Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding

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 roughly $8 billion to $9 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 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).

Final FY2016 child welfare funding ($8.689 billion) was appropriated as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113). Child welfare support is provided via multiple federal programs, the largest of which are included in the Social Security Act. Title IV-B of the Social Security Act authorizes funding to states, territories, and tribes for a broad range of child welfare-related services to children and their families and, separately, funding for research, demonstration projects, and training. 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 capped entitlement funding to states (and some discretionary funds as well) for provision of 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 is authorized or otherwise supported in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the Adoption Opportunities program and the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. 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.

Beginning with FY2013, some funding appropriated for child welfare programs has been reduced under the sequestration measures provided for in the Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25, as amended). The effect of these sequestration measures varies by fiscal year and type of funding authority. The largest amount of federal child welfare funding is provided through mandatory funding authorized under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act for support of foster care, adoption assistance, kinship guardianship assistance, and services to youth aging out of foster care. This funding is statutorily exempted from sequestration in every year. A few additional child welfare programs receive mandatory funding and have been subject to sequestration in each of FY2013-FY2016. Principally, this includes the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, including the various programs that are funded via set-asides of PSSF (e.g., the Court Improvement Program and Regional Partnership Grants to improve outcomes for children affected by parental substance abuse). Total funding appropriated for PSSF (mandatory plus discretionary) in the final FY2016 spending measure (P.L. 114-113) was $405 million. However, total PSSF funding made available for FY2016 was reduced to $381 million because the mandatory portion of this PSSF funding was subject to a 6.8% reduction (i.e., the FY2016 sequestration percentage for mandatory-funded programs classified as "nondefense and nonexempt.") Many child welfare programs receive discretionary appropriations. Each of these program appropriations were subject to sequestration in FY2013, but in each subsequent year, including FY2016, the total final funding provided on a discretionary basis has been determined to be within the established spending caps. This means the discretionary funding provided for child welfare programs has not been affected (reduced) by sequestration.

Introduction

(nominal dollars in millions; parts may not sum to total due to rounding)

Notes: 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 (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 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

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 $5.3 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 "non-dedicated" funding.³

This report begins with a review of federal appropriations activity in FY2016 as it relates to child welfare programs, including the effect of the automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration. The bulk of the report provides a short description of each federal child welfare program, including its purpose and recent (FY2012-FY2016) funding levels.

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 the HHS, ACF, Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF). 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).

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029, as enacted) provides final FY2016 funding levels for federal agencies and activities, including the child welfare programs and activities administered by HHS (Division H) and DOJ (Division B). The omnibus appropriations measure passed the House (316 to 119) and the Senate (65 to 33) on December 18, 2018; it was signed into law by the President on that same day (P.L. 114-113).

To allow uninterrupted funding for federal programs and activities from October 1, 2015—the first day of FY2016—through December 18, 2015, when P.L. 114-113 was signed, Congress passed two temporary measures (enacted as P.L. 114-53 and P.L. 114-96) that provided interim funding.

Use of the Terms "States" and "Territories"

(nominal dollars in millions)

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, 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.¹¹ (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.)

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 them 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.¹²

For FY2015, states collectively planned to spend 25% of their federal PSSF funding for family support services, roughly the same amount (25%) for family preservation services, 20% for adoption promotion and support services, and 22% 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 (2%).¹³

(nominal dollars in millions; parts may not sum to total due to rounding)

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. 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. Further, states must spend "significant" sums of federal funding received under this program for services that address each of the program's four purposes. In program guidance, HHS has interpreted this to mean a state must spend no less than 20% of its federal PSSF services funding on each of the program's four services categories that correspond to those purpose areas (i.e., family support, family preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support services). However, a state may be permitted to spend less than 20% in a given services category if it can provide to HHS an "especially strong rationale" for doing this.¹⁴

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.¹⁵

(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

$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

$31.1

$29.5

$28.9

$28.9

$29.0

$1.0

$1.0

$1.0

$1.0

$1.0

$20.0

$19.0

$18.6

$18.5

$18.6

$20.0

$19.0

$18.6

$18.5

$18.6

$8.1

$7.7

$7.5

$7.5

$7.6

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. 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 sub-purpose, which means that the effect of sequestration (i.e., the percentage reduction) was spread across each of the PSSF programs and activities.

