Report to Congressional Requesters

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

August 2005 TANF

State Approaches to 

Screening for 

Domestic Violence 

Could Benefit from 

HHS Guidance 

GAO-05-701 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

Forty-eight states have adopted the FVO or a comparable state policy. Most 

of these states actively screened clients by directly questioning them about 

domestic violence, whereas five states simply notified clients of domestic 

violence waivers without making a direct inquiry. Most states provide staff 

with a screening tool, but the detail and depth of these tools vary. State 

officials said that staff in local TANF offices often have limited skills in 

dealing with domestic violence issues, and policies regarding staff training 

vary. To address this issue, some state TANF offices employ domestic 

violence specialists. Although HHS has compiled and disseminated 

information about domestic violence screening, HHS has not issued 

guidance regarding best practices in domestic violence screening. 

State TANF programs help clients address domestic violence issues by 

granting waivers that exempt victims from TANF requirements, and by 

referring clients for domestic violence services. Most states will waive the 

TANF program’s federal requirements pertaining to work, the 5-year lifetime 

limit on cash assistance, and the child support requirements. However, the 

conditions of these waivers vary from state to state. For example, 27 states 

required that clients participate in domestic violence services. Limited data 

on the number of domestic violence waivers indicates that a comparatively 

small portion of TANF recipients obtain such waivers. 

Most states have used TANF funds for marriage or responsible fatherhood 

programs or both. Specifically, 15 states reported funding marriage programs

and 28 reported funding responsible fatherhood programs. States that 

provided usable data reported spending about 5 percent or less of their 

federal TANF budget on these programs. In addition, some states funded 

these programs through other funding sources or had programs in 

development. According to research and practitioners in the field, these 

programs generally do not explicitly address domestic violence, and HHS 

has stated that all future Healthy Marriage projects should include domestic 

violence protections. 

Number of States with Particular Policies Regarding Frequency of Domestic Violence 

Training 

Source: GAO survey.

3

At special intervals

6 Once in career

14 No state requirement

25

Once in careeradditional optional

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-701.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For(415) 904-2272 or bellisd@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-701, a report to 

congressional requesters 

August 2005

TANF

State Approaches to Screening for 

Domestic Violence Could Benefit from 

HHS Guidance 

The Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) program 

introduced specific work 

requirements and benefit time 

limits. However, the Family 

Violence Option (FVO) requires 

states that adopt the FVO to screen 

TANF clients for domestic violence 

and grant waivers from program 

requirements for clients in 

domestic violence situations. TANF 

also allows the use of TANF funds 

for marriage and responsible 

fatherhood programs. Given states’ 

broad discretion in implementing 

the TANF program, including most 

aspects of the FVO and marriage 

and responsible fatherhood 

programs, this report examines 

(1) how states identify victims of 

domestic violence among TANF 

recipients, (2) how states address 

domestic violence among TANF 

recipients once they are identified, 

and (3) the extent to which states 

spend TANF funds on marriage and 

responsible fatherhood programs, 

and how, if at all, these programs 

are addressing domestic violence. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (1) examine domestic 

violence screening practices of 

states and determine whether 

certain practices—such as 

employing and training domestic 

violence specialists—are 

particularly promising approaches 

to screening for domestic violence, 

and (2) provide states with 

information on the these practices, 

and encourage their adoption. 
Page i GAO-05-701 TANF 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4 

Most States Have Adopted the Family Violence Option, and States’ 

TANF Programs Take Differing Approaches to Screening for 

Domestic Violence 10 

To Address the Needs of Victims of Domestic Violence, Most States 

Use Waivers and Refer Clients to Local Service Providers 19 

Most States Used Federal TANF Funds for Marriage or Responsible 

Fatherhood Programs, but Take Differing Approaches to 

Addressing Domestic Violence 24 

Conclusions 30 

Recommendations for Executive Action 31 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Health and Human 

Services 37 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41 

Tables 

Table 1: Number of States That Grant FVO Waivers 20 

Table 2: Number of States and Evidence Required for a Waiver to 

Be Granted 21 

Figures 

Figure 1: TANF Process 6 

Figure 2: States’ Status Regarding Adoption of the Family Violence 

Option or a Comparable Policy 11 

Figure 3: Number of States Requiring Follow-up Domestic Violence 

Screening at Specific Points in the TANF Process 13 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-701 TANF 

Figure 4: Number of States with Particular Policies Regarding 

Frequency of Domestic Violence Training 16 

Figure 5: States Using Federal TANF Dollars to Fund Marriage and 

Responsible Fatherhood Programs 25 

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children & Families 

DVA Domestic Violence Advocate 

FVO Family Violence Option 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

PREP Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-701 TANF 

August 16, 2005 

The Honorable Max Baucus 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Pete Stark 

House of Representatives 

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provided 

about $17 billion in federal funds to states in fiscal year 2004 for cash 

assistance and services to low-income families. This program includes 

specific work requirements and a 5-year benefit time limit that some TANF 

clients may be unable to meet. Recognizing that not all clients will be 

ready to work and that some may need assistance beyond 5 years, the 

program also offers various exceptions to these requirements. One 

exception—the Family Violence Option—requires that states screen 

clients for domestic violence and allows them to grant waivers from 

program requirements for clients in domestic violence situations. Adopting 

the Family Violence Option is not mandatory, and states that choose not to 

do so may nonetheless adopt comparable policies. Although the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees the TANF 

program, states have broad discretion in implementing the program, 

including most aspects related to the Family Violence Option. 

Currently, the Congress is considering various changes to the TANF 

program, including proposals that would establish matching grants to 

promote marriage and discourage divorce, as well as measures 

emphasizing responsible fatherhood. While spending TANF funds on these 

activities is currently allowed under TANF, the amount states spend on 

such program is relatively small compared to their total TANF budgets. 

Concerned about these issues, you asked us to examine how state TANF 

programs were addressing the issue of domestic violence and how, if at all, 

these programs have funded or promoted marriage and fatherhood efforts. 

As agreed with your offices, we responded to the following questions: 

• What are states doing to identify victims of domestic violence among 

TANF recipients? 

• What are states doing to address domestic violence among TANF 

recipients once victims have been identified? 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-701 TANF 

• To what extent are state TANF programs spending TANF funds on 

marriage and responsible fatherhood programs, and how, if at all, are 

these programs addressing domestic violence? 

To answer these questions, we conducted a survey of the TANF programs 

of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In this survey, we asked 

detailed questions about state policies regarding screening TANF clients 

for domestic violence, how states addressed domestic violence situations 

once clients have disclosed them, and the extent to which states have used 

TANF funds for marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. To 

supplement the data obtained through the survey, we conducted in-depth 

visits to five states—Colorado, Georgia, New York, Oklahoma, and 

Washington. We selected these states because their practices for screening 

TANF clients for domestic violence have been in place for various 

amounts of time; only one of these states, Oklahoma, has not adopted the 

Family Violence Option. We selected one state—Oklahoma—in part 

because of its TANF-funded marriage program, and another state—

Georgia—because of its TANF-funded responsible fatherhood program. 

During each of these visits, we conducted detailed discussions with state 

officials about state policies, obtained documentation of state policies, and 

visited two local service delivery offices in each state to discuss and 

observe how the policies were implemented. We visited three states—

Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin—while designing our study, and pre-tested 

the survey with officials in Maryland, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Finally, 

we contacted researchers and policy analysts knowledgeable about the 

TANF program, domestic violence, and marriage and responsible 

fatherhood programs. We also reviewed pertinent literature concerning 

each of these areas. A more detailed discussion of methodology is 

contained in appendix I. 

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards between May 2004 and May 2005. 

All but three states have either certified adoption of the Family Violence 

Option or have adopted a comparable policy, and the large majority of 

these states screen for domestic violence. To meet the requirements of the 

Family Violence Option, states have implemented a range of policies 

concerning screening techniques, privacy, as well as domestic violence 

training requirements for local staff who conduct the screening. While 

most states provide staff with a questionnaire or other screening tool, the 

detail and depth of these tools varies. Some in-depth questionnaires probe 

for various aspects of domestic violence, while others include a single-line 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-701 TANF 

prompt for domestic violence. In addition to the use of formal tools, state 

TANF officials and others emphasized the importance of informal 

screening, including unstructured conversations and observation of 

clients. Five states that have adopted the Family Violence Option or a 

comparable policy indicated that they do not require a specific inquiry 

about domestic violence, but instead rely on notifying clients of available 

domestic violence waivers. Of the states that have adopted the Family 

Violence Option or a comparable policy, most have not established 

policies regarding the physical setting of screening or who may be present 

while a client is screened. Further, state officials and domestic violence 

experts indicated that the ability, skills, and inclination of caseworkers 

that conduct such inquiries vary widely. To aid in screening and assessing 

TANF clients for domestic violence, some state TANF programs employ 

domestic violence specialists. Although HHS has taken some actions to 

compile and disseminate information about domestic violence screening, 

HHS has not issued guidance regarding best screening practices. 

