Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. McBath, Lucy [D-GA-6]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 3, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to modernize and expand federal support for family, domestic, and dating violence prevention and intervention services, with a particular focus on underserved communities and primary prevention.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes and significantly amends the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) to improve services and prevention efforts for victims of family, domestic, and dating violence. It expands definitions of violence and underserved populations, strengthens grant conditions, and substantially increases authorized appropriations for existing and new grant programs. The bill also enhances national hotlines and prevention initiatives, with a particular focus on culturally specific services and Tribal communities.
Proponents argue
Proponents would argue that the bill is crucial for updating and strengthening a vital federal program that supports victims of violence and works towards prevention. They would highlight the increased funding, expanded definitions to reflect current understanding of violence (including technological abuse), and the targeted support for underserved populations (including Tribal communities, persons with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ individuals) as key improvements. The emphasis on trauma-informed care, digital services, and evidence-informed primary prevention would also be lauded as forward-thinking and effective strategies.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might raise concerns about the overall increase in authorized appropriations, questioning the fiscal impact or the efficiency of expanded federal programs. Some might also express reservations about specific expanded definitions or the scope of federal involvement in local service provision, potentially citing concerns about federal overreach or the potential for administrative burdens on states and local entities. However, given the nature of FVPSA, broad opposition is less common, and specific concerns might be more nuanced, focusing on implementation details or funding priorities.
The bill is moderately complex due to its extensive amendments to existing law, requiring careful reading to understand the changes.
Section 101, amending Section 301(b) of FVPSA
Expanded Purpose of FVPSA
This provision amends the core purpose of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. It explicitly broadens the Act's goals to include improving services and interventions, advancing primary and secondary prevention, strengthening the capacity of Indian Tribes, supporting technical assistance networks, maintaining national hotlines (including a national Indian hotline), and supporting evidence-informed prevention programs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this amendment modernizes the Act's mission to reflect current best practices in violence prevention and intervention, ensuring a more holistic and proactive approach to addressing family violence.
Critics contend
No direct opposition is typically raised against updating the stated purpose of such an act, as it aligns with evolving understanding of the issue.
Tradeoffs
The expanded purpose balances the traditional focus on direct victim services with a greater emphasis on primary and secondary prevention, potentially requiring a shift in resource allocation or programmatic focus.
Section 102, amending Section 302 of FVPSA
Updated and Expanded Definitions
This section significantly expands and updates key definitions within FVPSA. Notable additions and changes include a broader definition of 'family violence' to encompass stalking, harassment, psychological, economic, and technological abuse, and threats against dependents. It also defines 'digital services,' 'disability,' 'underserved racial or ethnic population,' 'Tribal Domestic Violence Coalition,' and clarifies terms like 'child' and 'shelter.'
Section 103, inserting new Section 302A into FVPSA
Enhanced Grant Conditions: Nondiscrimination and Confidentiality
This provision inserts a new section establishing explicit grant conditions. It prohibits discrimination in FVPSA-funded programs based on factors including sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity, by applying civil rights provisions from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). It also mandates strict confidentiality and privacy protections for persons receiving assistance, with specific rules for nondisclosure of personally identifying information and shelter locations, while allowing for congressional oversight.
Section 104, repealing and inserting new Section 303 into FVPSA
Increased Authorization of Appropriations
This section repeals and replaces the existing authorization of appropriations, significantly increasing the funding levels for FVPSA programs. It authorizes $270,000,000 annually for core programs from fiscal years 2027 through 2031, with specific percentages reserved for grants to Indian Tribes (12.5%), State formula grants (70% of remainder), technical assistance (6% of remainder), State and Tribal coalitions (10% and 3% of remainder), specialized services (5% of remainder), and culturally specific services (2.5% of remainder, plus an additional $5,000,000). Separate authorizations are provided for national hotlines and prevention initiatives.
Section 108, amending Section 307(a) of FVPSA
State Application Requirements for Culturally Relevant Services and Trauma-Informed Care
This provision amends the requirements for State applications for FVPSA grants. States must now describe how they will ensure trauma-informed care, autonomy, and privacy for victims and their children, including in shelter design. They must also establish service standards and best practices that are culturally and legally relevant for Indian Tribes and culturally relevant for underserved racial and ethnic populations and other underserved populations.
Section 111, amending Section 310(a)(2) and (b) of FVPSA
Establishment of Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Resource Centers
This provision expands the network of national resource and technical assistance centers by mandating the establishment of an Alaska Native Tribal resource center and a Native Hawaiian resource center on domestic violence. These centers are specifically tasked with reducing disparities, offering comprehensive technical assistance and training, and coordinating efforts to enhance the capacity of Tribal and Native Hawaiian organizations to respond to family, domestic, and dating violence in a culturally sensitive manner.