Section 427 of the Social Security Act authorizes Family Connection Grants 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. These services are

Family Connection grants have been awarded to 49 grantees, including 11 public child welfare agencies (state, local, and tribal) and 38 private nonprofit agencies located in 23 states.¹⁷ The FY2014 funding was appropriated by Congress in late September 2014 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. Projects supported with Family Connection Grant dollars have typically been funded for three years (the statute prohibits grant projects of a longer duration). Grantees must provide nonfederal matching funds (between 25% and 50% depending on the year of the grant) and must participate in coordinated evaluation activities. HHS has also awarded a separate evaluation contract related to these 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

$0

$0

Beginning with FY2010, funding from this account was used to initiate and support a diverse set of "Permanency Innovation" grantees, all of whom worked to demonstrate effective ways to reduce the number of children with long stays two years or more) in foster care.¹⁹ The five-year grant period has ended, but HHS continues to use funding from this account to evaluate practices carried out by the grantees and to work to integrate research knowledge about good practices into actual, broader practice. This work includes a web-based training and technical assistance platform designed to provide users with a systematic approach to implementing, sustaining, and measuring new practices that improve outcomes for children and families served.²⁰

(nominal dollars in millions)

For FY2015 and FY2016, Congress has stipulated that funds in this account are available to support the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW),²¹ although it has not clearly appropriated the full $6 million requested for the survey by HHS.²² For more information about this survey, see the following NSCAW discussion.

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. The law requires the study to have a longitudinal component and to permit reliable state-level data analysis to the extent determined feasible by HHS. 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.²³ HHS has begun planning for a third NSCAW survey, which, following recruitment of participating agencies, would be expected to begin initial data collection by 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.)

The survey data collected via NSCAW are unique from child welfare administrative data reported by state child welfare agencies to HHS.²⁴ 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 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. The information gathered from a variety of firsthand sources also permits a deeper understanding of child and family well-being. Additionally, the standardized instruments allow comparison of outcomes for the child welfare population to the larger, non-child welfare population, as well as to subpopulations of the child welfare group (e.g., in foster care, living informally with kin, living in-home following a substantiated report of maltreatment). Multiple reports, research briefs, and info-graphics have been produced for HHS from these survey data,²⁵ and many researchers have accessed the data for additional published analyses.²⁶

Title IV-E of the Social Security Act principally entitles states, tribes, and territories with an approved Title IV-E plan²⁷ 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; seven tribes have an approved Title IV-E plan;²⁸ and Puerto Rico is the only territory with such a plan.²⁹ Additionally, Title IV-E provides funding for technical assistance to tribes and it authorizes funds to any state, territory, or tribe with an approved Title IV-E plan 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.³⁰ Finally, it also authorizes bonus 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 Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.

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 permanent home can be re-established 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.

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.³¹ Nationally, there were 415,000 children in foster care on the last day of FY2014, and during that same fiscal year, some 164,000 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. 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);³²
• 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).³³

(As of September 2015, 23 states have extended Title IV-E assistance for youth beyond their 18^th birthday.)³⁴

Currently, 29 states and one tribe have an approved child welfare "waiver" project under which they are allowed to use Title IV-E foster care funds to provide services or assistance on behalf of children (and families) that ordinarily would not be eligible for Title IV-E funding.³⁶ Most approved waiver projects seek to use Title IV-E funds to demonstrate use of services or supports that will

• 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
• 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).

Fewer projects address other issues, such as preventing or reducing the use of group ("congregate") care placement settings 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.³⁷

Before approving a Title IV-E waiver project, HHS, together with 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 nearly all states this "cost neutrality" determination was based on a pre-negotiated capped allocation of a specific part of their federal Title IV-E foster care funding.) While states are able to use these funds more flexibly (i.e., on more services and for different populations than would be allowed generally under IV-E), 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).³⁸

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.³⁹ Nationally, states reported that more than 80% of children adopted from foster care in FY2014 were determined by the state to have special needs, and the large majority of states (32) reported that between 90% and 100% of these children were determined to have special needs.⁴⁰

For any child with special needs, federal reimbursement is available for a part of the cost of nonrecurring adoption expenses (i.e., one-time costs related to legally finalizing the adoptions). For children with special needs who meet additional federal requirements, federal reimbursement is also available for a part of the cost of providing ongoing (monthly) subsidies on behalf of adopted children.

(nominal dollars in millions; amounts shown are obligations)

Title IV-E Program

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

$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: Congressional Research Service (CRS). 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.

Notes: The funding shown in this table is based on 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.

