetime prevalence of sexual
violence, physical violence, and stalking by an intimate partner when compared to both lesbian
and heterosexual women.29 The NISVS did not examine outcomes by gender identity. However, a
2015 survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality, a private-sector advocacy
organization, found that 42% of respondents (who identified as transgender) reported
experiencing some form of physical violence by an intimate partner over their lifetime.30
The 2010 NISVS also surveyed women on active duty in the military and the wives of active duty
men. These women were asked to respond to whether they experienced intimate partner violence
over their lifetime and during the four years prior to the survey. The study found that the majority
of women affiliated with the military were significantly less likely to be victims of intimate
partner violence compared to 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% had been victims
of physical violence, rape, or stalking by an intimate partner during the past three years and 35%
had experienced victimization over their lifetime. This is compared to 10% (during the past three
years) and 28% (lifetime prevalence) of women who had not deployed.31

28 Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 State Report,
HHS, CDC, April 2017. Reports on the more recent 2015 survey do not include data on race and ethnicity.
29 Mikel L. Walters, Jieru Chen, and Matthew J. Breiding, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey
(NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation, HHS, CDC, 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.
30 S. E. James, J. L. Herman, S. Rankin, M. Keisling, L. Mottet, and M. Anafi, The Report of the 2015 U.S.
Transgender Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016, pp. 206-209.
31 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, Technical Report, HHS, CDC, March 2013.
Congressional Research Service

6

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

National Crime Victimization Survey
The National Crime Victimization Survey is a survey coordinated by DOJ’s Bureau of Justice
Statistics within the Office of Justice Programs.32 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.33 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 survey found that nearly 600,000
individuals were victims of intimate partner violence in 2016.34 An earlier NCVS study examined
changes in the rate of intimate partner violence over time. The study found that the number of
female victims of domestic violence declined from 1.8 million in 1994 to about 621,000 in 2011.
Over this period, the rate of serious intimate partner violence—rape or sexual assault, robbery,
and aggravated assault—declined by 72% for females and 64% for males. Approximately 4% of
females and 8% of males who were victimized by intimate partners were shot at, stabbed, or hit
with a weapon over the period from 2002 through 2011.35
Effects of Domestic Violence
Domestic violence is associated with multiple negative outcomes for victims, including mental
and emotional distress and health effects. The 2015 NISVS study found that these effects
appeared to be greater for women. About 1 in 4 women (25.1%) and 1 in 10 men (10.9%) who
experienced sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their
lifetime reported at least one impact as a result of this violence, including being fearful; being
concerned for their safety or having an injury or need for medical care; needing help from law
enforcement; missing at least one day of work; or missing at least one day of school.36
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.37 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,

32 Jennifer L. Truman and Rachel E. Morgan, Criminal Victimization, 2016.
33 These terms are defined at DOJ, OJP, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), “All Terms and Definitions,”
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tda.
34 Jennifer L. Truman and Rachel E. Morgan, Criminal Victimization, 2016, Table 2.
35 Shannan Catalano, Intimate Partner Violence: Attributes of Victimization, 1993-2011, DOJ, OJP, BJS, November
2013. See also a study of the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports: James Alan Fox and Emma E. Fridel, “Gender
Differences in Patterns and Trends in U.S. Homicide,” 1976-2015, Violence and Gender, vol. 4, no, 2, 2017. The study
found that nearly half of all female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner, compared to 5% of male homicide
victims. Intimate partner homicides decreased over the period from 1976 to 2015.
36 Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief -
Updated Release.
37 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”).
Congressional Research Service

7

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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. In addition, victims were
often blamed for their abuse, based on stereotypical notions of women (e.g., demanding,
aggressive, and frigid, among other characteristics).38
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 to establish similar types of services. In addition, the feminist movement
in the United States increasingly brought greater national attention to the issue.39
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.40 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 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 domestic violence, among other accomplishments.41
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.42
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....

38 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”).
39 Ola W. Barnett, Cindy L. Miller-Perrin, and Robin D. Perrin, Family Violence Across the Life Span, p. 15.
40 Susan Schechter, Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement.
41 Ibid.
42 Albert B. Roberts, Sheltering Battered Women: A National Study and Service Guide (New York: Springer Publishing
Company, 1981), pp. 7-11.
Congressional Research Service

8

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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.”43 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
law enforcement, criminal justice, and community response to offenses that were previously
considered “family matters.”44
Congressional Response
Largely 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, the Family Violence
Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) was enacted as Title III of the Child Abuse Amendments of
1984 (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.45 This includes the most recent reauthorization (P.L. 111-
320), which extended funding authority for FVPSA through FY2015. As discussed later in this
report, Congress subsequently broadened the federal response to domestic violence with the
enactment of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
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, the law 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. From FY1986 through FY1994, funding for these grants was
transferred from HHS to DOJ, which carried out the grants under the Office for Victims of Crime
(OVC). DOJ used the funding for 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 domestic violence.46

43 Jane O'Reilly, Barbara B. Dolan, and Elizabeth Taylor, “Wife Beating: The Silent Crime,” Time, September 5, 1983.
44 DOJ, OJP, Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), The History of the Violence Against Women Act,
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/OVW_HistoryVAWA.pdf.
45 CAPTA was originally enacted in 1974 (P.L. 93-247) to create a federal focus for responding to child abuse and
neglect and authorizing support for training and technical assistance to improve child protective services.
46 DOJ, OJP, Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Report to Congress, July 1996; 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.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 16

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 authorized similar activities. Specifically, VAWA
authorizes training and support of law enforcement officials under the Services, Training,
Officers, and Prosecutors (STOP) Grant program.
FVPSA currently authorizes three major sets of activities: domestic violence shelters, services,
and program support; the national domestic violence hotline; and domestic violence prevention
activities under the program known as DELTA. The CDC administers the DELTA program. The
Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) in HHS/ACF administers funding for the hotline and
shelters, victim services, and program support.
Figure 1 displays the three primary activities funded under FVPSA along with the funding
allocation formula for shelters, victim services, and program support (described further in the
“Shelter, Victim Services, and Program Support” section).47
Figure 1. Summary of FVPSA Activities and the Funding Allocation
Formula for Shelter, Services, and Supports

Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Funding
FVPSA funding is discretionary, meaning that it is subject to the annual appropriations process.
Authorization of funding under FVPSA has been extended multiple times, most recently through

47 42 U.S.C. §10403 (Authorization of appropriations).
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 15 link to page 38 link to page 38

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

FY2015 by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320). For each of FY2011-
FY2015, the law authorized funding of $175 million for domestic violence shelters, victim
services, and program support; $3.5 million for the national domestic violence hotline; and $6
million for DELTA. Congress may appropriate funding for programs with an expired
authorization of appropriations, which has been the case for FVPSA activities in subsequent
years.
Congress appropriated $401 million for FVPSA in FY2021, the highest total to date, via regular
appropriations (P.L. 116-260) and appropriations under P.L. 117-2 in response to the COVID-19
pandemic.48 P.L. 117-2 also provided $250 million for two pandemic response grant programs
administered under FVPSA (discussed previously). Enacted FY2022 appropriations (P.L. 117-
103) are $221 million, of which $200 million is for shelter, victim services, and program support;
$15.5 million is for the hotline; and $5.5 million is for DELTA.49
Figure 2 shows actual funding from FY2009 through FY2022 for the three FVPSA activities,
which has generally increased over time but includes reductions in some years. Appendix Table
C-1 provides exact amounts since FVPSA’s inception.
Figure 2. FVPSA Funding by Activity, FY2009-FY2022

Source: HHS, ACF Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees and CRS correspondence with
HHS, ACF.