In the states we visited, TANF programs helped clients address domestic 

violence issues by providing exemptions from TANF requirements as 

needed and by ensuring that clients have access to services. While most 

states will grant waivers for work, time limit, and child support 

requirements, the specific conditions of these waivers vary from state to 

state. For example, some states require recipients to provide evidence that 

they are victims of domestic violence before the work requirement will be 

waived. Some of the eight states we visited had limited data on the number 

of domestic violence waivers issued, and in these states it appears that 

only a small percentage of clients who have disclosed domestic violence 

were granted waivers. While TANF staff generally refer victims to 

domestic violence services—such as counseling and emergency shelter—

these services are typically provided by other agencies. However, TANF 

offices in some states offer in-house services to domestic violence victims. 

For example, domestic violence specialists in Washington state can 

provide ongoing, in-house domestic violence counseling. In addition, we 

found, in the states that we visited, services for domestic violence victims 

were less available in rural areas. 

Thirty-one states reported using federal TANF funds for marriage or 

responsible fatherhood programs, and limited research indicates that such 

programs generally do not specifically address domestic violence. Twenty 

eight states reported using federal TANF funds for responsible fatherhood 

programs, and 15 have done so for marriage programs over the last 
Page 4 GAO-05-701 TANF 

3 years. Of the states that provided usable budget data, no state reported 

spending more than about 5 percent of its total federal TANF expenditures 

on either marriage or responsible fatherhood programs for fiscal years 

2002 or 2003. However, states may fund marriage or responsible 

fatherhood programs with other funding sources or be in the process of 

developing programs that may or may not use TANF funds. According to 

researchers and practitioners in the field of marriage and responsible 

fatherhood, marriage and responsible fatherhood programs do not 

typically raise awareness of domestic violence explicitly, but may do so 

implicitly through emphasis on healthy and constructive techniques for 

conflict resolution without specifically addressing or identifying domestic 

violence. 

This report contains recommendations that HHS (1) examine domestic 

violence screening practices of states in order to identify particularly 

promising approaches, and (2) provide states with information on such 

practices and encourage their adoption in agency guidance or 

memoranda. 

The TANF program was established by the Personal Responsibility and 

Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), and was 

designed to provide cash assistance to needy families with children, while 

at the same time ending the dependence of needy families on government 

benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage. As the 

responsible federal agency, HHS provides an annual TANF block grant to 

each state. In fiscal year 2004, states spent about $26 billion of federal and 

state funds to assist low-income families, including providing monthly 

cash assistance to about 2 million families as of June 2004. States have 

considerable flexibility in administering TANF programs, and in turn, 

offices in localities throughout each state are responsible for interacting 

with TANF clients and running the day-to-day aspects of the program. 

The TANF program encourages recipients to work, places limits on the 

length of time that a family can receive federal cash benefits and requires 

that clients cooperate with child support authorities. Specifically, in 

accordance with the authorizing legislation, TANF regulations state that all 

clients must participate in work activities as soon as the state determines 

they are ready to do so, or after 24 months of cash benefits, whichever 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-05-701 TANF 

occurs earlier.1 Further, clients may not obtain federal TANF cash 

benefits for more than a total of 60 months during their lifetime. TANF 

also requires that all families with children for whom paternity has not 

been established or for whom a child support order needs to be 

established, cooperate with child-support enforcement agencies. The 

TANF program both gives states incentives to enforce these requirements, 

as well as the flexibility to waive these requirements if necessary. For 

example, states must engage a certain percentage of their overall and twoparent caseloads in work activities, or face financial penalty. In practice, 

states can waive the work and time limit requirements for clients in a 

number of ways. For example, states can provide cash benefits beyond the 

5-year time limit to for up to 20 percent of their caseload. Some states also 

provide cash assistance with only state funds when a client has difficulty 

meeting federal requirements. 

States enroll applicants in the TANF program through a process that is 

roughly comparable, though the particulars may vary from state to state 

(see fig. 1). A TANF client may meet with a worker who verifies that the 

cash assistance program is appropriate for the client’s needs and that the 

client qualifies for cash assistance. The client is typically assigned a 

caseworker who conducts a review of the client’s employment prospects, 

including the client’s education, work history, skills, and aspects of the 

client’s personal life that may affect their ability to hold a job. Based on 

this review, the caseworker develops an individual responsibility plan that 

outlines actions that the client is to take in order to obtain employment 

and become financially self sufficient. This plan may require that a client 

immediately begin a job search or that the client first take actions to 

address aspects of the client’s life that pose a barrier to work. After this 

plan is established, the caseworker meets with the client periodically, in 

order to ensure that the client is making progress toward the goals 

outlined in the plan. Some states also require a more in-depth, 

comprehensive review of the client’s progress at regular intervals or if the 

client is having difficulty meeting aspects of the individual responsibility 

plan. 

 1

States have some discretion in defining “work” under this requirement. For example, 

work can include job search and job readiness assistance, or vocational educational 

training. 
Page 6 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Figure 1: TANF Process 

The TANF legislation also established a provision known as the Family 

Violence Option, under which states commit to screen clients for domestic 

violence, and refer those who are identified as domestic violence victims 

to domestic violence services. Further, states that have adopted the Family 

Violence Option can waive program requirements—including those related 

to work, the 5-year federal time limit, and cooperation with child support 

authorities—if compliance would make it more difficult for clients to 

escape domestic violence, or would unfairly penalize domestic violence 

victims.

States that have adopted the Family Violence Option may also avoid 

financial penalties related to the work requirements and the 5-year time 

The Family Violence 

Option Gives States 

Incentives to Address 

Domestic Violence among 

the Client Population 

Client not 

eligible for

TANF

Eligibility 

determination

Employment 

assessment

Create 

responsibility 

plan

Ongoing 

assessment

Client leaves 

TANF due to 

employment or 

other reasons

Close TANF 

case

Source: GAO analysis.

Client applies 

for TANF cash 

assistance

No Yes
Page 7 GAO-05-701 TANF 

limit, if their failure to meet these requirements is at least partly 

attributable to clients who have been granted federally recognized, good 

cause domestic violence waivers.2

 In order for the domestic violence 

waiver to be federally recognized, it must specify which program 

requirements are being waived, be granted based on need as determined 

by a person trained in domestic violence, and be accompanied by a 

services plan. States may report federally recognized good cause domestic 

violence waivers to HHS, and HHS requires that such waivers not be 

reported unless they meet the regulatory definition. As with other aspects 

of the TANF program, states have broad flexibility regarding the detailed 

implementation of the Family Violence Option. 

Domestic violence affects a substantial percentage of low-income women, 

according to existing research. Further, research shows that it can, in 

some cases, pose a barrier to work and financial independence. In 1998, 

we reported that studies indicated that between 15 percent to 56 percent 

of welfare recipients are, or have been, victims of domestic violence.3

Since that time, additional studies with similar findings have been 

published. For example, a 2001 report summarized the prevalence of 

domestic violence among a random sample of women in the TANF 

caseload of an urban county in Michigan.4

 This study found that about 51 

percent of the women had been severely abused at some time in their life, 

and about 15 percent had been severely abused by a partner at least once 

in the preceding year.5

 Further, 61 percent reported being threatened with 

violence or other retribution at some point in their lifetime, and 24 percent 

reported such an experience had occurred in the preceding 12 months. 

Past research has also revealed that domestic violence can, in some cases, 

be a barrier to work and financial independence. In our 1998 report, we 

 2

States that have not adopted the Family Violence Option may also screen for domestic 

violence and offer waivers to program requirements. However, these states are not eligible 

to avoid financial penalties related to the work requirement and 5-year time limit. 

3

GAO, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment among Welfare 

Recipients, GAO/HEHS-99-12 (Washington, D.C.: November 1998). 

4

Richard M. Tolman and Daniel Rosen, Domestic Violence in the Lives of Women 

Receiving Welfare: Mental Health, Substance Dependence, and Economic Well Being in 

Violence Against Women, Vol. 7, No. 2 (February 2001).

5

Severe abuse is defined as including experiences such as being beaten, being hit with a fist 

or an object that could cause harm, and being threatened with a weapon. 

