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 occurs earlier. 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 two- parent 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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.