48 The committee report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260) instructed HHS to
use $182.5 million for shelter, services, and support; $13 million for the hotline; and $5.5 million for DELTA in
FY2021 (U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, 116th Cong., 2nd sess., Committee Print to Accompany Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 [H.R. 133], which was enacted as P.L. 116-260). The American Rescue Plan
Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2) provided $198 million for shelter, services, and support; $2 million for the hotline; $198
million for new grants to support survivors of sexual assault; $49.5 million for new grants to support “culturally
specific populations”; and $2.5 million for HHS’s administrative costs associated with the new grants.
49 HHS subsequently transferred $2 million out of the shelter, victim services, and program support account, leaving
$198 million available for shelter, services, and support in FY2022; “Congressional Record, Explanatory Statement
Submitted by Ms. DeLauro, Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment to the
Senate Amendment to H.R. 2471, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022,” Congressional Record, vol. 168, book 4
(March 9, 2022), p. H2876, https://www.congress.gov/117/crec/2022/03/09/168/42/CREC-2022-03-09-bk4.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 38 link to page 16

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Notes: Budget authority after sequestration and transfers. Years displayed are fiscal years. FY2021 includes $200
mil ion provided by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2) for FVPSA shelter, services, and program
support and the hotline. See Appendix Table C-1 for ful source notes.
Shelter, Victim Services, and Program Support
Funding for domestic violence shelters, victim services, and program support (hereinafter,
“shelter and services”) encompasses multiple activities: formula grants to states and territories;
grants to tribes; formula grants to state domestic violence coalitions; grants to national and special
issue resource centers, including those that provide technical assistance; grants for specialized
services for abused parents and their children exposed to domestic violence; and program support
and administration. Figure 3 shows FY2022 allocations for activities included as part of shelter
and services.
Figure 3. Allocations for Activities Funded under Shelters, Victim Services, and
Program Support, FY2022

Source: CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF, July 2022.
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Shelters, victim services, and program support received $200
mil ion from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), $2 mil ion of which was transferred out
of the FVPSA account. Funding for tribes reflects an additional $7 mil ion set-aside from the shelter, victim
services, and program support appropriation required by P.L. 116-260.
Formula Grants to States, Territories, and Tribes
No less than 70% of FVPSA appropriations for shelter and services 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. Four territories—Guam,
American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands—
each receive 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, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico each receive a base allotment of $600,000 and additional funding
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 40 link to page 17 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

based on their relative share of the U.S. population.50 Table D-1 provides formula funding for
FY2021 by state and territory.
In addition, no less than 10% of FVPSA appropriations for shelter and services are awarded to
Indian tribes. On top of this amount, recent appropriations acts (from FY2018 through FY2022)
have included a set-aside for tribes from the overall shelter, services, and support appropriation.51
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.
In applying for grant funding, states and territories (hereinafter, “states”) must make certain
assurances pertaining to the use and distribution of funds and to victims. Nearly all of the same
requirements that pertain to states and territories also pertain to tribes.
Table 1 displays the estimated number of individuals served by FVPSA-funded domestic
violence service providers over the course of the year in FY2021. It also shows the number of
unmet requests for shelter (which can include multiple requests made by a single individual).52
Relatedly, a 2021 census count of domestic violence programs and shelters by the National
Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) found that on the date of the survey (September 9,
2021), just over 70,000 individuals received shelter or services from a domestic violence service
provider. There were an additional 6,049 requests for shelter that went unmet due to insufficient
resources.53
Table 1. Individuals Served by FVPSA-Funded Programs and Unmet Requests for
Shelter: FY2021
FY2021

Individuals served
1,144,500
Nonresidential settings
225,500
Shelters/residential settings
919,000
Unmet requests for shelter
181,300
Source: HHS, ACF FY2023 Justification of Estimates.
Notes: Numbers rounded to the nearest hundred.
Selected Grant Conditions Pertaining to Use and Distribution of Funds54
States may use up to 5% of their grant funding for state administrative costs. The remainder of the
funds are used to make subgrants to eligible entities for community-based projects (hereinafter,
“subgrantees”) that meet the goals of the grant program. No less than 70% of subgrant funding is
to be used to provide temporary shelter and related supportive services, which include the

50 42 U.S.C. §10405 (Allotment of funds). The FVPSA law defines a state to include each of the 50 states, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and except as otherwise provided, Guam, America Samoa, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 42 U.S.C. §10410(10) (Definitions).
51 For example, enacted FY2021 appropriations (P.L. 116-260) reserved $7 million for tribes from the shelter, victim
services, and program support appropriation.
52 HHS, ACF FY2023 Justification of Estimates, p. 221.
53 National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), 16th Annual Domestic Violence Counts Census Report,
March 2022, pp. 2-10.
54 42 U.S.C. §10407 (State application).
Congressional Research Service

13

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

physical space in which victims reside as well as the expenses of running shelter facilities.55 No
less than 25% of subgrant funding is to be used for the following supportive services and
prevention services:56
 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 nonabusing
parent that support that parent’s role as caregiver (which may include services
that work with the nonabusing parent and child together);
 providing case management, information, and referral services for victims
concerning issues related to domestic violence intervention and prevention,
including providing assistance in accessing federal and state financial assistance
programs; legal assistance; medical advocacy, including provision of referrals for
appropriate health care services (but not reimbursement for any 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;
 providing parenting and other educational services for victims and their
dependents; and
 providing prevention services, including outreach to underserved populations.
Subgrantees that receive funding must provide a nonfederal match—of not less than $1 for every
$5 of federal funding—directly from the state or through donations from public or private
entities.57 The matching funds can be in cash or in kind. Further, federal funds made available to a
state must supplement, and not supplant, other federal, state, and local public funds expended on
services for victims of domestic violence.