Studies Indicated 

Domestic Violence Is 

Prevalent among LowIncome Women and Can 

Be a Barrier to 

Employment 
Page 8 GAO-05-701 TANF 

reported that various studies found that women who were or had been 

victims of domestic violence were employed at about the same rates as 

women who reported never having been abused. However, we also cited 

one study that found abused women experienced higher job turnover and 

more spells of unemployment than women who had never been abused. 

Further, our 1998 report, as well as other research, has outlined how 

domestic violence can impede successful employment for some women. 

For example, several studies have shown that abusers may be threatened 

by any steps a woman takes toward financial independence, and may 

thwart a job search or employment by interfering with transportation to 

work, or by making harassing phone calls to a woman while she is in the 

workplace. 

State TANF programs face significant challenges addressing domestic 

violence, in part because it can be especially difficult to detect. Many 

victims of domestic violence may be reluctant to disclose such a personal 

and potentially humiliating aspect of their life. Researchers in the field of 

domestic violence and state officials stated that domestic violence victims 

may be unwilling to disclose domestic violence out of shame and 

embarrassment. Victims may also fear retribution by the abuser. 

TANF clients may be particularly reluctant to disclose abuse in the TANF 

program setting. Advocates for victims of domestic violence explained that 

TANF clients often see TANF staff as government officials who cannot be 

trusted to keep the disclosure of domestic violence confidential. Further, 

some clients may fear that any disclosure of domestic violence to 

government officials could result in the loss of custody over their children. 

As a result, disclosure may be thwarted, at least until a trusting working 

relationship can be developed. Caseworkers may also lack specific skills 

that facilitate disclosure. For example, according to some experts, 

caseworkers may lack empathy for domestic violence victims. 

Additionally, given the heavy workload that some caseworkers face—in 

busy urban areas, some have over 100 clients—they may not effectively 

screen for domestic violence. According to some researchers, some 

caseworkers may see addressing domestic violence as conflicting with the 

overall goal of ensuring that clients become employed. Finally, HHS 

officials told us that the physical setting of domestic violence screening—

which in many offices can occur in open cubicles or public spaces—may 

not facilitate disclosure of domestic violence, as clients may fear being 

overheard. 

Prompting Disclosure of 

Domestic Violence Can Be 

Difficult 
Page 9 GAO-05-701 TANF 

The difficulty of identifying domestic violence is compounded by a lack of 

consensus about the best techniques for screening clients. Some state 

officials and researchers reported the benefit of screening tools composed 

of multiple questions asking about various aspects of domestic violence—

such as physical abuse, verbal abuse, or stalking. They believe such an 

approach helps clients who may not think of themselves as domestic 

violence victims and yet may respond affirmatively to a question about a 

specific behavior. On the other hand, some research has found that 

detailed questions about specific aspects of domestic violence may be 

considered overly intrusive, which can put clients on the defensive and 

make disclosure less likely. A 1999 study on the state TANF programs’ 

efforts to assist victims of domestic violence found that screening 

instruments should avoid intrusive questions about the specific actions of 

an abuser, as such questions can be too personal or shaming.6

Because the TANF program includes a variety of goals, federal TANF 

funds can be used for purposes other than cash assistance to needy 

families. Because one of the purposes of the TANF program is to 

encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families, some 

states have opted to use TANF funds for marriage programs. Such 

programs attempt to achieve these goals through various measures, such 

as education. Similarly, some states have opted to use TANF funds for 

responsible fatherhood programs. These programs are designed to 

encourage the active and responsible involvement of non-custodial fathers 

in the lives of their children. 

State officials, practitioners, and the domestic violence services 

community have stressed the importance of involving the domestic 

violence services community in development and implementation of 

marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. States that have used this 

approach have indicated that the involvement of the domestic violence 

services community was necessary to ensure that marriage and 

responsible fatherhood programs address individual safety. HHS 

Administration for Children and Families has echoed this sentiment in an 

information memorandum that strongly recommends that states consult 

with experts in domestic violence or with relevant community domestic 

violence coalitions as they design marriage initiatives. Further, HHS has 

 6

Jody Raphael and Sheila Haennicke, Keeping Battered Women Safe through the Welfare to 

Work Journey: How Are We Doing? Taylor Institute (September 1999). 

Federal TANF Funds May 

Be Used to Fund Marriage 

and Responsible 

Fatherhood Programs 
Page 10 GAO-05-701 TANF 

stated that its Healthy Marriage Initiative--which seeks to promote healthy 

marriages though activities such as marriage and pre-marriage education--

requires grantees to develop domestic violence protocols that address 

screening for domestic violence and referrals to local domestic violence 

services.

While the large majority of states have adopted the Family Violence Option 

or a comparable policy, states take a broad range of approaches to 

identifying domestic violence. Most states require that clients be formally 

screened for domestic violence, though techniques can vary significantly 

from state to state. A few states do not actively screen, but require that 

clients be notified of available domestic violence waivers. Comparatively 

few states have policies regarding the privacy of screening, although 

officials in most states we contacted acknowledged its importance. 

Finally, most states reported that domestic violence screening is 

performed by staff that may have little or no training in recognizing and 

discussing domestic violence. To address this issue, some states have 

employed domestic violence specialists. 

Forty states have certified adoption of the Family Violence Option (see 

fig. 2). Eight states reported that they had not certified the Family Violence 

Option, but had adopted similar policies. Each of these states reported 

that they make some effort to screen clients for domestic violence, refer 

clients to domestic violence services, and offer waivers of certain TANF 

program requirements. 

Most States Have 

Adopted the Family 

Violence Option, and 

States’ TANF 

Programs Take 

Differing Approaches 

to Screening for 

Domestic Violence 

Most States Have Adopted 

the Family Violence Option 

or an Equivalent Policy 
Page 11 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Figure 2: States’ Status Regarding Adoption of the Family Violence Option or a 

Comparable Policy 

Officials in only three states—Maine, Oklahoma, and Ohio—reported that 

they had not adopted the Family Violence Option or a comparable policy. 

According to Oklahoma officials, adoption of the Family Violence Option 

was not seen as necessary because the state already required some of the 

actions called for by the Family Violence Option, though the provisions 

may not be precisely comparable. 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz. Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak. Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va. Ky.

States that have not adopted the family violence option or comparable policy.

Source: GAO survey. 

S.C.

Tenn.

States that adopted the FVO.

States that adopted state policies comparable to the FVO.
Page 12 GAO-05-701 TANF 

States screen for domestic violence using a broad range of strategies and 

techniques.7

 Some require that staff use formal screening tools at specific 

points in the TANF process. Such tools vary in detail and depth of inquiry. 

Five states notify clients of domestic violence waivers, but do not require 

that staff specifically inquire about domestic violence. In addition, state 

TANF program staff can at any time also use informal domestic violence 

screening techniques, such as observing a client’s demeanor or interaction 

with their partner. 

Officials in the large majority of states (43) reported that their state 

actively inquires about domestic violence, and most of these states rely on 

a mandatory screening tool. Specifically, 26 states responding to our 

survey reported that they provide local offices with a specific screening 

tool that must be used, while another 4 said the tool they provide is 

optional. Eight states reported that they provide staff with guidance such 

as regulations, staff manuals, or memoranda, in lieu of a specific screening 

tool. 

We learned during our visits to states that the breadth and technique of the 

screening tools vary considerably. For example, the state of Washington 

uses a nine-question, electronic screening tool that prompts TANF staff to 

inquire about various aspects of domestic violence, including queries 

about threats, angry outbursts or controlling behavior by the client’s 

partner. This screening tool is administered by case managers, who 

generally go through these questions verbatim, and record the client’s 

responses in a data base. In contrast, the state of Iowa uses a tool designed 

to be self-administered by the client that makes a single query about 

sexual or physical violence in a table that covers a variety of health related 

issues. This tool does not ask specific or probing questions about domestic 

violence, but prompts the client to enter a checkmark if physical or sexual 

violence is an issue for any member of the client’s family. 

The large majority of states that require formal screening require it early in 

the TANF process, with follow-up screenings at certain points. As figure 3 

indicates, subsequent screenings occur either at regular intervals, or when 

it becomes apparent that a client is having difficulty meeting program 

requirements. For example, our survey data show that 24 states screen 

 7

In our survey of the states, we defined “screening” as a technique used by local TANF 

office staff to identify domestic violence victims. Techniques may include a single question, 

investigative interviewing, or use of a detailed questionnaire. 

States Take a Broad Range 

of Approaches to 

Screening for Domestic 

Violence 

Formal Screening at Specified 

Times 
Page 13 GAO-05-701 TANF 

during a TANF eligibility review that in some states, such as New York, 

can take place every 6 months. Many states also screen when the client 

exhibits difficulty in meeting TANF program goals or requirements. For 

example, 20 states screen when a client fails to meet the conditions of 

cash assistance. State officials told us that such follow-up screenings are 

important because the client may be reluctant to disclose domestic 

violence initially or because it may emerge as a problem after entry into 

the TANF program. 

