Week 6 - Assignment: Examine the Impacts of Policies Implemented During the Great Recession and Week 7 - Assignment: Measure the Effects of Social Policies
Fila64
ChildwelfareAnoverviewoffederalprogramsandtheircurrentfunding.pdf
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal
Programs and Their Current Funding
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
January 10, 2017
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43458
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service
Summary Child welfare services are intended to prevent the abuse or neglect of children; ensure that
children have safe, permanent homes; and promote the well-being of children and their families.
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states bear the primary responsibility for ensuring
the welfare of children and their families. In recent years, Congress has annually appropriated
between $7.6 billion and $8.7 billion in federal support dedicated to child welfare purposes.
Nearly all of those dollars (97%) were provided to state, tribal, or territorial child welfare
agencies (via formula grants or as federal reimbursement for a part of all eligible program costs).
Federal involvement in state administration of child welfare activities is primarily tied to this
financial assistance. The remaining federal child welfare dollars (3%) are provided to a variety of
eligible public or private entities, primarily on a competitive basis, and support research,
evaluation, technical assistance, and demonstration projects to expand knowledge of, and
improve, child welfare practice and policy. At the federal level, child welfare programs are
primarily administered by the Children’s Bureau, which is an agency within the Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
However, three competitive grant programs (authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act) are
administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Federal child welfare support is provided via multiple programs, the largest of which are included
in the Social Security Act. Title IV-B of the Social Security Act primarily authorizes funding to
states, territories, and tribes to support their provision of a broad range of child welfare-related
services to children and their families. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act entitles states to
federal reimbursement for a part of the cost of providing foster care, adoption assistance, and (in
states electing to provide this kind of support) kinship guardianship assistance on behalf of each
child who meets federal eligibility criteria. Title IV-E also authorizes funding to support services
to youth who “age out” of foster care, or are expected to age out without placement in a
permanent family. Legislation concerning programs authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E,
which represents the very large majority of federal child welfare dollars, is handled in Congress
by the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee.
Additional federal support for child welfare purposes, including research and demonstration
funding, is authorized or otherwise supported in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) and the Adoption Opportunities program. Legislation concerning these programs is
handled in the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Further, the Victims of Child Abuse Act authorizes
competitive grant funding to support Children’s Advocacy Centers, Court Appointed Special
Advocates, and Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. Authorizing
legislation for these programs originated with the House and Senate Judiciary committees.
Final FY2016 child welfare funding ($8.689 billion) was appropriated as part of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113). FY2017 began on October 1, 2016, before passage of
final FY2017 appropriations. To allow for continuation of most federal programs and operations,
Congress has approved two continuing resolutions. The first (Division C of P.L. 114-223)
provided funding through December 9, 2016, and the current (Division A of P.L. 114-254)
provides funding through April 28, 2017, or the date on which final full-year appropriations are
enacted, whichever comes first. The current continuing resolution funds each of the child welfare
programs discussed in this report through that date.
Each child welfare program that receives discretionary funding is funded through that date at a
rate that is based on the FY2016 appropriations provided to it minus an “across-the-board”
amount of 0.1901%. In other words, the annualized level of FY2017 funding provided is about
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service
99.8% of the funding provided for each of the programs in FY2016. For child welfare programs
receiving mandatory funding, the continuing resolution makes funding available at the rate
needed to maintain the current law program, under the authority and conditions provided in the
FY2016 appropriations act. While the continuing resolution allows federal funds to be awarded,
until a final appropriations bill is enacted, the total amount of FY2017 funding that will be made
available for a given program remains unknown and may be less (or more) than the annualized
amount provided in the continuing resolution.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Status of FY2017 Appropriations .............................................................................................. 2 Effect of Sequestration on FY2017 Child Welfare Funding ............................................... 3
Federal Child Welfare Programs ..................................................................................................... 4
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act .............................................................................................. 5
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services ......................................................................... 5 Planned Use of Funds ......................................................................................................... 5 Distribution ......................................................................................................................... 6 Funding ............................................................................................................................... 6
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program ........................................................................... 6 Planned Use of Funds ......................................................................................................... 7 Funding ............................................................................................................................... 7 Distribution of PSSF Child and Family Services Funding ................................................. 8 Reservation and Distribution of PSSF Funds for Other Grants and Activities ................... 8
Family Connection Grants ...................................................................................................... 10 Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects ................................................ 11
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being...................................................... 12
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act ............................................................................................. 13
Foster Care .............................................................................................................................. 13 Eligible Individuals and Eligible Costs ............................................................................. 14 Waivers ............................................................................................................................. 15 Foster Care Funding Authorized ....................................................................................... 16
Adoption Assistance ................................................................................................................ 17 Eligibility for Title IV-E Adoption Assistance for Special Needs Adoptees .................... 17
Kinship Guardianship Assistance ............................................................................................ 18 Obligations of Funds by Title IV-E Program Component ................................................ 19
Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance .............................................. 20 Chafee Foster Care Independence Program ............................................................................ 21 Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers ............................................................................ 22
Funding and Distribution for the CFCIP Program, Including ETVs ................................ 22 Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments .......................................................... 23
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) .................................................................. 24
CAPTA State Grants................................................................................................................ 25 Most Recent Changes ....................................................................................................... 26 Funding and Distribution .................................................................................................. 27
CAPTA Discretionary Activities ............................................................................................. 27 Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect ............................................. 29 Children’s Justice Act Grants .................................................................................................. 30
Victims of Child Abuse Act ........................................................................................................... 31
Improving Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse Cases ............................................ 32 Court-Appointed Special Advocates ....................................................................................... 33 Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners ............................................... 34
Other Programs .............................................................................................................................. 35
Adoption Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 35 Abandoned Infants Assistance ................................................................................................ 37
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service
Tables
Table 1. Final Funding for Child Welfare Programs ....................................................................... 1
Table 2. Final Funding for Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program ..................... 6
Table 3. Final Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program ......................... 8
Table 4. Final Discretionary and Mandatory PSSF Funding, by Program/Activity ........................ 9
Table 5. Final Funding for Family Connection Grants ................................................................... 11
Table 6. Final Funding for Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects ........... 12
Table 7. Funding Obligated Under the Title IV-E Program .......................................................... 20
Table 8. Final Funding for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance (TA) .............. 21
Table 9. Final Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) ................... 23
Table 10. Final Funding for Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments .................... 24
Table 11. Final Funding for Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) ..................... 30
Table 12. Final Funding for Children’s Justice Act Grants ........................................................... 31
Table 13. Final Funding for Programs Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VCAA) .............. 35
Table 14. Final Funding for Adoption Opportunities .................................................................... 37
Table 15. Final Funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance .......................................................... 39
Table A-1. Child Welfare Program Funding by Fiscal Year .......................................................... 40
Table B-1. Funding Authority and Sequestration Status of Child Welfare Programs .................... 43
Table E-1. Jurisdictions Implementing Child Welfare Waiver Projects. ....................................... 48
Table G-1. Incentive Payments Earned for Increases in Adoption and Legal
Guardianships Completed in FY2015 ........................................................................................ 51
Appendixes
Appendix A. Recent Funding by Program .................................................................................... 40
Appendix B. Child Welfare Programs by Type of Funding Authority and Sequestration
Status .......................................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix C. Tribes with an Approved Title IV-E Plan ................................................................. 45
Appendix D. States with Approval to Extend Title IV-E Assistance up to Age 21 ....................... 46
Appendix E. States with Child Welfare Demonstration (Waiver) Projects ................................... 47
Appendix F. States with Approval to Provide Title IV-E Kinship Guardianship Assistance ........ 50
Appendix G. Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments ........................................... 51
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 53
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 1
Introduction Child welfare services are intended to prevent the abuse or neglect of children; ensure that
children have safe, permanent homes; and promote the well-being of children and their families.
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states have the primary obligation to ensure the
welfare of children and their families. At the state level, the child welfare “system” consists of
public and private child protection and child welfare workers, public and private social services
workers, state and local judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel. These
representatives of various state and local entities assume interrelated roles while carrying out
child welfare activities, including
promoting child and family well-being through community-based activities;
investigating, or otherwise responding to, allegations of child abuse and neglect;
providing services to families to ensure children’s safety in the home;
removing children from their homes when that is necessary for children’s safety;
supervising and administering payments for children placed in foster care;
ensuring regular case review and permanency planning for children in foster care;
helping children leave foster care to permanent families via reunification with parents or, when that is not possible, via adoption or legal guardianship;
offering post-permanency services and supports to maintain families; and
helping older children in foster care, and youth who leave care without placement in a permanent family, to become successful adults.
In the most recent years, Congress has provided between $7.6 billion and $8.7 billion in federal
support dedicated to child welfare purposes (see Table 1).
Table 1. Final Funding for Child Welfare Programs
(nominal dollars in millions; parts may not sum to total due to rounding)
Child Welfare Programs FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTAL—dedicated funding $7,696 $7,578 $8,390 $8,279 $8,689
Title IV-B – all programs $730 $688 $689 $664 $668
Title IV-E – all programs $6,777 $6,710 $7,510 $7,424 $7,833
All other programs $188 $180 $192 $190 $188
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: Final funding amounts reflect any effects of sequestration. For funding level by each program included in
the “Title IV-B,” “Title IV-E,” and the “All other programs,” categories, see Appendix A. Title IV-B and Title IV-
E are parts of the Social Security Act. Funding amounts for Title IV-E mandatory dollars are based on federal
obligations made/expected and as provided in relevant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Justifications for the Appropriations Committee. The Title IV-E
amounts shown in this table may vary from earlier versions of this report because obligation levels reported may
change and/or because earlier versions of this table reported the Title IV-E funding as the amount of “definite
budget authority” provided.
Most federal dollars dedicated to child welfare purposes are provided to state child welfare
agencies, and federal involvement in child welfare is primarily tied to this financial assistance. As
a condition of receiving these foster care and other child welfare program funds, states must
typically provide nonfederal resources of between 20% and 50% of the program costs, and they
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 2
are required to abide by a series of federal child welfare policies. Those policies are designed to
ensure the safety and well-being of all children and families served. However, the most specific
and extensive federal requirements concern the protection of children in foster care, especially to
ensure them a safe and permanent home. 1
Federal child welfare funding is primarily provided as part of the annual appropriations bill for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education and is included in
the HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) account. These funds are provided on
both a mandatory and a discretionary basis and are administered by the federal Children’s Bureau,
which is a part of Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) within the ACF.
Separately, discretionary funding for several child welfare programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act is provided in the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce
and Justice. Those program funds are administered at the federal level by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) within its Office of Justice Programs (OJP).
Apart from the child welfare-specific (dedicated) federal funding provided for programs described
in this report, state child welfare agencies tap significant program resources—as much as $5.0
billion—from other federal funding streams. Often these include the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), and Medicaid. 2
These federal funding streams have federal statutory goals, or support activities, that overlap with
child welfare purposes. However, they are not solely dedicated to child welfare purposes, and states
are not necessarily required to use them for those specific purposes. Neither do states need to meet
federal requirements specific to the conduct of their child welfare programs as a condition of
receiving this “nondedicated” funding. 3
This report begins with a discussion of the status of FY2017 appropriations, which had not been
finalized as of early January 2017, and then reviews federal appropriations activity in FY2016.
The remainder, and bulk, of the report provides brief descriptions of each federal child welfare
program, including its purpose and recent (FY2012-FY2016) final funding levels.
Status of FY2017 Appropriations
FY2017 began on October 1, 2016, before passage of final FY2017 appropriations legislation. To
allow for continuation of most federal programs and operations, Congress has approved two
short-term continuing resolutions. The first (Division C of P.L. 114-223) provided funding
through December 9, 2016. The second and current continuing resolution (Division A of P.L. 114-
254) extends funding through April 28, 2017, or the date on which final full-year appropriations
are enacted, whichever comes first.
1 See CRS Report R42794, Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements under the Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program, by Emilie Stoltzfus. 2 Kristina Rosinsky and Dana Connelly Child Welfare Spending in SFY 2014: A Survey of Federal, State, and Local
Expenditures, Child Trends, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and Casey Family Programs, October 2016. Medicaid
spending counted in this survey excludes spending on basic health care for children (which is typically a state Medicaid
agency expenditure). Instead it includes only the spending on Medicaid services or activities for which the state child
welfare agency was responsible for providing the nonfederal share of the program costs (e.g., targeted case
management, rehabilitative services, Medicaid-funded therapeutic foster care, and associated administrative costs). 3 For more information on TANF, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block
Grant: An Overview, by Gene Falk; for more information on SSBG, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block
Grant: Background and Funding, by Karen E. Lynch; and for more information on Medicaid, see CRS Report R43357,
Medicaid: An Overview, coordinated by Alison Mitchell.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 3
For those child welfare programs receiving mandatory funding, the continuing resolution
stipulates that funding is available to maintain current law program needs and under the authority
and conditions provided for those programs in FY2016 appropriations. 4 Principally, the child
welfare programs receiving some or all of their funding on an appropriated mandatory basis are
the federal Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance
program; the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program; and the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) basic grants.
For each of the child welfare programs that receive discretionary funding, the FY2017 funding
provided in the current CR is based on the FY2016 appropriation for the program, reduced by an
“across-the-board” amount of 0.1901%. 5 Discretionary child welfare funding provided for
FY2016 totaled close to $596 million; on an annualized basis, a 0.1901% reduction of that overall
sum would provide a little less than $595 million in discretionary child welfare funding (or close
to 99.8% of FY2016 funding for each child welfare program with discretionary funding).
Until a final FY2017 appropriations bill is enacted, however, the total FY2017 funding that will
be provided remains uncertain and may be less (or more) than the annualized level provided in
the continuing resolution. Accordingly, the CR prohibits agencies from using the CR authority to
award FY2017 funding at rates that “would impinge on final funding prerogatives.” 6
Effect of Sequestration on FY2017 Child Welfare Funding
The largest share of mandatory child welfare funding (authorized under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act) is specified in statute as exempt from sequestration. This means its funding is
generally not subject to required automatic reduction of appropriations. However, some smaller
authorizations of mandatory funding are nonexempt (principally this is the mandatory funding
provided for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program [PSSF]); this means they are
subject to the earlier announced FY2017 sequestration percentage of 6.9% for nonexempt,
nondefense mandatory spending. 7 If the final FY2017 mandatory PSSF funding is ultimately
provided at last year’s level, this sequestration percentage would be expected to reduce that
appropriation by about $23.8 million (i.e., from the $345 million to about $321.2 million). 8
As noted above, any final funding legislation for FY2017 may adjust the level of discretionary or
mandatory funding ultimately provided. However, the 6.9% sequestration of nonexempt,
nondefense mandatory funding, which became effective October 1, 2016, is expected to apply to
whatever final funding is provided in that category. With regard to discretionary spending, the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that appropriations provided in the current CR
(P.L. 114-254) for nondefense, nonexempt discretionary accounts would exceed the overall cap
for this spending as established for FY2017 in the Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L. 112-25, as
4 See §111 of P.L. 114-223 as maintained by §101 of P.L. 114-254, the current continuing resolution.
5 See §101(a) and (b) of P.L. 114-223 as amended by §101 of P.L. 114-254, the current continuing resolution.
6 See §109 of P.L. 114-223 as maintained by §101 of P.L. 114-254, the current continuing resolution.
7 See OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/
jc_sequestration_report_2017_house.pdf. 8 As of early January 2017, Congress had not acted to extend the mandatory PSSF funding authority, which expired
with FY2016. Further, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined the program’s mandatory funding
“baseline” for FY2017 as $325 million (or $20 million less than mandatory funding provided in FY2016). Applying the
6.9% sequestration reduction to that level of funding would reduce the appropriation by $22.4 million, to roughly
$302.6 million.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 4
amended). 9 Under the BCA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must in each year
issue a final sequestration report on discretionary funding no later than 15 days after the end of
the congressional session (i.e., by mid-January 2017 for FY2017). However, the current CR
permits OMB to postpone this sequestration report if as of that date it determines that overall
nonexempt discretionary spending (defense plus nondefense) is expected to stay within the BCA
cap. 10
For a description of sequestration by year and a table showing child welfare programs by
their type of funding authority and status as “exempt” or “nonexempt,” see Appendix B.
Federal Child Welfare Programs Federal child welfare programs are described below. Each description includes program purposes,
the final funding level in each of FY2012-FY2016, and the type and status of the program’s
funding authority.
Use of the Terms States and Territories
Unless otherwise specified, when used in this report the term states refers to the 50
states and the District of Columbia, and the term territories refers to Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Final Funding Levels for FY2012-FY2016
Funding amounts for each of FY2012-FY2016 shown in this report are based first on
the relevant final appropriations laws for each fiscal year (P.L. 112-74, P.L. 113-6, P.L.
113-76, P.L. 113-235, P.L. 114-113), including any official accompanying explanatory
text or tables. Final funding for FY2017 had not yet been provided as of mid-
November 2016, and therefore program level funding is not shown for that year.
Funding for Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship
assistance is authorized on an open-ended basis. Funding amounts shown in this
report are based on federal obligations made for the year (as included in the most
recently available HHS ACF budget justifications with information for the year).
In addition, for FY2013, most child welfare programs were affected by sequestration,
and the final funding levels are generally given as provided in agency (ACF and OJP)
operating plans. For FY2014 through FY2016, the final funding level reflects
application of sequestration to a limited number of child welfare programs affected
by sequestration (i.e., “nonexempt” programs with mandatory funding).