55 42 U.S.C. §10408(b) (Subgrants and uses of funds).
56 For example, of the 70% set-aside for shelter and related supportive services, all of it could be used for shelter;
however, an additional 25% must be used for supportive services.
57 42 U.S.C. §10406(c) (Formula grants to states-grant conditions).
Congressional Research Service

14

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

What are eligible entities that can receive subgrant funding from states?
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.
Source: 42 U.S.C. §10408(c).
States must 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 subsequently discussed
further).58 States must also 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 or restraining orders to limit the perpetrators’ physical proximity to the victim.
In funding subgrantees, states must give priority to supporting community-based projects of
“demonstrated effectiveness” 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 have two years to spend funds. For example, funds allotted for FY2021 may be spent in
FY2021 or FY2022. 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 Victims59
The grant for states addresses 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 (this also applies to FVPSA-funded activities generally). In addition, states and
subgrantees may not impose income eligibility requirements on individuals participating in these
programs. Further, states and subgrantees must protect the confidentiality and privacy of victims

58 Tribes do not necessarily have domestic violence coalitions and therefore related provisions do not apply; however,
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 of 1994 authorizes
funding for tribal domestic violence coalitions under Tribal Coalition Grants (34 U.S.C. §10441(d)). The program is
funded by statutory set-asides from the VAWA-authorized STOP program and Sexual Assault Services program.
59 42 U.S.C. §10406(c) (Formula grants to states-grant conditions) and 42 §10408(d) (Subgrants and use of funds-
conditions).
Congressional Research Service

15

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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
disclosing the identity of the individual is compelled by statutory or court mandate, states and
subgrantees must make reasonable attempts to notify victims, and they must take steps to protect
the privacy and safety of the individual.
States and subgrantees 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 payments 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 or participate in counseling or other services.
State Domestic Violence Coalitions60
Since 1992, FVPSA has authorized funding for state domestic violence coalitions (SDVCs). A
SDVC is 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;61 (2) has board membership that is representative
of domestic violence service providers, and that 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
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.62
Funding for SDVCs is available for each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
and 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.63 Funding is divided evenly among these 56 jurisdictions. SDVCs must use FVPSA
funding for specific activities, as follows:
 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 to subgrantees 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;

60 42 U.S.C. §10411 (Grants to State Domestic Violence Coalitions).
61 SDVCs may include representatives of Indian tribes and tribal organizations. See §42 U.S.C. 10411(h) (Indian
representatives).
62 42 U.S.C. §10402(11) (Definitions).
63 For a list of state domestic violence coalitions, see National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), “State &
U.S. Territory Coalitions,” https://nnedv.org/content/state-u-s-territory-coalitions.
Congressional Research Service

16

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

 working in collaboration with service providers and community-based
organizations to address the needs of domestic violence victims and their
dependents who are racial and ethnic minorities 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 children exposed to domestic violence,
and in cases where this violence is concurrent with child abuse;
 providing information to the public about prevention of domestic violence and
dating violence, including information targeted to underserved populations; and
 collaborating with Indian tribes and tribal organizations (and 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.64
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 special issue resource centers to address key areas of domestic
violence. Reauthorization of FVPSA in 2010 added authorization for a national resource center on
American Indian women and three culturally specific resources, which HHS had previously
funded on a discretionary basis.65 The 2010 law also authorized special issue resource centers that
provide training and technical assistance on domestic violence intervention and prevention topics
and state resource centers to address disparities in domestic violence in states with high
proportions of Indian (including Alaska Native) or Native Hawaiian populations.66
In total, HHS administers grants for 15 resource centers that are funded by the FVPSA
appropriation for domestic violence shelters, victim services, and program support.67 The purpose

64 A SDVC is not required to use funds for two purpose areas (i.e., encouraging appropriate responses to cases of
domestic violence against adult and youth victims; and working with 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; Indian tribal governments; state,
local, and tribal courts; state domestic violence coalitions; and local governments develop and strengthen effective law
enforcement and prosecution strategies to combat violent crimes against women and develop and strengthen victim
services. See 34 U.S.C. §10441 et seq.
65 This is based on CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF, September 2012.
66 42 U.S.C. §10410(b)(1)(A) authorizes the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence; 42 U.S.C.
§10410(b)(1)(B) authorizes the National Resource Center Addressing Domestic Violence and Safety for Indian
Women; 42 U.S.C. §10410(b)(2) authorizes the special issue resource centers; and 42 U.S.C. §10410(b)(3) authorizes
state centers to reduce tribal disparities (Indian, including Alaska Natives or Native Hawaiians).
67 See the 14 resource centers listed at HHS, ACF, FYSB, “Resource Centers,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/fysb/programs/
Congressional Research Service

17

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

of these resource centers is to provide information, training, and technical assistance on domestic
violence issues. This assistance is provided by nonprofit organizations and other entities to
multiple stakeholders—individuals, organizations, governmental entities, and communities—so
that they can improve their capacity for preventing and responding to domestic violence.
Services for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence
FVPSA statute and regulations reference children exposed to domestic violence, but do not define
related terminology. 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. 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.68 The literature about the impacts of exposure to 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.69
Multiple FVPSA activities address children exposed to domestic and related violence:
 One of the purposes of the formula grant program for states is to provide
specialized services (e.g., counseling, advocacy, and other assistance) for abused
parents and their children.70
 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 such 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 funding for specialized services for
abused parents and their children (discussed subsequently). Other FVPSA activities for children

family-violence-prevention-services/programs/centers; the 15th center is the Tribal Safe Housing Capacity Building
Center (CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF in July 2022).
68 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, pp. 502-521.
69 Alice Summers, Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence: A Guide to Research and Resources, National Council
of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and DOJ, OJP, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2006, pp.
5-6.
70 In a 2021 one-day census count of domestic violence shelter and service providers, 53% reported providing support
and advocacy for children on that day and 79% reported providing this support and advocacy throughout the year.
Nearly 20,000 children were served through shelter or temporary housing and 5,500 received other domestic violence
services. National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV), Domestic Violence Counts 2021. Not all of these
providers receive funding under the formula grant program.
Congressional Research Service

18

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

exposed to domestic violence have also been funded by HHS using discretionary authorities and
funding leveraged through a fundraising or semipostal stamp.71
Funding for Specialized Services for Abused Parents and Their Children72
Since 2003, FVPSA has specified that funding must be set aside for specialized services to
address children exposed to domestic violence if the appropriation for shelter, victim services,
and program support exceeds $130 million.73 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. Funding has exceeded $130
million in FY2010 and FY2014 through FY2022.
In FY2010, funding for shelter and services was just over $130 million. HHS reserved the excess
funding as well as unallocated FVPSA funding (under shelter, victim services, and program
support) to fund specialized services for abused parents and their children through an initiative
known as Expanding Services for Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence. HHS also
used unallocated funds 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 one national technical assistance provider—to expand supports to
children, youth, and parents exposed to domestic violence and build strategies for serving this
population.74 For example, the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, the
state domestic violence coalition for Alaska, used the funding to improve coordination between
domestic violence agencies and the child welfare system. Their work involved developing an
integrated training curriculum and policies, and creation of a multidisciplinary team of child
welfare and domestic violence stakeholders in four communities.
Funding again exceeded $130 million in each of FY2014 through FY2022, thereby triggering the
set-aside. In FY2014 and FY2015, HHS directed the extra funding for domestic violence shelters,
victim services, and program support.75 For FY2016 through FY2022, HHS provided funding for
specialized services for abused parents and their children. From FY2016 through FY2019,
approximately $5.0 million to $6.5 million was allocated to 12 grantees to provide direct services
under the grant, Specialized Services for Abused Parents and their Children (SSPAC).76 In