Figure 3: Number of States Requiring Follow-up Domestic Violence Screening at 

Specific Points in the TANF Process 

Note: States could report more than one point in the process; therefore, numbers do not total to 48. 

Five states that have adopted the Family Violence Option or a comparable 

policy reported that they do not actively screen TANF clients for domestic 

violence. These states indicated that they have no screening requirements 

beyond informing clients about available domestic violence waivers. An 

official of one such state—Pennsylvania—referred to this process as 

“universal notification” and explained that the policy was developed in 

Notification Only

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Other

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

Client fails to

Time limit

Eligibility reveiw

Domestic

Number of states

Source: GAO survey.

 violence suspected

 approaches

 meet conditions

 of cash assistance

33

24

20 20

11
Page 14 GAO-05-701 TANF 

consultation with the state coalition that advocates for domestic violence 

victims. The policy was developed in the belief that it is best not to probe 

clients about domestic violence and risk putting them in an uncomfortable 

situation, but to spell out the program flexibilities that exist for domestic 

violence victims. This policy allows domestic violence victims to disclose, 

if necessary, at a time of their choosing. 

Staff in local TANF offices can also conduct “informal” screening through 

casually conversing with or observing clients. For example, a client’s 

demeanor or physical appearance may provide evidence of domestic 

violence. Several officials told us that such informal screening can occur 

at any time in the TANF process and is especially important because a 

client may not be ready to disclose a domestic violence situation at the 

time of formal screening, and because a domestic violence situation may 

arise after the formal screening. For example, caseworkers and other 

officials in Wisconsin told us that disclosure of domestic violence often 

occurred in the course of informal discussions and consultations between 

clients and staff. 

Sixteen states reported that they have established policies regarding the 

physical setting in which screenings occur. For example, Colorado 

officials explained that, while screening will often begin in open cubicles, 

the state’s policy is that the meeting will be moved to a private office if a 

situation of domestic violence has been identified. 

In our visits to TANF offices in seven other states, we learned that 

screening often occurs in the course of much broader discussions that 

occur in open cubicles near staff and other clients.8

 During our site visits, 

several state officials told us that although private, confidential settings 

are important, many local offices would face constraints in providing such 

settings. For example, an official in one state said that the degree of 

privacy available varies considerably from office to office, and the setting 

in some offices dictates that screening take place at desks near a lobby full 

of clients. While this is not ideal, the local offices must work within the 

constraints of the facilities in which they are located. 

 8

In some states we visited, domestic violence screening takes place in the course of a much 

broader conversation that can cover issues such as the clients educational and employment 

history, the client’s family situation, and TANF rules and regulations. 

Informal Screening throughout 

TANF Process 

Fewer Than Half of States 

Reported Having Policies 

Regarding Privacy for 

Screening 
Page 15 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Ten states said that they have policies regarding individuals who may be 

present during screening. For example, officials in the state of Washington 

told us that, if a couple comes in to the TANF office to apply for benefits 

together, it is state policy that they be separated before domestic violence 

will be discussed. According to the Washington “Work First” handbook, 

which provides written guidance for caseworkers and other staff in the 

state’s TANF program, caseworkers are not to ask about family violence in 

the presence of the partner, because this may endanger the client. 

Similarly, the screening tool used in Illinois advises caseworkers to ask 

questions regarding domestic violence at a later time if the client’s partner 

is present. We also found that, although some states do not have policies 

in this regard, some caseworkers in these states nonetheless ensure a 

client is alone for domestic violence screening. A local office official in 

New York, which does not have a privacy policy, said that before 

questions about domestic violence are asked, they will separate couples 

with a contrived reason, if necessary. For example, they may tell the 

partner that he must meet with another staff member about another topic, 

such as his job history. 

In contrast, most states have no explicit policy about who can be present 

during a client’s domestic violence screening. For example, an official at a 

local office in Iowa said that the initial meeting with the caseworker takes 

place with both partners present because it is important to see how a 

couple interacts. If the caseworker suspects domestic violence, they may 

try to separate the couple for a subsequent discussion. Other states 

explained that they encourage a middle approach, explicitly relying on the 

judgment of the caseworker. Similarly, in New York, state policy directs 

that the domestic violence screening form can be mentioned with both 

partners present, but that it not be addressed further if the clients are not 

interested. However, the policy also advises that caseworkers may need to 

be creative in finding a way to mention the domestic violence screening 

form again in a private setting. 
Page 16 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Forty-five states reported that caseworkers or intake workers are the staff 

that typically conduct domestic violence screening, a fact acknowledged 

by officials during our site visits.9

 As figure 4 indicates, most state policies 

require little training for these staff. Twenty states indicated that the state 

either had no policy regarding domestic violence-related training, or may 

provide training only once in caseworker’s career. Another 25 states 

require training once in a staff members’ career and make additional 

training optional. 

Figure 4: Number of States with Particular Policies Regarding Frequency of 

Domestic Violence Training 

Officials in each state we visited told us that the skills, abilities, and 

inclinations of staff to conduct domestic violence screening vary 

considerably. For example, one state official told us that the personalities 

and style of caseworkers range across the board. This official said that 

many staff are technical people who have spent their careers stressing 

program qualifications, and addressing domestic violence and other “soft” 

issues is difficult adjustment. An official of another state TANF program 

 9

In our survey, states were able to indicate more than one type of staff “typically” conducts 

domestic violence screening. 

Screening Is Typically 

Performed by 

Caseworkers, 

but Some States also Use 

Domestic Violence 

Specialists 

3

At special intervals

6 Once in career

14 No state requirement

25

Once in careeradditional optional

Source: GAO survey.
Page 17 GAO-05-701 TANF 

said that even with the best of best training and screening policies, 

screening effectiveness is dependent on the effectiveness of individual 

caseworkers, and some caseworkers may simply skim the screening 

questions and not ask the full range. These comments were reinforced 

during our observations of domestic violence screening in several local 

TANF offices. At one office, we observed one caseworker who stressed 

certain aspects of the TANF experience, such as the need to obtain 

employment or attend training services, but gave very peremptory 

attention to other issues, such as domestic violence and mental health. At 

another office, we witnessed screening performed by a social worker, who 

paused at length over these issues, and sensitively asked follow-up 

questions regarding the client’s home life, and took the initiative to gently 

and patiently describe a local organization that could provide alternative 

living arrangements, if this were necessary. 

In order to supplement the skills of the caseworkers, three of the states we 

visited—Georgia, New York, and Washington—employed domestic 

violence specialists to conduct in-depth screening and assessment after a 

client disclosed that domestic violence was an issue.10 This practice is 

implemented statewide in Georgia and New York, and has been 

established for almost all of the TANF offices in Washington state. In all 

three states, the domestic violence specialist serves to “backup” the 

screening conducted by the regular caseworker. For example, New York’s 

policy requires that a client be referred to a specialist—known as a 

domestic violence liaison—as soon as a client discloses that domestic 

violence is an issue. State officials told us that the meeting with the 

specialist is scheduled as soon as possible and all further inquiry regarding 

domestic violence is left to the domestic violence liaison. The specialist 

then conducts a more in-depth inquiry and informs clients about options 

for protective services and other assistance. 

State officials told us that domestic violence specialists can play an 

important role in addressing the needs of domestic violence victims and 

are important given the limited skills of many caseworkers in dealing with 

domestic violence. Officials in Washington, for example, said that the 

presence of a domestic violence specialist increases the likelihood that a 

domestic violence victim will attend counseling or other services to 

 10Because our survey did not include questions about domestic violence specialists, we do 

not know how many states employ such specialists in TANF offices. However, a 1999 

report on domestic violence and the TANF program—Raphael and Haennicke—indicates 

that this practice is used by other states as well. 
Page 18 GAO-05-701 TANF 

address the problem. A caseworker can immediately walk a client over to 

the desk of the domestic violence specialist, who then conducts an indepth assessment, provides some degree of counseling, and makes 

referrals to other agencies for ongoing services. They explained that if the 

domestic violence specialist were not there, they believe that many clients 

would ignore the referrals to outside agencies, and the domestic violence 

issue festers. During one of our site visits, we learned firsthand of the 

importance of effective interpersonal skills in domestic violence 

screening. We interviewed an employee of a local TANF office who was a 

former TANF recipient and a domestic violence victim. She explained that, 

when she was screened for domestic violence, she was in a desperate 

situation fleeing from her abuser and needed assistance right away. 