9 See Table 2 of CBO cost estimate for H.R. 2028, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52321. The BCA establishes
separate caps on defense and nondefense spending. The CBO estimates that nonexempt, nondefense discretionary
spending authorized in FY2017, if provided on a full-year basis, would exceed its FY2017 cap by $2.9 billion. At the
same time, it finds the nonexempt defense discretionary spending, if provided on a full-year basis, would fall $2.9
billion below its FY2017 cap. Although the overall discretionary spending would thus be expected, by CBO, to meet
the cap, the BCA requires discretionary sequestration if OMB determines either the nondefense or defense
discretionary spending cap is exceeded. 10
Section 184 of P.L. 114-254 permits OMB to postpone action that would trigger a sequester until after the date that
the CR expires (April 28, 2017), as long as OMB determines that the total of discretionary spending subject to the
defense and nondefense limits does not exceed the sum of those limits. OMB’s determination is due 10 days after the
end of the 114 th
Congress (i.e., as of January 13, 2017).
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 5
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act Title IV-B of the Social Security Act principally authorizes formula grant funds to states,
territories, and tribes for the provision of child welfare-related services to children and their
families. It also authorizes competitively awarded funding for related research, training, and other
projects. 11
Legislation authorizing these Title IV-B programs and activities is handled by the
House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services
Known as “Child Welfare Services,” this program authorizes formula grant funding to states,
territories, and tribes to support services and activities intended to protect and promote the
welfare of all children; prevent child abuse, neglect, or exploitation; permit children to remain in
their own homes or return to them whenever it is safe and appropriate; promote safety,
permanency, and well-being for children in foster care and adoptive families; and provide training
to ensure a well-qualified child welfare workforce.
There are no federal eligibility criteria for recipients. Instead, states may elect to fund services
and activities to meet these goals on behalf of any child or family that they determine to be in
need of them. To receive these funds, states must meet federal requirements, many of which are
designed to ensure all children in foster care (regardless of whether they are eligible for federal
Title IV-E assistance) receive certain protections. 12
Planned Use of Funds
While state spending patterns vary, for FY2016, states collectively planned to spend the largest
part of their federal Child Welfare Services funding (45%) on child protective services. These
services may include investigations of child abuse and neglect, caseworker activities on behalf of
children and their families (both those in foster care and those at home), counseling, emergency
assistance, and arranging alternative living arrangements. Additionally, states planned to spend a
combined 32% of this funding on three categories of services: family support, family
preservation, and time-limited family reunification services. These services are intended to
strengthen families to promote family and child well-being, as well as to enable children to
remain safely at home, or if they have entered foster care, to be returned safely home.
Collectively states expected to spend remaining federal FY2016 CWS funds as follows: 10% for
foster care maintenance payments (to pay the room and board cost of a child’s stay in foster care);
6% for program administration; 5% for services to promote and support adoption and for
adoption and guardianship subsidies; and 3% for other activities, services, or planning, including
training and foster and adoptive parent recruitment. 13
11
Title IV-B contains funding authority for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program (Section 439), which is not
discussed further in the body of this report. The program, last funded by Congress in FY2010 ($49 million), was
established by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133). 12
For a more comprehensive discussion of this program, including funding by state, see CRS Report R41860, Child
Welfare: Funding for Child and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act. 13
HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures, 2016 (August
2016). Percentages sum to more than 100 because of rounding.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 6
Distribution
All states receive a base allotment of $70,000 in Child Welfare Services funding. The remaining
program appropriations are distributed to states based on their relative share of the population of
children (individuals under age 21), with a higher per child federal funding level provided to
states with lower per capita income. Generally, to receive its full federal allotment of Child
Welfare Services funding, each state must provide nonfederal resources equaling no less than
25% of all funds spent under this program. 14
(Tribal allotments are reserved by HHS out of a
state’s Child Welfare Services allotment based in large part on a tribe’s share of the state’s child
population.)
Funding
Funding for Child Welfare Services was first authorized in 1935 as part of the original Social
Security Act and is currently included at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of that act. Annual discretionary
funding of $325 million was authorized for the program through FY2016 (i.e., until September
30, 2016). Actual final funding appropriated for the CWS program has never reached that
authorization level (first established for FY1990). Congress may choose to extend CWS funding
without explicit funding authorization. P.L. 114-254 extends federal support for this program
through no later than April 28, 2017, at roughly 99.8% of the FY2016 appropriations rate (i.e.,
$268.2 million on an annualized basis). Final FY2017 funding may vary based on changes to the
underlying appropriation level or sequestration. Table 2 shows final funding for the program in
each of FY2012-FY2016.
Table 2. Final Funding for Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
(nominal dollars in millions)
Child Welfare Services FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Formula grants to states,
territories, and tribes $280.6 $262.6 $268.7 $268.7 $268.7
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration.
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program authorizes formula grant funding to
states, tribes, and territories for services to prevent maltreatment in at-risk families; assure
children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which children have been
maltreated; address problems of families whose children have been placed in foster care (to
enable timely reunification); and support adoptive families by providing supportive services
necessary for them to make a lifetime commitment to their children. To receive these funds, states
must meet certain federal requirements, which are primarily related to state planning for
comprehensive services to children in families. 15
The statute also provides that before PSSF funds
14
States are required to provide a greater share of program costs to receive this funding if they complete less than 95%
of the expected monthly caseworker visits, and/or less than 50% of the visits occur where the child lives. For more
information, see “Grants to Improve Monthly Caseworker Visits” in CRS Report R41860, Child Welfare: Funding for
Child and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act. 15
For a more comprehensive discussion of this program, including funding by state, see CRS Report R41860, Child
Welfare: Funding for Child and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 7
are distributed to states for support of these services, a part of the program’s funding must be
reserved for other grants and activities, including grants under the Court Improvement Program
and Regional Partnership Grants. (These reservations are described further below.)
Planned Use of Funds
States receiving PSSF funds are required to spend a “significant” portion of this federal funding
(generally interpreted in guidance as at least 20% of the federal dollars) on each of the four
defined service categories. For FY2016, states collectively planned to spend 25% of their federal
PSSF funding for family support services, roughly the same amount (25%) for family preservation
services, 22% for adoption promotion and support services, and 21% for time-limited family
reunification services (i.e., services intended to enable children who have been in foster care for no
more than 17 months to return safely to their homes). Remaining funds were to be spent for
program administration (6%) or other program costs, including planning (2%). 16
Funding
The PSSF program was added to the Social Security Act (Title IV-B, Subpart 2) in 1993 (P.L. 103-
66). Total PSSF funding was authorized at $545 million annually through FY2016 (i.e., until
September 30, 2016). Of that total, $345 million was authorized to be provided on a mandatory basis,
and $200 million was authorized on a discretionary basis. PSSF program funding has been subject to
sequestration in each of FY2013-FY2016. (The amounts sequestered during those four years reduced
the program’s appropriated funding by a little less than $24 million annually, for a combined $94.6
million.)
The current CR (P.L. 114-254) extends federal support for the PSSF program through April 28,
2017, at the latest. Calculated on a full-year basis, the combined mandatory and discretionary
funding included in the CR for PSSF would be $380.8 million. This reflects a little less than
$59.7 million in discretionary funding (i.e., the FY2016 level minus the across-the-board
reduction of 0.1901% included in P.L. 114-254 plus $321.2 million in mandatory funding; i.e.,
FY2016 authorized level of $345 million minus sequestration required under the Budget Control
Act). The mandatory sequestration percentage of 6.9% for nonexempt, nondefense mandatory
programs became effective on October 1, 2016 (first day of FY2017), and is not subject to
change. However, final full-year FY2017 funding for the PSSF could vary based on changes to
the underlying discretionary and mandatory funding appropriated. Last year the appropriations
committees in the House (H.R. 5926) and Senate (S. 3040) separately recommended reducing
mandatory PSSF funding by $20 million (from $345 million to $325 million) for FY2017. 17
Separately, Congress also considered legislation in the 114 th Congress (H.R. 5456) that would
16
HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures, 2016 (August
2016), p. 5. Percentages total more than 100 due to rounding. Collectively, states report spending more than 20% in
each of the four service categories, but there is variation across states. According to HHS, states that spend less than
20% on a given category report doing so because other resources are available to provide those services.
17 The proposed $20 million reduction in funding from the FY2016 level was presumably recommended because the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has indicated that for FY2017, the mandatory PSSF funding that continues in the
baseline (i.e., does not need to be “paid for”) is $325 million. In making this determination, CBO cites $20 million in
mandatory PSSF funding reserved for the Court Improvement Program as outside the baseline. Accordingly, both of
the relevant committee-approved appropriations bills from the 114 th
Congress included statutory language effectively
limiting the reservation of mandatory PSSF funds for the Court Improvement Program to just $10 million (instead of
$30 million reserved in FY2016). See H.R. 5926 (as reported), p. 76, lines 9-13; and S. 3040 (placed on Senate
calendar), p. 76, lines 14-18.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 8
have extended mandatory PSSF funding authority at $345 million for each of FY2017-FY2021.
That bill (H.R. 5456) passed the House but beyond introduction (S. 3065) did not see action in the
Senate during the 114 th
Congress. 18
Table 3 shows actual program funding (i.e., the amount made available after sequestration) for each of
FY2012-FY2016.
Table 3. Final Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program
(nominal dollars in millions; parts may not sum to total due to rounding)
PSSF Funding FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTAL (mandatory and discretionary) $408.1 $387.1 $379.9 $379.6 $381.3
Mandatory funding $345.0 $327.4 $320.2 $319.8 $321.5
Discretionary funding $63.1 $59.7 $59.8 $59.8 $59.8
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The funding levels shown reflect any required sequestration, which in FY2013 applied to both mandatory
and discretionary PSSF funding provided, and for FY2014 through FY2016 applied to the mandatory portion of
PSSF funding only.
Distribution of PSSF Child and Family Services Funding
PSSF funds for child and family services are distributed to states based on their relative share of
the national population of children receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
benefits (three-year average). To receive its full federal allotment of this PSSF funding, each state
must provide nonfederal resources equaling no less than 25% of funds spent under this program.
Reservation and Distribution of PSSF Funds for Other Grants and Activities
Apart from funding child and family services, the statute requires specified amounts of PSSF
funding to be reserved each year for related programs and activities. These include the Court
Improvement Program, Regional Partnership Grants (to improve outcomes for children affected
by parental substance abuse), Monthly Caseworker Grants, and program-related evaluation and
research. Therefore, before funds are distributed to states and territories for provision of child and
family services, the law provides specific dollar or percentage amounts that must be set aside for
each of these programs or activities. 19
As noted above, Congress has not passed legislation to reauthorize the mandatory PSSF program
at $345 million for FY2017, and both the House and the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended just $325 million. In those proposed bills from the 114 th Congress all of the
reduction in mandatory PSSF funding was linked to a reduction in funds reserved for the Court
Improvement Program (i.e., $10 million instead of $30 million in mandatory PSSF funds).
Accordingly, the Children’s Bureau, which administers these program funds at the federal level,
18
The CBO scored this funding authorization provision, included in the House-passed H.R. 5456, as costing $100
million (i.e., $20 million in each of FY2017-FY2021). That cost was, however, scored as fully offset by other changes
included in FFPSA. For more information on the bill and the CBO score, see CRS Report R44538, Child Welfare: The
Family First Prevention Services Act of 2016, by Emilie Stoltzfus. 19
For a description of the Court Improvement Program, Regional Partnership Grants, and Monthly Caseworker Visit
Grants, see the sections corresponding to those program names in CRS Report R41860, Child Welfare: Funding for
Child and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 9
has assumed full-year funding of circa $10 million—instead of the annualized level included now
in the CR. 20
This is consistent with the CR provision that prohibits distribution of any grant
funding at levels that might “impinge on final funding prerogatives.” 21
If final funding ultimately
awarded for Court Improvement Program grants is higher, the agency can adjust the grant
amounts.
Table 4 shows PSSF funding (both mandatory and discretionary) divided by purpose or activity
for each of FY2012-FY2016. The amount shown as funding for services to children and families
is what remains after the required reservations.
Table 4. Final Discretionary and Mandatory PSSF Funding, by Program/Activity
(nominal dollars in millions; parts may not sum to total due to rounding)
PSSF Program or Activity FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTAL (mandatory and discretionary) $408.1 $387.1 $379.9 $379.6 $381.3
Services to children and families—
Formula grants to states and territories $316.9 $300.5 $295.2 $294.9 $296.0
Tribal services to children and families—
Formula grants to tribes $11.0 $10.5 $10.3 $10.3 $10.5
State Court Improvement Program—
Formula grants to state highest courts $31.1 $29.5 $28.9 $28.9 $29.0
Tribal Court Improvement Program—
Competitive grants for tribal courtsa $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0
Monthly Caseworker Visits—
Formula grants to states and territories $20.0 $19.0 $18.6 $18.5 $18.6
Regional Partnership Grants—
Competitive grants to regional partnerships to
improve outcomes for children affected by
parental substance abuse
$20.0 $19.0 $18.6 $18.5 $18.6
Evaluation, research, training, and
technical assistance—
Competitive grants, contracts, or agreements
$8.1 $7.7 $7.5 $7.5 $7.6
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: Some numbers have been revised from earlier versions of this report. For FY2013, both mandatory and
discretionary PSSF funding was affected by sequestration. For FY2014 through FY2016, only the program’s
mandatory funding was subject to sequestration. Sequestration applied to each program subpurpose, which
means that the effect of sequestration (i.e., the percentage reduction) was spread across each of the PSSF
programs and activities.
a. Like other PSSF set-asides funded with mandatory dollars, the annual tribal Court Improvement set-aside amount ($1 million) was subject to sequestration in each of FY2013-FY2016. However, the effect of the
sequestration (which produced funding levels ranging from a low of $927,000 to a high of $949,000 during
those years) is not seen in this table because of rounding.
20
CRS communication with the Children’s Bureau, December 2016. According to the agency, CIP funds are typically
awarded in two phases during a fiscal year, with the larger amount of funding released in the first part of the fiscal year. 21
Division C, Section 109 of P.L. 114-223 as included in current CR, P.L. 114-254.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 10
Family Connection Grants Section 427 of the Social Security Act authorizes Family Connection Grants. Congress last
provided funding for these grants in September 2014. Family Connection Grants were used to
support four kinds of services, each intended to enable children in foster care, or at risk of
entering care, to stay connected with their families. 22
These services are
kinship navigator programs, which assist kin caregivers in finding and using services to meet their own needs and the needs of the children they are serving;
family finding, which uses intensive search methods to locate biological family members who may serve as a child’s permanent family;
family group decisionmaking, which involves holding meetings to enable family members to develop a plan for the care and protection of children who have come
to the attention of the child welfare agency; and
residential family treatment, which enables parents to address substance abuse and mental health issues in a comprehensive treatment program while continuing
to live with their children.
Family Connection grants were awarded to 49 grantees, including 11 public child welfare
agencies (state, local, and tribal) and 38 private nonprofit agencies located in 23 states. 23
Projects
supported with Family Connection Grant dollars have typically been funded for three years,
grantees were required to provide nonfederal matching funds (between 25% and 50%, depending
on the year of the grant), and to participate in coordinated evaluation activities. HHS has also
awarded a separate evaluation contract related to these grants. 24
These grants were established as part of the Fostering Connections to Success and Improving
Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351) and have never been funded via annual appropriations acts.
Instead, P.L. 110-351 appropriated $15 million to support their initial five years of operation
(FY2009-FY2013) and the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-
183) appropriated $15 million in FY2014 funding for these grants. Congress did not appropriate
any Family Connection Grants funding for FY2015 or FY2016, and, as of early January 2017, has
not appropriated any FY2017 funding for the grants (see Table 5).
22
Section 427(g) of the Social Security Act requires HHS to reserve 3% of program funds ($450,000) annually for
evaluation and permits it to reserve an additional 2% ($300,000) annually for technical assistance. In each of FY2009-
FY2013, the statute further required HHS to spend no less than $5 million of the annual appropriation for these grants
to support kinship navigator programs. This language was removed effective with FY2014 (via P.L. 113-183). 23
Some grantees receive more than one grant. For more information on the FY2009-FY2014 grantees and their
projects, see project descriptions and reports at http://www.nrcpfc.org/grantees.html. Some remaining funds were
awarded in FY2015 awards; see “Building the Evidence Base for Family Group Decisionmaking,”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/discretionary-grant-awards-2015. 24
A report summarizing cross-site evaluation findings and recommendations from the initial (2009-2011) grantees is
available at http://nrcpfc.org/grantees_public/2009/Fam%20Conn%20Summary%20and%20Recommendations%206-
17-13%20Stand-Alone%20Final.pdf. For evaluations of later grantees work regarding Family Group Decisionmaking,
see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/family_connection_fgdm_2011_exesum.pdf.
The funding provided in September 2014 was appropriated for FY2014 and was immediately used to provide a third
year of project funding for 17 earlier grantees (each of which received initial support with FY2012 dollars, awarded on
September 30, 2012). Additionally, in FY2015 HHS used a small amount of FY2014 funding that remained
unexpended to award three new Family Connection grants.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 11
Table 5. Final Funding for Family Connection Grants
(nominal dollars in millions)
Family Connection Grants FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Competitive grants to eligible entities and to support evaluation
$15.0 $14.2 $15.0a $0 $0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration. Funding for
this program was first authorized and appropriated via the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351) and has never been included in annual appropriations acts.
a. FY2014 funding for this program was appropriated on September 29, 2014, by P.L. 113-183, which was after the overall mandatory sequestration level had been determined by the Administration. Accordingly,
sequestration did not apply to the FY2014 funds provided for this program.
Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects
Section 426 of the Social Security Act, established in the early 1960s, authorizes HHS to make grants,
or to enter into contracts or cooperative agreements, to support research or demonstration projects that
have regional or national significance, advance the practice of child welfare, encourage the use of
research-based experimental or special types of child welfare services, and advance training for child
welfare workers (including through traineeships). Entities eligible to conduct this work include public
or nonprofit institutions of higher education, public or nonprofit agencies that conduct research or
child welfare-related activities, and state or local (public) child welfare agencies. HHS is granted
broad authority to design and administer these grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements.