71 A semipostal stamp is a stamp used to raise money for a cause. U.S. Postal Service, “Semipostal Stamps,”
“https://about.usps.com/what/corporate-social-responsibility/activities/semipostals.htm.
72 42 U.S.C. §10406 (Formula Grants to States).
73 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 at 42 U.S.C. §10412 (Specialized Services for Abused
Parents and Their Children), which has the same purpose as the original provision.
74 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.
75 The FY2016 budget request noted that “In previous budgets [FY2014 through FY2015] this provision was
overridden in order to direct resources to shelters.” HHS, FY2016 Administration for Children and Families
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. 212.
76 This is based on CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF in November 2020 and HHS, ACF, FYSB, “2016 – 2020
Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grant Specialized Services to Abused Parents and Their
Children (SSAPC) and Expanding Services to Children, Youth, and Abused Parents (ESCYAP) Grantee Profiles,”
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/fysb/resource/ssapc-escyap-grantees-2016.
Congressional Research Service

19

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

FY2020, HHS awarded $7.8 million to a second cohort of 26 SSPAC grantees to carry out
projects through FY2022.77 Grantees include domestic violence coalitions and other entities. They
are working to alleviate trauma experienced by children who are exposed to domestic violence,
support enhanced relationships between these children and their parents, and improve systemic
responses to such families. A separate grant—known as Expanding Services to Children, Youth,
and Abused Parents (ESCYAP)—has been awarded annually to the nonprofit organization
Futures Without Violence to provide training and technical assistance to the grantees and facilitate
coordination among them through the Promising Futures Capacity Building Center.78 In FY2021,
the grant amount was $2 million (including ARPA funds).79
National Domestic Violence Hotline80
As amended by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 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 for domestic violence (hereinafter, “hotline”). Since 1995, HHS has entered into a
cooperative agreement with a nonprofit organization to operate the National Domestic Violence
Hotline, with funding that has been competitively awarded. The hotline is currently administered
by an organization in Texas of the same name.81 The agreement was most recently awarded for a
five-year period that extends from the end of FY2020 through the end of FY2025.82
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
affected by victimization.” This includes support related to domestic violence, children exposed
to domestic violence, sexual assault, intervention programs for abusive partners, and related
issues. As required under FVPSA, the hotline carries out multiple activities:
 It employs, trains, and supervises personnel to answer incoming calls; provides
counseling and referral services; and directly connects callers to service
providers.
 It maintains a database of domestic violence services for victims throughout the
United States, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, including information
on the availability of shelter and services.
 It provides assistance to meet the needs of special populations, including
underserved populations, individuals with disabilities, and youth victims of
domestic violence and dating violence. The hotline provides access to personnel

77 This is based on CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF in November 2020 and HHS, ACF, FYSB, “$20.59 Million
Awarded to Support Victims of Domestic Violence and their Children,” press release, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/
press/2020/millions-awarded-to-support-victims-of-domestic-violence-and-their-children.
78 Futures Without Violence, “Promising Futures: Best Practices for Serving Children, Youth, and Parents
Experiencing Domestic Violence,” https://promising.futureswithoutviolence.org.
79 CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF in July 2022.
80 42 U.S.C. §10413 (National Domestic Violence Hotline Grant).
81 For further information, see National Domestic Violence Hotline, “History,” https://www.thehotline.org/about/
history-of-the-hotline.
82 HHS, ACF, FYSB, “$20.59 Million Awarded to Support Victims of Domestic Violence and their Children,” press
release, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/media/press/2020/millions-awarded-to-support-victims-of-domestic-violence-and-
their-children.
Congressional Research Service

20

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

for callers with limited English proficiency and persons who are deaf and hard of
hearing.
In FY2021, the hotline received about 25,000 calls each month and responded to 62% of all calls.
Callers waited an average of five-and-a-half minutes to be connected with an advocate. The
hotline also had an average of nearly 18,000 online chats on a monthly basis and responded to
71% of chats (the number of individuals contacting the hotline by online chat has increased over
time). HHS reported that some calls were missed due to increased call volume related to media
coverage promoting the hotline and during disasters and emergencies, and inadequate
resources/staffing. In 2021, the hotline also launched text-messaging support, partly in response
to concerns that victims could less safely make calls to the hotline during the COVID-19
pandemic while in close proximity to their abusers.83
Since 2007, the hotline has operated a separate helpline for youth victims of domestic violence,
the National Dating Abuse Helpline (known as loveisrespect.org), which is funded through the
appropriation for the hotline. This helpline offers real-time support primarily from peer advocates
trained to provide support, information, and advocacy to those involved in abusive dating
relationships, as well as others who support victims.84 In FY2021, the helpline received a monthly
average of about 1,900 calls, 1,900 online chats, and 970 texts.85
In addition, the National Domestic Violence Hotline has collaborated with the National
Indigenous Women’s Resource Center to develop and fund the StrongHearts Native Helpline for
Native American survivors of domestic abuse.86 The helpline uses the technology and
infrastructure of the hotline, and draws from the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center
to provide Native-centered, culturally appropriate services for survivors and others.
National Domestic Violence Hotline Study
A 2018 study of the national and youth hotlines examined a number of their features, including
who contacts the lines, the needs and demographic characteristics of those individuals, how they
reach the lines, and the type of support they receive. The study found that nearly half (48%) of
those who called the hotline were victims/survivors and another 39% did not identify themselves.
The remainder were family/friends, abusers, and service providers. According to the study, the
service most commonly provided was emotional support, which recipients reportedly valued
highly.87
Another study, published in 2020, evaluated the short-term outcomes of contacting the hotline.88
Among those who completed a follow-up survey immediately after they made contact with the

83 HHS, Administration for Children and Families FY2023 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees,
pp. 212-215 (hereinafter, “HHS, ACF FY2023 Justification of Estimates”).
84 National Council on Family Violence, “loveisrespect.org,” http://www.loveisrespect.org/.
85 HHS, ACF FY2023 Justification of Estimates, pp. 212-215.
86 The National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center is a nonprofit organization that serves as the FVPSA-funded
national Indian Resource Center to assist tribes and tribal organizations in responding to domestic violence. See
StrongHearts Native Helpline, “About StrongHearts,” https://www.strongheartshelpline.org/about/.
87 HHS, ACF, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), An Evaluation of the National Domestic Violence
Hotline and loveisrespect, OPRE Report #2018-117, December 2018.
88 HHS, ACF, OPRE, Short-Term Outcomes for Users of the National Domestic Violence Hotline and loveisrespect.
OPRE Report #2020-55, April 2020. Because of safety and confidentiality concerns, the survey was only given to users
who did not need an immediate referral. The study also included outcomes from a two-week follow-up survey;
however, the response rates for this survey were low and not generalizable to the broader population of hotline users.
Congressional Research Service

