Order Code RL33155
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Child Welfare: Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance Provisions in the Budget
Reconciliation Bills
November 18, 2005
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Child Welfare: Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Provisions in the Budget Reconciliation Bills
Summary
The Senate (S. 1932) and the House (H.R. 4241) have passed separate budget
reconciliation bills that include provisions relevant to federal funding for child
welfare purposes.
H.R. 4241, which the House passed on November 18, 2005, includes provisions
to clarify individual eligibility for federal foster care and adoption assistance
programs (Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) and, separately, to limit certain
kinds of state claims for federal reimbursement of administrative costs under the
federal foster care program. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that
together, these changes would reduce spending under the federal foster care program
by $590 million over five years and by a little more than $1.3 billion over 10 years.
S. 1932, which the Senate passed on November 3, 2005, does not include any
direct savings attributable to the Title IV-E foster care or adoption assistance
programs. However, certain provisions related to claims made under the Medicaid
program (Title XIV of the Social Security Act) are expected to affect (and possibly
limit) the ability of state child welfare agencies to use Medicaid-funded targeted case
management services for children in foster care; these same Medicaid provisions are
also included in the pending H.R. 4241. CBO has estimated the net federal savings
for this change, all of which would be to Medicaid (and not all of which would affect
financing of services for children in foster care), at $760 million over five years and
$2.1 billion over 10 years.
This report provides background information on these and other child welfare-
related provisions included in S. 1932 and H.R. 4241, and will be updated as
necessary.

---

Contents
Clarifying Eligibility for Federal Foster Care and Adoption Assistance . . . . 1
Limiting Eligibility for Federal Matching of
Foster Care Administrative Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Targeted Case Management Services under Medicaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
What is Medicaid TCM? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Other Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Extend Child Welfare Waiver Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Student Loan Forgiveness for Child Welfare Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Education-related Services and Aid for Foster Children
and Those Aging Out of Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

---

Child Welfare: Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance Provisions in
the Budget Reconciliation Bills
H.R. 4241, passed by the House on November 18, 2005, and S. 1932, passed by
the Senate on November 3, 2005, are budget reconciliation bills. A primary purpose
of these bills is to make statutory changes that reduce direct (or mandatory) spending
out of the federal treasury.1 The current proposals contain a number of foster care,
adoption assistance and other child welfare-related provisions, all of which are
discussed in this report.
The federal foster care and adoption assistance programs are open-ended
entitlement programs. This means that the statutory language (contained in Title IV-
E of the Social Security Act) commits the federal government to reimbursing states
for every eligible claim submitted on behalf of an eligible child receiving foster care
maintenance payments or an adoption assistance subsidy. Because of the open-ended
nature of this mandatory spending, any statutory changes that redefine who is eligible
to receive foster care or adoption assistance — or what kind of costs a state may
submit as eligible for reimbursement — would have a direct effect on the level of
federal spending in the program.
Clarifying Eligibility for Federal
Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
As proposed by the President in his FY2006 budget request, the House bill
(H.R. 4241) would rewrite the eligibility provisions for federal foster care under Title
IV-E of the Social Security Act, and would also make related changes to the adoption
assistance eligibility provisions (also contained in Title IV-E). The Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) expects this provision to reduce federal budget authority to the
foster care program by $410 million over five years (FY2006-FY2010) and $895
million over 10 years (FY2006-FY2015). The Senate bill (S. 1932) does not include
this language.
Explanation of the change. The proposed statutory provision would restate
eligibility for federal foster care in a manner intended to clarify the longstanding
interpretation of those provisions by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), and thus to effectively overturn a 2003 court decision that disagreed
with that interpretation. Changes to the adoption assistance eligibility criteria were
1 For more information on the budget reconciliation process, see CRS Report RL33132,
Budget Reconciliation Legislation in 2005, by Robert Keith.