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 FY2015 (September 30, 2015), 31 tribes (or tribal consortia) had received a plan development grant⁴⁵ 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 initially funded the National Resource Center for Tribes; as of September 30, 2014, it is instead funding the National Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Tribes.⁴⁶

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.

(nominal dollar amounts in millions)

(nominal dollars in millions; parts do not sum to total because of rounding)

(nominal dollars in millions)

Effective May 29, 2017, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act 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.⁶⁰

The final explanatory statement accompanying the FY2016 bill does not explicitly discuss why the increase was provided. However, it does reference report findings by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) in New Directions in Child Abuse and Neglect Research—which called for a high-level, coordinated federal response to the "public health" problem of child abuse and neglect—to encourage ACF to work with the National Institutes of Health and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to synthesize available research and to develop a peer-reviewed approach to address research gaps related to understanding, preventing, and treating child abuse and neglect.⁶⁸ The 2014 IOM/NRC report notes that although in the past two decades much has been learned about the scope of child abuse and neglect, its lifelong effects, and general preventive measures, research gaps remain in our understanding of specific causes of child abuse and neglect (as opposed to risk factors associated with child abuse and neglect), differential individual sensitivity to apparently similar experiences of abuse or neglect, and specific causes of what appears to be a significant decline in physical and sexual abuse of children but not in their neglect.⁶⁹

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 their 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 bi-annual 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.

(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

$26.4

$24.7

$25.3

$25.3

$25.3

$25.7

$24.1

$41.5

$38.9

$39.8

$39.8

$39.8

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.⁸⁰ 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.⁸¹

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.⁸² Federal law also requires the establishment and support of four 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.⁸³ Currently the four regional centers are located in Huntsville, AL; Philadelphia, PA; St. Paul, MN; and Colorado Springs, CO.⁸⁴ 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.⁸⁵

(nominal dollars in millions)

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.

First enacted in 1978,⁹⁸ the Adoption Opportunities program⁹⁹ 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 post-adoption supports. Post-adoption 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 post-adoption 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 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.¹⁰⁰ Some of the Adoption Opportunities "major" program activities, as cited by HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF),¹⁰¹ include

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.¹⁰²

(nominal dollars in millions)

Adoption Opportunities

FY2012

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

$39.2

$36.7

$39.1

$39.1

(nominal dollars in millions)

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.¹⁰⁷ 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 FY2016¹⁰⁸ stated that

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.

(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

$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

$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

Program

Type of Funding Authority

Program Subject to Sequestration if Determined Necessary?

Sequestration Determined Necessary for Nonexempt Programs (%)

FY2013

FY2014

FY2015

FY2016

Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship Guardianship Assistance; Tribal Technical Assistance and IV-E Plan Development Grants

Mandatory

Not applicable

Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (general program)

Mandatory

Not applicable

Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers

Discretionary

Yes (nonexempt)

Yes (5.0%)

No

No

No

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%)

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

Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program

Discretionary

Yes (nonexempt)

Yes (5.0%)

No

No

No

Family Connection Grants

Mandatory

Yes (nonexempt)

Yes (5.1%)

Child Welfare Research, Demonstrations, and Training

Discretionary

Yes (nonexempt)

Yes (5.0%)

No

No

No

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

Adoption Incentives, Adoption Opportunities, Abandoned Infants Assistance

Discretionary

Yes (nonexempt)

Yes (5.0%)

No

No

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

Children's Justice Act Grants (Funded as a set aside from the Crime Victims Fund.)

Mandatory

No^d

Author Contact Information

Footnotes

See CRS Report R42794, Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements under the Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program, by [author name scrubbed].

Kerry DeVooght, Megan Fletcher, and Hope Cooper, Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFY 2012, Child Trends, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and Casey Family Programs, September 2014. 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 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).

For more information on TANF, see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: An Overview, by [author name scrubbed]; for more information on SSBG, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding, by [author name scrubbed]; and for more information on Medicaid, see CRS Report R43357, Medicaid: An Overview, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

See CRS Report R42050, Budget "Sequestration" and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

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.

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).

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.

Title IV-B contains funding authority for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program (Section 439), which was last funded by Congress for FY2010 ($49 million) and is not discussed further in the body of this report. The program was first authorized in FY2002 (P.L. 107-133) and received initial funding for FY2003.

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, by [author name scrubbed].

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures, 2015 (July 2015).

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, by [author name scrubbed].