21

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

hotline, the majority (83% to 98%) reported improvements on all of the outcomes measured,
including knowledge of domestic and/or dating violence, safety planning, knowledge of options
and resources, confidence about making decisions, comfort asking for help, and hopefulness for
the future. These self-reported outcomes were higher among domestic violence victims/survivors
as compared to others (e.g., family/friends and service providers) who contacted the hotline.89
Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and
Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA)90
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 Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. 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.91 The program has had four
iterations:
 DELTA, which was funded from FY1996 through FY2012 and involved 14
states;
 DELTA Prep, which extended from FY2008 through FY2012 and involved 19
states that had not received the initial DELTA funds;
 DELTA FOCUS, which extended from FY2013 through FY2017 and involved 10
states, all of which had previously received funding under DELTA or DELTA
Prep; and
 DELTA Impact, which began with FY2018 and involves 9 states, all of which
except one have previously received DELTA funding.
As originally implemented, the program provided funding and technical assistance to 14 state
domestic violence coalitions to support local efforts to carry out prevention strategies and work at
the state level to oversee these strategies.92 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. 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

Also see George Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health, Short-Term Outcomes After
Contacting The National Domestic Violence Hotline and loveisrespect: Comparing Survivors to Other Contactors, for
HHS, ACF, FYSB and OPRE, OPRE Report # 2020-119, p. 12, September 2, 2020.
89 Ibid, p. 59.
90 42 U.S.C. §10414 (Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership Through Alliances (DELTA)).
91 The CDC defines primary prevention as “stopping IPV [intimate partner violence] before it occurs.” HHS, CDC,
“Violence Prevention: DELTA Focus,” http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/deltafocus/.
92 Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Rhode Island, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Congressional Research Service

22

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

roles of faith leaders in preventing the first-time occurrence of domestic violence. 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 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.93
DELTA Prep
DELTA Prep was a project that extended from FY2008 through FY2012, and was a collaborative
effort among the CDC, the CDC Foundation, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.94
Through DELTA Prep, the CDC extended the DELTA program to 19 states95 that did not receive
the initial 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 received DELTA funds. DELTA Prep states integrated primary prevention
strategies into their work and the work of their partners, and built leadership for domestic
violence prevention in their states.
DELTA Focus
DELTA FOCUS (Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United within States) continued earlier
DELTA work. From FY2013 through FY2017, DELTA FOCUS funded 10 state domestic
violence coalition grantees to implement and evaluate strategies to prevent domestic violence.
Funding was provided by the coalitions to 18 community response teams that engaged in carrying
out these strategies.96 DELTA FOCUS differed from DELTA and DELTA Prep by placing greater
emphasis on implementing prevention strategies rather than building capacity for prevention.
DELTA FOCUS also put more emphasis on evaluating the program to help build evidence about
effective interventions.

93 HHS, CDC, 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.
94 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.
95 Alabama, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Idaho, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
96 Alaska, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. For further
information, see HHS, CDC, “Funding Opportunity, DELTA (Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement Leadership
Through Alliances, Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United with States) FOCUS”; and HHS, CDC, “The
DELTA Focus Program: Intimate Partner Violence is Preventable,” https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
deltafocus/.
Congressional Research Service

23

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

DELTA Impact
DELTA Impact, which began in FY2018, provides funding to nine state domestic violence
coalitions.97 This grant supports community response teams in decreasing domestic violence risk
factors and increasing protective factors by implementing prevention activities that are based on
the best available evidence. Grantees are implementing and evaluating policy efforts under three
broad strategies to address domestic violence prevention: (1) engaging influential adults and
peers, including by engaging men and boys as allies in prevention; (2) creating protective
environments, such as improving school climates and safety; and (3) strengthening economic
supports for families.
Demonstration Projects
Using unallocated funds, in recent years, HHS has funded demonstration projects aimed at
improving housing for domestic violence survivors.98 This has included $500,000 in each of
FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 for the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
(NRCDV) (selected through a competitive process99) to operate the National Capacity Building
Center on Safe and Supportive Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors, which conducts
research on housing-related issues for survivors and provides training and technical assistance to
service providers.100 In FY2022, HHS also provided $450,000 to the National Indigenous
Women’s Resource Center (selected through a competitive process101) to operate a Tribal Safe
Housing Capacity Building Center for Domestic Violence Survivors, which similarly aims to
disseminate research and provide training and technical assistance to local organizations, with a
focus on supporting the needs of American Indian and Alaskan Native survivors.102
Teen Dating Violence
Background
Teenagers may be exposed to violence in their dating relationships. The CDC reports that on an
annual basis, 1 in 11 female teens and 1 in 15 male teens experienced physical dating violence
involving a person who hurts or tries to hurt a partner by hitting, kicking, or using another type of
physical force. Further, over 1 in 9 female teens and nearly 1 in 36 male teens reported
experiencing sexual dating violence within a recent one-year period, which includes forcing or

97 Alaska, California, Delaware, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. For
further information, see HHS, CDC, “Funding Opportunity, DELTA (Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement
Leadership Through Alliances, Focusing on Outcomes for Communities United with States) Impact”; and HHS, CDC,
“About DELTA Impact,” https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/delta/impact/index.html.
98 HHS, ACF FY2021 Justification of Estimates, pp. 205-206.
99 HHS, ACF, “Funding Opportunity Announcement: Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants:
National Capacity Building Center on Safe and Supportive Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors,” HHS-2016-
ACF-ACYF-EV-1160, 2016, https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=283305.
100 CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF, September 2020 and July 2022 and Safe Housing Partnerships, “About the
Consortium,” https://safehousingpartnerships.org/about.
101 HHS, ACF, “Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: Capacity Building Center on Safe and
Supportive Housing for Domestic Violence Survivors in Tribal Communities (Tribal Safe Housing Center),” HHS-
2021-ACF-ACYF-EV-1945, 2021, https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=329060.
102 CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF, July 2022.
Congressional Research Service

24

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

attempting to force a partner to take part in a sexual act, sexual touching, or a nonphysical sexual
event (e.g., sexting) when the partner does not or cannot consent. Lesbian, gay, or bisexual teens
reported higher rates of dating violence victimization (more than 1 in 5) than heterosexual teens
(1 in 10).103 Transgender teens also reported higher rates of physical dating violence (more than 1
in 4, compared to fewer than 1 in 11 cisgender teens) and sexual dating violence (more than 1 in
5, compared to fewer than 1 in 8 cisgender teens).104
The FVPSA statute references dating violence throughout and uses the definition of “dating
violence” that is in VAWA. The term is defined as 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 it.105
Domestic violence shelters and supportive services funded by FVPSA are often geared towards
adult victims and their children if they accompany the adult into shelter. The FVPSA statute does
not explicitly authorize supports for youth victims of dating violence who are unaccompanied by
their parents; however, the law does not limit eligibility for shelter and services based on age.
Access to domestic violence shelters and supports for teen victims, including protective orders
against abusers, varies by state.106 The primary source of support for teen victims under FVPSA is
provided via the national domestic violence hotline. The hotline includes the loveisrespect
helpline and related online resources (discussed previously). Youth victims can call, chat, or text
with peer advocates for support. The loveisrespect website includes a variety of materials that
address signs of abuse and resources for getting help.107
FVPSA Interaction with Other Federal Laws
In addition to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), FVPSA has been
reauthorized with 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.108 Further, FVPSA includes provisions
that encourage or require HHS to coordinate FVPSA programs with related programs and
research carried out by other federal agencies.