---

CRS-2
made to conform with those foster care changes and to somewhat simplify the
eligibility test.
Eligibility for Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance is multifaceted but,
with limited exceptions for adoption assistance, includes a link to the income,
deprivation, and resources tests as they were included in a state’s Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, and as that program existed on July 16,
1996. (Congress repealed the AFDC program as part of the 1996 welfare reform
legislation that became P.L. 104-193.) HHS has historically maintained that the
AFDC income, deprivation, and resource tests must determine whether or not a foster
child was or would have been considered needy if that child had still been living in
the home from which he or she was removed for safety reasons [generally the home
of the biological parent(s)]. However, this HHS interpretation of how to apply the
AFDC eligibility tests was challenged in California, and in March 2003, the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals (Rosales v. Thompson, 321 F. 3d. 835) ruled against HHS.
The 9th Circuit court interpreted the law to permit, in some instances, a state to
determine whether a foster child would have met the AFDC tests while living in the
home of a relative instead of in the home of the parent (e.g., a grandmother or aunt
who informally cared for the child because the parents were unfit or unwilling).
Under AFDC program rules, a child living with a nonparent relative is virtually
always considered needy because the AFDC income, resource and other tests are
applied only to the child — as opposed to being applied to the entire family with
whom the child is living. Therefore, this reading of the law permits expanded
eligibility for Title IV-E foster care in some instances.2
HHS chose not to appeal the decision of the 9th Circuit. Instead, it notified the
nine states in the 9th Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) that they should amend their Title IV-E state plans
to follow the eligibility logic of the Rosales decision. At the same time, HHS
notified all other states that they must continue to determine Title IV-E foster care
eligibility based on the traditional HHS reading of the law. Finally, the Department
sought a statutory change to bolster its longstanding interpretation of Title IV-E
(foster care and adoption assistance) eligibility rules, and to restore their uniform
application in all states.
Effect of provision. All states in the 9th Circuit have amended their state
Title IV-E plans to provide for expanded Title IV-E foster care eligibility (as
permitted by the Rosales decision). Enactment of the statutory eligibility
clarifications in H.R. 4241 would mean that foster children in the 9th Circuit states,
who were found eligible for federal foster care based on the expanded reading of
eligibility given in the Rosales decision, would — as of the effective date of the
legislation — no longer be eligible for this federal program. Instead of receiving
Title IV-E federal matching payments for foster care costs associated with these
2 Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, in a ruling that
cited the Rosales decision (Harris v. Martin, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17384), held that the
HHS interpretation of how the AFDC test should be applied was also too restrictive for
determining adoption assistance eligibility.

---

CRS-3
children, states would need to support these children by using state dollars only (or,
in the case of foster care, possibly some other capped source of federal funding such
as the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families — or TANF — block grant). The
numbers of children expected to be affected are not available.3
Finally, the provisions proposed in the House-passed H.R. 4241 would restate
certain adoption assistance eligibility requirements to conform with the foster care
eligibility clarifications, and would somewhat simplify the eligibility determination
process for adoption assistance. Current policy provides that, in cases where
adoption assistance eligibility rests in some part on AFDC eligibility, the AFDC
eligibility criteria must be met at two points: 1) when the child is removed from his
or her home and placed in foster care, and 2) when adoption proceedings are
initiated. As passed by the House, H.R. 4241 would eliminate the second AFDC test.
This change is expected to simplify adoption assistance eligibility determination
while having little to no effect on the number of children found eligible.
Limiting Eligibility for Federal Matching
of Foster Care Administrative Costs
The House-passed bill (H.R. 4241) would also limit the ability of states to claim
federal reimbursement of certain costs related to administering their Title IV-E foster
care programs. In January 2005, the Administration published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed regulations similar to the statutory changes
included in H.R. 4241.4 In sum, these provisions would put in statute a definition of
“candidate for foster care” that is more narrow than previous HHS policy, and which
consequently would limit some state Title IV-E administrative claims for federal
matching funds. CBO estimates that these provisions will reduce spending (budget
authority) for the Title IV-E foster care program by $180 million over five years
(FY2006-FY2010) and $411 million over ten years (FY2006-FY2015). The Senate
bill (S. 1932) does not contain these provisions.
Explanation of the change. Under current law, states are permitted to seek
federal reimbursement (a 50% match) for any eligible administrative costs necessary
for the “proper and efficient” operation of their foster care programs. Among other
things, Title IV-E administrative costs are defined to include payment for time spent
by a social worker finding and making a foster care placement, as well as ensuring
3 California is the only state where retroactive claims under this decision were permitted.
The state submitted additional Rosales-related claims for 1998-2003 that totaled $9.7
million in federal expenditures. Other than these retroactive claims, additional claims made
eligible under the Rosales decision are not reported separately by the affected states.
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
“Administrative Costs for Children in Title IV-E Foster Care,” 70 Federal Register 4803,
January 31, 2005. A number of these proposed changes were originally made by the
Administration as part of a “policy announcement” (ACYF-CB-PA-01-02, issued July 3,
2001). After many states objected to the characterization of the changes as a “clarification,”
arguing that instead they represented a reversal of current policy, the Administration delayed
the implementation of the most controversial policies included in that announcement and
said that it would use the formal regulatory process to achieve the same end.