Nonetheless, the attitude of the screening staff was so perfunctory and 

indifferent that, had she not immediately been routed to a domestic 

violence specialist, she said she probably would not have returned to that 

office. The former victim further noted that many caseworkers are 

overwhelmed by other demands, and felt that the caseworker she dealt 

with was not equipped to handle domestic violence issues. 

State officials also told us that domestic violence specialists can enhance 

the ability of other office staff in dealing with clients’ domestic violence 

issues. In Washington, caseworkers at a local TANF office stated that an 

onsite domestic violence specialist serves as an important source of 

technical assistance for caseworkers. For example, the specialist has 

provided training for staff, and made them aware of the “red flags” that 

may indicate domestic violence is an issue. The officials repeatedly 

praised the domestic violence specialist for this “cultural” impact on this 

TANF office. 

HHS has, since the establishment of the TANF program, taken a number of 

measures to identify and disseminate information on what states are doing 

to screen for domestic violence. For example, HHS funded a 1999 report 

that summarized how states had implemented the Family Violence Option, 

including the basic techniques each state used to screen for domestic 

violence, and a number of detailed examples of how domestic violence 

screening was conducted at specific locations. 11 Further, an HHS-funded 

report published in 2000 provided in-depth descriptions how 7 counties in 

different states identified domestic violence victims and assisted those 

 11Raphael and Haennicke. 

HHS Has Taken Some 

Steps to Provide States 

with Guidance on 

Domestic Violence 

Screening 
Page 19 GAO-05-701 TANF 

who disclosed.12 These reports also made observations regarding the 

benefits and drawbacks of various screening practices. For example, the 

report published in 2000 noted the usefulness of a more extensive 

domestic violence screening tool—covering verbal, emotional, and sexual 

abuse—that could be used once a worker has some indication that a client 

may have domestic violence issues. 

Although HHS has funded research on state TANF program approaches to 

domestic violence screening, HHS officials also told us that the agency has 

not provided state TANF programs with specific advice in the form of 

policy guidance or memoranda regarding best practices in domestic 

violence screening. Further, it has not specified minimal acceptable 

standards for domestic violence screening. Agency officials explained that 

the legislation establishing the TANF program gives states considerable 

flexibility in implementing the Family Violence Option, and does not 

provide HHS with authority to require particular approaches to screening. 

State TANF programs play an important role by offering victims of 

domestic violence waivers from TANF program requirements and helping 

them obtain needed services. Although most states will waive certain 

TANF requirements, the provisions of these waivers vary from state to 

state. Further, limited data from two states that we visited indicates that a 

comparatively small portion of all TANF recipients obtain domestic 

violence waivers. Although all state TANF offices rely on local service 

agencies to provide domestic violence services, some also provide inhouse domestic violence services and most actively monitor clients for 

participation in services. While the full range of services is generally 

available to victims in urban areas, services in rural areas are generally 

less available. 

Of the 48 states that adopted the Family Violence Option or an equivalent 

policy, the majority will waive the requirement that TANF clients work or 

engage in work-related activities, the 5-year federal lifetime limit on TANF 

benefits, and cooperation with the child support authorities to collect 

child support, as shown in table 1. 

 12Martha R. Burt, Janine M. Sweig, and Kathryn A. Schlichter, Strategies for Addressing the 

Needs of Domestic Violence Victims within the TANF Program (Urban Institute, June 

2000). 

To Address the Needs 

of Victims of 

Domestic Violence, 

Most States Use 

Waivers and Refer 

Clients to Local 

Service Providers 

Most States Waive 

Requirements for Work, 

Time Limits, and Child 

Support 
Page 20 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Table 1: Number of States That Grant FVO Waivers 

Federal or state TANF requirement 

Number of states

granting waivers

Work requirement 43

Time limit for cash assistance 43

Cooperation with child support authorities 47

Required aspects of individual personal plan 38

Other 6

Source: GAO survey. 

Some states will waive other requirements as well. Thirty-eight states 

indicated that they will waive specific requirements included in a client’s 

individual responsibility plan, which is intended to lead to work and 

financial independence. For example, an Illinois official told us that the 

individual plan of many clients requires them to meet with their 

caseworker in order to continue receiving benefits. If a client misses a 

meeting and can demonstrate that the failure to make the appointment 

was due to domestic violence, the requirement can be temporarily waived 

and cash benefits will not be interrupted. Another six states reported that 

they will, if necessary, waive other program requirements in the event that 

domestic violence makes them difficult to meet. For example, an Oregon 

official reported that they will waive certain financial eligibility 

requirements in the event of domestic violence. For example, if a domestic 

violence victim must use part of her income to flee an abuser and pay for 

temporary housing, this portion of the income will be temporarily 

excluded from eligibility and benefit calculations. 

Federal TANF regulations allow states considerable flexibility regarding 

the conditions for clients to obtain good cause domestic violence waivers. 

For example, some states reported that they required recipients to provide 

evidence of domestic violence before granting a waiver, while others 

reported that the client’s word was sufficient. As table 2 indicates, 25 

states do not require evidence beyond a client’s statement in order to grant 

a waiver from work requirements. For example, a Washington official said 

that additional evidence before granting a waiver was not needed because 

officials expect clients to participate in domestic violence services, which 

clients would not want to do unless such services are needed. In contrast, 

Illinois requires that recipients provide additional documentation such as a 

written statement from a third party, a police report, or documentation 

from a domestic or sexual violence program. 

Conditions for Receiving 

Waivers Varied by State 
Page 21 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Table 2: Number of States and Evidence Required for a Waiver to Be Granted 

Domestic 

violence waiver 

Requires 

only a client 

statement

Requests but does 

not require 

documentation in 

addition to the 

client statement 

Requires 

documentation in 

addition to the 

client statement

Total 

states

Work 

requirement 

10 15 18 43

Time limit for 

cash assistance 8 11 24 43

Cooperation with 

child support 

authorities 5 18 23 46

Source: GAO survey. 

Twenty-seven states reported that they also require domestic violence 

victims to participate in domestic violence services in order to waive 

program requirements. For example, officials in Iowa and Washington said 

that clients must demonstrate that they are making an effort to address the 

domestic violence by attending counseling or other services. In contrast, 

an Illinois official explained that the state also requires that caseworkers 

provide waiver recipients with information about available domestic 

violence services and encourage them to attend; however, they cannot 

require their participation. Officials said that some clients do not want to 

participate in services provided through an agency but prefer to use an 

informal network for support and assistance such as family, friends, or 

church ministers. 

Some states may also tailor waivers to fit a client’s particular 

circumstances and will help clients maximize compliance with program 

requirements. For example, New York offers “partial waivers,” which state 

officials believe help to ensure a victim’s safety while still participating in 

program activities. For example, a partial waiver could be granted to a 

client who is taking job readiness classes but not actively searching for a 

job because of safety concerns. In such a case, the partial waiver would 

allow the client to fulfill part of the work requirement without interrupting 

cash benefits. Similarly, a partial child support waiver would be granted if 

it would put the client in danger to appear in court to pursue child support 

(this is in contrast to a full child support waiver in which a client would 

not be required to pursue child support at all if doing so would threaten 

their safety). 
Page 22 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Reliable national data on the number of domestic violence waivers issued 

by the states does not exist, according to an HHS official responsible for 

tracking state data reporting.13 During our site visits, some of the eight 

states were able to provide data on domestic violence waivers from the 

work requirement. For example, Georgia officials reported that from July 

2003 through June 2004, local TANF offices in Georgia granted 925 waivers 

from the work requirement, which was less than 2 percent of the 52,515 

clients who were receiving TANF benefits during that time. In contrast, 

Washington officials reported that from October 2003 through September 

2004, local TANF offices in Washington granted 5,162 waivers from the 

work requirement, more than 9 percent of the 52,515 clients receiving 

TANF benefits. 

The number of waivers granted in some states may be relatively small 

because clients may opt out of TANF requirements in other ways or 

because domestic violence victims can comply despite their situation. For 

example, some domestic violence victims may face multiple barriers and 

could obtain a state “hardship” waiver that will extend the 5-year time 

limit without coding it as a domestic violence waiver. Officials in most 

states that we visited said that many victims prefer to work because they 

consider financial independence as the best way out of an abusive 

situation. For example, a caseworker in Colorado who works exclusively 

with domestic violence victims said that she rarely grants a waiver for the 

work requirement because most clients want to work, and even if they 

only work part-time, the participation in domestic violence services is 

included in the work plan as a work activity. She said that she only grants 

a waiver from work requirements to individuals that are in such a critical 

situation that they can only deal with their domestic violence issues. 