According to HHS, this research, demonstration, and training funding “promotes effective child
welfare practices and skill building and supports leadership development and skill building to
implement change.” 25
The funding is used for a range of activities intended to help child welfare
leaders effectively manage change to improve the work of their agencies, support workforce
development, and connect with and learn from their peers through leadership academies and a
national peer network for professional development. The funds also support the administration of
child welfare professional education stipends (awarded to colleges and universities); online
training for frontline supervisors; and dissemination of effective and promising workforce
practices, which includes a web-based training and technical assistance platform designed to
provide users with a systematic approach to implementing, sustaining, and measuring the effects
of new practices. 26
For FY2015 and FY2016, Congress has stipulated that funds in this Section
426 account are available to support the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being
(NSCAW), 27
although it has not clearly appropriated the full $6 million requested for the survey
by HHS. For more information about this survey, see the following NSCAW discussion.
Annual funding for Section 426 research, demonstration, and training activities is authorized on a
permanent (no year limit) basis at “such sums as Congress may determine necessary.” P.L. 114-
254 continues funding under this authority through no later than April 28, 2017, at a funding rate
25
HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2017, February 2016, p. 158. 26
Ibid, p. 159. For FY2010-FY2014, funding from this account was used to support six “Permanency Innovation”
grantees, all of whom worked to demonstrate effective ways to reduce the number of children who spend more than
two years in foster care. See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pii-project-resources. Findings from the
project continue to inform Section 426 activities, including the web-based training and technical assistance platform. 27
For FY2015, see explanatory statement at Congressional Record, Book II, December 11, 2014, p. H9838. For
FY2016, see explanatory statement at Congressional Record, Book III, December 18, 2015, p. H10289.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 12
that is about 99.8% of the FY2016 funding provided. Final funding provided for this authority in
FY2012-FY2016 is shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6. Final Funding for Child Welfare Research, Training,
or Demonstration Projects
(nominal dollars in millions)
Child Welfare Research, Training and
Demonstration FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Competitive grants, contracts, and other
arrangements to support child welfare workforce
training and to advance practice of child welfare via
research or demonstration
$26.1 $24.4 $25.0 $16.0 $18.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration.
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being
Section 429 of the Social Security Act requires HHS to conduct (directly or by contract) a
nationally representative study of children who are at risk of child abuse or neglect, or are
determined by the state to have been abused or neglected. In response to this 1996 legislative
directive, the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) was launched. Two
surveys have been conducted gathering initial (“baseline”) information on a national sample of
approximately 6,000 children living in families investigated for child abuse and neglect (in 1999
and again in 2008), along with follow-up information on these children and their families
collected at intervals (up to five years) following the initial surveys. 28
HHS has begun planning
for a third NSCAW survey, which, following recruitment of participating agencies, is expected to
begin initial data collection during 2017. (This third survey, unlike the first two, is being
supported with funds from the Child Welfare Research, Training, and Demonstration account,
described in the preceding section. 29
)
The survey data collected via NSCAW are unique from other child welfare administrative data
reported by state child welfare agencies to HHS. 30
NSCAW looks at a nationally representative
sample of children in families investigated for child abuse and neglect—and without regard to
whether child abuse or neglect was determined by a child protective services investigator to have
28
The initial NSCAW survey involved some 5,500 children (ages 0-15) in families investigated for child abuse and
neglect between October 1999 and December 2000, as well as more than 700 children who had been in foster care for
12 months as of that timeframe. Subsequent data were collected on these same children (and their caregivers) at various
intervals for five years following the first (baseline) data collection. The second NSCAW (referred to as NSCAW II)
looked at a sample of close to 5,900 children (ages 0-17) in families investigated for child abuse and neglect between
February 2008 and April 2009. Additional data were collected on these children and their families at two subsequent
intervals for three years following the baseline data collected. Specific funding for NSCAW ended with FY2011;
consequently, no further data were collected in the NSCAW II. 29
Congress provided $6 million in each of FY1997-FY2011 for NSCAW but since then (through FY2016) has not
provided specific NSCAW funding. To permit completion of some of the work begun with NSCAW II, HHS redirected
funds from other research accounts in each of FY2012-FY2014, although the lack of funding meant fewer waves of
data were collected or analyzed in the second iteration of the survey. Beginning with FY2015, Congress has directed
HHS to use Section 426 research funds to support NSCAW, but it did not increase funding for that account, and HHS
has continued annually to request a full $6 million for the survey (now in its third iteration). 30
This includes annual data reported to HHS by states via the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System
(AFCARS) and, separately, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 13
occurred or whether a child entered foster care. Thus the survey provides a more complete
portrait of the full spectrum of children and families served by child welfare agencies. Further,
NSCAW gathers information from children, parents, and other caregivers, as well as teachers and
caseworkers, to examine the socio-behavioral, education, health status, and other conditions of
children and families served by child welfare agencies, and it uses a range of standardized
questions (“instruments”) to do this. Multiple reports, research briefs, and info-graphics have
been produced for HHS from these survey data, 31
and many researchers have accessed the data
for additional published analyses. 32
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act Title IV-E of the Social Security Act principally entitles states, tribes, and territories with an
approved Title IV-E plan 33
to reimbursement of part of their costs of providing foster care,
adoption assistance, or kinship guardianship assistance on behalf of eligible children. All states
have approved IV-E plans; eight tribes have an approved Title IV-E plan (see Appendix C for
list); 34
and Puerto Rico is the only territory with such a plan. 35
Title IV-E also authorizes funding
for support of services to children who leave foster care because they “age out” of care rather
than because they are returned home or placed in a new permanent family; this funding is
available to any state, tribe, or territory with a Title IV-E plan. 36
Additionally, it provides annual
funding for technical assistance related to providing child welfare services to tribal children, and
this includes competitive grants to tribes to support development of a Title IV-E plan. Finally,
provisions included in Title IV-E also authorize incentive payments to states and territories (with
an approved Title IV-E plan) that increase adoptions and/or legal guardianships of children from
foster care. Legislation authorizing these programs and activities is handled by the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance.
Foster Care
When a child is found to be abused, neglected, or otherwise unsafe in his or her own home, the
state may act to remove the child from that home and to place him or her in foster care. Foster
care is a temporary living arrangement intended to ensure a child’s safety and well-being until a
31
These resources are available from the HHS, ACF, Office of Planning Research and Evaluation (OPRE) website at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/national-survey-of-child-and-adolescent-well-being-nscaw. 32
Several books derived from NSCAW data have been published, including Ron Haskins, Fred Wulczyn, and Mary
Bruce Webb, eds., Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice, Brookings Institution Press,
2007, and Mary Bruce Webb, Kathryn Dowd, Brenda Jones Harden, John Landsverk, and Mark F. Testa, eds., Child
Welfare & Child Well-Being: New Perspectives from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Oxford
University Press, 2010. 33
For information on Title IV-E plan requirements, see CRS Report R42794, Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements
under the Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program. 34
Tribes first became eligible for direct Title IV-E program participation in FY2010. As was true before FY2010,
however, numerous tribes receive indirect Title IV-E funds, which are passed through by states under tribal-state Title
IV-E agreements. For additional information, see Jack Trope and Shannon Keller O’Loughlin, “A Survey and Analysis
of Selected Tribal-State Title IV-E Agreements,” March 2014, http://icwa.narf.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03/20140320_title_iv-e_report.pdf. 35
The Northern Mariana Islands does not appear to be eligible to participate in Title IV-E. The other four territories
(American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) are eligible to participate in Title IV-E, provided
they have an approved plan. However, only Puerto Rico has such a plan. 36
Tribes without a IV-E plan may also receive direct federal funding for services to youth aging out of foster care
(Chafee program), if they have a Title IV-E agreement with a state.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 14
permanent home can be reestablished or newly established for the child. Under the Title IV-E
program, the public child welfare agency must work to ensure that each child who enters foster
care is safely returned to his/her parents, or—if this is determined not possible or appropriate (by
a court)—to find a new permanent home for the child via adoption, legal guardianship, or
placement with a fit and willing relative.
The number of children in foster care declined from a reported high of 567,000 on the last day of
FY1999 to fewer than 400,000 on the last day of FY2010, but it has trended up since then,
reaching close to 428,000 children on the last day of FY2015. 37
Eligible Individuals and Eligible Costs
Each state, tribe, or territory with an approved Title IV-E plan is entitled to partial federal
reimbursement for every eligible cost related to providing foster care to children who meet
federal Title IV-E eligibility criteria. 38
Nationally, there were 428,000 children in foster care on
the last day of FY2015, and during that same fiscal year, close to 165,500 children received Title
IV-E foster care maintenance payments in an average month. These figures suggest that
considerably less than half of all children in foster care met federal Title IV-E foster care
eligibility criteria. 39
In general, those criteria
stipulate that the child must be removed from a home with very low income (i.e., less than 50% of federal poverty level in the majority of states);
40
require a judge to make certain determinations related to the child’s need to be in care;
provide that a child must be living in a licensed foster family home or a “child care institution”; and
require the child to be under the age of 18 or, if the state, tribe, or territory has included assistance to older youth in its IV-E plan, under the age of 19, 20, or 21
(as elected by the state). 41
As of October 2016, 26 jurisdictions (including 22 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 tribes)
have approval to provide Title IV-E assistance for youth beyond their 18 th birthday. (See
Appendix D for list.)
Eligible Title IV-E costs include
spending on foster care maintenance payments (for the child’s “room and board”);
37
U.S. Committee on Ways and Means, 2014 Green Book, Chapter 11, “Child Welfare,” Additional Tables and
Figures, Table 11-4; and HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, June 2016. 38
Unlike funding to states, all Title IV-E funding to territories is subject to a “social services” funding cap specified in
Section 1108(a) and (c) of the Social Security Act. 39
See data on national trends in Title IV-E federal foster care coverage and FY2015 estimated rates by states in Figure
11-5 and Table 11-5 of the “Child Welfare” chapter of the House Ways and Committee 2016 Green Book,
http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Figure%2011-
5%20and%20Table%2011-5.pdf . 40
CRS calculation based on a comparison of the FY2016 federal poverty guideline (for a family of three) to an
annualized version of the applicable monthly “need standard” (for a family of three) in each state. 41
See also CRS Report R42792, Child Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster
Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 15
caseworker time to perform required activities on behalf of eligible children in foster care or children at imminent risk of entering foster care (e.g., finding a
foster care placement for a child and planning services needed to ensure a child
does not need to enter care, is reunited with his or her parents, has a new
permanent home, or is otherwise prepared to leave foster care);
program-related data system development and operation, training, and recruitment of foster care providers; and
other program administration costs.
Federal support for these Title IV-E program costs is 75% of a state’s IV-E program training
costs, 50% of all other eligible program administration costs, and ranges between 50% and 83%
of eligible foster care maintenance payment costs (the percentage is redetermined annually and
varies by state, with higher federal support going to states with lower per capita income). 42
Waivers
Currently 28 jurisdictions (26 states, the District of Columbia, and the Port Gamble S’Klallam
Tribe) have approved child welfare demonstration projects (i.e., “IV-E waivers”). Under the
terms and conditions of their specific waiver agreement, each of these jurisdictions is permitted to
use Title IV-E foster care funds to provide services or assistance to children (and their families)—
even if those children or those services or assistance would not normally be considered eligible.
Under current law, HHS is not authorized to grant any new child welfare waivers, and no state
may operate a waiver project after September 30, 2019. 43
(Appendix E shows jurisdictions with
current Title IV-E waiver projects, including implementation date.)
First authorized by Congress in 1994, the goal of permitting waivers of specific Title IV-E
requirements is to allow states to demonstrate alternative and innovative practices that achieve
federal child welfare policy goals in a manner that is cost neutral to the federal Treasury. Each
project has a specific approval period (usually five years), must be determined to cost the federal
government no more in Title IV-E support than it would without the waiver project, and must be
independently evaluated.
Title IV-E waiver projects vary significantly in geographic and program scope. Some operate (or
plan to) on a statewide basis, others are limited to specific regions or counties in the state. The
interventions may focus on different age groups (e.g., children age 0-5 years; children ages 12-
17) and different service needs or circumstances (e.g., children entering care for the first time;
children at risk of entering care; children transitioning from group care to home; children with
substance-abusing parents). 44
At the same time, most of the approved waiver projects seek to use
Title IV-E funds to demonstrate services or support that achieve one or more of the following:
prevent child abuse or neglect or the recurrence of child abuse or neglect;
prevent the need for children to enter (or reenter) foster care; and/or
42
Tribes have a uniquely determined reimbursement rate for Title IV-E maintenance payments, which may not be less
than the rate for any state the tribe is located in, and may not be more than 83%. States are reimbursed for maintenance
payments at their Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which is used in the Medicaid program. See CRS
Report R43847, Medicaid’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), by Alison Mitchell. 43
§1130(a)(2) and (d)(2) of the Social Security Act. 44
Summary of Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration by Jurisdictions, June 2016. Available on the Children’s Bureau
website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/waiver_summary_table_active.pdf.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 16
increase the speed and frequency with which children who are in foster care find permanency (through reuniting with family or placement in a new permanent
adoptive or guardianship home).
Additional focus, in a smaller number of projects, addresses other issues, such as preventing or
reducing the use of group (“congregate”) care for children in foster care; addressing behavioral
health needs of children; addressing needs of caregivers with substance use disorders; and
reducing placement instability for children in foster care. 45
Before approving a Title IV-E waiver project, HHS, together with the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), must determine a method to ensure that the state will not receive more funding
under the approved waiver than it would have received in the absence of the waiver. For most
states this “cost neutrality” determination was based on a prenegotiated capped allocation of a
specific part of their federal Title IV-E foster care funding. In some of those states, the cap
applied to funding across the entire state and for nearly all foster care costs; in others the cap
applied only to one or more counties/cities or for specific kinds of costs (e.g., cost of congregate
care). In places without a cap, cost neutrality might rely on providing the same average per child
cost for “usual care” as is provided for “treatment” care.
While states are able to use waiver funds for more activities and to serve different populations
than would be allowed generally under the Title IV-E program, they also must continue—out of
this same funding—to provide any needed foster care services and to meet all applicable federal
child protections for those children (e.g., case planning and review). 46
Additionally, to receive
funding under the waiver, each jurisdiction must continue to provide the nonfederal (state) share
of program funding, which varies by type of program cost and may also vary by state (based on
the amount of maintenance payment spending included in the cap). The state’s share is always
50% for program administrative costs that are included in the capped funding (e.g., spending on
case planning and management) and may not be more than 50% nor less than 17% for
maintenance payments costs that are included in the cap.
A survey of state child welfare spending in state FY2014 found that among 18 states that reported
spending under the waiver project of more than $1 billion, most of this funding continued to be
used to provide foster care to children who were eligible for Title IV-E foster care (58%, $614
million) or was spent on those same foster care costs for children in foster care who did not meet
Title IV-E eligibility (32%, $339 million). The remainder was spent primarily on other services
and activities, whether for Title IV-E eligible or noneligible children (9%, $75 million) and for
program development or evaluation (1%, $26 million).
Foster Care Funding Authorized
Title IV-E entitlement (or mandatory) funding for foster care is authorized on a permanent basis
(no year limit) and is provided in annual appropriations acts. Congress typically provides the
amount of Title IV-E foster care funding (or “budget authority”) that the Administration estimates
will be necessary for it to provide state or other Title IV-E agencies with the promised level of
federal reimbursement for all of their eligible Title IV-E foster care costs under current law.
Under the continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254), HHS is authorized (through April 28, 2017, at the
45
Summary of the Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations, prepared for Children’s Bureau, ACYF, ACF,
HHS by James Bell Associates, Inc., August 2016. Available on the Children’s Bureau website at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cw_waiver_summary2016.pdf 46
Section 1130(b) prohibits HHS from waiving these federal child protections for children in foster care.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 17
latest) to provide whatever level of Title IV-E foster care support is needed to meet the federal
commitments spelled out in current law. For federal Title IV-E funds obligated by HHS in
FY2012-FY2016, see Table 7 below.
Adoption Assistance
Under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, states, territories, or tribes with an approved Title IV-
E plan are required to enter into an adoption assistance agreement with the adoptive parents of
any child who is determined by the Title IV-E agency to have “special needs.” An adoption
assistance agreement must specify the nature and amount of any payments, services, and
assistance to be provided.
To determine that a child has “special needs,” that public agency must find that
the child cannot or should not be returned to his/her parents;
reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to place the child for adoption without assistance have been made (unless those efforts would not be in the child’s best
interest); and
the child has a specific condition or factor making it unlikely that he/she would be adopted without provision of adoption assistance or medical assistance.
Each state, territory, or tribe may establish their own “special needs” condition or factors and, as
suggested in federal law, they frequently reference the child’s age; membership in a sibling group;
physical, mental, or emotional disability/disorder; and/or membership in a racial/ethnic minority.
Nearly all special needs adoptees were previously in foster care. 47
Nationally, states reported that
some 82% of children adopted from foster care in FY2015 were determined by the state to have
special needs, and the primary special needs identified were membership in a sibling group
(32%); medical condition or physical, mental, or emotional disability (21%); “other—Title IV-E
agency defined factor” (21%); age (16%); or race/ethnicity (9%). 48
Eligibility for Title IV-E Adoption Assistance for Special Needs Adoptees
For any child with special needs, federal reimbursement is available to states for a part of the cost
of paying the adoptive parent’s nonrecurring adoption expenses (i.e., one-time costs related to
legally finalizing the adoptions). 49
Federal reimbursement is also available for a part of the cost of
providing ongoing (monthly) subsidies to adoptive parents on behalf of children with special
needs. Under current law, some children with special needs are required to meet additional
income and other criteria to be eligible for this ongoing assistance, but those additional rules are
being phased out, primarily based on age of the special needs child in the fiscal year the adoption
assistance agreement is finalized. 50
During FY2015, Title IV-E support was provided for
47
For additional information see discussion of “Title IV-E Adoption Assistance,” in CRS Report R42792, Child
Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship
Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus. 48
FY2015 AFCARS data provided to CRS by HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, A very small number of these
adoptions may be of children who were not previously in foster care. 49
Federal support for this assistance is limited to 50% of total costs not exceeding $2,000 (i.e., maximum $1,000
federal reimbursement for nonrecurring costs of adoptive placement) (45 C.F.R. §1356.41(f)).