---

CRS-4
that the child’s placement setting and permanency goal (e.g., reuniting with family
or adoption) are reviewed at federally specified intervals, and that other federal case
review protections are afforded each child in foster care. In general, these
administrative costs may only be reimbursed if the child on whose behalf the costs
are incurred meets the federal Title IV-E eligibility requirements for foster care
maintenance payments. Those eligibility requirements include a stipulation that the
foster child must be living in a family home or other eligible child care institution
that is licensed by the state to provide foster care. However, some states now make
Title IV-E administrative claims (only) for costs incurred on behalf of children who
meet all of the Title IV-E foster care eligibility requirements except that they are
placed in an unlicensed setting. These claims have been specifically permitted by a
1993 memorandum from HHS, which suggests that the children on whose behalf the
claims were made could be considered “candidates” for Title IV-E foster care —
because the possibility exists that they might be moved to an eligible setting.5 HHS
now argues, however, that the 1993 memorandum has been too broadly interpreted
and that parts of it are inconsistent with the statute. Specifically, it asserts that a child
already placed in foster care may never be considered a candidate for foster care.
In the January 2005 NPRM, the Administration conceded that a complete
prohibition on Title IV-E administrative claims for placement of otherwise eligible
foster children in homes of unlicensed relatives might be contrary to the federal
law/policy that encourages states to place a foster child with relatives. Further, in
recognition of the fact that states cannot be expected to have a ready pool of relatives
licensed to provide foster care, it proposed to allow continued Title IV-E
administrative claims for otherwise eligible children placed in unlicensed relatives’
homes but only for the length of time it normally takes the state to license a foster
family home. H.R. 4241 largely follows the Administration’s lead, although it would
provide that states may make such claims only for as long as the length of time it
normally takes a state to license a home, or up to 12 months — whichever is shorter.
Both the NPRM and the statutory language proposed in H.R. 4241 would also
stipulate one additional instance in which a state might continue to make Title IV-E
administrative claims (but not Title IV-E maintenance payments) on behalf of an
otherwise eligible foster care child placed in an ineligible setting. These
administrative claims could be made on behalf of a child placed temporarily in a
setting such as a juvenile detention home or certain psychiatric hospitals (ineligible
settings under Title IV-E) — but only for one calendar month and only if the child
was subsequently moved back to an eligible setting.
Finally, the changes included in the House bill (H.R. 4241) would restate current
Title IV-E administrative claims policy that permits states to make claims on behalf
of children who are not yet in foster care but who are considered at imminent risk of
removal from their homes. Such children are now considered by HHS as “true”
candidates for foster care, and in need of pre-placement services (required under Title
IV-E) to prevent their removal from their homes. H.R. 4241 (like the NPRM) would
newly provide that in order to make these Title IV-E administrative claims, the state
5 The 1993 memorandum is briefly discussed in ACYF-CB-PA-01-02, issued July 3, 2001.