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, by [author name scrubbed].

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures, 2015 (July 2015), p.5. 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.

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau, Program Instructions to states for submitting Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP)/Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR), PI-14-03, March 31, 2015, p. 9.

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 [author name scrubbed].

Section 427(g) of the Social Security Act. 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 of kinship navigator programs. This language was removed effective with FY2014 (via P.L. 113-183).

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. For FY2015 awards, see "Building the Evidence Base for Family Group Decisionmaking," http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/discretionary-grant-awards-2015.

HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2017, February 2016, p. 158.

For more information about this Permanency Innovations Initiative, including the six grantees, their projects, and the related evaluation, see information at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pii-project-resources.

HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2017, February 2016, p. 159.

For FY2015, see explanatory statement at Congressional Record, Book II, Dec. 11, 2014, p. H9838. For FY2016, see explanatory statement at Congressional Record, Book III, Dec. 18, 2015, p. H10289.

Congress provided $6 million in each of FY1997-FY2011 for NSCAW. Although Congress did not provide funding for NSCAW for any of FY2012, FY2013, or FY2014, the Administration continued to request $6 million in support for this research in each year. It also redirected funds from other research accounts to permit completion of some of the work of the second survey (NSCAW II), although, according to HHS, the lack of funding meant fewer waves of data were collected or analyzed in that wave. HHS continues to request a full $6 million for the survey in each year.

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.

Including 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.

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.

Several books derived from NSCAW data have been published, including Ron Haskins, Fred Wulczyn, and Mary Bruce Webb, editors, 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, editors, Child Welfare & Child Well-Being: New Perspectives from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Oxford University Press, 2010.

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, by [author name scrubbed].

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 National (Window Rock, AZ), Chickasaw Nation (Ada, Oklahoma), and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (Cherokee, North Carolina). 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.

The Northern Mariana Islands is not 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.

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.

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.

CRS calculation based on a comparison of the FY2016 federal poverty guideline (for a family of three) to the applicable monthly "need standard" (for a family of three) in each state. The federal poverty guideline is provided as an annual number, so the need standard was multiplied by 12 for comparison. The need standard is specific to each state and is the maximum amount of countable income a family could have and still be considered "needy" (as of July 1996) for purposes of the prior law case welfare program, known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Each state developed its own need standard under that program, and the 1996 standards (as well as income counting rules from AFDC) remain applicable to the Title IV-E foster eligibility determination. Thirty-nine states have a need standard for a family of three that (on an annualized basis) is 50% or less than the FY2016 federal poverty guideline for a family of that size. Thirty-one states had gross income AFDC income limits for a family of three that were 75% or less then the FY2016 federal poverty guideline, including ten that were 50% or less than that federal poverty guideline.

For additional information, see discussion of "Title IV-E Foster Care," 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 [author name scrubbed].

These states are 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, and West Virginia. Indiana extends IV-E assistance to a youth's 20^th birthday; all other listed states currently extend 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 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.

Tribes have a uniquely determined reimbursement rate for assistance payments. That rate may not be less than the rate for any state the tribe is located in, and may not be more than 83%.

Under current law, HHS is not authorized to grant any additional child welfare waivers after September 30, 2014, and no state may operate a waiver project after September 30, 2019. Jurisdictions with approved waiver projects as of September 30, 2014, are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Many waiver projects plan to operate only in certain counties or cities of a state, while some are statewide (or intend to expand to be statewide).

Summary of the Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations, prepared for Children's Bureau, ACYF, ACF, HHS by James Bell Associates, Inc., August 2015.

Section 1130(b) prohibits HHS from waiving these federal child protections for children in foster care.

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 [author name scrubbed].

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau, "Child Identified as Special Needs Adoption," reported by states as of July 2015. The percentages shown are related to all adoptions with public child welfare agency involvement. A very small number of these adoptions may be of children who were not previously in foster care.

The states are 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, and Wisconsin. The tribes are the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribe, the South Puget Intertribal Planning agency, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, the Navajo Nation and the Eastern Band of the Cherokee.

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 [author name scrubbed].

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.

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.

See Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development grants awarded in each of FY2009-FY2015 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/cb-discretionary-grant-awards.

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, which 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.

For more information on this program see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by [author name scrubbed].

The CFCIP purpose related to ensuring that certain youth expected to age out of care have regular, ongoing opportunities to engage in age- or developmentally-appropriate activities was added to the CFCIP program by Section 111(c) of the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183) and became effective on September 29, 2015).