50 For children on whose behalf an adoption assistance agreement is entered into at any time during FY2017 (i.e., October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017), the additional income and related requirements (applied to the home the
child was removed from, not the adoptive home) must be used only in instances when the special needs adoptee will
(continued...)
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 18
nonrecurring costs in close to 6,100 adoptive placements and ongoing monthly Title IV-E adoption
assistance payments were paid on behalf of close to 441,000 children on an average monthly basis. 51
States, territories, or tribes with a Title IV-E plan approved by HHS may seek federal
reimbursement for a part of the cost of making payments agreed to under Title IV-E adoption
assistance agreements and for related program administration costs, including training. As with
Title IV-E foster care funding, Title IV-E adoption assistance funding is authorized on a
permanent (no year limit) basis, and Congress typically provides the amount of annual funding
for this open-ended entitlement that HHS estimates will be necessary to reimburse states for all
eligible program costs. Under the continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254), Title IV-E adoption
assistance funding is continued at the level needed to meet the federal share of program costs as
authorized in law through April 28, 2017, at the latest. For federal Title IV-E adoption assistance
funds obligated in FY2012-FY2016, see Table 7 below.
Kinship Guardianship Assistance
Beginning in FY2009, states or territories (and, as of FY2010, tribes) with an approved Title IV-E
plan were permitted (but not required) to include provision of kinship guardianship assistance in
those Title IV-E plans. As of November 2016, 40 jurisdictions, including 32 states, the District of
Columbia, and 7 tribes, had incorporated this kind of assistance in their Title IV-E plans. (For a
list of these jurisdictions, see Appendix F.) Accordingly, these states and tribes may seek federal
reimbursement for a part of the cost of providing ongoing kinship guardianship assistance
payments on behalf of every eligible child.
To be eligible for Title IV-E kinship guardianship, a child must have previously been in foster
care and must have been eligible to receive Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments (while
living in the home of the prospective legal relative guardian). 52
During FY2015, these
jurisdictions received federal support under Title IV-E for a part of the cost of providing kinship
guardianship assistance to more than 22,000 children on an average monthly basis. 53
As with other Title IV-E program components, funding is authorized on a permanent basis (no
year limit). Jurisdictions with an approved Title IV-E plan that includes the kinship guardianship
assistance option are entitled to reimbursement for a part of the program costs, including
guardianship assistance payments paid to legal relative guardians on behalf of eligible children,
(...continued)
not reach his or her second birthday as of the end of that fiscal year (i.e., as of September 30, 2017). Eligibility for
children with special needs who are siblings of those meeting the age or length of time in care (60 continuous months)
criteria must also be determined eligible for Title IV-E adoption assistance without use of any income or related
requirements, provided those siblings are placed in the same adoptive family with the sibling. As of the first day of
FY2018 (October 1, 2017), the additional income and related requirements will no longer apply to the eligibility
determination of any special needs child for federal Title IV-E adoption assistance. See §§473(a)(2(A)(ii) and 473(e) of
the Social Security Act. 51
Based on state submitted Title IV-E adoption assistance expenditure claims for FY2015 as compiled by HHS, ACF,
Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB), May 2016. 52
For additional eligibility criteria, see “Kinship Guardianship Assistance,” in CRS Report R42792, Child Welfare: A
Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship
Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus. 53
Based on state submitted Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance expenditure claims for FY2015, as compiled by
HHS, ACF, OLAB, May 2016. The total number of children assisted on an average monthly basis includes more than
1,000 who were eligible for this assistance because they were receiving it under an approved child welfare
demonstration (waiver) project, as of December 30, 2008. See §474(g) of the Social Security Act.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 19
and for related program administration, including training. 54
Under the continuing resolution (P.L.
114-254), this funding is continued at the same level authorized for FY2016 (i.e., whatever
funding is needed to pay the federal share of program costs as currently authorized in the law)
through April 28, 2017, at the latest. (For federal Title IV-E kinship guardianship funds obligated
in FY2012-FY2016, see Table 7 below.)
Obligations of Funds by Title IV-E Program Component
Title IV-E funding is described as an “open-ended entitlement” because the law (Section 474 of
the Social Security Act) provides that a state is entitled to reimbursement for a particular share (or
percentage) of every eligible program cost incurred by a state or tribe operating a Title IV-E
program. 55
To meet this commitment in each annual appropriations act, Congress provides
“definite budget authority” (a certain amount of funds) that enables HHS to reimburse states,
territories, and tribes for their eligible Title IV-E costs. The amount needed for this purpose is
estimated in the annual budget request of the President, and this is typically the amount of
definite budget authority provided by Congress. In any year that Congress authorizes more
funding than needed to make these reimbursements, the extra funding authority will eventually
lapse (no longer be available from the federal Treasury). Alternatively, if the definite budget
authority provided is not enough to provide the federal share (reimbursement) of the eligible Title
IV-E program costs submitted by states, territories, or tribes, the annual appropriations acts
typically also include an “indefinite budget authority.” This authority allows HHS to access
additional funds (within a specific time frame) to meet the statutory commitment to reimburse a
part of every eligible program cost. 56
Table 7 shows the amount of funding (actual or estimated)
obligated by HHS in each of FY2012-FY2016 for Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and
kinship guardianship assistance.
54
Additionally states may seek Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance support for children who were in a
subsidized guardianship under an approved Title IV-E waiver (demonstration project) as of December 30, 2008. 55
Unlike states and tribes, any spending under Title IV-E by a territory is subject to a ceiling on federal social services
funding. The ceiling is a fixed sum of money that represents the maximum federal support a territory may receive under
specified funding streams, including TANF state grant funds, Title IV-E funding, and funding provided for assistance
to aged, blind, and disabled individuals. Puerto Rico is the only territory with an approved Title IV-E plan. Its social
services ceiling is fixed at $107,255,000 (§§1108(a) and 1108(c) of the Social Security Act). 56
The additional “indefinite budget authority” is usually limited to the latter part of the fiscal year and has been
included in the annual Title IV-E program appropriations beginning with appropriations of FY2003.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 20
Table 7. Funding Obligated Under the Title IV-E Program
(nominal dollars in millions; amounts shown are obligations)
Title IV-E Program FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTALa $6,550 $6,487 $7,286 $7,200 $7,609
Foster Care $4,180 $4,132 $4,746 $4,581 $4,800
Adoption Assistance $2,296 $2,278 $2,450 $2,510 $2,674
Kinship Guardianship Assistance $74 $77 $90 $109 $135
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: The mandatory funding provided in this program is exempt from sequestration. However, any funding in the
account for federal “administrative expenses” is subject to sequestration. The funding shown in this table is based on the
most current information on program “obligations” made by HHS under each program component. This information is
included in the President’s annual budget request. Previous versions of this table showed definite budget authority for
each Title IV-E program component, and those amounts varied from the obligation amounts shown here.
a. This total is for the open-ended funding components of the Title IV-E program only. From a formal budget account (and statutory) perspective, additional components are the mandatory portion of the John H.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP; i.e., the general program) and the funding for Tribal
Title IV-E plan Development and Technical Assistance. Both are discussed in later sections of this report.
Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance
Section 476(c) of the Social Security Act authorizes HHS to make grants to tribes, valued at up to
$300,000, to assist them with the cost of preparing a Title IV-E plan for HHS approval. Among
other things, this may include costs related to the development of a tribal data collection system, a
cost allocation methodology (which is needed to seek federal reimbursement for any Title IV-E
cost that is not an assistance payment), and agency and tribal court procedures necessary to meet
the case review system requirements under the Title IV-E program. The grants are to be provided
only to tribes that intend to submit a Title IV-E plan for HHS approval within 24 months. HHS
awards these grants annually, on a competitive basis. Through the last day of FY2016 (September
30, 2016), 34 tribes (or tribal consortia) had received a plan development grant, 57
and 7 tribes (or
consortia) had approved Title IV-E plans.
Additionally, Section 476(c) requires HHS to provide “information, advice, educational materials,
and technical assistance” to tribes regarding providing services and assistance to tribal children
under the child welfare programs authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act. This technical assistance must also be available for states regarding working with tribes to
develop cooperative agreements (under which some IV-E funding received by the state is
provided to the tribe) as well as consulting with tribes on the state’s plan to comply with the
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). As part of responding to this requirement, HHS is currently
funding the National Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Tribes. 58
The authorization for tribal technical assistance and IV-E plan development grants was added to the
Social Security Act by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-351). The law provides a permanent (no year limit) annual appropriation of $3 million.
57
See Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development grants awarded in each of FY2009-FY2016 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/resource/cb-discretionary-grant-awards. 58
Funding for this center (expected to be between $2.5 million and $3.4 million annually for five years) was awarded
to the Colorado Seminary in September 2014. Colorado Seminary owns and operates the University of Denver. See
HHS-2014-ACF-ACYF-CZ-0815 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/cb-discretionary-grant-awards.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 21
Table 8. Final Funding for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance (TA)
(nominal dollar amounts in millions)
Tribal IV-E Plan Development and TA FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Competitive grant funding for tribal IV-E plan development and technical assistance
$3.00 $2.98 $2.96 $2.96 $2.96
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: This funding is included in the “exempt” Title IV-E account. However, funding in each of FY2013-FY2016
is a little less than the previously appropriated $3 million due to the effect of sequestration on a part of this
funding used for federal administrative purposes.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) (§477 of the Social Security
Act) authorizes funding for states, territories, and tribes to provide services to help youth make a
successful transition from foster care to adulthood. 59
Under the program, states are expected to
identify children or youth likely to remain in foster care until their 18 th birthday to ensure that
they have regular and ongoing opportunities to engage in age- or developmentally appropriate
activities and to help prepare them for self-sufficiency. States are also expected to provide
financial, housing, counseling, education, employment, and other appropriate supports to former
foster youth 18, 19, or 20 years of age and to promote and support mentoring or other connections
with dedicated adults for youth served by the program. CFCIP services may also be made
available to youth who, after reaching 16 years of age, leave foster care for adoption or legal
guardianship. The CFCIP requires states to assure that the youth served are actively involved in
decisions about the services they receive.
States (including Puerto Rico) have recently begun to report to HHS on “independent living
services” that were paid for by the agency that administers the CFCIP program. During FY2013,
close to 100,000 youth (ages 14-26 years) received at least one such service, and many of those
youth (58%) received three or more services. The most common services received were academic
support, career preparation, and education about housing and home management. 60
Funding for this program is authorized on a permanent basis (no year limit) as a capped
entitlement to states and territories, provided they have an approved Title IV-E plan. Tribes may
also receive direct federal support under this program, with or without an approved Title IV-E
plan. 61
The authorized amount of funds, $140 million, is provided in annual appropriations bills. 62
(These mandatory funds are considered a part of the Title IV-E program and, apart from a small
portion used for federal program administration, are not subject to sequestration.) (See Table 9.)
59
For more information on this program see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara. 60
For more information see CRS Report R43752, Child Welfare: Profiles of Current and Former Older Foster Youth
Based on the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara. 61
Tribes may be eligible to receive direct federal CFCIP funding, provided they have an approved Title IV-E plan or
have an agreement with a state to provide Title IV-E foster care to tribal children in foster care. 62
Section 111(c) of the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183) raises this
mandatory funding authority to $143 million beginning with FY2020.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 22
Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers
An additional purpose of the CFCIP is to provide Educational and Training Vouchers (ETVs)
(§477(i) of the Social Security Act) to defray the cost of postsecondary education or training for
any youth who is eligible for CFCIP general services. 63
ETVs may be valued at up to $5,000 a
year and may be used for the “cost of attendance” (including tuition, fees, books, room and board,
supplies, and other items) at an “institution of higher education” (including public or private,
nonprofit two- and four-year colleges and universities, as well as proprietary or for-profit schools
offering technical training programs, among others). 64
Discretionary funding for ETVs is
authorized on a permanent (no year limit) basis, and program appropriations are distributed based
on a state’s relative share of children in foster care.
Final funding provided for CFCIP, including Educational and Training Vouchers for each of
FY2012-FY2016, is shown in Table 9. P.L. 114-254 extends funding for both through April 28,
2017, at the latest. The CFCIP mandatory funding is continued at same rate as FY2016; ETV
funding, which is discretionary, is continued at about 99.8% of the rate provided in FY2016.
Funding and Distribution for the CFCIP Program, Including ETVs
HHS is required to reserve 1.5% of the funding appropriated for CFCIP, including ETV funding,
to support evaluations, technical assistance, performance measurement, and data collection
related to the program. The remaining general program funds are distributed to states and
territories with an approved Title IV-E plan based on their relative share of the national
population of children in foster care. However, no state or territory may receive an allotment of
less than $500,000 or the amount it received under CFCIP’s predecessor program (in FY1998)—
whichever is greater. Chafee ETV funds are distributed based solely on the state’s relative share
of the national population of children in foster care. Additionally, to receive any CFCIP or ETV
funding, states must give certain assurances to HHS related to their operation of the program.
Finally, a state must provide nonfederal resources of no less than 20% of total spending under the
program to receive its full CFCIP and ETV allotments.
63
For more information, see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara. 64
For purposes of the ETV program, the terms cost of attendance and institution of higher learning are defined in
Section 472 and Section 102, respectively, of the Higher Education Act.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 23
Table 9. Final Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP)
(nominal dollars in millions; parts do not sum to total because of rounding)
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTAL $185.2 $182.3 $183.2 $183.2 $183.2
General Program $140.0 $140.0 $140.0 $140.0 $140.0
Educational and Training Vouchers (ETV) $45.2 $42.3 $43.3 $43.3 $43.3
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: CFCIP general program (mandatory) funding is considered a part of the Title IV-E account and is therefore
exempt from sequestration. However, a small portion of these funds are considered federal program administration
dollars and have been subject to mandatory sequestration. Mandatory general program CFCIP funding was reduced by
$1,000 in FY2013 and between $37,000 and $40,000 in each of FY2014-FY2016 because of sequestration. Chafee ETV
funding under the program is discretionary and nonexempt. The FY2013 funding shown for the ETV program reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments
Adoption Incentive Payments were established in 1997, as part of a package of policy changes
(included in the Adoption and Safe Families Act, P.L. 105-89) that were intended to ensure
children’s safe and expeditious exit from foster care to permanent homes, including through
adoption. The most recent reauthorization added recognition of state success at finding permanent
families for children through legal guardianship and renamed the program as Adoption and Legal
Guardianship Incentive Payments.
As part of that reauthorization, P.L. 113-183 (2014) revised the incentive structure so that eligible
states may earn an incentive for improving the rate (or percentage) of children who leave foster
care for adoption at any age ($5,000 for each adoption resulting from the increased rate); for legal
guardianship at any age ($4,000 for each legal guardianship resulting from the increased rate); for
adoption or legal guardianship as preadolescents (ages 9-13) ($7,500 for each adoption or
guardianship resulting from the increased rate); or for adoption or legal guardianship as older
children (14 years of age or older) ($10,000 for each adoption or guardianship resulting from the
increased rate). 65
A state is found to have an increased rate if during the fiscal year the percentage
of children leaving foster care in one or more of these categories exceeds the comparable
percentage for either the most recent previous year or the average percentage for the three most
recent previous years. 66
In recent years, the amount of incentive payments earned by states in a single fiscal year has
consistently outpaced funding appropriated in a single fiscal year to pay those incentives, and
HHS has needed to draw on appropriations from more than one year to provide states their full
incentive payment amounts. For example, states earned roughly $47 million in incentive
payments for increases in the rate of adoptions (and/or guardianships) completed in each of
FY2013 and FY2014, but funding provided to make those incentive payments was closer to $38
65
For more information, see CRS Report R43025, Child Welfare: The Adoption Incentive Program and Its
Reauthorization, by Emilie Stoltzfus. For adoptions and legal guardianships completed in FY2014, states earned
awards based in part on the prior incentive structure and in part on the new incentive structure. The new incentive
structure was fully in place for adoptions and legal guardianship completed in FY2015 (awards announced in
September 2016). 66
For more information, see HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Program Instruction (PI-15-08), July 8, 2015,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/pi1508.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 24
million in each year. To ensure states received the full incentives earned, HHS paid out the
incentives earned in one year using funds appropriated across two years. Consequently, in
September 2016 when HHS announced $41 million in incentives earned for increased adoptions
and legal guardianships finalized in FY2015, it had just $9 million in FY2016 appropriations
remaining to make those incentive payments to states. Accordingly, and as it has done in past
years, HHS made initial, prorated incentive payments with those available funds—meaning each
state received roughly 21% of the incentive payment amount it earned for FY2015. However,
provided full-year FY2017 funding is appropriated for the program, HHS would be expected to
award the remaining amount of those earned incentive payments in FY2017. (See Appendix G
for incentive awards earned by state.)
Although the discretionary funding authorization for Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive
payments ($43 million/year) expired with September 30, 2016, some funding for the incentive
payments is included in the continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254). 67
See Table 10 for final funding
in each of FY2012-FY2016.