---

CRS-5
must redetermine, no less often than every six months, a child’s status as a candidate
for foster care.6
Effect of the provision. The primary federal savings from this proposed
change are expected to come from a state’s reduced ability to make administrative
claims for children placed in unlicensed relatives’ homes. States that previously made
such claims on an indefinite basis would now need to use state funds to meet these
administrative costs, or to license relatives’ homes — in which case they would be
able to continue to claim federal matching funds for administrative costs and would
newly be able to claim federal matching funds for their foster care maintenance
payments on those same children’s behalf.
States and some child welfare advocates argue that many relatives do not wish
to subject themselves to the governmental intrusion necessary to receive a foster care
license. All foster family home licensing requirements are established and maintained
by state authorities, and typically include requirements related to the physical and
family environment of a home, as well as training requirements. States are currently
required to apply the same licensing standards to both relative and non-relative foster
homes. However, they are permitted — but only on a case-by-case basis — to waive
a given licensing requirement if doing so will not endanger the child (e.g., a state may
waive a requirement that a bedroom be of a certain size or that a foster child have his
or her own bedroom).
The exact number of states affected by this proposed legislation (and regulation)
is not known; however, the degree of impact is expected to vary widely by state. In
a survey of the states conducted by the HHS Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), close to half of the states (24) indicated that the policy would have
an annual financial impact ranging from $200,000 at the low end to $79 million at
the highest; 15 states indicated there would be little or no financial impact and 2
states were uncertain if there would be any impact. Information was not available
from the remaining states. A total of 16 states responded to a survey by the
American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). Eight states estimated an
annual financial impact of $80,000 to $20 million; two states estimated that the
impact could range as high as $21 million to $100 million annually; five reported no
anticipated impact, and 1 reported uncertain impact.7
6 Some states have sought to make Title IV-E administrative claims for a more general
population of children who were not yet placed in foster care. However, over the past
number of years, HHS has moved to disallow this kind of Title IV-E claim and, in this
instance, the Department’s view of “true” candidates has prevailed. See, for instance, HHS
Departmental Appeals Board, Appellate Division, Decision No. 1899 (Nov. 25, 2003),
regarding disallowance of Title IV-E administrative claims made by the Missouri
Department of Social Services.
7 These surveys are cited at 70 Federal Register, 4806, January 31, 2005. Also, at the time
of the July 2001 policy announcement, which would have made changes similar to those
included in H.R. 4241, 14 states submitted a formal objection to HHS, including a legal
analysis of the proposed policies. Those states, AZ, CA, IL, IA, KS, LA, MI, MN, MO, OH,
SD, VA, WA, and WI, might be among those that expect to experience loss of federal funds
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
Targeted Case Management Services under Medicaid
Both S. 1932 and H.R. 4241 include substantively identical provisions intended
to clarify when states may make Medicaid claims related to optional targeted case
management (TCM) services. The clarification extends to claims made on behalf of
any Medicaid-eligible individual who may also be served by another federal or state
program (e.g., juvenile justice, foster care, or special education), but it provides
special details regarding unallowable claims on behalf of Medicaid-eligible foster
care children.
The Administration called for clarification with regard to TCM claims in its
FY2006 Budget request and in legislative language it later sent to Congress for
consideration. However, the proposal offered in S. 1932 and H.R. 4241 is
significantly different from that offered by the Administration, and appears to be less
restrictive to state TCM claims. CBO estimates that the changes would shift some
costs to the federal foster care program — increasing federal Title IV-E foster care
spending by $350 million over five years (FY2006-FY2010) and $940 million over
ten years (FY2006-FY2015). This increased foster care spending would offset
savings to the Medicaid program; the net federal savings are consequently estimated
at $760 million over the same five years (FY2006-FY2010) and $2.1 billion over 10
years (FY2006-FY2015).8
What is Medicaid TCM? Medicaid (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)
is an open-ended entitlement to states. States may seek federal matching payments
for medical assistance offered to Medicaid-eligible individuals. Children who are
eligible for federal foster care (Title IV-E eligible) are automatically deemed eligible
for Medicaid, and most other foster children (non-Title IV-E eligible) are presumed
to qualify for Medicaid under other (low-income and/or disability-related) Medicaid
eligibility criteria. Further, under Medicaid law, case management is an optional
benefit that states may offer Medicaid beneficiaries, and it includes services to assist
them in gaining access to needed medical, social, education, and other services. The
term “targeted case management,” or TCM, refers to situations in which these case
management services are not provided statewide to all Medicaid beneficiaries, but
rather are provided only to specific classes of individuals or “target” groups (e.g.,
people with AIDS or those with developmental disabilities, children who are abused
or neglected, or children in foster care).
For FY2002, across all states the estimated total federal share of TCM
expenditures for all targeted groups was $1.3 billion, of which $171.5 million was
7 (...continued)
if this legislative change were enacted.
8 The Administration estimated savings to Medicaid of $2.0 billion over five years for its
proposal to limit TCM claims. In addition, it estimated savings of $1 billion over five years
from a proposed reduction in the federal matching rate for TCM services. (This matching
rate reduction is not included in either H.R. 4241 or S. 1932.)