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 [author name scrubbed].

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.

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.

For more information see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by [author name scrubbed].

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.

For more information see CRS Report R43025, Child Welfare: The Adoption Incentive Program and Its Reauthorization, by [author name scrubbed]. 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 will be fully in place for adoptions and legal guardianship completed in FY2015.

Under the most recent prior law incentive structure, any state or territory with an approved Title IV-E plan was eligible to receive federal incentive payments for increasing the number of children who are adopted from foster care overall, as well as the number of adoptions of older children (aged nine or older) and of those with "special needs" who are under the age of nine. The amount of increase was determined by comparing the state's performance on a given category in the current year with its performance in that same category in FY2007.

For awards by year, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/adoption_incentive_history.pdf.

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.

See Section 802 of P.L. 114-22. Section 802 of P.L. 114-22 added 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.

HHS provides an annual report based on these data, which are reported via the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). To link to 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.

Section 802 of P.L. 114-22.

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2014, (January 2016).

See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau, "Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of CAPTA State Programs and Technical Assistance," (August 2013) available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/capta_effectiveness_rptcongress.pdf.

The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (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.

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.

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.

The NIS was most recently fielded (NIS-4) in the middle 2000s. See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/national-incidence-study-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-2004-2009.

The Administration's FY2016 budget request had sought addition funds in this account ($20 million) to fund research related to improved child protective services investigations and for support related to implementing new child welfare provisions requiring a child welfare response to sex trafficking of children. The final FY2016 bill and accompanying explanatory statement, however, do not cite either of these proposals with regard to this increase.

Explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 2029 (enacted as P.L. 114-113); see Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, p. H10289.

IOM/NRC, New Directions in Child Abuse and Neglect Research, National Academies Press (2014), pp. 1-6.

Section 204(4) of CAPTA.

The statute provides that no state may receive less than $175,000. Beginning with FY2005 (when Congress provided a jump in CBCAP funding, which, at the nominal dollar level, has mostly been maintained), HHS has ensured that each state receives a minimum allotment of $200,000.

See Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, p. H10289.

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.

For more information about this fund see CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for Victims of Crime, by [author name scrubbed].

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).

In addition to the three programs discussed here, 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 it provides criminal penalties for those failing to make reports as required (42 U.S.C. §13031 and 18 U.S.C. §2258). Further, the VCAA includes provisions requiring 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 (42 U.S.C. §13041).

42 U.S.C. §§13001, 13001a, 13001b, 13002, and 13003.

National Children's Alliance, 2013 Annual Report, 2014. For coverage by state see the CAC coverage maps at http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/cac-coverage-maps.

National Children's Alliance, "NCA National Statistic- Statistical Report, 2015" http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/sites/default/files/2015NationalAnnual.pdf.

Section 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 [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].

Section 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.

For more information on the National Children's Alliance support for local and state CACs see http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/funding-cacs-chapters.

Support for community-based "multi-disciplinary" 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).

For more information about NCPCA see http://www.ndaa.org/ncpca.html.

42 U.S. C. §§13011, 13012, 13013, 13013a, and 13014.

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).

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. (Section 106(b)(2)(B)(xiii) of CAPTA (42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii)).

See Findings as included in Subchapter B, Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II of P.L. 101-647).

See NCASAA, 2014 National CASA Annual Report, (2015).

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children's Bureau, The AFCARS Report, No. 22, preliminary FY2014 estimates based on data reported by states as of July 2015.

For three years (each of FY2012-FY2014), the Administration requested no specific funding for this program in its DOJ/OJP budget. However, Congress continued to appropriate funds.

42 U.S.C. §§13021, 13022, 13023, and 13024.

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.

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.

In its DOJ/OJP budget requests for each of FY2012-FY2014, the Administration requested no funding under this program authority.

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.

42 U.S.C. §§5111, 5113, 5114, and 5115.

Beginning with 2011, funding that had been provided for "Adoption Awareness" (Sections 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.

HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2017 (February 2016), p. 162.

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.

42 U.S.C. §5117aa, §5117a-11, §5117aa-12, §5117aa-21, §5117aa-22.

The resource center maintains resources and program information at its website, http://aia.berkeley.edu.

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.

For information about early implementation efforts see National AIA Resource Center, Substance Exposed Infants: Noteworthy Policy and Practices, Issue Brief 3, September 2006.

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."

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).