Supporting Survivors from Faith-based Communities Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Frankel, Lois [D-FL-22]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 14, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to enhance support for survivors of violence by leveraging faith communities and addressing faith-specific barriers, such as religious divorce denial, through a federally funded national resource center and model state legislation.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a grant program, administered by the Office on Violence Against Women, to create and operate a national faith-based resource center. This center will provide education, training, and technical assistance to faith communities, victim service providers, and legal systems to improve responses to domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking for victims with faith. Additionally, the bill directs the Attorney General to develop model State legislative language to address religious divorce denial.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that faith and faith communities play a central and often overlooked role in the lives of individuals experiencing violence, serving as a crucial source of strength and support. They contend that clergy are often the first professionals victims approach, and that integrating faith-informed, trauma-centered practices into victim services and faith communities themselves will significantly improve outcomes and resilience for survivors.
Opponents contend
Critics might raise concerns about the potential for federal funding to religious organizations, even with explicit safeguards, to blur the lines of church-state separation. Some may also question the efficacy of a faith-specific approach compared to broader secular victim services, or express apprehension that, despite the bill's intent, religious considerations could inadvertently overshadow victim autonomy in practice.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Sec. 2
Congressional Findings on Faith and Violence
This section outlines Congress's findings, stating that a significant percentage of American women and men experience intimate partner violence. It highlights that faith and faith communities are often central to survivors' lives, serving as a source of strength and support, and that spiritual resilience is common. The findings also note that clergy are frequently the first professionals victims approach, underscoring the need for faith-informed responses.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these findings establish a clear, evidence-based need for the bill's interventions, demonstrating that faith is a critical, often overlooked, dimension of survivor support and healing that current systems do not adequately address.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against these findings, as they are based on statistical data and research regarding the prevalence of violence and the role of faith in individuals' lives.
Tradeoffs
The findings implicitly acknowledge the complex role of faith, which can be both a source of strength and, in some contexts, a factor in perpetuating or justifying abuse, setting the stage for the bill's subsequent safeguards.
Sec. 3(c)
Establishment of National Faith-Based Resource Center Grant Program
This provision authorizes the Attorney General, through the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, to award grants to a consortium of eligible entities. The purpose of these grants is to establish and operate a national faith-based resource center. This center will provide education, training, and technical assistance to various stakeholders, including faith communities, victim service providers, and legal system personnel, to improve responses to victims with faith and enhance prevention efforts.
Sec. 3(a)(2) and Sec. 3(d)(3)
Eligible Entity Definitions and Victim Autonomy Safeguards
This section defines 'eligible entity' as a faith-based or non-faith-based culturally specific non-profit with a demonstrated history of trauma-informed, victim-centered training. Crucially, it explicitly excludes any organization that prioritizes family cohesion, marriage, family or community privacy, opposition to divorce, sexual purity, or other considerations over the safety, autonomy, needs, and preferences of victims. Grant applicants must provide an attestation that victim safety and autonomy are the primary priority of all consortium members.
Sec. 3(e)
Permissible Activities of the National Resource Center
This section details the specific activities the national resource center may undertake with grant funds. These include providing training and technical assistance to faith communities on recognizing violence, prevention, victim support, offender accountability, and safety protocols. It also covers training for victim service providers and justice agencies on addressing unique needs of victims with faith, spiritual abuse, and implementing faith-specific best practices, such as dietary accommodations, modesty norms, and prayer times in shelters and during interactions.
Sec. 4
Development of Model State Code on Religious Divorce Denial
This section directs the Attorney General, in consultation with a diverse group of experts, advocates, victims, and faith leaders, to develop and publish model State legislative language. This language is specifically designed to address 'religious divorce denial,' which is defined as the refusal to cooperate in a religious divorce or marriage termination process, thereby preventing a victim from exiting a marriage despite any civil legal proceedings or judgment of divorce. The model language must consider relevant religious laws and cultural practices while remaining consistent with constitutional requirements.
Requires that at least one of the eligible entities within the consortium applying for the grant must have previously completed not fewer than two grants administered by the Office on Violence Against Women as a lead applicant.
Sec. 3(a)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that lead grantees have a proven track record and experience in managing federal funds and programs, thereby reducing administrative risk and increasing the likelihood of successful implementation.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that the National Resource Center is led by experienced organizations with demonstrated capacity to manage complex federal grants, promoting accountability and effective program delivery from the outset.
Case against: Critics might contend that this requirement could limit the participation of newer or smaller, yet potentially innovative and highly relevant, faith-based or culturally specific organizations that lack extensive prior federal grant experience, potentially hindering broader representation.
Estimated impact: Narrows the pool of potential lead applicants, favoring established organizations with prior federal grant management experience with the Office on Violence Against Women.
Mandates that during the first year of the initial grant cycle, the consortium shall use grant funds solely for establishing the basic administrative and operational infrastructure necessary to operate the National Resource Center, including initial staffing, governance structures, core systems, and developing partnerships.
Sec. 3(f)
Why it matters:This is a common administrative provision for new federal programs or centers, designed to ensure a solid organizational foundation is built before full program activities commence, rather than being an attempt to hide a controversial element.
Case for: Proponents argue that dedicating the first year to infrastructure ensures the National Resource Center is properly structured, staffed, and prepared for long-term effectiveness, maximizing its impact once full operations begin.
Case against: Critics might argue that this delays the immediate provision of direct services and training to communities and victims, as the first year's funding is not directly applied to program delivery but rather to organizational setup.
Estimated impact: Delays the full operational launch of the National Resource Center's direct services and training by one year, focusing initial resources on organizational development and capacity building.
Explicitly states that funds made available under this section shall not be used to proselytize, to promote any religion or religious viewpoint, to promote religiosity or increased religious observance, or for any other purposes related to faith or religion that are prohibited under federal, state, Tribal, or local law or violate the Constitutional separation of religion and state.
Sec. 3(i)(1)
Why it matters:These are standard constitutional and legal safeguards often placed in general provisions to ensure federal funding to faith-based organizations complies with the Establishment Clause and prevents misuse, rather than being an attempt to conceal its importance.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision is essential for ensuring the program's constitutionality and integrity, preventing the misuse of federal funds for religious indoctrination and ensuring the focus remains solely on victim support and safety.
Case against: No direct case against this provision, as it reinforces constitutional principles. However, some might argue that the very act of funding faith-based initiatives, even with such safeguards, inherently blurs the lines of church-state separation.
Estimated impact: Legally binds all grantees to a secular use of federal funds, ensuring the program's activities are strictly focused on victim support and violence prevention rather than religious promotion or conversion.