103 HHS, CDC, “Teen Newsletter: March 2021 – Teen Dating Violence,” https://www.cdc.gov/museum/education/
newsletter/2021/mar/index.html and CDC, “Interpersonal Violence Victimization Among High School Students—
Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2019,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) Supplements,
August 2020, 69(1): 28-37.
104 CDC, “Transgender Identity and Experiences of Violence Victimization, Substance Use, Suicide Risk, and Sexual
Risk Behaviors Among High School Students—19 States and Large Urban School Districts, 2017,” MMWR, January
2019, 68(3): 67-71.
105 34 U.S.C. §12291(a)(10).
106 Break the Cycle, 2010 State Law Report Cards: A National Survey of Teen Dating Violence Laws, 2010.
107 National Council on Family Violence, “Love is Respect,” http://www.loveisrespect.org/.
108 The majority of nonresidential 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% of the programs’ budget; VOCA funding made up 21% of
the programs’ budget; and VAWA funding made up 15% 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 DOJ, OJP, NIJ, November 2011.
Congressional Research Service

25

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Child Abuse and Neglect
FVPSA does not focus on child abuse per se; however, in enacting FVPSA as part of the 1984
amendments to CAPTA, some Members of Congress and other stakeholders noted that child
abuse and neglect and intimate partner violence are not isolated problems, and can arise
simultaneously.109 The research literature 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 identified 28% of the
children’s households 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.110
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.111 Other federal efforts also address the
association between domestic violence and child abuse. For example, the 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.112
Separately, the Family Connection Grants113 program, authorized under Title IV-B of the Social
Security Act, provided funding from FY2009 through FY2014 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
were used to establish or support certain activities, including family group decisionmaking
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.114
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,115 which convened family court judges and experts on child maltreatment

109 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 Representative David Marriott.
110 Cecilia Casanueva et al., NSCAW II Baseline Report: Maltreatment, HHS, ACF, 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.
111 42 U.S.C. §5106a(a)(14) (Development and operation grants).
112 For further information, see CRS Report R43930, Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV)
Program: Background and Funding.
113 For further information on CAPTA and Family Connection Grants, see CRS Report R43458, Child Welfare: An
Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding.
114 42 U.S.C. §627 (Family connection grants).
115 42 U.S.C. §627. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges is the operator of the FVPSA-funded
Child Protection and Custody Resource Center.
Congressional Research Service

26

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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.116
Finally, the ongoing, HHS-led Federal Interagency Working Group on Child Abuse and Neglect
includes a Domestic Violence Subcommittee.117 The committee focuses on interagency initiatives
that address children exposed to domestic violence and promoting information exchange and joint
planning among federal agencies.
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)118
FVPSA has twice been amended alongside VAWA.119 Both FVPSA and VAWA are the primary
vehicles for federal support to prevent and respond to domestic violence, including for children
and youth who are exposed to this violence; however, FVPSA has a more singular focus on
services for victims and prevention, while VAWA’s unique contributions are more focused on law
enforcement and the 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. Some 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.120 The shortfalls of legal responses and the need for a change in attitudes toward
violence against women were reasons cited for the passage of the law. Since VAWA’s enactment,
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

116 For further information, see National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, “The Greenbook Initiative,”
https://www.thegreenbook.info/index.htm and Greenbook: The Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child
Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice, 1999.
117 HHS, Office on Women’s Health, Overview of Violence Against Women Activities 2010-2011, p. 28; and HHS,
ACF,” Federal Inter-Agency Work Group on Child Abuse & Neglect,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/fediawg.
118 For further information, see CRS Report R42499, The Violence Against Women Act: Overview, Legislation, and
Federal Funding.
119 FVPSA was amended by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322), which
authorized VAWA, and by the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386), which also
reauthorized VAWA.
120 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.
Congressional Research Service

27

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

tribes, VAWA’s STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) Violence Against Women
Formula Grant program provides services to victims of domestic and 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.121
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 housing (either short-term emergency or transitional) for victims,
with the goal of moving them into permanent housing. Likewise, through the grant program to
states, territories, and tribes, FVPSA provides immediate and short-term 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.
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.122 One source of federal finance assistance for
victims of domestic violence is the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), authorized under the Victims of
Crime Act (VOCA) and administered by the Department of Justice’s Office of Victims of Crime
(OVC).123 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
FY2019, approximately 90% of claims that listed a specific victimization type were related to
family and domestic violence.124 The Victims Assistance Formula Grants program provides 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 FY2019, approximately 40% of victims served
by these grants were victims of domestic violence.125
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.

121 DOJ, OVW, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About STOP Formula Grants, updated October 2017.
122 42 U.S.C. 10408(b)(G)(1) (Subgrants and uses of funds).
123 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.
124 Of 51,456 claims that listed a specific victimization type, 46,220 (89.8%) were related to domestic and family
violence. Another 183,858 claims did not list a specific victimization type. DOJ, OVC, “Victims of Crime Act: Victim
Compensation: Formula Grant Program: FY2019 Data Analysis Report,” pp. 6-7.
125 DOJ, OVC, “Victims of Crime Act: Victim Assistance: Formula Grant Program: FY2019 Data Analysis Report,”
pp. 6-7.
Congressional Research Service

28

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

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.”126 In addition, FVPSA directs HHS to assign employees to coordinate research
efforts on family and related violence within HHS and research carried out by other federal
agencies.127 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.128
In 1995, HHS and DOJ convened the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women.
The purpose of the council was to promote greater awareness of violence against women and to
advise the federal government on domestic violence issues. In 2010, then-Attorney General Eric
Holder rechartered the National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women, which had
previously been established in 2006 under his predecessor.129 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.130 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 have participated in the
Federal Interagency Workgroup on Teen Dating Violence, which was convened in 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.131
Finally, during the Obama Administration, the Office of the Vice President (under Joe Biden)
coordinated 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.132

126 42 U.S.C. §10404(a)(5) (Authority of Secretary—authorities).
127 42 U.S.C. §10404(b)(3)(C) (Authority of Secretary—administration).
128 42 U.S.C. §14042(a) (Task Force).
129 U.S. Department of Justice, “National Advisory Committee on Violence Against Women,” https://www.justice.gov/
ovw/national-advisory-committee-violence-against-women, and “Charge to the National Advisory Committee on
Violence Against Women,” April 2006.
130 HHS, Office on Women’s Health, Overview of Violence Against Women Activities 2010-2011.
131 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.
132 Office of the President, “1 is 2 Many,” https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1is2many/about; and The White
Congressional Research Service

29

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

More recently, the Biden Administration issued an executive order establishing a Gender Policy
Council, which is required to coordinate an interagency response to gender-based violence and
develop a “U.S. National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence.”133