Officials in New York also said that most domestic violence victims prefer 

to work but that many also participate in the domestic violence services 

that are offered. 

 13Federal regulations applicable to the TANF program do not require states to report the 

number of domestic violence waivers granted, unless a state is seeking penalty relief. 

Limited Data Indicates 

That a Small Portion of the 

TANF Population Use 

Domestic Violence Waivers 
Page 23 GAO-05-701 TANF 

While all states reported that clients are referred to separate local agencies 

for domestic violence services such as counseling, some offices also offer 

such services in-house. During our site visits, some states reported that the 

availability of services varied, with some states reporting that domestic 

violence services were less available in rural areas. Further, some states 

appear to be more active than others in monitoring the progress of clients 

who obtain domestic violence services. 

Thirty-eight states reported that their local TANF offices relied exclusively 

on separate local agencies to provide services to their domestic violence 

clients. These services generally include counseling, crisis intervention, 

safety planning, support groups, legal and court advocacy, and emergency 

shelter. In contrast, 13 states reported that they provided some domestic 

violence services on-site in the local TANF office in addition to using 

separate local agencies. For example, officials in Washington said that 

most of the state’s local TANF offices have a Domestic Violence Advocate 

(DVA) on-site who works exclusively with domestic violence victims 

providing services such as safety planning and counseling. The benefit of 

having this service located on-site is that it gives the victim immediate 

access to services, and increases the chances that the clients will follow 

through with services. Also, because the DVA is located at the TANF 

office, the client may receive services without the knowledge of the 

abuser. For other domestic violence services, such as shelter and legal 

advocacy, clients were referred to a separate local service provider. 

The kind of services offered to domestic violence victims is determined by 

their need and the availability of such services in the community. 

However, among the states that we visited, we found that the kinds of 

services available varied—urban areas generally provided a full range of 

services, while services in rural areas were less available. For example, a 

Colorado official cited one area of the state that had only one shelter 

serving five counties and officials in one rural county expressed a need for 

more counseling services. New York officials also said that services were 

less available in rural areas, but that it was simply not cost-effective to 

have a full range of services in sparsely populated areas. In addition, 

officials in several states that we visited said that transportation is less 

available in the rural areas and access to services can be difficult for 

victims living many miles from the nearest provider. For example, officials 

in a rural office in Oklahoma said that the shelter serving their clients was 

26 miles away and that caseworkers often have to call the local police to 

transport domestic violence victims that are unable to transport 

themselves. 

Clients May Be Referred to 

Outside Service Providers 

or in Some Cases Obtain 

In-House Services, but 

Degree of Monitoring and 

Service Availability Varies 
Page 24 GAO-05-701 TANF 

While most states required that local TANF offices monitor client 

participation and progress when referred for these services, some states 

more actively monitor a client’s progress. In responding to our survey, 29 

states reported that, in some or all cases, clients referred to a domestic 

violence service provider must be monitored for progress. For example, 

Washington officials said that communication with providers is required 

monthly to monitor clients’ progress so that they can determine when they 

are able to move into work activities that will allow them to become selfsufficient. In contrast, 16 states indicated that they had no such policy. For 

example, New York officials said that they discourage communication 

between the TANF office and the domestic violence service agency. An 

official explained that the providers, who operate independently, want to 

maintain confidentiality to ensure the victim’s safety. 

Thirty-one states reported using federal TANF funds for marriage or 

responsible fatherhood programs, and limited research indicates that such 

programs generally do not specifically address domestic violence. States 

that reported funding marriage programs most frequently supported adult 

and youth marriage and education programs. States that reported funding 

responsible fatherhood programs most frequently supported programs 

that deliver services to non-custodial fathers to enhance ability to meet 

parental obligations. Data show that a relatively small portion of TANF 

funds were used for marriage programs in 7 states and responsible 

fatherhood programs in 21 states. While research indicates that these 

programs do not explicitly address the issue of domestic violence, they 

may nonetheless do so by emphasizing better communications and healthy 

relationships, and constructive techniques for dispute resolution. Debate 

exists as to the best approaches for marriage and responsible fatherhood 

programs to address domestic violence. 

Most States Used 

Federal TANF Funds 

for Marriage or 

Responsible 

Fatherhood 

Programs, but Take 

Differing Approaches 

to Addressing 

Domestic Violence 
Page 25 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Thirty-one states reported using TANF funds for marriage programs, 

responsible fatherhood programs, or both in the last 3 years. Specifically, 

15 states reported funding marriage programs, and 28 states reported 

funding responsible fatherhood programs from 2002 to 2004. Of these, 12 

states reported funding both marriage and responsible fatherhood 

programs. See figure 5. 

Figure 5: States Using Federal TANF Dollars to Fund Marriage and Responsible 

Fatherhood Programs 

States that funded marriage and responsible fatherhood programs with 

TANF dollars in the last 3 years reported supporting various types of 

efforts. Most frequently, states that funded marriage programs with TANF 

dollars in the last 3 years reported funding adult and youth relationship 

Most States Used Federal 

TANF Dollars to Fund 

Marriage or Responsible 

Fatherhood Programs in 

the Last 3 Years 

N.H.

Mass.

R.I.

Conn.

N.J.

Del.

Md.

D.C.

Hawaii

Vt.

Ala.

Ariz. Ark.

Calif.

Ga.

Ill. Ind.

Iowa

Kans.

La.

Maine

Mo.

Nebr.

N.Mex.

N.Y.

N.Dak. Oreg.

Pa.

Tex.

Wisc.

Fla.

Miss.

N.C.

Ohio

Okla.

S.Dak.

Wyo.

Alaska

Idaho

Mont.

Wash.

Nev.

Utah

Colo.

Mich.

Minn.

W.Va. Va. Ky.

States that have not used federal TANF dollars to fund marriage or responsible fatherhood programs.

Source: GAO survey. 

S.C.

Tenn.

States that have used federal TANF dollars to fund marriage programs.

States that have used federal TANF dollars to fund responsible fatherhood programs.

States that have used federal TANF dollars to fund both marriage and responsible fatherhood 

programs.
Page 26 GAO-05-701 TANF 

and marriage education programs. Such programs are generally based on a 

standard curriculum, presented in a classroom-style format, and attempt 

to change attitudes and dispel myths about marriage and to teach 

relationship skills. For example, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative works 

to improve relationships through services that provide skill-based 

relationship training. Workshop leaders are trained to teach Prevention 

and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP) courses, which are 

designed to prevent divorce and enhance marriage, in their communities 

and organizations across the states. Most workshops are voluntary and 

participants learn about the program through the Internet, referrals, word 

of mouth, local advertising, and churches. One local TANF office required 

participants to attend PREP or PREP-like courses. Similarly, youth 

marriage education programs can be taught using one of several nationally 

recognized curricula for building successful relationships and marriages. 

Several states also reported funding activities such as media campaigns 

and conferences relating to marriage. 

States that supported responsible fatherhood programs using TANF 

dollars in the last 3 years typically funded collaborative fatherhood 

programs between government and private agencies or funded direct 

services to non-custodial fathers to enhance their ability to meet parental 

obligations. We visited one state—Georgia—that has fatherhood programs 

in both these categories. These programs were initiated by the Director of 

the Division of Family and Children Services, who believed some fathers 

were not “deadbeats but dead broke” and appointed a special consultant 

to develop fatherhood programs. Georgia’s Fatherhood Program is a 

partnership with several state agencies and other organizations. The 

program’s mission is to assist non-custodial parents in training and 

educational opportunities leading to employment paying above minimum 

wage and encouraging increased involvement in the lives of their children. 

The program contracts with the Georgia Department of Technical and 

Adult Education to provide job skills and placements for unemployed or 

underemployed non-custodial parents. Georgia’s other responsible 

fatherhood program, the Child Access and Visitation Program, is designed 

to assist non-custodial parents with improving visitation with their 

children and addressing the children’s relationship with the custodial 

parent. This program is run through a contract with an outside service 

provider and funded through a grant from HHS’ Administration for 

Children and Families. 

Two states that reported not using federal TANF funds for marriage 

programs told us that they address factors that cause stress in marriages 

without implementing marriage programs. For example, Illinois chose to 
Page 27 GAO-05-701 TANF 

emphasize direct support for low-income families by providing material 

support, such as childcare, transportation, and cash assistance rather than 

implementing marriage programs. An Illinois official also noted that a key 

variable in successfully promoting marriage was increasing the economic 

status of the couple so that they feel marriage is a viable alternative. New 

Jersey also reported in its survey that the state funded programs that 

address factors that can cause stress in marriages, as well as efforts that 

indirectly promote and preserve marriage. 