Section 113, inserting new Section 311A into FVPSA
Grants to Tribal Domestic Violence Coalitions
This section establishes a new, dedicated grant program for Tribal Domestic Violence Coalitions. These grants are intended to support the administration and operation of these coalitions, enabling them to work with local Tribal service programs, participate in subgrant planning, collaborate with other sectors (e.g., housing, health care, law enforcement), develop effective policies, and provide information and services to victims within Indian Tribes.
Section 116, inserting new Section 313A into FVPSA
National Indian Domestic Violence Hotline Grant
This section establishes a dedicated grant for the ongoing operation of a 24-hour, national, toll-free telephonic hotline and digital services specifically for Indian adult and youth victims of family, domestic, or dating violence. The hotline and digital services must provide culturally appropriate assistance, be informed by Federal Indian law and Tribal laws, and have advocacy personnel with demonstrated knowledge of Indian legal, social, and cultural issues.
Section 117, inserting new Section 313B into FVPSA
Grants for Underserved Populations
This section creates a new grant program to assist communities in mobilizing resources for effective and sustainable programs to prevent and address family, domestic, and dating violence experienced by underserved populations. It offers planning and implementation grants to population-specific organizations or victim service providers offering population-specific services, focusing on community-driven strategies, awareness, and engagement. It also includes provisions for evaluation grants.
Section 117, inserting new Section 313C into FVPSA
Grants to Enhance Culturally Specific Services
This section establishes a grant program to create or enhance culturally specific services for victims of family, domestic, and dating violence from underserved racial and ethnic populations and other underserved populations. The grants aim to develop innovative community-based programs, strengthen leadership within these populations, and promote strategic partnerships to further a public health approach to addressing violence. It emphasizes that services must be provided in the appropriate language, educational, and cultural context.
The definition of 'family violence' is significantly expanded to include 'any act, threatened act, or pattern of acts of physical or sexual violence, stalking, harassment, psychological abuse, economic abuse, technological abuse, or any other form of abuse, including threatening to commit harm against children or dependents or other members of the household of the recipient of the threat for the purpose of coercion, threatening, or causing harm'.
Section 102(5), amending Section 302 of FVPSA
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms at the beginning of an act. While the breadth of the definition is significant, its placement is typical for definitional provisions and not intentionally evasive.
Case for: Proponents would argue this modernizes the definition to encompass the full spectrum of abuse experienced by victims, including emerging forms like technological abuse and coercive control, ensuring comprehensive protection under the Act.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could lead to overreach or difficulties in consistent application across jurisdictions, potentially straining resources by expanding the scope of eligible incidents without a proportional increase in funding.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the types of behaviors and relationships covered under FVPSA, increasing the potential scope of intervention and prevention efforts for a wider range of victims.
The bill explicitly applies non-discrimination provisions from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to FVPSA, which include protection against discrimination based on 'sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity' for programs and activities funded under FVPSA.
Section 103, inserting new Section 302A(a)(1) into FVPSA, referencing VAWA Section 40002(b)(13)(A)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative drafting to reference existing law to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency across related statutes. The specific protections are significant but not intentionally hidden.
Case for: Proponents emphasize that this ensures all victims, including LGBTQ+ individuals, have equal access to life-saving services, aligning FVPSA with modern civil rights protections and promoting inclusivity in victim support.
Case against: Some religious organizations or service providers might raise concerns about conflicts with their organizational beliefs, though the bill includes a 'rule of construction' referencing VAWA's exception, which allows sex-segregated facilities.
Estimated impact: Ensures equitable access to FVPSA-funded services for LGBTQ+ victims, potentially increasing their utilization of services and requiring all grantees to adhere to these non-discrimination standards.
The bill adds a provision allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive all or part of the matching requirement for any fiscal year for an eligible entity if applying the matching requirement would result in serious hardship or an inability to carry out the activities under this section.
Section 107(2)(D), amending Section 306(c)(2) of FVPSA
Why it matters:This is a technical flexibility provision, often placed in conditions sections to provide administrative relief. It's not a primary policy change but an important operational detail that enhances program resilience.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides crucial flexibility for states and local entities, especially smaller states or those facing economic hardship or major disasters, ensuring continuity of vital services without undue financial burden.
Case against: Some might argue that matching requirements encourage state investment and accountability, and broad waivers could reduce state commitment or lead to over-reliance on federal funds without local buy-in.
Estimated impact: Potentially reduces the financial burden on state and local governments, particularly during crises, thereby ensuring more consistent service delivery and preventing program disruptions due to financial constraints.