House, 1 is 2 Many: Twenty Years Fighting Violence Against Women and Girls, September 2014.
133 White House, “Executive Order on Establishment of the White House Gender Policy Council,” March 8, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/03/08/executive-order-on-establishment-of-the-
white-house-gender-policy-council/.
Congressional Research Service

30

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Appendix A. Definitions
Table A-1. Definitions of Domestic Violence and Related Terms in Federal Statute
Term
Definition
Domestic Violence: The Family Violence
Felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former
Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA)
spouse of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common,
references the definition under the
by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse,
Violence Against Women Act of 1994
by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or family
(VAWA), as amended, at 34 U.S.C.
violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person
§12291(a)(12).
against an adult or youth victim who is protected from that person’s act under the
domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction.
Family Violence: FVPSA defines this term
Any act or threatened act of violence, including any forceful detention of an
at 42 U.S.C. §10402(4).
individual, that (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 lawful y residing with.
Dating Violence: FVPSA references the
Violence committed by a person who has been in a social relationship of a romantic
definition under VAWA, as amended, at
or intimate nature with the victim; and where the existence of such a relationship is
34 U.S.C. §12291(a)(11).
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 term, Any action against a person who is 50 years of age or older that constitutes the
but does not point to a specific
wil ful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or cruel
definition. The term is defined under
punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish; or deprivation by a
VAWA, as amended, at 34 U.S.C.
person, including a caregiver, of goods or services with intent to cause physical
§12291(a)(14).
harm, mental anguish, or mental il ness.
Child abuse: FVPSA references this term, At a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker,
but does not point to a specific
which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or
definition. The term is defined under
exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious
the Child Abuse Prevention and
harm.
Treatment Act (CAPTA), at 42 U.S.C.
§5101 note.
Stalking: FVPSA references this term,
Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a
but does not point to a specific
reasonable person to (1) fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or (2)
definition. The term is defined under
suffer substantial emotional distress.
VAWA, as amended, at 34 U.S.C.
§12291(a)(36).
Sexual assault: FVPSA references this
Nonconsensual sexual act proscribed by federal, tribal, or state law, including when
term, but does not point to a specific
the victim lacks capacity to consent.
definition. The term is defined under
VAWA, as amended, at 34 U.S.C.
§12291(a)(35).
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on current law.

Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 36 link to page 36 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Appendix B. Prevalence and Effects of Domestic
Violence
Table B-1. Lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of Violence Committed by an
Intimate Partner and Related Impacts
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 2015
Lifetime

Past 12 Months
Weighted
Estimated
Weighted
Estimated

Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Women
Any contact sexual violence, physical
36.4%
43,579,000
5.5%
6,584,000
violence, and/or stalking
Contact sexual violence
18.3%
21,897,000
2.4%
2,932,000
Physical violencea
30.6%
36,632,000
2.9%
3,455,000
Stalking
10.4%
12,499,000
2.2%
2,591,000
IPV-related impact
25.1%
30,025,000
3.0%
3,635,000
Men
Any contact sexual violence, physical
33.6%
37,342,000
5.2%
5,786,000
violence, and/or stalking
Contact sexual violence
8.2%
9,082,000
1.6%
1,833,000
Physical violencea
31.0%
34,436,000
3.8%
4,255,000
Stalking
2.2%
2,485,000
0.8%
918,000
IPV-related impact
10.9%
12,118,000
1.9%
2,101,000
Source: Sharon G. Smith et al., The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey 2015 Data Brief – Updated
Release, Tables 9 and 11, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), November 2018.
Notes: National estimates were derived based on statistical weights applied to the percentages of respondents
who experience domestic violence. Intimate partners include cohabiting or noncohabiting romantic or sexual
partners who are opposite or same-sex couples.
Contact sexual violence by an intimate partner includes rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual
coercion, and/or unwanted sexual contact perpetrated by an intimate partner. 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. Intimate partner violence (IPV)-related impact includes experiencing
any of the fol owing: being fearful, being concerned for safety, being injured, having a need for medical care,
needing help from law enforcement, missing at least one day of work, or missing at least one day of school. The
fol owing impacts were also included in the lifetime estimate only: any post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms,
a need for housing services, a need for victim advocate services, a need for legal services, and contacting a crisis
hotline. For those who experienced rape or were made to penetrate by an intimate partner, it also includes a
lifetime estimate of having contracted a sexually transmitted infection. By definition, all stalking victimizations
result in impact because the definition of stalking requires the experience of fear or concern for safety.
The 2015 report includes findings of psychological aggression, which are not discussed here. This includes
expressive aggression such as name calling, or insulting or humiliating an intimate partner; and coercive control,
which includes behaviors that are intended to monitor, control, or threaten an intimate partner.
a. The most prevalent type of physical violence among women over their lifetime (30.3%) and the past 12
months (3.6%) was being slapped, pushed, or shoved (30.3% and 3.6%, respectively), fol owed by any severe
Congressional Research Service

32

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

physical violence (23.2% and 2.5%, respectively). The most prevalent type of physical violence among males
over their lifetime and the past 12 months was being slapped, pushed, or shoved (26% and 4.4%,
respectively) and any severe physical violence (13.9% and 2.1%, respectively). Severe physical violence
includes hitting with a fist or something hard, kicking, hurting by pul ing hair, slamming up against something,
trying to hurt by choking or suffocating, beating, burning on purpose, or using a gun or a knife.

Congressional Research Service

33

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Appendix C. FVPSA Funding FY1986-FY2022
Table C-1. Actual Funding for FVPSA Activities, FY1986-FY2022
Shelters, Victim
National
Services, and
Domestic
Program
Violence
Support
Hotline
DELTA
Total

FY1986a
$8,393,000
N/A
N/A
$8,393,000
FY1987
$8,500,000
N/A
N/A
$8,500,000
FY1988
$8,138,000
N/A
N/A
$8,138,000
FY1989
$8,219,000
N/A
N/A
$8,219,000
FY1990
$8,273,000
N/A
N/A
$8,273,000
FY1991
$10,734,859
N/A
N/A
$10,734,859
FY1992
$20,000,000
N/A
N/A
$20,000,000
FY1993
$24,678,619
N/A
N/A
$24,678,619
FY1994
$27,679,000
N/A
N/A
$27,679,000
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
FY2010b
$130,052,000
$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
FY2013
$121,225,000
$2,992,000
$5,350,000
$129,552,000
FY2014
$133,521,000
$4,500,000
$5,414,000
$143,221,000
FY2015
$135,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,414,000
$144,914,000
FY2016c
$150,000,000
$8,250,000
$5,500,000
$163,750,000
FY2017c
$150,517,702
$8,223,479
$5,487,000
$164,210,518
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Shelters, Victim
National
Services, and
Domestic
Program
Violence
Support
Hotline
DELTA
Total