Table 10. Final Funding for Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments
(nominal dollars in millions)
Incentive Payments FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Funds to make incentive payments $39.3 $37.2 $37.9 $37.9 $37.9
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration. The name
of this program was changed to include “legal guardianship” effective with the first day of FY2015.
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) CAPTA was enacted in 1974 (P.L. 93-247) at a time of growing awareness and concern about
abuse of children in their own homes. It has been reauthorized many times since then, most
recently by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320). CAPTA authorizes formula
grant funding to states to improve their child protective services (state grants); competitively
awarded funds to support research, technical assistance, and demonstration projects related to
prevention, assessment, and treatment of child abuse and neglect (discretionary activities); and
funding to all states for support of community-based activities to prevent child abuse and neglect
(community-based grants). 68
Further, it incorporates program authority for what are commonly
referred to as “Children’s Justice Act grants.” Legislation authorizing these programs and
activities in CAPTA is handled by the House Education and the Workforce Committee and the
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
67
Congress may choose to appropriate additional discretionary funding without explicit funding authorization.
However, in order for states to be eligible to earn incentive payments for adoptions and guardianship completed in
FY2016 and any later years, Congress must amend the program provision at Section 473A(b)(4) of the Social Security
Act that addresses this eligibility. 68
To see CAPTA with amendments through the CAPTA Reauthorization of 2010, see the HHS, ACF, ACYF,
Children’s Bureau website, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/capta2010.pdf.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 25
CAPTA State Grants
The focus of CAPTA is on providing a primarily social service response to abuse or neglect of
children by their parents or other caretakers. The Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015
(P.L. 114-22) amended CAPTA to require (as of May 29, 2017) that children identified as victims
of sex trafficking (regardless of whether the trafficker is considered their parent or “caretaker”)
must also be given access to social services. 69
In FY2014, state and local CPS agencies received 3.6 million calls or other referrals alleging
abuse or neglect involving an estimated 6.6 million children. After screening those referrals they
determined a Child Protective Services (CPS) response (investigation or assessment) was
warranted for 2.2 million of the referrals, involving an estimated 3.2 million children. 70
Under
CAPTA State Grants (§106 of CAPTA), each state and territory may receive funds to make
improvements to its CPS system. However, the bulk of the cost to receive and respond to child
abuse or neglect allegations is assumed to be borne by states and localities, and funding provided
via these grants in recent years has offered a little less than $12 for each CPS investigation or
assessment of child abuse or neglect carried out by states (on a national basis).
There are 14 potential areas of CPS program improvement listed in the law. A little more than
two-thirds of the states (67%) reported their intention to use their CAPTA grant funds to improve
the intake, assessment, screening, and investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect.
Considerably more than half (58%) intended to use the funds to develop, improve, and implement
risk and safety assessment tools and protocols, including use of differential response, and a
similar share (56%) intended to use the funds to improve case management, ongoing case
monitoring, and delivery of services and treatment provided to families. 71
To receive CAPTA state grant funds each state, including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico, must assure HHS that it has
a statewide system in place to receive and screen reports of child abuse or neglect and to provide appropriate responses that ensure children’s safety, including
developing a plan of safe care for infants brought to the attention of CPS (by
health care providers) as substance-exposed;
state laws that mandate specific individuals to make reports of known or suspected child abuse or neglect and provide immunity from prosecution for
individuals who make these reports in good faith;
a technology system that allows the state to track reports of child abuse and neglect (from intake to final disposition); and
statewide procedures that, among other things, maintain the confidentiality of child abuse and neglect records; offer training to CPS workers; provide an
69
Effective, May 29, 2017, Section 802 of P.L. 114-22 adds a special rule to CAPTA stipulating that any child
identified by a state or local agency worker as a victim of sex trafficking must be considered a victim of child abuse
and neglect (including sexual abuse), without regard to whether the child’s trafficker is considered the child’s
“caretaker.” For purposes of the P.L. 114-22 amendments to CAPTA, states may define child as an individual who is
not yet 24 years of age. These provisions are effective as of May 29, 2017. 70
HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2014, January 2016. 71
Based on state plans for FY2014. For the remaining 11 CAPTA program improvement areas, between 12% and 46%
of states reported plans to focus efforts on those areas. See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress
on the Effectiveness of CAPTA State Programs and Technical Assistance (second biennial report, submitted March
2015).
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 26
appropriately trained guardian ad litem or advocate for each child abuse or
neglect victim involved in judicial proceedings; and provide for cooperation
between state law enforcement agencies, appropriate state human services
agencies, and courts in the investigation, assessment, prosecution, and treatment
of child abuse and neglect.
In addition, states, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, must establish and support
Citizen Review Panels to evaluate the effectiveness of their CPS policies and practices and they
must, “to the maximum extent practicable,” submit annual data to HHS regarding child abuse and
neglect in their state. 72
Most Recent Changes
Among other changes, the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) made a state law
regarding mandatory reporting a statutory requirement; 73
added the state plan assurances related
to having a technology system to track child abuse and neglect cases and describing use of
differential response; called for collaborative work between CPS and agencies providing services
to families with both adult domestic violence and child abuse victims; stipulated that states must
not require reunification of a child with a parent who has subjected the child to sexual abuse or
who is required to register as a sex offender; and stipulated that states must, to the maximum
extent practicable, report certain data to HHS regarding their CPS workforce.
The Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016 (CARA, P.L. 114-198) built on prior
CAPTA policy that required each state receiving Section 106 grant funding to assure it had
policies requiring health care providers to notify child protection services when an infant shows
signs of prenatal exposure to illegal drugs and for the development of a safe plan of care for the
infant. CARA requires this notice without regard to whether the drug was legal or illegal, and it
describes the plan of safe care as one addressing the health and well-being needs of the child as
well as the substance abuse treatment needs of the child’s parent/caregiver. Additionally, it calls
for states to monitor compliance with these requirements and provides for heightened federal
monitoring of state compliance. 74
Effective May 29, 2017, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act (P.L. 114-22) additionally
requires a state to assure (as part of its CAPTA state plan) that it has (1) procedures for the
identification and assessment of all reports involving known or suspected child victims of sex
trafficking and (2) provisions relating to training CPS workers to do this work and to provide
services to victims of sex trafficking, including through coordination with other social service
agencies. 75
72
HHS provides an annual report based on these data, which are reported via the National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System (NCANDS). To view the FY2013 report (released in January 2015), or earlier reports, go to
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment. 73
This requirement was originally made via CAPTA’s implementing regulations. However, the 1996 reauthorization of
CAPTA (P.L. 104-235) was interpreted as reducing the authority of HHS to regulate CAPTA and this, combined with
subsequent statutory changes to CAPTA, led HHS to see the regulations as largely without force and increasingly
moot. Ultimately it announced it was withdrawing all CAPTA regulations effective June 29, 2015. See Federal
Register, March 30, 2015, pp. 16577-16579, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-30/pdf/2015-07238.pdf 74
§503 of P.L. 114-198. To the maximum extent practicable, states are also required to annually report certain data
related to infants referred to CPS under this provision. For HHS/ACF guidance, see ACYF-CB-IM-16-05, issued
August 26, 2016, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1605.pdf. 75
§802 of P.L. 114-22. For HHS/ACF guidance see ACYF-CB-IM-15-05, issued July 16, 2015,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1505.pdf.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 27
Funding and Distribution
The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) extended annual discretionary funding
for these grants through FY2015 (i.e., until September 30, 2015). Nonetheless, Congress chose to
provide discretionary funding for these grants in FY2016 and, via the continuing resolution (P.L.
114-254), it continues to fund the grants (through no later than April 28, 2017) at a rate roughly
equal to 99.8% of the FY2016 funding. States and territories do not need to provide nonfederal
matching funds to receive this grant money. Each state and territory receives a base allotment of
$50,000, and the remaining funds are distributed among the states and territories based on their
relative share of the child (under age 18) population. For FY2015, the median CAPTA state grant
award was $346,000, and among the 50 states the grants ranged from a low of $87,000 (VT) to a
high of $2.8 million (CA).
The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 provided that in any year appropriations for these grants
reach at least $27,535,000 (i.e., at least $1 million more than the FY2009 appropriation), no state
may receive an allotment of less than $100,000. 76
However, funding for these grants has declined
since that reauthorization. Final funding for CAPTA state grants in each of FY2012-FY2016 is
shown in Table 11 below.
CAPTA Discretionary Activities
With the enactment of CAPTA, Congress sought to ensure a federal focal point regarding efforts
to prevent, identify, and treat child abuse and neglect. In their 2014 report, New Directions in
Child Abuse and Neglect Research, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research
Council (NRC) noted that much has been learned about risks associated with child abuse and
neglect, its immediate and lifelong adverse effects, and prevention and treatment. At the same
time, they noted much remains unknown about the causes of child abuse and neglect, successful
community-level implementation of prevention and treatment programs, and the effects of
changes to policies addressing child abuse and neglect. Consistent with the IOM/NRC call for a
national strategy and a high-level, coordinated federal response to the “public health” problem of
child abuse and neglect, 77
explanatory text accompanying final FY2016 appropriations for
CAPTA discretionary activities encouraged ACF to work with the National Institutes of Health
and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to synthesize available
research and develop a peer-reviewed approach to address research gaps related to understanding,
preventing, and treating child abuse and neglect. 78
Under current law HHS is required to maintain a national clearinghouse concerning child abuse
and neglect that gathers and disseminates information on best practices and effective programs
76
Specifically, P.L. 111-320 provides that in any year that annual funding for state grants exceeds the FY2009
appropriation ($26,535,000) by at least $1 million, a minimum allotment (for each state and Puerto Rico) must take
effect. Specifically, if funding is greater than the FY2009 appropriation by at least $1 million but less than $2 million,
then that minimum allotment equals $100,000; if it exceeds that appropriation by at least $2 million, but less than $3
million, then the minimum allotment equals $125,000; if it exceeds that appropriation by $3 million or more, then the
minimum allotment equals $150,000. 77
IOM/NRC, New Directions in Child Abuse and Neglect Research, National Academies Press (2014), pp. 1-6. 78
Explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 (enacted as P.L. 114-113); see Congressional Record, December
17, 2015, p. H10289. According to the IOM/NRC report, much has been learned about the scope of child abuse and
neglect, its lifelong effects, and general preventive measures, but gaps in knowledge remain concerning (1) specific
causes of child abuse and neglect (as opposed to risk factors associated with child abuse and neglect); (2) differential
individual sensitivity to apparently similar experiences of abuse or neglect; and (3) the reasons for what appears to be a
significant decline in physical and sexual abuse of children but not in their neglect.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 28
that prevent and/or respond to child abuse; provides technical assistance to state and local public
and private agencies related to preventing and responding to child abuse and neglect; and collects
and annually publishes data on child maltreatment. HHS is further required to fund field-initiated
and interdisciplinary research related to protecting children from abuse and neglect and
improving their well-being and to support the study of the national incidence of child abuse and
neglect. Current law also permits HHS to fund demonstration projects or grants on a range of
suggested topics (many related to training CPS staff and other relevant individuals).
Additionally, HHS is permitted to establish an office on child abuse and neglect for the purpose of
carrying out CAPTA and to ensure inter- and intra-departmental coordination of activities related
to child abuse and neglect. 79
The Office of Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN), within the
Children’s Bureau at HHS, carries out CAPTA and works to coordinate child abuse prevention
and treatment activities within HHS and across federal agencies, including through its leadership
of the Federal Interagency Work Group on Child Abuse and Neglect. 80
The OCAN uses CAPTA
discretionary funds to support inclusion of child abuse and neglect-related information on the
online portal, Child Welfare Information Gateway (http://www.childwelfare.gov), collection of
state data via the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and publication of
annual reports (Child Maltreatment) based on those data. 81
Funding provided for CAPTA Discretionary Activities also currently supports efforts to build the
capacity of public child welfare agency workers (and the public or private agencies they work
with) to carry out and continuously improve their work; planning grants for developing a model
intervention for youth with child welfare involvement who are at-risk of homelessness; and
partnerships to demonstrate the effectiveness of supportive housing for families in the child
welfare system. The Design Options for Understanding Child Maltreatment project is now
under way and intends to identify new methods to obtain accurate and ongoing information on the
incidence of child abuse and neglect, as well as key research priorities for the field. 82
Finally,
funds from this account are being used to establish the National Advisory Committee on Sex
Trafficking of Children and Youth in the United States. 83
HHS awards CAPTA Discretionary Activities funds to eligible public and private entities (on a
competitive basis) to carry out the required and/or authorized CAPTA activities. In some years
Congress has also indicated more specific uses for these funds as part of the appropriations
process. For example, in each of FY2014-FY2016, report language or explanatory statements
accompanying final appropriations bills have called for a part of this CAPTA funding to be used
for “implementation of research-based court team models that include the court system, child
welfare agency, and community organizations in order to better meet the needs of infants and
79
The law also authorizes HHS to create an advisory board on child abuse and neglect. The last such board created
under CAPTA authority issued its final report in 1995. 80
See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report on Efforts to Coordinate Programs and Activities Related to
Child Abuse and Neglect, January 31, 2014. In addition, for more on the Federal Interagency Workgroup on Child
Abuse and Neglect, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/fediawg. 81
The most recent Child Maltreatment report (including data for FY2014) and reports from earlier years are available
online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment. 82
The Design Options Project (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/research/project/design-options-for-understanding-child-
maltreatment-incidence-2015-2017) is expected to propose a replacement for the National Incidence Survey (NIS),
which was first developed in the 1970s and has been fielded on four occasions (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/research/
project/national-incidence-study-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-2004-2009). 83
Section 114A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. §1314b), added by the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2014, directed HHS to establish this committee but did not provide funding for that purpose.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 29
toddlers in foster care.” HHS responded by funding the National Quality Improvement Center on
Infant-Toddler Court Teams.
The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) extended annual discretionary funding
for CAPTA’s discretionary activities through FY2015 (i.e., until September 30, 2015). Congress
continued to provide funding for this account in FY2016 and via the continuing resolution (P.L.
114-254) at a rate equal to about 99.8% of FY2016 appropriations, into the first part of FY2017.
For final CAPTA discretionary activities funding for FY2012-FY2016, see Table 11 below.
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect
Title II of CAPTA supports the efforts of community-based organizations to prevent child abuse
and neglect. These prevention grants—referred to by HHS as Community-Based Child Abuse
Prevention grants (CBCAP)—are distributed by formula to a lead entity in each state and
territory. The lead entity is required to distribute the funds to community-based organizations in
the state that work to prevent child abuse and neglect, including through support of parent
education, mutual support, and self-help activities; provision of community and social service
referrals, outreach services, voluntary home visiting, respite care; and support for public
information campaigns to prevent child abuse or neglect. The lead entity is often the state child
welfare agency but may also be another statewide (public or private) entity (e.g., a state
Children’s Trust Fund).
Out of funds provided for these grants, the law provides that 1% of funds must be set aside for
tribal and migrant programs. In addition, it permits HHS to allocate whatever sums are necessary
to support the work of state lead entities by creating, operating, and maintaining a peer review
process, information clearinghouse, and computerized communication system between state lead
entities and to fund a yearly symposium and biannual conference related to implementing the
grants. As part of carrying out this requirement, HHS supports the National Resource Center for
Community Based Child Abuse Prevention (also known as FRIENDS) to provide training and
technical assistance for state lead entities.
The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) extended annual discretionary funding
for CBCAP through FY2015 (i.e., until September 30, 2015). Congress chose to continue to
provide funding for these grants in FY2016, and via the continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254) has
extended funding through April 28, 2017, at a rate equal to about 99.8% of the FY2016
appropriations.
Final funding for CBCAP grants, for each of FY2012-FY2016, is shown in Table 11, below. To
receive its allotment under the program, a state lead agency must assure that it will provide
nonfederal resources of no less than 20% for the program. 84
Further, each state’s allocation of
CBCAP funds is based in part on the amount of nonfederal money leveraged by the state for child
abuse prevention activities. Specifically, 70% of the grant funding is distributed to each state and
territory based on its relative share of children (individuals under age 18) in the nation (except
that by statute no state may receive less than $175,000). 85
The remaining 30% of the grant
funding is distributed to each state (including Puerto Rico) based on the relative share of all
nonfederal (private, state, local) funds that were directed through the state’s lead entity to fund
community-based child abuse prevention services and activities.
84
§204(4) of CAPTA. 85
The statute provides that no state may receive less than $175,000. Beginning with FY2005 (after an increase in
appropriations provided for the program) HHS has ensured that each state receives a minimum allotment of $200,000.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 30
Table 11. Final Funding for Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
(nominal dollars in millions; parts may not sum to total due to rounding)
CAPTA FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTAL appropriation $93.7 $87.9 $93.8 $93.8 $98.1
CAPTA State Grants—Formula grants to states
and territories $26.4 $24.7 $25.3 $25.3 $25.3
CAPTA Discretionary Activities—Competitive
grants, contracts or agreements to eligible entities $25.7 $24.1 $28.7a $28.7a $33.0a
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child
Abuse and Neglect—Formula grants to states and
territories, includes support for technical assistance
and 1% set aside for tribal/migrant programs
$41.5 $38.9 $39.8 $39.8 $39.8
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Notes: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration (which was
applicable to each of these CAPTA accounts). Section 107 of CAPTA includes program authority for Children’s
Justice Act grants. However, no funding is authorized to be provided for those grants under CAPTA. Instead,
those funds, as discussed in a succeeding section of this report, are provided annually out of the Crime Victims
Fund.
a. The explanatory statement accompanying the final funding for FY2014 (P.L. 113-76) provided that $3 million of this funding was to be used to support “implementation of research-based court team models that
include the court system, child welfare agency, and community organizations in order to better meet the
needs of infants and toddlers in foster care.” Comparable statements (or report language) accompanying
FY2015 (P.L. 113-235) and FY2016 (P.L. 114-113) final funding measures have indicated that support for this
purpose should be continued from this account.