---

CRS-7
reimbursed on behalf of costs incurred for 165,265 foster care children.9 States
varied widely in the use of TCM services for children in foster care. Nine states
(including the District of Columbia) showed no TCM claims for foster care children
in FY2002. Among the states that did submit Medicaid TCM claims for foster care
children, the estimated federal share was under $1,000 in two states, more than
$1,000 but less then $100,000 in 11 states, and more than $100,000 but less than $1
million in 10 states. Among the remaining 19 states, the federal share of TCM claims
for foster care children ranged from $1.1 million in West Virginia to $38.9 million
in Texas.10
Explanation of change. Current law defining TCM is broadly written, and
there have been conflicting policy directives in regard to how TCM claims may be
made on behalf of Medicaid-eligible individuals, particularly if an individual might
also be able to receive related/same services under another state or federal program.
The provisions included in S. 1932 and H.R. 4241 seek to enact policies outlined in
a January 19, 2001 letter to state Medicaid directors, which was co-authored by
federal Medicaid and Child Welfare administrators. The policy letter, which
explicitly addressed only the issue of Title IV-E eligible foster care children and
allowable TCM claims, would be written into statute by S. 1932 and H.R. 4241 in
such a way as to address TCM claims for a variety of populations (including non-
Title IV-E eligible foster care children). The provisions, however, continue to give
special attention to foster care-related claims generally.
S. 1932/H.R. 4241 would provide a more detailed definition of TCM that would
include assessing a person’s need for services, developing a care plan, referring
individuals to services, and monitoring and followup of service use. Both bills
would reiterate that TCM services do not include reimbursement for any of the
underlying services costs (e.g., mental health counseling), and further they would
provide that in the specific case of foster care, TCM would not include services that
are part of the “direct delivery” of foster care. The legislation (like the policy letter
it seeks to codify) provides illustrative examples of these foster care services
(research gathering and completion of documentation required by the foster care
program, assessing adoption placements, recruiting or interviewing potential foster
parents, serving legal papers, conducting home investigations, providing
transportation, administering foster care subsidies, and making placement
arrangements). Additionally, the provisions would assert that Medicaid can be billed
only for case management or TCM where “there are no other third parties liable to
pay for such services, including as reimbursement under a medical, social, education,
or other program.” Finally, the proposed provisions stipulate that states may use
accepted federal cost allocation methods to ensure costs are appropriately billed to
the proper program.
Under the Bush Administration, CMS has backed away from the TCM policies
in the January 2001 letter, and has increasingly suggested — via denials of state plan
9 FY2002 Medicaid Statistical Information System (MSIS). The definition of “foster care
children” for MSIS includes children in foster care and those receiving adoption assistance.
10 Ibid

---

CRS-8
amendments seeking to provide TCM services to foster care children (or abused and
neglected children broadly) — that the kinds of services provided by Medicaid TCM
are integral to the foster care program and therefore the financial responsibility of the
child welfare agency rather then Medicaid.
Effect of this provision. The provision in S. 1932/H.R. 4241 asserts that
states may allocate costs of Medicaid TCM services to children in foster care. This is
contrary to current CMS policy (as provided in the State Medicaid Manual), which
does not allow states to use cost allocation when making claims related to Medicaid
services, but is in keeping with the January 2001 policy letter on TCM claims for Title
IV-E eligible foster care children. In this sense, the legislative proposal would seem
to clarify conflicting policy statements in a way that supports rather than limits TCM
claims for foster care children. At the same time, the proposed statutory provision
would further assert that Medicaid may not be billed for TCM services if there is
another party liable for the cost of such services, including as reimbursement under a
“medical, social, education, or other program.” Exactly how this “third-party liability”
language would be implemented — which primarily restates general third-party
liability provisions under current Medicaid law — is unclear. In his brief statement
regarding a proposed (but failed) amendment to strike the TCM provisions from the
Senate bill (S. 1932), Senator Reed expressed the concern that the language would
“force” payment for TCM services by “third parties, States or others,” resulting in
reduced services and increased costs to states. In response, Senator Grassley said that
the legislative proposal simply sought to codify a policy originally proposed by the
Clinton Administration.11
The CBO estimate of savings for this provision is based on the assumption that
states — with regard to foster care and other programs (e.g., juvenile justice) — have
too broadly billed the provision of TCM services to Medicaid. This is in keeping with
the Administration’s assertion that states have been shifting costs from foster care, and
certain criminal justice, and education programs to Medicaid. In particular, CBO
believes that some states will move some of the claims they currently bill as Medicaid
TCM to foster care administrative claims under Title IV-E, if the proposed changes are
enacted. However, as CBO also estimates net savings to the federal treasury ($760
million over five years ; $1.3 billion over 10 years), it apparently does not believe that
all of these claims may be made under Title IV-E. In sum, the effect of this legislative
proposal is uncertain, but is believed — as is suggested by net CBO savings — to
reduce access to Medicaid TCM claims for a range of populations, including
particularly Medicaid-eligible foster care children.
Other Provisions
The reconciliation legislation, passed in the Senate (S. 1932) and the House (H.R.
4241) also includes several other provisions relevant to child welfare, but for which no
significant budget effect (savings or cost) is expected. These provisions are briefly
discussed below.
11 See discussion of Amendment No. 2409 in the Congressional Record, November 3, 2005,
p. S12321.