FY2018c
$158,398,811
$9,250,000
$5,500,000
$173,148,811
FY2019c
$163,914,699
$10,250,000
$5,481,000
$179,645,699
FY2020c,d
$219,985,157
$14,000,000
$7,100,000
$241,085,157
FY2021c,e
$380,500,000
$15,000,000
$5,483,000
$400,983,000
FY2022
$198,000,000
$15,500,000
$5,500,000
$219,000,000
Source: HHS, ACF and HHS, CDC Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees and Operating Plans and
CRS correspondence with HHS, ACF and HHS, CDC.
Notes: Budget authority after sequestration and transfers. N/A means not applicable.
a. Fol owing the authorization of FVPSA in the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-457), $6 mil ion was
appropriated for FVPSA in FY1985, available for two years. Grants were first awarded in FY1986. (HHS,
ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees: FY1990).
b. FY2010 shelter, services, and support includes funds set aside for a grant program, Expanding Services for
Children and Youth Exposed to Domestic Violence, per a requirement that “a portion of the excess” (of
funds for shelters, victim services, and program support) above $130 mil ion was to be reserved for
projects to address the needs of children who witness domestic violence.
c. Includes funding reserved for specialized services for abused parents and their children. Per statute, HHS is
required to use at least 25% of excess funds for specialized services when shelter, services, and support
appropriations are above $130 mil ion.
d. FY2020 includes $45 mil ion for shelters, services, and support and $2 mil ion for the hotline provided by
the CARES Act (P.L. 116-136). The Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-123) also provided funding to CDC, and the agency used $1.6 mil ion of such funds for
DELTA grants, which is included in the DELTA total.
e. FY2021 includes $198 mil ion for shelter, services, and support and $2 mil ion for the hotline provided by
the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2). It does not include $250 mil ion in ARPA funding for
temporary grant programs to meet the emergency needs of survivors of sexual assault and domestic
violence.
Congressional Research Service

35

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Appendix D. FVPSA Funding for State and
Territory Formula Grants, FY2021
Table D-1. FVPSA Formula Grant Funding for Shelter and Supportive Services for
States and Territories, FY2021
State/Territory
Annual Funding
ARPA
Total
Alabama
$1,829,565
$1,725,910
$3,555,475
Alaska
$783,449
$257,502
$1,040,951
Arizona
$2,425,274
$2,562,092
$4,987,366
Arkansas
$1,356,771
$1,062,260
$2,419,031
California
$10,508,427
$13,908,214
$24,416,641
Colorado
$2,044,111
$2,027,062
$4,071,173
Connecticut
$1,494,062
$1,254,973
$2,749,035
Delaware
$844,189
$342,763
$1,186,952
District of Columbia
$776,980
$248,422
$1,025,402
Florida
$5,985,943
$7,560,115
$13,546,058
Georgia
$3,262,517
$3,737,309
$6,999,826
Hawaii
$955,056
$498,384
$1,453,440
Idaho
$1,048,140
$629,043
$1,677,183
Il inois
$3,777,696
$4,460,453
$8,238,149
Indiana
$2,288,230
$2,369,726
$4,657,956
Iowa
$1,391,193
$1,110,578
$2,501,771
Kansas
$1,330,568
$1,025,480
$2,356,048
Kentucky
$1,720,352
$1,572,611
$3,292,963
Louisiana
$1,765,772
$1,636,365
$3,402,137
Maine
$937,086
$473,160
$1,410,246
Maryland
$2,116,067
$2,128,066
$4,244,133
Massachusetts
$2,328,424
$2,426,146
$4,754,570
Michigan
$3,104,391
$3,515,351
$6,619,742
Minnesota
$2,014,243
$1,985,138
$3,999,381
Mississippi
$1,346,325
$1,047,598
$2,393,923
Missouri
$2,139,075
$2,160,361
$4,299,436
Montana
$868,016
$376,207
$1,244,223
Nebraska
$1,085,089
$680,907
$1,765,996
Nevada
$1,372,407
$1,084,208
$2,456,615
New Hampshire
$940,973
$478,615
$1,419,588
New Jersey
$2,827,375
$3,126,511
$5,953,886
New Mexico
$1,125,819
$738,079
$1,863,898
Congressional Research Service

36

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

State/Territory
Annual Funding
ARPA
Total
New York
$5,478,343
$6,847,610
$12,325,953
North Carolina
$3,230,083
$3,691,782
$6,921,865
North Dakota
$791,101
$268,244
$1,059,345
Ohio
$3,531,260
$4,114,537
$7,645,797
Oklahoma
$1,592,284
$1,392,845
$2,985,129
Oregon
$1,657,676
$1,484,634
$3,142,310
Pennsylvania
$3,810,338
$4,506,271
$8,316,609
Rhode Island
$865,655
$372,893
$1,238,548
South Carolina
$1,891,136
$1,812,336
$3,703,472
South Dakota
$821,845
$311,398
$1,133,243
Tennessee
$2,312,543
$2,403,854
$4,716,397
Texas
$7,871,258
$10,206,485
$18,077,743
Utah
$1,403,954
$1,128,490
$2,532,444
Vermont
$756,477
$219,643
$976,120
Virginia
$2,740,441
$3,004,484
$5,744,925
Washington
$2,509,577
$2,680,425
$5,190,002
West Virginia
$1,049,414
$630,832
$1,680,246
Wisconsin
$2,060,084
$2,049,484
$4,109,568
Wyoming
$745,132
$203,719
$948,851
Subtotal, States
$112,912,186
$115,539,575
$228,451,761
Puerto Rico
$1,400,878
$1,124,173
$2,525,051
Guam
$143,609
$146,563
$290,172
American Samoa
$143,609
$146,563
$290,172
Virgin Islands
$143,609
$146,563
$290,172
Northern Mariana Islands
$143,609
$146,563
$290,172
Subtotal, Territories
$1,975,314
$1,710,425
$3,685,739
Total
$114,887,500
$117,250,000
$232,137,500
Source: HHS, ACF, FYSB, “FY 2021 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act: States and Territories: Grant
Awards Table,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fysb/fy-2021-fvpsa-states-and-territories-
grant-awards-table.pdf; and HHS, ACF, FYSB, “FY 2021 Family Violence Prevention and Services Act: American
Rescue Plan (ARP): Supplemental Funding for FVPSA Formula Grantees,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/fysb/FY2021-ACF-FYSB-FVPSA-ARP-Supplemental-Funding-States_1.pdf.
Notes: FY2021 annual appropriations were provided by the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(P.L. 116-260); additional appropriations were provided by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
Table does not include grants that states and territories received for new grant programs under ARPA to
support the needs of sexual assault survivors and culturally specific populations emerging from the COVID-19
pandemic.

Congressional Research Service

37

Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA): Background and Funding

Author Information

Kara Clifford Billings

Analyst in Social Policy

Acknowledgments
This report was originally authored by Adrienne Fernandes-Alcantara, former CRS Specialist in Social
Policy. Mari Lee, Visual Information Specialist, and Jamie Hutchinson, Visual Information Specialist,
assisted with the graphics presented in this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R42838 · VERSION 22 · UPDATED
38

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jul. 27, 2022

HTML · PDF

2% changed

Jan. 12, 2021

HTML · PDF

36% changed

Apr. 4, 2019

HTML · PDF

8% changed