Children’s Justice Act Grants
Children’s Justice Act grants administered by HHS are provided to help states and territories
improve the assessment, investigation, and/or prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases—
particularly cases involving suspected sexual abuse and exploitation of children, child fatalities
suspected to be caused by abuse or neglect, and those involving children who are disabled and
children with serious health disorders. Among other things, the improvements must aim to limit
additional trauma to a child and/or child’s family. 86
To be eligible to receive these funds, a state or territory must meet the requirements necessary to
receive CAPTA state grants, and it must establish and maintain a multidisciplinary taskforce to
review how the state handles civil and criminal child abuse and neglect cases, including cases
involving more than one jurisdiction (e.g., state and tribe, or more than one state). The taskforce
must make recommendations for ways to improve handling of these cases through reform of state
law, regulations, and procedures; training; and/or testing of innovative or experimental programs.
States are further required to receive recommendations from the taskforce every three years and
must implement the recommendations (or an alternative plan).
While the program authority for Children Justice Act grants is contained in CAPTA (§107), that
law does not authorize funding for them. Instead, the grants are funded out of the Crime Victims
Fund. That fund consists primarily of criminal fines and fees paid to the federal government and
86
Children’s Justice Act funding is made available, separately, to tribes for related purposes. This funding is
administered by DOJ. See http://www.justice.gov/jmd/file/822366/download#page=65.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 31
is administered by the Office for Victims of Crime within the Department of Justice (DOJ). 87
Section 1404A of the Victims of Crime Act requires DOJ to annually set aside up to $20 million
for Children’s Justice Act purposes, of which 85% is directed to HHS (for distribution to 50
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico), 88
and the remaining 3% is retained by DOJ for
competitive grants to tribal entities. FY2012-FY2016 funding for this program is shown in Table
12.
Table 12. Final Funding for Children’s Justice Act Grants
(nominal dollars in millions; funding for these grants is not appropriated but is provided annually out of
the Crime Victims Fund, or CVF)
Children’s Justice Act Grants FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTAL (set-aside out of CVF) $20.0 $20.0 $20.0 $20.0 $20.0
Formula grants to states and
territories (administered by HHS) $17.0 $17.0 $17.0 $17.0 $17.0
Competitive grants to tribes
(administered by DOJ) $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: For FY2013, certain funding provided from the Crime Victims Fund was subject to sequestration. However,
this did not affect the level of funding set aside for Children’s Justice Act grants. This table assumes the same
treatment of this funding for each of FY2014-FY2016.
Victims of Child Abuse Act Title II of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647) created the Victims of Child Abuse Act
(VCAA). That act authorizes several child welfare programs that are administered by the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs (OJJDP), an agency within the Office of Justice
Programs (OJP) at the Department of Justice (DOJ). 89
Apart from these three programs, the
VCAA includes provisions requiring specified professionals to report suspected child abuse or
neglect that they learn about while carrying out their profession on federal land or in federally
operated facilities, and provides criminal penalties for those failing to make such reports.
Additionally, it requires federal agencies and agencies operated or contracted to operate by the
federal government to ensure criminal background checks are conducted for any individual hired
by the agency or facility to provide a wide range of care or services to children. The legislation
establishing the VCAA was handled by the Senate and House Judiciary committees.
87
For more information about this fund, see CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for
Victims of Crime, by Lisa N. Sacco. 88
There is not a formula for distribution in the statute. HHS provides each state and Puerto Rico a base allotment of
$50,000 and distributes the remaining funds based on a jurisdiction’s relative share of the national population of
children (individuals under 18 years of age). 89
The provisions requiring specified related to reporting are at 42 U.S.C. §13031 and 18 U.S.C. §2258; those
concerning background checks are at 42 U.S.C. §13041; there is no funding associated with these provisions, and they
are not discussed further in this report.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 32
Improving Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse Cases
Subtitle A (Sections 211-214B) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act 90
supports the expansion and
improvement of Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs). These centers are intended to coordinate a
multidisciplinary response to child abuse (e.g., law enforcement, child protection/social service,
medical, mental health) in a manner that ensures child abuse victims (and any non-offending
family members) receive the support services they need and do not experience the investigation
of child abuse as an added trauma. CACs are widespread. The VCAA authorizes funds to directly
support establishment and operation of local and regional children’s advocacy centers, as well as
training and technical assistance related to improving the investigation and prosecution of child
abuse and neglect.
Nationally there are close to 800 CACs located in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Coverage varies significantly by state and the National Children’s Alliance reports that some 13.5
million children in the nation (about 1 in 5) live in areas without access to a CAC. 91
Close to
312,000 children were served at CACs in 2015 and the large majority (73.0%) were age 12 or
younger. Sexual abuse was the most commonly reported abuse, involving about two-thirds
(66.3%) of the children served at CACs in 2015. Children served may have experienced more
than one type of abuse. Other abuses reported among children served were physical abuse
(18.9%), neglect (7.1%), witnesses to violence (6.7%), child drug endangerment (3.3%), or
“other” (5.7%). Most of the alleged abusers were related to the child, including close to 6 in 10
(59.8%) who were the child’s parent, step-parent, or other relative. 92
For purposes of the CAC’s work (and related technical training and assistance), “child abuse” is
defined to mean “physical or sexual abuse or neglect of a child.” As provided in the Justice for
Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-22), this includes “human trafficking and the
production of child pornography.” That law also authorized grants to develop and implement
specialized programs to identify and provide direct services to victims of child pornography. 93
Further, it established a Domestic Trafficking Victims Fund—to consist of financial penalties
collected for certain human trafficking-related violations and other specified funds—and directed
that a part of those dollars must be used (in each of FY2016-FY2019) to support those grants or
enhance the programming related to responding to child pornography. 94
Annually, the DOJ awards the bulk of the CAC funding to the National Children’s Alliance,
which makes sub grants to support the work of local children’s advocacy centers, establishes
standards and provides accreditation to local and state chapter CACs, and offers other training
and technical assistance. 95
Federal law also requires the establishment and support of four
90
42 U.S.C. §§13001, 13001a, 13001b, 13002, and 13003. 91
National Children’s Alliance, Healing Justice and Trust: Measuring Children’s Outcomes, two-page brief available
at http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/sites/default/files/downloads/OMS-Measuring-Outcomes-Brief-2015.pdf.
For coverage by specific state, see the CAC coverage maps at http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/cac-coverage-
maps. 92
National Children’s Alliance, “NCA National Statistic- Statistical Report, 2015,” February 18, 2016,
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/sites/default/files/2015NationalAnnual_0.pdf. 93
§104 of P.L. 114-22. See also CRS Report R44315, Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015: Changes to
Domestic Human Trafficking Policies, by Kristin Finklea, Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara, and Alison Siskin. 94
§101 of P.L. 114-22. The act requires no less than $2 million annually to be devoted to grants related to victims of
child pornography, provided this amount is available from certain dollars that are to be transferred to the fund. 95
For more information on the National Children’s Alliance support for local and state CACs, see
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/funding-cacs-chapters.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 33
regional children’s advocacy centers to increase the number of communities with CACs, help
improve their practice, and support development of state chapter organizations for CACs,
including by serving as resource and training centers for those local CACs and state chapters. 96
Currently the four regional centers are located in Huntsville, AL; Philadelphia, PA; St. Paul, MN;
and Colorado Springs, CO. 97
Additionally, the law seeks to improve the prosecution of child
abuse cases by authorizing additional funds specifically for training and technical assistance to
attorneys and others involved in criminal prosecution of child abuse. Funding to support this
purpose has frequently been awarded to the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse. 98
Annual discretionary funding authority to support regional and local CACs ($15 million) and
training and technical assistance to improve criminal prosecution of child abuse ($5 million) was
extended for each of five years (FY2014-FY2018) by P.L. 113-163. 99
See Table 13, below, for
FY2012-FY2016 final funding. Final FY2017 funding is not available, but the current continuing
resolution (P.L. 114-254) maintains funding for this program through April 28, 2017 (at the
latest), at about 99.8% of the FY2016 rate of appropriations.
Court-Appointed Special Advocates
Subtitle B (§§215-219) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act 100
provides funding to support access to
advocates for victims of child abuse or neglect. Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs)—
sometimes called guardians ad litem—are volunteers who are appointed by judges and who work
to ensure that a child’s best interest is presented to the judge in court proceedings related to child
abuse and neglect.
The first CASA pilot program began in Seattle, and the National Court Appointed Special Advocate
Association (NCASAA) was founded in 1982 to help replicate and support CASA programs across
the nation. In 1984, when the association incorporated, there were 107 state and local CASA
programs in 26 states. 101
As of 2014, some 949 state, local, and tribal CASA programs located in 49
states and the District of Columbia were a part of the National CASA Association. 102
As early as 1974, when Congress enacted CAPTA, it sought to ensure that every child who was a
part of court proceedings because of child abuse and neglect had a guardian ad litem to represent
their best interest. 103
However, 16 years later, when it authorized funds specifically for CASA (as
part of the 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act), Congress found that only a small fraction of
96
Support for community-based “multidisciplinary” responses to child abuse and neglect cases was included in the
original 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act. However, the term “children’s advocacy centers” and the requirement for
regional children’s advocacy centers were not added to the act until 1992 (as part of legislation primarily designed to
reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and enacted as P.L. 102-586). 97
For links to regional CAC websites, see http://www.mrcac.org/about-mrcac/our-partners/. 98
For more information about NCPCA, see http://www.ndaa.org/ncpca.html. 99
P.L. 113-163 was titled the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act; however, it reauthorized only Subtitle
A of that act. 100
42 U.S.C. §§13011, 13012, 13013, 13013a, and 13014. 101
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, National Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program, Audit
Report 07-04, December 2006, Executive Summary, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0704/exec.htm/. 102
According to the DOJ, OIG report cited above, North Dakota uses paid advocates and is the only state that does not
have a member CASA organization. NCASAA, 2014 National CASA Annual Report, (2015). 103
Section 4(b)(2) of CAPTA (P.L. 93-247, 1974) required states receiving certain funds under the act to provide a
guardian ad litem in every case involving a victim of child abuse or neglect that resulted in judicial proceedings.
Current law requires states to assure they have a statewide program for appointment of an appropriately trained CASA
or guardian ad litem in each such case. (§106(b)(2)(B)(xiii) of CAPTA (42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii)).
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 34
children in child abuse and neglect proceedings received CASA representation. It stated then that
the purpose of the funding dedicated to CASA was to ensure that each of these children would
have a CASA made available to them. 104
In 2014, more than 251,000 children were served by
more than 76,000 CASA volunteers. Children in foster care have typically experienced abuse or
neglect, and most children served by CASAs are in foster care. 105
On the last day of FY2014
(September 30, 2014), some 415,000 children remained in foster care, and of those children, more
than half (some 215,000) had been in foster care for 12 months or more. 106
Each year funds appropriated for CASA authorization have been awarded to the National CASA
Association. NCASAA awards sub grants (on a competitive basis) to be used for new local
program development or expansion of existing programs and state CASA organizations. The
NCASAA also uses this federal funding to provide training and technical assistance to CASA
programs, child welfare professionals, attorneys, judges, social workers, and volunteer advocates.
Funding for CASA, which was more than $12 million in FY2011, decreased significantly in
FY2012. At the same time, since the early 1990s Congress has annually appropriated funding for
the program with or without current funding authorization. As part of the reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act (P.L. 113-4), Congress extended annual discretionary funding
authority for the CASA program at $12 million for each of FY2014-FY2018. Final federal
funding appropriated for the CASA program in each of FY2012-FY2016 has been less than this
and is shown in Table 13. Final FY2017 funding is not available, but the current continuing
resolution (P.L. 114-254) maintains funding for this CASA program through April 28, 2017 (at
the latest), at about 99.8% of its FY2016 rate of appropriations.
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners
Sections 221-224 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 107
required the Department of
Justice’s OJJDP to make grants to improve the judicial system’s handling of child abuse and
neglect cases. The statute authorizes grants to be made to national organizations to develop model
technical assistance and training programs. 108
Beginning with FY1992, funding appropriated
under this authority has been awarded to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges (NCJFCJ). Drawing on the experience and reform initiatives it has funded in 36 “model
courts” across the nation, NCJFCJ has developed resource guidelines and provides technical
assistance and training aimed at improving how courts handle child abuse and neglect cases. 109
Since the early 1990s, Congress has provided annual funding dedicated to this training program
(with or without current funding authority) and in early 2013, as part of reauthorization of the
104
See Findings as included in Subchapter B, Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II of P.L. 101-647). 105
See NCASAA, 2014 National CASA Annual Report, (2015). 106
HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report, No. 22, preliminary FY2014 estimates based on data
reported by states as of July 2015. 107
42 U.S.C. §§13021, 13022, 13023, and 13024. 108
The act also authorizes grants to be made to state courts for training and technical assistance of judges and attorneys
in juvenile and family courts. No funds have been appropriated for this purpose under this authority. However, in 1993
(P.L. 103-66) Congress established the Court Improvement Program (CIP), which is administered by HHS and
provides mandatory grants to the highest court in each state to improve its handling of child welfare proceedings
(including child abuse and neglect proceedings). The statutory authority for CIP is included at Section 438 of the Social Security Act. 109
Most model court initiatives operate in a single court, but at least two operate on a statewide level. For more
information, see http://www.ncjfcj.org/our-work/model-courts.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 35
Violence Against Women Act (P.L. 113-4), it extended annual discretionary funding authority for
the program at $2.3 million for each of FY2014-FY2018. Final federal funding appropriated for
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners in each of FY2012-FY2016 is
shown in Table 13. Final FY2017 funding is not available, but the current continuing resolution
(P.L. 114-254) maintains funding for this training program through April 28, 2017 (at the latest),
at about 99.8% of its FY2016 rate of appropriations.
Table 13. Final Funding for Programs Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VCAA)
(nominal dollars in millions)
VCAA Funding FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Children’s Advocacy Centers (and
related training and technical assistance) $18.0 $17.7 $19.0 $19.0 $20.0
Court Appointed Special Advocates $4.5 $5.6 $6.0 $6.0 $9.0
Child Abuse Training for Judicial
Personnel and Practitioners $1.5 $1.4 $1.5 $1.5 $2.0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration.
Other Programs Additional child welfare programs are included in separate acts as described below. Legislation
authorizing these programs and activities is handled by the House Education and the Workforce
Committee and the Senate HELP Committee.
Adoption Opportunities
First enacted in 1978, 110
the Adoption Opportunities program 111
requires HHS to have an
administrative structure that allows for centralized planning across all departmental programs and
activities affecting foster care and adoption. It requires HHS to support adoption recruitment
activities, including through a “national adoption information exchange” and to support a national
resource center on special needs adoptions. Additionally, it authorizes federal funds to support
projects or other activities that encourage and facilitate adoption of older children, children who
are members of minority groups, and others with “special needs”; aim to eliminate barriers to
cross-jurisdictional (including interstate) placement of children in need of adoption; and provide
postadoption supports. Postadoption supports are described by the law as including individual,
group, and family counseling; respite care; day treatment; case management; assistance to support
groups for adoptive parents, adopted children, and siblings of adopted children; assistance to
adoptive parent organizations; and training of public and private child welfare personnel, mental
health professionals, and others to provide postadoption services.
Adoption Opportunities funds are used by HHS to achieve program purposes, either directly or by
competitive award of contracts, grants, or other agreements. Depending on the activity
110
Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-266). Title I of the
1978 law reauthorized funding for CAPTA, and funding for Adoption Opportunities is traditionally extended as part of
legislation that also extends funding authority for CAPTA. 111
42 U.S.C. §§5111, 5113, 5114, and 5115.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 36
authorized, eligible entities include states, local government entities, public or private child
welfare or adoption agencies, other public or private agencies or organizations, adoptive family
groups, and adoption exchanges. 112
Some of the Adoption Opportunities “major” program
activities, as cited by HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), 113
include
developing and implementing a national adoption information exchange system (which includes an online web portal known as AdoptUSKids featuring a
national photo listing of children available for adoption as well as information
about prospective foster or adoptive parents);
developing and implementing an adoption training and technical assistance program (current projects include the Quality Improvement Center on
Adoption/Guardianship Support and Preservation and support for adoption-
related information on the Child Welfare Information Gateway);
conducting ongoing, extensive recruitment efforts on a national level to encourage the adoption of older children, minority children, and special needs
children (current work includes support for the National Resource Center for
Diligent Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Parents and a series of Public
Service Announcements intended to encourage adoption of children, especially
older children and children who are part of sibling groups);
increasing states’ effective use of public and private agencies for the recruitment of adoptive and foster families and assistance in placement of children;
promoting programs to increase the number of older children adopted from foster care;
providing for programs aimed at increasing the number of minority children (in foster care and with the goal of adoption) who are placed in adoptive families,
with a special emphasis on recruitment of minority families; and
providing for postadoption services for families who have adopted children with special needs, and promoting programs that effectively meet the mental health
needs of children in foster care, including addressing the effects of trauma.
Reducing interstate barriers to placement of children has been a long-running concern of the
program, and HHS has recently used Adoption Opportunities funding to extend support for the
National Electronic Interstate Compact Enterprise (NEICE) project for three years. Six states
initially participated in a NEICE pilot, which enabled electronic exchange of data needed to
process interstate placement of children. Evaluation of the pilot found reduced placement time
and other improved efficiencies. By funding a continuation of this project for three years, HHS
hopes to extend use of the system to all states. 114
112
Beginning with 2011, funding that had been provided for “Adoption Awareness” (§§330F and 330G of the Public
Health Service Act, as added by the Children’s Health Act of 2000) was combined with Adoption Opportunities funding.