---

CRS-9
Extend Child Welfare Waiver Authority. Congress has granted (through
December 31, 2005) authority to HHS to approve waivers of some federal child welfare
program requirements (included in Title IV-B or Title IV-E of the Social Security Act)
so that states may demonstrate innovative programs for the delivery of foster care and
other child welfare services. The House bill (H.R. 4241) would extend (through
FY2010) the authority of HHS to grant such waivers, and would remove the limit on
the total number of demonstration programs (set at 10 by current law) HHS may
approve in any given year. In addition, the House bill would prohibit HHS from
limiting the number of waivers or demonstration projects that may be approved for a
single state, or from limiting the number of states that may conduct demonstration
projects on the same topic (e.g., subsidized guardianship). Finally, the House bill seeks
to improve general availability of evaluation or other waiver-related reports that “may
promote best practices and program improvements,” and it would require HHS to
develop a “streamlined” process for considering amendments and the extension of
demonstration projects.12
Student Loan Forgiveness for Child Welfare Workers. H.R. 4241 would
authorize the Department of Education to repay up to $5,000 in student loan debt if an
individual has worked full-time for five years in one of several “areas of national
need.” These are defined in the proposed law, and would include child welfare
workers who have obtained a degree in social work (or a related field with a focus on
serving children and families), and who are employed in public or private child welfare
agencies. Loan forgiveness would be awarded on a first-come, first-served basis, and
would be subject to the availability of funds. The legislation would authorize for this
purpose appropriations of “such sums as necessary” for each of FY2006-FY2011.13
Education-related Services and Aid for Foster Children and Those
Aging Out of Foster Care. The House bill (H.R. 4241) would amend the Higher
Education Act to clearly define any youth in foster care or any individual who was in
foster care on his or her 18th birthday as an “independent student” (for purposes of
determining eligibility for federal financial aid). The Senate bill (S. 1932) would make
a similar change to the definition of “independent student.”
TRIO program amendments. The Higher Education Act authorizes a range
of grant programs, collectively called the Federal TRIO programs. These programs are
designed to identify potential post-secondary students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, to prepare these individuals for post-secondary education, to provide
certain support services to them while they are in post-secondary education — and to
train individuals who provide these services. Collectively, the programs are authorized
to provide a wide range of services, such as tutoring, financial aid, personal or career
12 These provisions are identical to those included in H.R. 240, omnibus welfare reform
legislation proposed in the House earlier this session and now incorporated into H.R. 4241.
Earlier this year, the Senate Finance Committee reported welfare reform legislation (S. 667)
that would extend through FY2010 the authority of HHS to grant child welfare waivers but
would make no other changes to the current waiver authority.
13 Several bills introduced in this Congress would provide separate loan forgiveness
programs for child welfare workers and/or for attorneys practicing in the field of child and
family law. These include H.R. 127, S. 1431, S. 1679, and H.R. 3758.

---

CRS-10
counseling, mentoring, exposure to cultural activities and educational institutions,
academic advising, and financial literacy training.
The Senate bill (S. 1932) would amend a number of these programs to help ensure
that youth in foster care and those leaving the foster care system because of their age
(typically the 18th birthday) are served by these programs. Specifically, it would amend
the TRIO programs authorized as Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support
Services, and Educational Opportunity Centers to permit grantees to target their
services to students in foster care or those aging out of the foster care system (as well
as to other disadvantaged youth, such as the homeless). Further, the purposes of the
Student Support Services program would be amended to include references to students
in foster care or those aging out of foster care among the groups of disadvantaged
students for whom these services are intended to foster a supportive institutional
environment. And in keeping with this purpose, the Senate bill would also allow
Student Support Services grantees to secure temporary housing during breaks in the
academic year for students in foster care or those aging out of foster care (and for
homeless or formerly homeless children and youth). Finally, under the Staff
Development Activities provisions designed to provide training and other resources to
improve services under the Federal TRIO programs, S. 1932 would include training
regarding strategies for recruiting homeless youth and students who are in foster care
or who are aging out of foster care.

---