Welfare Law and Domestic Violence

Welfare Law and Domestic Violence

Order Code RS20662
Updated January 9, 2003
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Welfare Law and Domestic Violence
Jacqueline Cooke and Vee Burke
Domestic Social Policy Division
Summary
The Family Violence Option (FVO) of the 1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) permits
state programs of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to waive federal
rules regarding required work, time limited benefits, and child support cooperation for
victims of domestic violence. The purpose of the FVO is to enable states to help victims
of domestic violence without subjecting them to TANF rules that might “unfairly
penalize” them or put them at further risk of abuse. Out of 54 jurisdictions with TANF
programs, 44 have adopted the FVO. In the second annual state TANF reports, New
York said it gave 8,370 waivers during calendar year 2000, and California reported that
it gave 3,505 waivers in FY2001. Several states said their child support waivers
outnumbered work waivers. However, some states provided no waiver data. Some of
the 10 states that have not adopted the FVO said they provide services to victims of
domestic violence This report details the history, implementation and implications of
the FVO. It will be updated for legislative developments or new data.
Introduction
The 1996 welfare law (P.L. 104-193) replaced the entitlement program of Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other related programs with the block
grant program of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). To receive their full
share of federal funding, states must enforce some federal requirements on parents:
minimum work participation rates, a 60-month time limit on federally-funded benefits,
and cooperation in child support enforcement.1
1 Failure by a state to achieve the required work participation rate is to result in a decrease in
funding of 5% for the first year of noncompliance, increasing by 2% for each subsequent year
that compliance is not achieved, not to exceed 21%. The penalty may be reduced based on the
severity of noncompliance or if noncompliance is due to extraordinary circumstances such as a
natural disaster or regional recession. Penalty for violating the 60-month time limit is a 5%
decrease in federal funds. If a state is not enforcing penalties against individuals who fail to
cooperate in procedures to enforce child support orders, federal funding is to be decreased by not
more than 5%. However, none of these penalties may be imposed if the state is determined to
have reasonable cause for noncompliance. (Section 409(b)(2) of the Social Security Act).
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

CRS-2
Federal statute does not provide for any automatic exemption of individuals from
program requirements but does enable states to extend the 60-month benefit cutoff for
20% of the state’s caseload on grounds of “hardship” or the family’s inclusion of an
individual who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty. Persons who have a
history of domestic violence can be classified by the state as hardship cases within the
20% cap. In addition, a provision called the Family Violence Option (FVO) allows states
to exempt qualifying victims of domestic violence from any TANF rule. States that
certify that they have adopted the FVO have a greater capacity to exempt other “hardship”
cases from the time limit without risk of penalty.
Family Violence Option
The Family Violence Option is an optional certification in a state TANF plan,
specifying that the state has established and is enforcing standards and procedures to
screen and identify TANF recipients with a history of domestic violence, will refer such
individuals to counseling and supportive services, and will provide “good cause” waivers
of normal program requirements when compliance would make it more difficult to escape
domestic violence or unfairly penalize them. The FVO provision defines “domestic
violence” as having the same meaning as the term “battered or subject to extreme cruelty”
in the time-limit hardship language.2
For persons with a history of domestic violence or who are at risk of further violence,
the FVO allows states to waive program requirements. If a state that has granted good
cause domestic violence waivers under the FVO fails to meet the minimum work
participation rate, it may receive penalty relief on grounds of “reasonable cause” for the
failure. These cases still count in the final calculation of the state’s work participation
rate, but they are eligible for removal from calculation of penalties. The state also will
not be penalized for failure to enforce child support cooperation if enforcement would put
the victim at risk of further abuse.
States with FVO certification can give time limit extensions above the 20% hardship
cap to families that have federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers. The
60-month federal time limit clock does not stop despite these waivers, but the time limit
can be extended for so long as necessary without penalty. Families that have received
continuous ongoing cash assistance through a state TANF program for 60 months will
lose federal cash assistance unless they are extended by the state under the 20% hardship
cap or have been granted a good cause domestic violence waiver.
For federal recognition of good cause domestic violence waivers, the state must
provide: 1) individualized responses and services strategies consistent with the needs of
individual victims; 2) temporary waivers (not to exceed 6 months); and 3) in lieu of
program requirements, alternative services for victims consistent with individualized
2 Section 408 (a)(7)(C)(iii) of the Social Security Act defines battered or subject to extreme
cruelty as having been subjected to physical acts that resulted in, or threatened to result in,
physical injury to the individual; sexual abuse; sexual activity involving a dependent child; being
forced as the caretaker relative of a dependent child to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts or
activities; threats of, or attempts at, physical or sexual abuse; mental abuse; or neglect or
deprivation of medical care.

CRS-3
responses and service strategies. Waivers are available only to individuals in states that
have adopted the FVO in their state plan. Outside of the state plan, states also can request
approval from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for FVO
certification in corrective action plans submitted after failing to meet a federal
requirement. This procedure is to deter states from using the FVO as a “quick fix” to
avoid penalties instead of as a broad strategy to best serve victims of domestic abuse.
States requesting recognition of good cause domestic violence waivers must provide in
their annual reports a description of the strategies and procedures in place to serve victims
of domestic violence and the aggregate number of waivers granted to them.
Recipients with waived program requirements under the FVO can receive assistance
indefinitely, subject to redetermination at least every 6 months. Each recipient must have
an appropriate services plan that is developed by a person trained in domestic violence,
reflects individualized assessment and is designed to lead to work. The development of
an appropriate services plan by a trained professional requires that state TANF programs
train staff in domestic violence or coordinate with an agency/organization for assistance
in developing individualized plans.
State Implementation of FVO
As of summer, 2002, all TANF jurisdictions except ten states (Connecticut, Idaho,
Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Virginia, and
Wisconsin), had adopted the FVO. Among the states with FVO certification, there is
great variation in procedures for notification and screening, statewideness, service
delivery by professionals trained in domestic violence, waivers of requirements, and
length of waiver. States also vary in how they inform recipients of the domestic violence
good cause waiver. Some inform recipients orally, encouraging the recipient’s oral
disclosure of an abusive situation or history; others rely on questions on application forms
and/or supplemental brochures and pamphlets. The different procedures could affect
which recipients are notified and how willing a victim is to disclose her history.
As is consistent with the devolution of many state TANF programs, a state that has
adopted the FVO is not mandated to have statewide implementation. Colorado has
certified adoption of the FVO but defers to each county the option to adopt FVO
compliant procedures. Many states defer service development and implementation of
domestic violence services to the counties under standards set by the state. Most states
grant waivers on a case-by-case basis so there is great flexibility for the caseworker to
either deny or pursue a good cause waiver.
In complying with the FVO requirement for development of an appropriate services
plan by a trained professional, some states have provided training for caseworkers within
the welfare agency. Others have chosen to have the welfare agency coordinate with
another agency or organization to develop a plan. (The state of Kansas defines staff who
have received training designed by the Kansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence and
Sexual Abuse as “persons trained in domestic violence.”)
States determine which requirements to waive on an individual basis as part of the
victim’s services plan. One state (Maryland) effectively stops the federal time clock for
victims by assisting them with state funds until the barriers caused by domestic violence
have been removed. Since domestic violence victims in Maryland are moved into a

CRS-4
separate state program, they are not subject to federal rules, and states cannot be penalized
for any exemption made for individuals assisted by a state-funded program. For domestic
violence victims in federally-funded TANF programs, the federal clock continues to tick.3
FVO waivers are the only way that domestic violence victims can be assured ongoing
federal cash aid after the 60-month time limit, unless the state includes them under the
20% “hardship” exception.
Federal regulations limit waivers to no longer than 6 months, subject to
redetermination. Most states provide waivers indefinitely, subject to biannual
redetermination. These redeterminations usually assess compliance with the individual’s
services plan as an indication of progress and grounds for an extended waiver. Some
states limit the length of a waiver of certain requirements, according to state documents.
For example, Minnesota exempts domestic violence victims from employment
requirements for a lifetime maximum of 12 months. Montana provides an exemption to
its state time limit for up to 6 months. Texas allows waiver of time limits, child support
cooperation, and work requirements for up to 1 year.
Some of the states choosing not to certify for the FVO, including Connecticut,
Michigan, and Wisconsin, have procedures in effect to identify and serve victims of
domestic abuse. In its 2001 state TANF report, Wisconsin said case managers work
closely with domestic violence victims. Wisconsin also said it considered it
counterproductive to categorically waive program rules because in the past persons
exempted from work rules often had received no services. In Ohio, county departments
have the responsibility for devising policy about corroboration and assessment of
domestic violence.
Data on Waivers
FY2001 state TANF reports provide these data on good cause waivers granted under
the FVO: Alabama, 126 (from work rules); Arizona, 302 (work deferrals); California,
3,505 (72% above the FY2000 figure); Georgia, 1,656; Kansas, 806; Kentucky, 562
(based on monthly average of 46); Massachusetts, 194; Minnesota, 643; Missouri, 1,612;
New Jersey, 445; New Mexico, 84; New York, 8,370 in calendar year 2000 (up 76% from
CY1999); North Carolina, 10; Pennsylvania, 702 as of September 30, 2001 (542 from
child support rules, 160 from work rules); Rhode Island, 178 (151 from child support
rules, 20 from work rules, 7 from rules of both programs); South Carolina, 104;
Tennessee, 468 (based on monthly average of 39); Texas, 272; and Vermont, 163 waivers
of child support rules and 8 work deferrals or exemptions. Florida said that although it
granted no waivers, it gave domestic violence “deferrals” from work activity to 494
participants for a limited time (while alternate activity plans were developed). Louisiana
said it was unable to provide data. Oregon, which gave no data, said that for reasons of
client safety, it had not created an identifier to track FVO waivers.
3 Many states have set benefit cutoff time limits shorter than 60 months, and some of them stop
their state clocks for victims of domestic violence; some others do not stop the state clock but
provide extensions once the time limit is reached.

CRS-5
History of the Family Violence Option
The Family Violence Option was enacted as part of the 1996 welfare reform law
(P.L. 104-193). The concept behind the FVO can be traced back to a 1995 Wellstone-
Murray amendment to H.R. 4, a version of TANF that was vetoed. The amendment
would have required states to adopt the FVO and excluded domestic violence victims
with waivers from the calculation of state work participation rates. This provision passed
in the Senate but was rejected by the House. Senator Wellstone proposed a similar
amendment, calling for mandatory state certification, in the 1996 legislation leading to
P.L. 104-193. The amendment passed in the Senate but was not included in the House
version of the bill that the Senate subsequently adopted. Since FVO enactment in 1996,
the Senate has twice passed a bill to forbid any numerical limit on time-limit hardship
exemptions for domestic violence victims, but the House has not followed suit.
Representative Schumer proposed bills twice (1996 and 1997) to require state
certification of the FVO (H.R. 4324, H.R. 2861), and the Battered Women’s Economic
Security and Safety Act of 1999, S. 1069, proposed to prohibit numerical limits on time
limit hardship exemptions for persons with domestic violence waivers under the FVO and
to exclude waivered individuals from the calculation of state work participation rates.
Incidence of Domestic Violence and Effect on Employment
Numerous studies have attempted to document the prevalence of domestic violence
and implications on employment for welfare families. Conferees on P.L. 105-33 directed
the General Accounting Office (GAO) to submit a report on the impact of domestic
violence on the use of welfare. The GAO conducted an analysis of past studies of welfare
recipients and found that between 15% and 56% of the women surveyed reported that they
were or had been victims of physical domestic abuse in the 12 months preceding the
survey and that 55% to 65% had been physically abused by an intimate partner at some
point in their lives (GAO-HEHS-99-12). The broad range reflects differences in survey
techniques and sample populations. This abuse rate of abuses is significantly greater than
that in the general population, which was found in a 1998 survey to be 1.5% in the 12
months before the survey and 25% at some time. The GAO report cited U.S. Department
of Justice surveys that found women aged 20 to 34, divorced or separated, and women
with family incomes less than $9,999 more likely to be victims of domestic violence than
women in general. The state of Kansas, in its 2000 TANF report, says that domestic
violence issues were disclosed by 4.6% of TANF applicants/recipients (248 out of 5,330)
who received information about domestic violence services and were screened in the
Topeka office by an “on-site advocate.” Of these, 14 were determined to need a domestic
violence waiver. The California Research Bureau reports that a 2000 survey by the
California Department of Health Women’s Health Project found that about 6 percent of
the women in California were victims. [http://www.library.ca.gov/html/statseg2a.cfm].
The GAO report could not conclude that domestic violence affected the victim’s
likelihood of work. No study could isolate the effects of domestic violence on
employment status. A 1997 Massachusetts study of AFDC recipients found similar
employment rates for women who reported having been abused or not (8.8% and 7%,
respectively). However, a study of women in a low-income neighborhood in Chicago
found that women reported to have been subject to abuse at some point suffered more
spells of unemployment, greater job turnover, and significantly higher rates of receipt of

CRS-6
AFDC, Medicaid and food stamps. The GAO report said that women who currently
experience domestic violence may differ in their ability to obtain and maintain
employment from women who have safely escaped from past violence.
The GAO review suggests that abusers may hinder their victims from obtaining and
maintaining employment. Abusers often feel threatened by women’s efforts toward self-
sufficiency that might afford them the option to leave the abusive relationship. Between
16% and 60% of the women surveyed in five studies reported that their partner had
discouraged them from working, and 33% to 46% said their partner prevented them from
working. Abusive partners often attempt to sabotage women’s work efforts by becoming
violent, promising child care and then failing to deliver, destroying or hiding items needed
for women’s work activities, harassing them at their work site by phone or in person, and
inflicting visible signs of abuse so that women will be too embarrassed to attend their
work activity. Three studies found that 44% to 60% of respondents had been reprimanded
at work for behaviors caused by the abusive situation, and 24% to 52% said they lost their
jobs as a result of abuse. Further, domestic violence inflicts physical and emotional health
problems on women that can affect their ability to find and maintain employment.
Implications of the FVO
Although most states have certified their adoption of the FVO, many may not need
federally recognized good cause domestic violence waivers to escape fiscal penalties for
time limit or work participation failures. This is because many states appear unlikely to
exceed the 20% hardship cap on time limit extensions or to fail work participation rates,
which have been sharply lowered because of caseload reduction. (Because only 2/3s of
TANF cases now include an adult recipient, the 20% cap is equivalent to almost 30% of
the cases that include an adult recipient [20/67].) W hen s tates do req u es t federal
recognition of waivers, their reporting of domestic violence need not be comprehensive.
States are required only to describe the standards and procedures they have established
and the number of waivers for which they seek federal recognition under the FVO.
Domestic violence victims may be exempt from work requirements through another
category, such as having to care for a young child or handicapped relative. They may also
benefit through access to domestic violence services, although not given an exemption
from any welfare rule.
Legislation in the 107th Congress
In the 107th Congress, bills were introduced to require states to ensure that TANF
programs help victims of domestic violence (H.R. 4655) and to entitle victims of
domestic/sexual violence to emergency leave for various kinds of help (S. 1249/H.R.
2670). Further, the Senate HELP Committee proposed, in a bill to reauthorize the Family
Violence Prevention Services Act (S. 2998), to provide funding for services for children
exposed to domestic violence. It also would have established a secure electronic network
to link domestic violence shelters and service providers and the National Domestic
Violence Hotline on a confidential website.