The Obama Administration sought this consolidation of funding, noting that where the Adoption Awareness program
was “more narrowly targeted,” the Adoption Opportunities program granted “broad authority” to support adoption
projects, including projects similar to those supported by Adoption Awareness. It further argued that “consolidating
these funds will provide a more efficient mechanism for financing on-going projects.” See HHS, ACF, Justification of
Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2011 (2010), p. 150. 113
HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2017 (February 2016), p. 162. 114
Ibid. “Supporting Permanent Placements of Children in Foster Care Through Electronic Data Exchange” for the
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) by WRMA. See also website of the NEICE project,
http://www.aphsa.org/content/AAICPC/en/actions/NEICE.html.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 37
Annual discretionary funding for the Adoption Opportunities program was authorized at $40
million for FY2010 and “such sums as necessary” for each of FY2011 through FY2015 (i.e., until
September 30, 2015). Congress chose to continue appropriations for the program in FY2016. (See
Table 14 for final Adoption Opportunities funding in FY2012-FY2016.) Final FY2017 funding is
not available, but the current continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254) maintains funding for Adoption
Opportunities through April 28, 2017 (at the latest), at about 99.8% of its FY2016 rate of
appropriations.
Table 14. Final Funding for Adoption Opportunities
(nominal dollars in millions)
Adoption Opportunities FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Competitively awarded funds for national initiatives,
state or local projects, and other activities to reduce
barriers to special needs adoptions
$39.2 $36.7 $40.6a $39.1 $39.1
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration.
a. Out of this funding, the explanatory statement accompanying the bill that became the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), states that $4 million must be for “discretionary grants to test
intensive and exhaustive child-focused adoptive parent recruitment strategies for children in foster care.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee report, incorporated in that statement, also noted continued
concern “about the availability of post-adoption services for children and their adoptive families” and
“strongly” encouraged increased use of the program funding for purposes related to such services. HHS
responded by awarding eight 17-month grants to public and private agencies related to child-focused
recruitment of adoptive parents, announcing a National Adoption Competency Mental Health Training
Initiative to improve the ability of child welfare staff and mental health practitioners to meet needs of
children with a permanency goal of adoption/guardianship or those who have already been placed for
adoption or guardianship; and awarding support for a National Quality Improvement Center for
Adoption/Guardianship Support to develop evidence-based service models to improve behavioral health of
children and youth in adoptive/guardianship families, among other things.
Abandoned Infants Assistance
The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-505) responded to congressional
concerns about the number of infants who remained in hospital care beyond their medical need to
do so and who, often because of parental drug use, were born with exposure to drugs, HIV, or
both. 115
The act authorized funding for local demonstration projects to prevent and respond to the
abandonment of infants and young children. Congress last provided funding for this program ($11
million) in FY2015.
For purposes of this program, the terms abandoned and abandonment of infants or young
children refer to infants or young children who are “medically cleared for discharge from acute-
care hospital settings, but remain hospitalized because of a lack of appropriate out-of-hospital
placement alternatives.” To address the needs of these infants and young children it authorizes
local demonstration projects to
provide services to biological family members for any condition that increases the probability of the abandonment of infants and young children;
identify and address the needs of abandoned infants and children;
115
42 U.S.C. §5117aa, §5117a-11, §5117aa-12, §5117aa-21, §5117aa-22.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 38
assist abandoned infants and young children so they can live with biological family members, or, if appropriate, in a foster family home—or, if neither of
those is possible, by carrying out residential (group) care programs for them;
recruit, train, and retain foster parents for abandoned infants and young children;
provide respite care services to families and foster families of abandoned infants and young children who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV), had perinatal exposure to HIV and/or a “dangerous drug,” or who have a
life-threatening illness or other special medical need;
provide model programs offering health, educational, and social services for abandoned infants and young children at a single site; and
recruit and train health and social services personnel to work with families, foster care providers, and residential care programs serving abandoned infants and
young children.
HHS awarded funds to public and private nonprofits seeking to carry out these local projects.
Grantees were required to agree to give priority for services to abandoned infants or young
children who are infected with HIV, had perinatal exposure to HIV or a controlled substance, or
who have a life-threatening illness or other special medical need. Beginning with 1991 (and
through September 30, 2015), HHS funded the National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource
Center, which disseminated findings from evaluations of the project (as required by the act) and
offered training and technical assistance to local project grantees. The center is now closed. 116
Survey data from the mid-2000s suggests that the number of infants who remain in hospital care
beyond their date of medical discharge, as well as the number of infants in hospitals who are not
yet medically cleared to leave the hospital but who are considered unlikely to do so with their
biological parent(s), has declined. In 2006, the combined national estimate of such infants was a
little less than 12,900. This was significantly fewer than the estimates of more than 30,600 such
infants in 1998, and 21,600 in 1991. 117
However, the 2006 survey found that while these infants
used to be concentrated in urban area hospitals, they were now more widely dispersed across the
nation, appearing in hospitals serving suburban and rural counties as well as those in urban areas.
The 2006 survey concluded that positive trends it identified, including a decline in the number of
infants “boarded” in the hospital and reduced lengths of stay for those who did stay beyond their
medical need to do so, might be attributable to hospitals and child welfare agencies becoming
more responsive to needs of these infants, including through better interagency coordination.
Several legislative efforts were cited as possible contributors. These included an increased focus
on timely permanency planning (a major focus of the Adoption and Safe Families Act [ASFA] of
1997), required communication between health care providers and child protection agencies for
children born with substance exposure (added to CAPTA as part of its 2003 reauthorization, P.L.
108-36), 118
and more than 20 years of federal support, provided under the Abandoned Infants
Assistance Act (P.L. 100-505, as amended), for local projects to serve abandoned infants and
children, and their families in communities across the nation.
116
The center’s former website, http://aia.berkeley.edu, directs readers to its YouTube channel, which remains online. 117
HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress: 2006 National Estimates of the Number of Boarder Babies, Abandoned Infants,
Discarded Infants, and Infant Homicides, James Bell Associates, transmitted to Congress May 31, 2011. 118
For information about early implementation efforts, see National AIA Resource Center, Substance Exposed Infants:
Noteworthy Policy and Practices, Issue Brief 3, September 2006.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 39
Beginning with its extension in 1996, funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance has been a part
of legislation that reauthorizes CAPTA. Most recently the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010
(P.L. 111-320) extended discretionary funding authority for the program at $45 million for
FY2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for each of FY2011 through FY2015 (i.e., until
September 30, 2015). Congress did not choose to continue funding for this program in FY2016
and no funding for it is included in the FY2017 continuing resolution (P.L. 114-254). (See Table
15.)
Table 15. Final Funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance
(nominal dollars in millions)
Abandoned Infants Assistance FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
Competitive grants, contracts, or
agreements to eligible entities for
services, technical assistance and
training
$11.5 $10,.8 $11.1 $11.1 $0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration.
While noting the program’s success, the Obama Administration in its FY2016 budget sought
authority to use these program funds on behalf of a broader range of at-risk infants and
toddlers. 119
Congress, instead, chose not to provide funding for this program for FY2016. The
Senate Appropriations Committee in its report on Labor-HHS-Education appropriations for
FY2016 120
stated the following:
The Committee recommendation does not include funding for this program. The budget
request proposes significantly changing the focus of this program as part of a
reauthorization proposal. The Abandoned Infants Assistance program was created in
1988 as a response to an acute child welfare crisis associated with the crack cocaine and
HIV/AIDS epidemics of the 1980s. Specifically, the program funded demonstration
projects to prevent the abandonment of infants and young children impacted by substance
abuse and HIV. As the budget request discusses, over the last several decades, in part
because of these demonstration projects, States have implemented more effective
community responses to infants and families in these circumstances, the goal of these
demonstration projects.
119
HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2016 (2015), p. 165. As part of this
request, the Administration sought to rename the program “Protecting Abandoned and At Risk Infants and Toddlers.” 120
S.Rept. 114-74, to accompany S. 1695, which was incorporated into the explanatory statement accompanying the
legislation (H.R. 2029) that became the final FY2016 appropriations act (P.L. 114-113).
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 40
Appendix A. Recent Funding by Program Table A-1 shows the funding amounts appropriated (or obligated) based on the part of the Social
Security Act in which they are authorized (Title IV-B or Title IV-E) or their location outside of
the Social Security Act (other programs). This mirrors the broad categories included in Table 1 of
this report.
For more detail on funding for programs for which the amount shown below is a total of multiple
activities or program components, see Table 3 and Table 4 (Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program); Table 7 (Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship
assistance); Table 9 (Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, including Education and
Training Vouchers); Table 11 (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, or CAPTA, including
state grants, discretionary activities, and community-based grants); and Table 13 (Victims of
Child Abuse Act, or VCAA, including Children’s Advocacy Centers, Court-Appointed Special
Advocates, and Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel).
Table A-1. Child Welfare Program Funding by Fiscal Year
(nominal dollars in millions; parts may not sum to total due to rounding)
Program FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015 FY2016
TOTAL $7,696 $7,578 $8,390 $8,279 $8,689
TITLE IV-B OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT $730 $688 $689 $664 $668
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) $281 $262 $269 $269 $269
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)
(Total: mandatory and discretionary funds, all activities) $408 $387 $380 $380 $381
Child Welfare Research, Training, and Demonstration $26 $24 $25 $16 $18
Family Connection Grants $15 $14 $15 $0 $0
TITLE IV-E OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT $6,777 $6,710 $7,510 $7,424 $7,833
Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption and Guardianship (Total for
all three components with open-ended funding) $6,550 $6,487 $7,286 $7,200 $7,609
Tribal IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance $3 $3 $3 $3 $3
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP)
(Total: Basic program and Education and Training Vouchers) $185 $182 $183 $183 $183
Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments $39 $37 $38 $38 $38
OTHER PROGRAMS $188 $180 $192 $190 $188
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (Total:
State Grants, Discretionary Activities and Community-Based
Grants to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect) $94 $88 $94 $94 $98
Children’s Justice Act Grants $20 $20 $20 $20 $20
Adoption Opportunities $39 $37 $41 $39 $39
Abandoned Infants Assistance $12 $11 $11 $11 $0
Victims of Child Abuse Act (VCAA) (Total for Children’s
Advocacy Centers, Court Appointed Special Advocates, and
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel) $24 $25 $27 $27 $31
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service. For funding of program components or parts and
for additional notes about these amounts, see individual program funding tables in the body of this report.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 41
Appendix B. Child Welfare Programs by Type of
Funding Authority and Sequestration Status The Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25, as amended) included a combination of measures affecting
discretionary and mandatory spending that are designed to reduce the federal deficit by a certain
amount. With regard to discretionary spending, it established certain spending caps for FY2013-
FY2021. The caps provide limits on the total dollar amount of federal spending Congress may
appropriate on a discretionary basis. The 2011 act also provided that if Congress did not achieve
federal spending reductions through other means, automatic spending cuts, called “sequestration,”
would be used to achieve the deficit reduction targets and ensure that federal spending does not
exceed the discretionary spending caps written into the law. 121
The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) amended the level of discretionary spending
permitted for both FY2016 and FY2017. At the same time, the December 2015 budget act (P.L.
114-74) did not reverse the sequestration of mandatory spending required under the BCA, as
amended; instead, it extended that time period by one additional year (through FY2025). 122
Sequestration Determinations by Fiscal Year
For FY2013, OMB determined that sequestration of appropriated funding was required for
discretionary and mandatory accounts. The sequestration percentage for nonexempt, nondefense
discretionary-funded program accounts was 5.0% and for nonexempt, nondefense mandatory-
funded program accounts was 5.1%.
For FY2014, OMB determined that discretionary appropriations did not exceed the discretionary
spending caps for nondefense programs. Therefore, sequestration was not required for these
discretionary programs, regardless of whether they are classified as exempt or nonexempt.
However, sequestration was required for nondefense, nonexempt mandatory-funded programs,
pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA), as amended. The President issued a sequestration
order for FY2014 mandatory spending on April 10, 2013. The order took effect on October 1,
2013. According to OMB, spending for each nonexempt, nondefense mandatory program account
was reduced by 7.2% for FY2014.
For FY2015, OMB determined that discretionary appropriations included in final funding bills for
the year (P.L. 113-235 and P.L. 114-4) did not exceed the discretionary spending caps for
nondefense programs. Therefore, no sequestration was required for these discretionary programs,
regardless of whether they are classified as exempt or nonexempt. Further, for FY2015,
sequestration continued to be required for nondefense, nonexempt mandatory programs, pursuant
to the BCA. The President issued a sequestration order for FY2015 mandatory spending on
March 10, 2014. The order took effect on October 1, 2014. According to OMB, spending for each
nonexempt, nondefense mandatory program account was reduced by 7.3% for FY2015.
121
See CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules,
coordinated by Karen Spar. 122
As enacted in 2011, the Budget Control Act (BCA; P.L. 112-25) required sequestration of mandatory funding in
each of FY2013-FY2021 (absent congressional action to reduce this spending in some other ways). Prior to the
December 2015 budget bill, the BCA was amended to extend that time period through FY2023 by the Bipartisan
Budget Agreement of 2013 (Div. A., P.L. 113-67) and through FY2024 by the Temporary Debt Limit Extension (P.L.
113-83).
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 42
For FY2016, OMB determined that discretionary appropriations included in the final funding bill
for that year (P.L. 114-113) did not exceed the discretionary spending caps for nondefense
programs. 123
Therefore, no sequestration was required for these discretionary programs,
regardless of whether they are classified as exempt or nonexempt. However, for FY2016
sequestration continued to be required for nondefense, nonexempt mandatory programs, pursuant
to the BCA. The President issued the required sequestration order for FY2016 mandatory
spending programs in February 2015, and this order took effect on October 1, 2015. For FY2016,
OMB specified that nonexempt, nondefense mandatory program funding would be reduced by
6.8%. 124
OMB has not issued its final determination on any needed sequestration of discretionary
appropriations for FY2017. The CBO estimates that the nondefense, nonexempt discretionary
funding provided in the current CR (P.L. 114-254), if made available on a full-year basis, exceeds
the FY2017 spending caps set in the BCA, as amended. However, CBO also estimates that the
overall nonexempt discretionary spending in that bill (both defense and nondefense) does not
exceed the total discretionary spending cap for FY2017. 125
Further, the CR (P.L. 114-254) permits
HHS to postpone a decision on sequestration for FY2017, if as of mid-January 2017 it also
determines that overall discretionary spending would not exceed the spending cap. 126
Separately,
FY2017 sequestration continued to be required for nondefense, nonexempt mandatory programs,
pursuant to the BCA. The President issued the required sequestration order for FY2017
mandatory spending programs in February 2016, and this order took effect on October 1, 2016.
For FY2017, OMB specified that nonexempt, nondefense mandatory program funding would be
reduced by 6.9%. 127
Sequestration Status by Child Welfare Program
Table B-1 lists each child welfare program described in this report by its type of funding
authority (mandatory or discretionary) and notes whether program funds may be subject to
sequestration. If the program is listed as one that may be subject to sequestration, it is referred to
as “nonexempt” and is subject to automatic spending cuts in any fiscal year for which OMB
determines spending has exceeded the statutory limit. If a program may not be subject to
sequestration, it is referred to as “exempt,” and automatic spending cuts do not apply to that
program in any year.