States that reported using federal TANF funds for marriage or responsible 

fatherhood programs did not report using a large proportion of their total 

federal TANF budget for this purpose. Specifically, no state providing 

usable data reported spending more than about 5 percent of its total 

federal TANF expenditures on marriage or responsible fatherhood 

programs for 2002 or 2003.14 While according to HHS officials more 

complete national data does not exist, a Congressional Research Service 

report also found that states were not spending large portions of TANF 

funds on marriage programs.15 Similarly, according to another report, 

states spend relatively small amounts of TANF funds on responsible 

fatherhood programs.16

Some states reported that they fund marriage and responsible fatherhood 

programs with funding sources other than federal TANF dollars. Five 

states in survey commentary17 and one state in a site visit indicated that 

that they fund marriage programs with monies other than federal TANF 

 14States were asked in the survey to provide data for a 3-year period, 2002-2004. However, 

2004 data was determined to be unusable because there were numerous notes indicating 

that data were not available or states supplied obligated figures rather than expenditures. 

State data were determined usable if no participant notes accompanied the survey 

response explaining why data did not conform to our question parameters and if data were 

not the same dollar amount for all 3 years except in cases where a follow-up call confirmed 

that the expenditures were accurate. Five states reported usable marriage program data 

for 2002 and six states for 2003. Seventeen states reported usable fatherhood program data 

for 2002 and 20 states for 2003. 

15Welfare Reform: How TANF Addressed Family Structure (Washington, D.C.: 

Congressional Research Service, Apr. 15, 2003). 

16Kathleen Sylvester and Kathleen Reich, Making Fathers Count: Assessing the Progress of 

Responsible Fatherhood Efforts (Washington, D.C.: Social Policy Network, 2002). 

17These are additional, voluntary survey comments. 

Limited Data Suggest 

States Use Small Amounts 

of Federal TANF Funds for 

Marriage and Responsible 

Fatherhood Programs and 

Some Rely on Other 

Funding Sources 
Page 28 GAO-05-701 TANF 

funds. 18 Two additional states indicated that they currently fund programs 

with distinct marriage components, but they did not consider them 

marriage programs per se.19 A Georgia official told us that the state will 

soon be implementing a marriage program similar to the Oklahoma 

Marriage Initiative. The program will use an ACF grant under the authority 

of section 1115 of the Social Security Act and private funding rather than 

federal TANF funds. Furthermore, since state fiscal year 2004, eight states 

indicated in survey responses or during our site visit that they are 

implementing or developing new marriage programs that may or may not 

use federal TANF funds.20

Similarly, some states are supporting responsible fatherhood programs 

through other means. For example, some states also support responsible 

fatherhood programs with monies other than federal TANF funds.21 The 

state of Washington collaborated with Alaska and Oregon using non-TANF 

funds to create public service videos to encourage fathers to be involved 

with their children. One national fatherhood report also indicated that 

responsible fatherhood programs remain largely funded through 

foundations. 

 18Colorado, Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, and Utah reported in survey comments and 

Georgia in a site visit using other funding sources for marriage programs. Examples of 

funding sources reported included non-TANF grants, Title IV-B of the Social Security Act 

funds, private funds, and child support funds. 

19Two states, South Carolina and Virginia, indicated in survey comments that they funded 

programs that they do not consider marriage programs per se. For example, Virginia 

funded an initiative to reduce the number of out-of-wedlock births among young adults. 

Programs focused on relationships and marriage, discouraging risky sexual behavior, and 

promoting waiting until marriage to have children. 

20These states are Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas, and 

West Virginia. Seven of these states that did not previously fund marriage programs and 

one, Mississippi, is implementing a new marriage program, but was already funding 

existing programs. 

21Six states—Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Washington—

stated in survey comments or an interview that they funded responsible fatherhood 

programs with other sources such as Social Services Block Grant funds, Title IV-B and D of 

the Social Security Act funds, child support collection incentive funds, and state general 

fund monies. 
Page 29 GAO-05-701 TANF 

According to research and practitioners in the field of marriage and 

responsible fatherhood, domestic violence is generally not explicitly 

included as a component of marriage and responsible fatherhood 

programs. Recent research funded by HHS found that many of the widely 

available marriage education programs were designed and tested with 

middle income, college-educated couples, and do not assess for or address 

a variety of issues—including domestic violence—that place considerable 

stress on couple relationships.22 A researcher in the field of marriage 

programs stated that such programs do not address domestic violence 

because marriage education is an emerging field and developers did not 

initially see the need for discussion of domestic violence within these 

programs. Similarly, two representatives of national fatherhood advocacy 

organizations indicated that most responsible fatherhood programs have 

not addressed domestic violence or lack the resources to deal with 

domestic violence. Furthermore, one found that this was because 

practitioners in responsible fatherhood programs usually do not have 

expertise in domestic violence issues. 

Nonetheless, some marriage and responsible fatherhood programs do 

address domestic violence implicitly through an emphasis on healthy, 

egalitarian relationships and constructive conflict resolution. For example, 

the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative program focuses on communication and 

conflict resolution between couples without an explicit discussion of 

domestic violence. The Oklahoma program covers danger signs of marital 

problems, such as negative communication habits that can escalate into 

anger and frustration, a pattern of constantly putting down or disregarding 

the thoughts and feelings of a partner, or a habit of negative 

interpretations of the actions and comments of a partner. 

There is a range of opinions on how marriage and responsible fatherhood 

programs should address domestic violence. Some state officials 

indicated that marriage programs that address domestic violence through 

an emphasis on healthy relationships and conflict resolution alone can 

reduce and help prevent violence in marriages by reducing the stress that 

often leads to violence. For example, New York indicated that programs 

designed to encourage healthy relationships will have the positive benefit 

of reducing the likelihood of physical violence and emotional abuse. Some 

practitioners have noted the need to address domestic violence explicitly 

 22M. Robin Dion and Barbara Devaney, Strengthening Relationships and Supporting 

Healthy Marriages among Unwed Parents (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.; Apr. 2003). 

Generally, Marriage and 

Fatherhood Programs Do 

Not Explicitly Address 

Domestic Violence 
Page 30 GAO-05-701 TANF 

and have begun to take steps toward explicitly including domestic 

violence in marriage programs and have sought program advice from local 

domestic violence coalitions. For example, while the Oklahoma Marriage 

Initiative does not explicitly cover domestic violence in its marriage 

curriculum, it recently created a handout to assist clients in identifying 

domestic violence and where to obtain help. 

Nonetheless, other evidence suggests that domestic violence should be 

explicitly addressed in marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. 

The HHS-funded research on marriage and responsible fatherhood 

programs found, for example, that many unmarried parents face a variety 

of challenges that may impede their ability to form a stable marriage. It 

further states that assessment of barriers—in particular domestic 

violence—could point out the need for referral to other kinds of 

appropriate help. State officials and advocates told us that addressing 

domestic violence specifically is important to ensuring that programs 

address the dangers of domestic violence. Further, HHS has stated that all 

future projects funded by its Healthy Marriage Initiative--which seeks to 

promote healthy marriages through activities such as marriage and premarriage education—are to fully incorporate domestic violence 

protections, including project specific policies regarding screening for 

domestic violence. 

The TANF program emphasizes that recipients move toward economic 

self-sufficiency, but also recognizes that some recipients may face barriers 

that may make it difficult or impossible for them to work immediately, or 

meet specific timelines for attaining self-sufficiency. One of these 

provisions—the Family Violence Option—requires states that adopt it to 

screen clients for domestic violence, and offer other assistance to those 

who need it in overcoming this potential barrier to self-sufficiency. The 

Family Violence Option offers states considerable flexibility in how they 

screen for domestic violence, and states have taken a range of approaches 

to doing so. While this flexibility is consistent with the overall TANF 

emphasis on allowing states latitude in designing and administering their 

programs, guidance on effective approaches to domestic violence 

screening could provide states with additional information on promising 

screening practices. 

Specifically, there may be certain practices that could benefit all state 

programs, assuming they are affordable and practicable. For example, in 

the states we visited, domestic violence specialists appear to offer multiple 

benefits to local TANF offices, including offering greater expertise and 

Conclusions 
Page 31 GAO-05-701 TANF 

more refined skills in dealing with extremely personal issues than is 

typical of many caseworkers. This is especially important, given the 

limited domestic violence training and varying levels of skills and abilities 

among the caseworkers. Some states also appear, more than others, to 

stress privacy in conducting domestic violence screening. Although HHS 

has taken a number of actions to provide states with information about 

approaches to screening, it has not identified and encouraged the adoption 

of certain best practices through official guidance or memoranda. 