123
OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress, January 4, 2016, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/sequestration_final_january_2016_potus.pdf. 124
OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2016, February 2015,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/
2016_jc_sequestration_report_speaker.pdf. 125
See Table 2 of the CBO cost estimate for H.R. 2028 (enacted as P.L. 114-254), dated December 7, 2016,
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/costestimate/hr2028.pdf. 126
P.L. 114-254, §184. 127
See OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2017, February 9, 2016,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/
jc_sequestration_report_2017_house.pdf.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 43
Table B-1. Funding Authority and Sequestration Status of Child Welfare Programs
Sequestration Determined
Necessary for Nonexempt
Programs (%)
Program
Type of Funding
Authority
Program Subject to
Sequestration
If Determined
Necessary? FY
2013 FY
2014 FY
2015 FY
2016 FY
2017
Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance and Kinship Guardianship
Assistance; Tribal Technical Assistance and
IV-E Plan Development Grants
Mandatory No (exempt)a Not applicable
Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (general program) Mandatory No (exempt)a Not applicable
Chafee Educational and Training
Vouchers Discretionary Yes (nonexempt)
Yes
(5.0%) No No No b
Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program (includes funding for state,
territorial, and tribal child and family
services, the Court Improvement Program,
research and evaluation, Regional Partnership
Grants and Monthly Caseworker Visit
Grants)
Mandatory Yes (nonexempt) Yes
(5.1%)
Yes
(7.2%)
Yes
(7.3%)
Yes
(6.8%)
Yes
(6.9%)
Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program (includes funding for state,
territorial, and tribal child and family
services, the Court Improvement Program,
and research and evaluation)
Discretionary Yes (nonexempt) Yes
(5.0%) No No No b
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
Discretionary Yes (nonexempt) Yes
(5.0%) No No No b
Family Connection Grants Mandatory Yes (nonexempt)
Yes
(5.1%) c c c c
Child Welfare Research,
Demonstrations, and Training Discretionary Yes (nonexempt)
Yes
(5.0%) No No No b
Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA), including State
Grants, Discretionary Activities, and
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child
Abuse and Neglect
Discretionary Yes (nonexempt) Yes
(5.0%) No No No b
Adoption Incentives, Adoption
Opportunities, Abandoned Infants
Assistance
Discretionary Yes (nonexempt) Yes
(5.0%) No No Nod b,d
Victims of Child Abuse Act Programs
(Court Appointed Special Advocates,
Children’s Advocacy Centers, and Child
Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel)
Discretionary Yes (nonexempt) Yes
(5.0%) No No No b
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 44
Sequestration Determined
Necessary for Nonexempt
Programs (%)
Children’s Justice Act Grants (funded as
a set aside from the Crime Victims Fund) Mandatory Noe Noe Noe Noe Noe Noe
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). A program’s sequestration status is based on OMB Report to the
Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2014 (May 2013).
a. Although the statute provides that mandatory Title IV-E funding is generally exempt (including all dollars authorized to be paid to states), a very small portion of this funding is considered as a cost of federal
program administration and is subject to sequestration.
b. Final FY2017 funding has not yet been provided as of early January 2017; accordingly, the determination of whether any sequestration of funding appropriated for nonexempt discretionary programs had not yet been
made.
c. Family Connection Grants are not exempt and were subject to sequestration in FY2013. However, they were not a part of the authorized mandatory funding in FY2014 (used by OMB in early 2014 to determine
whether the spending cap had been exceeded and by how much). Therefore, no sequestration applied to
their FY2014 funding, which was provided, via P.L. 113-183, on September 29, 2014. Congress did not provide funding for these grants in FY2015 or FY2016, and as of early January 2017, had not provided
FY2017 funding.
d. For FY2016, Congress did not provide any funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance; additionally, as of early January 2017, it had not provided any FY2017 funding for this program.
e. Funding provided by the Crime Victims Fund is subject to sequestration. However, for FY2013, the statutory set-aside from the fund that is used to support Children’s Justice Act Grants was not subject to
sequestration. This table assumes this same policy applied for FY2014, FY2015, FY2016, and FY2017.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 45
Appendix C. Tribes with an Approved Title IV-E
Plan Beginning with FY2010, tribes with a Title IV-E plan approved by HHS may receive direct
federal reimbursement for eligible costs related to providing foster care, adoption assistance, and,
if they choose, kinship guardianship assistance. As of October 2016, the following eight
tribes/tribal entities had such an approved plan:
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Kingston, WA)
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Pablo, MT)
South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency (Shelton, WA)
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Baraga, MI)
Navajo Nation (Window Rock, AZ)
Chickasaw Nation (Ada, OK)
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Cherokee, NC)
Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Tucson, AZ)
Tribes may seek approval of plans at any time, and readers may want to consult the “Tribes with
Approved Title IV-E Plans” web page available on the Children’s Bureau website for updates,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/tribes-with-approved-title-iv-e-plans.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 46
Appendix D. States with Approval to Extend
Title IV-E Assistance up to Age 21 Beginning with FY2011, states and any other jurisdiction operating a Title IV-E program were
permitted to amend their Title IV-E plans to allow federal assistance to be provided to otherwise
eligible youth up to their 19 th , 20
th , or 21
st birthday. Indiana extends Title IV-E assistance to a
youth’s 20 th birthday; all other jurisdictions listed below currently extend Title IV-E assistance to
a youth’s 21 st birthday.
States that choose to extend Title IV-E foster care assistance beyond a youth’s 18 th birthday must
also provide Title IV-E adoption assistance and Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance (if the
state offers that kind of Title IV-E assistance) to the same older age for any child who was aged
16 or older when he or she left foster care for adoption or guardianship.
Youth receiving Title IV-E assistance must meet requirements related to participation in
education, work, or work preparation (or be documented as unable to participate due to a medical
condition). For more information about work, education, and other eligibility factors specific to
Title IV-E assistance recipients who are ages 18-21, see “Extended Foster Care” in CRS Report
RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
As of October 2016, the following states and other jurisdictions had received approval to extend
Title IV-E assistance to older youth: 128
Alabama Arkansas California
Connecticut District of Columbia Hawaii
Illinois Indiana Maine
Maryland Massachusetts Michigan
Minnesota Nebraska New York
North Dakota Oregon Pennsylvania
Tennessee Texas Washington
West Virginia Wisconsin
Eastern Band of Cherokee Navajo Nation Keweenaw Bay Indian
Community
128
In addition to the listed jurisdictions, some states provide comparable assistance for older foster youth using their
own or other (non-Title IV-E) federal funds.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 47
Appendix E. States with Child Welfare
Demonstration (Waiver) Projects Twenty-eight jurisdictions, including 26 states, the District of Columbia, and the Port Gamble
S’Klallam Tribe, are currently approved to operate 29 child welfare demonstration projects. These
demonstrations are often referred to Title IV-E waiver projects. (There are 28 jurisdictions and 29
projects because Illinois has approval to implement two separate projects.)
Five states (CA, FL, IL, IN, and OH) have been operating their waiver projects for roughly a
decade or longer. The remaining jurisdictions received approval to operate a waiver project
between September 2012 and September 2014, and as of November 2016 have been
implementing them for anywhere from a few months to three years. 129
Three states that were approved to implement a Title IV-E waiver project between FY2012 and
FY2014 authority (Idaho, Montana, and Texas) subsequently opted not to implement the project,
or ended implementation early. Although the exact reasons varied, competing priorities for the
child welfare agency and cost concerns appear to have played a role in each state.
Table E-1 below lists each state with a Title IV-E waiver project operating as of November 2016
and lists the focus of the project as well as its start and (scheduled) end date. For additional
information on current projects, see the following resources:
Detailed Summary Table (updated June 2016) showing by jurisdiction each waiver project’s core interventions, target population(s) (e.g., may be limited by
age, service need, part of state), key outcomes to be followed, and cost
neutrality methodology; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/
waiver_summary_table_active.pdf
Short report (August 2016) summarizing and categorizing current waiver projects by proposed intervention and evaluation design; includes some
discussion of findings from previous waiver projects along with preliminary
findings from the current round of projects; http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/
files/cb/cw_waiver_summary2016.pdf
Additional resources, including findings from past projects, are also available from the Children’s
Bureau waiver web page: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/programs/child-welfare-waivers.
129
Illinois is also included in this group because the second of its two current waiver projects (IB3) was first approved
in September 2012 and implemented in July 2013.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 48
Table E-1. Jurisdictions Implementing Child Welfare Waiver Projects.
State/Other
Jurisdiction Demonstration Focus
Start (or most recent
extension) – Scheduled End
Arizona
“Right-size” use of congregate care. July 1, 2016 – Sept. 30,2019
Arkansas Assessment, family engagement, and differential
response.
July 31, 2013 – July 30, 2018
California Flexible funding; develop and implement core practice
model/safety-organized practice; wrap-around services
for youth at risk of placement due to delinquency.
July 1, 2007 (extended Oct. 1,
2014) – Sept. 30, 2019
Colorado Family engagement, assessment, kinship supports, and
trauma-informed services.
July 31, 2013 – July 30, 2018
District of Columbia Intensive in-home prevention, family preservation, and
postreunification services; expanded service array.
April 25, 2014 – April 24, 2019
Florida Improve array of community-based services, including
early intervention and in-home services to prevent foster
care placement or re-entry.
Oct. 1, 2006 (extended Oct. 1,
2013) – Sept. 30, 2018
Hawaii Crisis response system, intensive home-based services,
services to expedite permanency.
Jan. 1, 2015 – Sept. 30, 2019
Illinois—AODA Services for caregivers with substance use disorders. April 28, 2000 (extended Oct.
1, 2013) – Sept. 30, 2018
Illinois—IB3 Parenting education services. July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2018
Indiana Flexible funding: increase array, intensity, and accessibility
of services to prevent foster care placement
Jan. 1, 1998 (extended July 1,
2012) – June 30, 2017
Kentucky Services to preserve families with identified substance
abuse and/or family violence risk factors.
Oct. 1, 2015 – Sept. 30, 2019
Maine Parental education and services for caregivers with
substance use disorders.
April 1, 2016 – Sept. 30, 2019
Maryland Trauma-informed assessment, workforce development
related to understanding trauma, and other evidence-
based practices identified as needed by localities.
July 1, 2015 – Sept. 30, 2019
Massachusetts Improved residential care and community-based services
for youth transitioning out of, or at-risk of, such care.
Jan. 1, 2014 – Dec. 31, 2018
Michigan Intensive early intervention case management and
services.
Aug. 1, 2013 – July 31, 2018
Nebraska Alternative Response, including links to expanded
parenting education; Results Based Accountability included in state’s contract and performance
management system.
July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2019
Nevada
Safety management services model; enhanced service
array.
July 1, 2015 – Sept. 30, 2019
New York
Trauma-informed assessment and evidenced-based
services for children in foster care; reduced caseloads.
Jan. 1, 2014 – Dec. 31, 2018
Ohio Flexible funding: family team meetings and kinship
supports, other services to prevent placement or
promote permanency for children as chosen by county.
Oct. 1, 1997 (extended Oct. 1,
2016) – Sept. 30, 2019
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 49
State/Other
Jurisdiction Demonstration Focus
Start (or most recent
extension) – Scheduled End
Oklahoma Short-term, intensive home-based services July 22, 2015 – Sept. 30, 2019
Oregon Leveraging Intensive Family Engagement to reduce
likelihood of long-term foster care stays (includes
enhanced family finding, improved case planning, and
parent mentor program).
July 1, 2015 – Sept. 30, 2019
Pennsylvania Family engagement (including family group
decisionmaking and family team conferencing),
assessments, and other services as determined by
county.
July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2018
Port Gamble S’Klallam
Tribe
Parenting education and support and enhanced family
engagement.
Jan. 21, 2016 – Sept. 30, 2019
Rhode Island Structured decisionmaking, director’s approval and prior
authorization process, expedited permanency meetings.
Oct. 31, 2016 – Sept. 30, 2016
Tennessee Assessment, supporting kinship and foster parents; and
parenting education and supports.
Oct. 1, 2014 – Sept. 30, 2019
Utah Assessment, caseworker tools and training, and
evidence-based in-home services.
Oct. 1, 2013 – Sept. 30, 2018
Washington Differential response Jan. 1, 2014 – Dec. 31, 2018
West Virginia Wraparound services Oct. 1, 2015 – Sept. 30, 2019
Wisconsin Post-reunification case management services. Oct. 1, 2013 – Sept. 30, 2019
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS), based primarily on “Summary Table of Active Title IV-E Waiver
Demonstrations” as of August 2016 and incorporating updates received by CRS from HHS, Children’s Bureau,
November 2016.
a. Illinois is seeking approval of two-year extension.
b. Oregon had a prior waiver project; instead of seeking its extension the state sought and received approval for this new project.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 50
Appendix F. States with Approval to Provide
Title IV-E Kinship Guardianship Assistance As of November 2016, 40 jurisdictions (including 32 states, the District of Columbia, and 7 tribal
entities) have received HHS approval to provide kinship guardianship assistance under their Title
IV-E plans. In addition, as of that date one state (New Mexico) had submitted a Title IV-E plan
amendment seeking approval to do so, and that amendment was under review.
Alabama Alaska Arkansas
California Colorado Connecticut
District of Columbia Hawaii Idaho
Illinois Indiana Louisiana
Maine Maryland Massachusetts
Michigan Missouri Minnesota
Montana Nebraska New Jersey
New York Oklahoma Oregon
Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Dakota
Tennessee Texas Vermont
Washington West Virginia Wisconsin
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribe
Eastern Band of the Cherokee
Indians
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
Navajo Nation Pascua Yaqui Tribe Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe
South Puget Intertribal Planning
Agency
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 51
Appendix G. Adoption and Legal Guardianship
Incentive Payments Incentive payments are available only for any qualifying adoptions or legal guardianship
determined to have occurred based on the state increasing its rate (percentage) of adoptions or
legal guardianships (out of foster care) in the given category. Award amounts are $5,000 for each
adoption resulting from the increased rate; $4,000 for each legal guardianship resulting from the
increased rate; $7,500 for each preadolescent adoption resulting from the increased rate; and
$10,000 for each older child adoption or legal guardianship resulting from the increased rate.
When HHS made these incentive payments in late FY2016, it had roughly $8.6 million in
program funds available, which represented just under 21% of incentive payments earned by the
states. Accordingly, it prorated the amounts paid (as shown in final column of Table G-1). If
sufficient full-year FY2017 funds are provided, HHS would be expected (based on past
precedent) to award states the remainder of the incentive payments earned.
Table G-1. Incentive Payments Earned for Increases in Adoption and Legal
Guardianships Completed in FY2015
Incentive Payments Earned for
State
Adoptions
(any age)
Legal
Guardianships
(any age)
Preadolescent
Adoptions or Legal
Guardianships
(ages 9-13)
Older Adoptions
or Legal
Guardianships
(age 14 or older)
TOTAL
Incentives
Earned for
FY2015
Amount of
TOTAL
paid as of
September
30, 2016
Alabama $0 $64,000 $0 $100,000 $164,000 $34,435
Alaska $0 $0 $22,500 $0 $22,500 $4,724
Arizona $0 $184,000 $0 $420,000 $604,000 $126,821
Arkansas $25,000 $0 $0 $160,000 $185,000 $38,844
California $2,750,000 $908,000 $532,500 $970,000 $5,160,500 $1,083,540
Colorado $265,000 $344,000 $187,500 $310,000 $1,106,500 $232,330
Connecticut $750,000 $20,000 $75,000 $110,000 $955,000 $200,519
Delaware $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $3,150
District of Columbia $180,000 $0 $0 $90,000 $270,000 $56,691
Florida $0 $0 $0 $610,000 $610,000 $128,080
Georgia $0 $180,000 $0 $280,000 $460,000 $96,585
Hawaii $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $225,000 $47,243
Idaho $135,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $155,000 $32,545
Illinois $935,000 $0 $82,500 $0 $1,017,500 $213,642
Indiana $820,000 $0 $720,000 $290,000 $1,830,000 $384,241
Iowa $885,000 $92,000 $270,000 $260,000 $1,507,000 $316,422
Kansas $215,000 $0 $7,500 $220,000 $442,500 $92,911
Kentucky $285,000 $0 $150,000 $20,000 $455,000 $95,535
Louisiana $0 $348,000 $0 $300,000 $648,000 $136,059
Maine $85,000 $0 $0 $60,000 $145,000 $30,445
Maryland $0 $28,000 $90,000 $0 $118,000 $24,776
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 52
Incentive Payments Earned for
State
Adoptions
(any age)
Legal
Guardianships
(any age)
Preadolescent
Adoptions or Legal
Guardianships
(ages 9-13)
Older Adoptions
or Legal
Guardianships
(age 14 or older)
TOTAL
Incentives
Earned for
FY2015
Amount of
TOTAL
paid as of
September
30, 2016
Massachusetts $0 $100,000 $7,500 $160,000 $267,500 $56,166
Michigan $0 $168,000 $0 $290,000 $458,000 $96,165
Minnesota $275,000 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 $57,741
Mississippi $0 $260,000 $7,500 $310,000 $577,500 $121,257
Missouri $70,000 $768,000 $67,500 $490,000 $1,395,500 $293,010
Montana $230,000 $160,000 $75,000 $50,000 $515,000 $108,134
Nebraska $770,000 $28,000 $322,500 $360,000 $1,480,500 $310,858
Nevada $395,000 $132,000 $195,000 $0 $722,000 $151,597
New Hampshire $0 $20,000 $22,500 $20,000 $62,500 $13,123
New Jersey $110,000 $160,000 $97,500 $350,000 $717,500 $150,652
New Mexico $0 $80,000 $15,000 $0 $95,000 $19,947
New York $0 $632,000 $120,000 $0 $752,000 $157,896
North Carolina $95,000 $0 $105,000 $90,000 $290,000 $60,891
North Dakota $140,000 $204,000 $112,500 $110,000 $566,500 $118,947
Ohio $0 $352,000 $285,000 $410,000 $1,047,000 $219,837
Oklahoma $3,395,000 $0 $1,080,000 $430,000 $4,905,000 $1,029,893
Oregon $770,000 $168,000 $180,000 $460,000 $1,578,000 $331,330
Pennsylvania $0 $132,000 $7,500 $590,000 $729,500 $153,172
Rhode Island $115,000 $112,000 $30,000 $70,000 $327,000 $68,660
South Carolina $0 $52,000 $0 $0 $52,000 $10,918
South Dakota $0 $72,000 $7,500 $10,000 $89,500 $18,792
Tennessee $575,000 $192,000 $187,500 $270,000 $1,224,500 $257,106
Texas $600,000 $1,692,000 $900,000 $1,070,000 $4,262,000 $894,884
Utah $325,000 $148,000 $142,500 $220,000 $835,500 $175,428
Vermont $0 $8,000 $22,500 $70,000 $100,500 $21,102
Virginia $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $70,000 $14,698
Washington $330,000 $0 $210,000 $50,000 $590,000 $123,881
West Virginia $455,000 $160,000 $60,000 $110,000 $785,000 $164,825
Wisconsin $0 $144,000 $0 $80,000 $224,000 $47,033
Wyoming $0 $0 $30,000 $0 $30,000 $6,299
Puerto Rico $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Totals $16,220,000 $8,112,000 $6,427,500 $10,360,000 $41,119,500 $8,633,780
Source: Based on information received by CRS from HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau in November 2016.
To see total annual incentive payments made under this program (beginning with adoptions completed in
FY1998), see the table at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/adoption_incentive_history.pdf.
Note: The incentive structure, including the baseline against which improvement is measured; categories for
which incentive payments are made; and the amounts payable have varied considerably across the life of the
program. See Appendix D in CRS Report R43025, Child Welfare: The Adoption Incentive Program and Its
Reauthorization, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congressional Research Service 53
a. Amounts in this column are based on the overall funding available for these incentive payments as of September 2016 ($8,633,780) prorated by state’s share of overall earnings. In past years, HHS has used
appropriations for these payments made in subsequent years to ensure that states have the full incentive
payment amounts they earned.
Author Contact Information
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
[email protected], 7-2324
Copyright of Congressional Research Service: Report is the property of US Congressional Research Service and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