We recommend that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 

Services: 

• examine current domestic violence screening practices of states, and 

determine whether certain practices—such as employing and training, 

where possible, domestic violence specialists—are particularly 

promising approaches to screening for domestic violence, and 

• provide states with information on these practices, and, through 

agency guidance or memoranda, encourage their adoption. 

We provided a draft of this report to HHS for its review. Overall, HHS 

agreed with the report’s findings and provided some comments on the 

report’s conclusions and recommendations. Regarding the report’s 

conclusions, HHS correctly states that there is a lack of consensus among 

domestic violence services professionals about the best techniques for 

screening clients and that it would be reluctant to advocate particular 

screening approaches over others. It further states that its regulatory 

authority is limited in this and many other areas of the program. We agree 

that there is no documented consensus about which screening practices 

are the most effective and, consistent with current TANF regulations, state 

programs should retain flexibility in designing the approaches they believe 

are most effective. However, we believe that there may be some practices 

that are sufficiently promising that all states should be made fully aware of 

their merits, so that they can choose to adopt them if practicable. While 

some of these promising practices might not be applicable in each and 

every situation, we continue to believe that state TANF programs would 

benefit from HHS guidance on the advantages and limitations associated 

with particular promising practices. Further, HHS’ advocacy of these 

practices would continue to allow state TANF programs and local TANF 

offices to retain the flexibility and latitude to select approaches that best 

meet the needs of their programs. We have revised our conclusions and 

recommendations to more clearly suggest that HHS should make 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 32 GAO-05-701 TANF 

information on promising screening approaches available to states and to 

encourage their adoption. 

HHS also provided technical comments on the draft report, which we have 

incorporated where appropriate. HHS’ entire comments are reproduced in 

appendix II. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested 

congressional committees and Members, and the Secretary of Health and 

Human Services. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, our report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Office Pubic 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made 

major contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. 

David Bellis, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 33 GAO-05-701 TANF 

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) what states are doing 

to identify victims of domestic violence among Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) recipients, (2) what states are doing to address 

domestic violence among TANF recipients once they have been identified, 

and (3) the extent to which states are spending TANF funds on marriage 

and responsible fatherhood programs, and how, if at all, these programs 

are addressing domestic violence. 

To address each of these objectives, we: 

• conducted a survey of the TANF agencies in all 50 states and the 

District of Columbia;1

• conducted site visits to state TANF agencies and local TANF service 

delivery offices in 8 states; and 

• interviewed researchers and representatives of national organizations 

with expertise in the issues of TANF and domestic violence, as well as 

marriage and fatherhood programs. 

More detailed information on each of these aspects of our research is 

presented below. We conducted our work in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards between May 2004 and May 2005. 

The survey addressed all three objectives, and included questions about 

states’ adoption of the family violence option or similar state policies, 

screening for domestic violence, and the use of waivers and domestic 

violence services to address victim’s needs. In addition, we asked states 

about their use of TANF funds to support marriage and responsible 

fatherhood programs. 

The survey was developed based on knowledge obtained during our 

preliminary research. This included a review of pertinent literature and 

interviews with members of academia and representatives of organizations 

that conduct research and policy analysis on TANF, domestic violence, 

and marriage and fatherhood programs. We also conducted visits to TANF 

offices in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin to obtain an understanding of their 

state TANF programs, how they identify domestic violence victims and 

 1

Consistent with the report, we refer to all respondents to the survey as “states.” 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Survey development and 

implementation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-05-701 TANF 

address their needs, and the use of TANF funds for marriage and 

responsible fatherhood programs. The survey was pre-tested with state 

TANF officials in Maryland, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to determine 

whether respondents would understand the questions the way we 

intended. These states were selected to ensure that we pre-tested with at 

least one state that (1) had adopted the Family Violence Option (FVO)—

(Maryland and Pennsylvania); (2) had not adopted the FVO, but was 

reputed to have adopted a similar state policy (Michigan); (3) administered 

the TANF program through state offices (Pennsylvania and Michigan); and 

(4) administered the TANF program through county offices (Maryland). In 

addition, Maryland was known to have developed a responsible 

fatherhood program and Michigan had both responsible fatherhood and 

marriage programs. Revisions to the survey were made based on 

comments received during the pretests. 

We sent the first mailing of the survey in November 2004 followed by a 

second mailing in January 2005; telephone call reminders followed each 

mailing. The collection of survey data ended in February 2005 with a 100 

percent response rate. We did not independently verify the information 

obtained through the survey. We did not attempt to verify the respondents’ 

answers against an independent source of information; however, 

questionnaire items were tested by probing pretest participants about their 

answers using in-depth interviewing techniques. Interviewers judged that 

all the respondents’ answers to the questions were correct. Answers to the 

final questionnaire items on expenditures were compared to HHS ACF 

data (form 196) for 2002-2003 and information we received from other 

researchers in this area. These data are not directly comparable to data 

obtained in our survey, but do indicate whether survey respondents’ 

answers were reasonable. We conducted follow-up phone calls to clarify 

responses where there appeared to be discrepancies. 

Although no sampling errors were associated with our survey results, the 

practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce certain types 

of errors, commonly referred to as non-sampling errors. For example, 

differences in how a particular question is interpreted or differences in the 

sources of information that participants use to respond can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We included steps in both the 

data collection and data analysis stages to reduce such non-sampling 

errors. Specifically, we pre-tested three versions of the questionnaire, 

social science survey specialists designed draft questionnaires, and edits 

were performed to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error 

prior to analysis of data. Data from the mail survey were double-keyed and 

verified during data entry and we performed computer analyses to identify 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 35 GAO-05-701 TANF 

inconsistencies and other indications or error. Finally, a second, 

independent analyst checked all computer analyses. We conducted our 

survey work from July 2004 to February 2005. 

To obtain a detailed understanding of states’ TANF programs’ efforts to 

screen for and address domestic violence, we conducted visits to eight 

states. We visited three states—Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin— during a 

preliminary phase of our work, and another five states—Colorado, 

Georgia, New York, Oklahoma, and Washington in a later phase. We 

selected these five states in order to ensure we covered (1) states in 

different regions of the United States; (2) states that had adopted the FVO 

recently and a state that had not adopted the FVO; (3) a state in which the 

TANF program is state administered, and a state in which TANF is county 

administered; and (4) a state that had used TANF funds to support a 

marriage program, and a state that had used TANF funds to support a 

fatherhood program. 

In each state, we interviewed officials at both the state-level policy setting 

office, as well as officials in two local service delivery offices. During both 

the state level, and local office interviews, we used a standard interview 

protocol that enabled us to obtain more detailed—yet comparable— 

information than states were able to provide in the survey. In all five statelevel interviews, we discussed state policies for domestic violence 

screening, and policies regarding how victim’s needs are met once 

identified. In addition, we asked officials about marriage and responsible 

fatherhood programs, how these programs were implemented, and the 

sources of funding. During the interviews in local TANF offices, we 

discussed the implementation of state policies, and toured the offices. In 

addition, in seven local TANF offices in five states, we were able to 

observe caseworkers interviewing a client applying for TANF benefits, 

which included questions about domestic violence. In Georgia, New York, 

and Washington we also interviewed domestic violence specialists who 

were located at the local TANF offices specifically to identify and address 

the needs of domestic violence victims. Finally, we interviewed officials 

from each state’s coalition against domestic violence to obtain their views 

about their state’s program for identifying domestic violence victims, 

meeting victim’s needs, and the existence of marriage and/or responsible 

fatherhood programs. Our site visit work was conducted between 

December 2004 and February 2005. 

As part of our work, we reviewed pertinent literature and interviewed 

representatives of the following organizations: 

State site visits 

Other 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 36 GAO-05-701 TANF 

• The Center for Law and Social Policy; 

• The Urban Institute; 

• The Center for Impact Research; 

• The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; 

• The American Enterprise Institute; 

• The American Public Human Services Association; 

• The Brookings Institution; 

• MDRC; 

• The National Governors Association; 

• Public Strategies; 

• The National Fatherhood Initiative; and 

• The Center for Fathers, Families, and Workforce Development. 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 37 GAO-05-701 TANF 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 38 GAO-05-701 TANF 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 39 GAO-05-701 TANF 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 40 GAO-05-701 TANF 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 41 GAO-05-701 TANF 

David Bellis, Director, (415) 904-2272 

David Lehrer, Assistant Director, Michael Hartnett, Analyst-in-Charge, 

Deirdre Gleeson-Brown, Gale Harris, Alison Martin, Nancy Purvine, and 

Amber Yancey-Carroll also made significant contributions to this report. 

Important contributions were also made by Jen Popovic, Corinna 

Nicolaou, and Daniel Schwimer. 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(130380) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER