Order Code RL34388
Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress
February 26, 2008
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division
Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress
Summary
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states have the primary obligation
to ensure child welfare. However, Congress provides significant federal funds to help
states exercise this responsibility ($7.9 billion appropriated in FY2008). Most of this
support is provided for children who are in foster care and who meet specific federal
eligibility criteria. This report discusses the federal framework for child welfare
policy; reviews the scope of activities, and children and families served, by state
child welfare agencies; summarizes several child welfare-related hearings that were
held in 2007; describes child welfare and related legislative proposals that have been
introduced in the 110th Congress; and reviews child welfare programs for which
funding authorization has expired or is set to expire on the last day of FY2008.
Child welfare agencies seek to ensure the well-being of children and their
families, including protecting children from abuse or neglect and ensuring that they
have a safe and permanent home. In FY2005 child protection agencies found more
than 899,000 children to be victims of abuse or neglect. Some of these children were
removed to foster care, some remained in their homes and received services, while
others received no further follow-up from the agency. After reaching a recorded high
of 567,000 on the last day of FY1999, the number of children in foster care has
declined by about 10%, and on the last day of FY2006, an estimated 512,000 children
were in foster care. Less than half of these children are eligible for federal foster care
support under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Legislation that would respond to a number of the concerns raised in the child
welfare hearings held during 2007, including proposals to change the federal child
welfare financing structure, has been introduced in the 110th Congress. These
proposals would expand the eligible populations served with Title IV-E funds to
include (potentially) all children in foster care or adopted from foster care (H.R.
5466, H.R. 3409, H.R. 4207, S. 1462, H.R. 4091), as well as children leaving foster
care for legal guardianship with a relative (S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, and H.R.
3409), and youth who choose to remain in foster care until their 21st birthday (S.
1512, H.R. 4208, S. 2560, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409). Other introduced proposals
would authorize additional support for child and family services (H.R. 5466, S. 2237,
and H.R. 3409); authorize or require new services or protections for children in, or
about to enter, foster care (H.R. 3283, S. 379, S. 382, H.R. 687, and H.R. 5466); seek
to improve services for youth who have, or are expected to, age out of care (S. 2341,
H.R. 2188, H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 3409); encourage greater access to a range
of services for kinship caregivers and further encourage their use as caregivers (S.
661, H.R. 2188, and H.R. 5466); provide new support for training or other related
efforts to improve the child welfare workforce (H.R. 5466 and H.R. 2314); aim to
improve foster and adoptive parent recruitment efforts of state child welfare agencies
(S. 2395 and H.R. 4198); permit direct access to federal Title IV-E funds for tribal
governments (S. 1956, H.R. 4688, and H.R. 5466); and make other related changes
intended to enhance the safety, permanence and well-being of children, including
expanding or making permanent the current Adoption Tax Credit rules (H.R. 273,
H.R. 471, S. 561, H.R. 1074, H.R. 3192, and H.R. 4313). This report will be updated
as legislative activity occurs.
Contents
Federal-State Framework for Child Welfare Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Child Maltreatment and Children in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Scope of Children and Families Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Activities of the Child Welfare Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Federal Child Welfare Funding in FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Program Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Congressional Committee Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Child Welfare Hearings in the 110th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Youth Aging-Out of Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Health Care for Children in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Legislative Proposals for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Proposals to Expand Title IV-E Eligible Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
De-Link Foster Care and Adoption Assistance from AFDC Rules . . . 16
De-Link Adoption Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Support for Subsidized Guardianship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Extending the Age Limit for Federal Foster Care Assistance . . . . . . . 24
Funding for Services to Children and Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Title IV-E Child and Family Services Component . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Maintenance of Effort Provisions and Service Spending . . . . . . . . . . 27
Transfer of “Unused” Title IV-E Funds for Services and Training . . . 28
Additional Funding Authorization Sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Improving Services for Older Current or Former Foster Youth . . . . . . . . . 29
Foster Child Protections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Education Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Medical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Other Supports or Assistance Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Services and Protections for Children in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Educational Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Coordination of Child Welfare and Medical Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Reasonable Efforts to Place Siblings Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Access to Court Advocates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Provision of Mentoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Reducing the Number of Children Who Run Away from
Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Preventing Certain Foster Care Placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Prohibition on Removal Related to Homelessness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Alternative to Relinquishment for Mental Health Reasons . . . . . . . . . 40
Services for Kinship Care Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Children Cared for by Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Kinship Navigator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Family Connection Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Notify Relatives of a Child’s Placement in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Licensing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Additional Provisions Related to Kin Accessing Services . . . . . . . . . 46
Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Tribal Access to Title IV-E Funds and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Tribal Access to Title IV-E Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Funds to Train or Improve the Child Welfare Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Grants to Support Quality Child Welfare Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Increased Federal Support for Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Other Child Welfare or Related Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Home Visiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Parenting Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Infant Safe Haven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Children of Incarcerated Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Court Teams for Maltreated Infants and Toddlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
White House Conference on Children and Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Adoption Tax Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Expired or Expiring Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Adoption Incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Adoption Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Abandoned Infants Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Children’s Advocacy Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Adoption Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix A. Other Financing Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
President’s Child Welfare Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Recommendations of the Pew Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
De-Link Payments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Service, Case Management, and Training Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Other Pew Financing Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
The Partnership Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Appendix B. Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
List of Figures
Figure 1. Children Brought to the Attention of, or Served by,
Child Welfare Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Tables
Table 1. National Estimates of Children Found To Be Victims of Abuse or
Neglect, Entering Foster Care, and Remaining in Foster Care, 1990-2005 . . 5
Table 2. Selected Child Welfare Programs by Funding Authority,
FY2008 Appropriation (Enacted Funding), and Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress
Child welfare agencies seek to ensure the well-being of children and their
families, including protecting children from abuse or neglect and ensuring that they
have a safe and permanent home.
Federal-State Framework for Child Welfare Policy
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states have the primary
obligation to ensure child welfare. At the state level, the child welfare “system”
consists of state and local judges and other court personnel, prosecutors, law
enforcement personnel, and public and private social service workers. These
representatives of various state and local entities investigate allegations of child
abuse and neglect, provide services to families in their own homes, remove children
from homes if necessary, and supervise and administer payments for children in out-
of-home settings.
Federal involvement in child welfare is tied to the financial assistance it
provides to states to conduct these activities. In FY2008, Congress appropriated just
under $7.9 billion for child welfare purposes. The bulk ($4.6 billion) of this money
was appropriated to reimburse states for the cost of providing foster care for children
who meet federal eligibility criteria (estimated 43% of national foster care caseload
in FY2006). Beginning in the early 1960s, the federal government has paid for part
of the cost of foster care for children who would have been entitled to federally
assisted cash welfare had they continued to live in their own homes. (In essence, the
cash aid was expected to follow the child into foster care.) States had primary
responsibility to pay the full foster care costs for other children who were removed
from their homes. In the 1996 welfare reform law (P.L. 104-193), Congress ended
the entitlement to cash aid for needy families with children and converted funding for
this purpose to a block grant. At the same time, it continued to require that only
children removed from homes that would have met the eligibility requirements for
cash aid under the state’s pre-1996 welfare-reform rules would be eligible for federal
foster care assistance.
As a condition of receiving these foster care and other child welfare funds, states
are required to abide by a series of federal child welfare policies.1 Federal child
welfare policies focus, overall, on ensuring safety and well-being for all children
served. However, the most specific and extensive requirements are designed for the
protection of children in foster care, especially to ensure them a safe and permanent
1 For more information about specific program requirements, see CRS Report RL31242,
Child Welfare: Federal Program Requirements for States, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-2
home. These protections must generally be provided to all children in foster care,
regardless of whether they meet federal foster care eligibility criteria. State
compliance with the majority of these federal requirements is checked as part of the
Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). A state that is not in “substantial
conformity” with federal child welfare policy — as determined by the review — must
implement a Program Improvement Plan ( PIP). The state typically has two years to
implement a PIP. The PIP must successfully address the compliance issues identified
by the CFSR or the state faces a loss of a part of their federal child welfare funding.2
Child Maltreatment and
Children in Foster Care
In FY2005, an estimated 899,000 U.S. children, or about 12.1 children for every
1,000 in the general population, were found to be victims of abuse or neglect; an
estimated 1,500 children died due to abuse or neglect in that year. The rate of
reported child maltreatment victims has been about 12 children per 1,000 children
in the national population in every year since 1999. This rate is well below the
recorded highs in the early to mid-1990s (1992-1996), when the rate ranged around
15 victims for every 1,000 children in the population and the number of child victims
was counted as more than 1 million annually. (See Table 1.) For FY2005, states
reported 63% of child victims experienced neglect, 17% were found to have
experienced physical abuse, 9% sexual abuse, 7% psychological maltreatment, 2%
medical neglect, and 14% “other abuse.”3 These shares were fairly constant between
2001 and 2005, although the rate of children found to have experienced neglect
increased slightly while the rate of children experiencing physical abuse or sexual
abuse declined or held steady.4
Preliminary estimates show 512,000 children were in foster care on the last day
of FY2006 (or about 6.8 per every 1,000 children in the general population). This
represents a modest decline from the estimated 513,000 children in care on the last
day of FY2005 but is well below the recorded high of 567,000 children in care on the
2 The CFSR was designed by HHS to meet the conformity review requirements mandated
by Congress in 1994 (P.L. 103-432) and enacted as Section 1123A of the Social Security
Act. The initial round of the CFSR was conducted from 2001 through 2004, and all states
were required to take some corrective actions. A second round of reviews is now underway
and is expected to continue into FY2010. For more information, see CRS Report RL32968,
Child Welfare: State Performance on Child and Family Services Reviews, by Emilie
Stoltzfus.
3 Some children experience more than one type of maltreatment. These percentages total
more than 100 because a child may be included in as many categories as the types of
maltreatment he or she experienced.
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2005, (April 2007). Hereafter Child
Maltreatment 2005 [or another year in the series].
CRS-3
last day of FY1999 (when there were about 8.0 children in foster care per 1,000 in
the population).5 (See Table 1.)
Overall, the national foster care caseload declined by about 10% between
FY1999 and FY2006; however, this decline has not been shared by all states.
Between FY1999 and FY2005 (most recent year state-level data are available), a little
less than half of all the states (23, including Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia) reported reductions in their foster care caseload, ranging from a less than
1% decline in Vermont to a more than 43% decline in Illinois. California, New
York, and Illinois recorded both the greatest numerical and percentage change
declines in their caseloads. Between the last days of FY1999 and FY2005,
California’s caseload dropped by nearly 37,000 children (31% decline); New York’s
caseload declined by nearly 21,000 children (41% decline); and Illinois saw a
caseload decrease of about 15,000 children (43% decline). Over that same six-year
period (FY1999-FY2005), slightly more states (28) posted increases in their
caseloads. These ranged from an increase of about 1% (about 200 children) in
Michigan to increases of 77% in Texas (close to 13,000 children) and 90% (close to
900 children) in Idaho. In addition, six states (WV, AZ, OK, IA, SD, WY) saw
caseload increases ranging from 35% to 65% between the last day of FY1999 and the
last day of FY2005.6
The overall number of children in care on the last day of a given year rises or
falls depending upon both the number of entries to foster care, that is children who
are removed from their homes in a given year, and the number of exits in that same
year, that is children reunited with their families, adopted, emancipated, or placed in
another permanent setting. Nationally, the number of children reported as having
exited foster care has risen from an estimated 250,000 in FY1999 to an estimated
288,000 in FY2005. (However, this is understood as an undercount because some
states do not report all exits from foster care.7) Nationally, the number of children
who entered foster care has been rising. During FY2005 (most recent year for which
data are available), the number of children who entered foster care increased to
311,000 compared to 304,000 in the previous year and 293,000 children who entered
in FY1999. Table 1 indicates that the rate of children entering foster care (per 1,000
in the population) was slightly higher in FY2005 (4.2) than in FY1999 (4.1).
5 The number of children in foster care includes some youth age 18 or older. However, the
comparison to the general population is made with population estimates of individuals age
17 or younger.
6 Caseload changes are based on children reported in care on the last day of FY1999
compared to those reported in care for the last day of FY2005. Available data includes 49
states, DC, and PR. Data for NV is not available for FY1999, so the state is excluded from
this analysis. Based on caseload data compiled by U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration of Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, from the Adoption
and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS). FY2005 caseload estimates are as
reported by states as of March 2007; FY1999 caseload estimates are as reported by states
as of April 2005. Hereafter USDHHS, Caseload Estimates, March 2007 and April 2005.
7 See discussion following footnotes in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, “Trends in Adoption and
Foster Care, 2000-2005” (according to data submitted as of January 2007).
CRS-4
Thirty-two states saw an increase in children entering foster care in FY2005
compared to the number entering in FY1999. Eleven of those states (TX, AZ, ID,
WY, IN, GA, AR, KY, AL, WV, NE) saw the number of children entering foster care
in FY2005 increase by 40% or more compared to those entering in FY1999. Texas
recorded the largest increase (89%) with more than 16,900 children entering in
FY2005 compared to more than 8,900 in FY1999.8 Seventeen states (including DC
and PR) saw decreases in the number of children entering care, ranging from a 38%
decline in New York to a 5% decline in entries in Washington state.9
Table 1 shows national estimates of the total number and the rate (i.e. the
number of children per 1,000 in the population) who were found to be victims of
child maltreatment, who entered foster care, and who were in care on the last day of
the fiscal year.
8 Changes in state child population may affect the number of children entering foster care.
Most states (32) saw a change in their child population (plus or minus) of 5% or less
between 1999 and 2005. Texas, which saw a large increase in both the number of children
in care and the number of entries to foster care between FY1999 and FY2005, was one of
eight states (AZ, CO, DC, FL, GA, NC, TX, and VA) that saw an increase in child
population of between 10% and 20% across that six-year time frame. (The Texas increase
was 11%.) Child population data used to analyze state changes are based on U.S. Census
Bureau population estimates provided in Child Maltreatment 1999 and Child Maltreatment
2005.
9 Changes in the number of entries are based on children reported as entering care anytime
during FY1999 compared to those reported as entering care anytime during FY2005.
Available data includes 49 states, DC, and PR. Data from NV are not available for FY1999,
and so the state is excluded from the analysis. Based on USDHHS Caseload Estimates,
March 2007 and April 2005.
CRS-5
Table 1. National Estimates of Children Found To Be
Victims of Abuse or Neglect, Entering Foster Care,
and Remaining in Foster Care, 1990-2005
(Rate refers to the number of children per 1,000 in the general child populationa)
Yearb
Children Found to Be
Entering Foster Care
In Foster Care on the
Victims of Abuse or Neglectc
During the Yearc
Last Day of the Yearc
Total
Rate
Total
Rate
Total
Rated
1990
860,000
13.4
238,000
3.7
400,000
6.2
1991
911,000
14.0
224,000
3.4
414,000
6.4
1992
998,000
15.1
238,000
3.6
427,000
6.5
1993
1,025,000
15.3
230,000
3.4
445,000
6.6
1994
1,031,000
15.2
254,000
3.7
468.000
6.9
1995
1,006,000
14.7
255,000
3.7
483,000
7.0
1996
1,015,000
14.7
237,000
3.4
507,000
7.3
1997
953,000
13.7
251,000
3.6
537,000
7.7
1998
904,000
12.9
299,000
4.2
559,000
7.9
1999
828,000
11.8
293,000
4.1
567,000
8.0
2000
883,000
12.2
293,000
4.0
552,000
7.5
2001
905,000
12.5
296,000
4.0
545,000
7.4
2002
897,000
12.3
303,000
4.1
533,000
7.2
2003
893,000
12.2
295,000
4.0
519,000
7.0
2004
879,000
12.0
306,000
4.1
517,000
7.0
2005
899,000
12.1
311,000
4.2
513,000
6.9
2006
Data not yet available
512,000
6.8
Source: Child abuse and neglect victims and rate are as reported in U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Children’s Bureau, Child
Maltreatment 2004, April 2006, Table 3-3, as amended and updated by Child Maltreatment 2005
(April 2007), Table 3-2. Children entering, and in, foster care FY1990-FY1997 are based on estimates
provided in U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Green Book
2004, and for remaining years are based on estimates (final, interim, or preliminary) provided by HHS,
ACF, Children’s Bureau.
a. Child population data used to calculate the rates of children entering or in care are not shown in this
table but are drawn from U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for individuals under the age
of 18. The population estimates used included children in all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and (beginning with 1998) Puerto Rico.
b. Data on child maltreatment victims were reported by calendar year from 1990 through 2002 and by
fiscal year in 2003 and each year thereafter. Reporting methodologies related to children
entering or in care varied over time. However, beginning no later than 1995, estimates of
children entering foster care refer to those who entered at any time during the fiscal year and for
children in foster care refer to those in care on the last day of the fiscal year.
c. Data from Puerto Rico is included regarding child maltreatment for the first time in 2005 and
regarding entries to foster care and children in foster care beginning, at least, with 1998.
d. A relatively small number of children in foster care are 18 years of age or older. These youth are
included in the calculation of the rate, even though the population estimates used are of
individuals under the age of 18 only.
CRS-6
Scope of Children and Families Served
Federal child welfare policy has sometimes been considered synonymous with
foster care policy, and most federal dedicated funding and policy proscriptions are
related to children in foster care. At the same time, the mission of child welfare
agencies, as described in federal policy, and the group of children and families those
agencies work with, is far broader.
Figure 1. Children Brought to the Attention of,
or Served by, Child Welfare Agencies
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2005
(April 2007); Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System, “Trends in
Foster Care and Adoption” (January 2007); State Title IV-E foster care expenditure
claims for FY2005.
During FY2005 (most recent data available), states received allegations of
abuse or neglect related to roughly six million children. Many of these allegations
were “screened out,” and no further attention was given to the case. A screen out
might occur because the alleged behavior does not match the state definition of child
abuse or neglect, because the case is transferred to another agency (considered by the
child protective services agency to be more appropriate), because not enough
information was provided to follow up on the allegation, or for other reasons. In the
end, states conducted investigations or assessments of abuse or neglect involving
some 3.6 million children during FY2005 and found more than 899,000 children to
be victims of child abuse or neglect. States also reported providing post-
investigation services to an estimated 1.3 million children, including some of those
who were found to be victims as well as some who were not found to be victims.
CRS-7
Most of these children, 73%, were served in their homes, and the remainder were
removed to foster care.10
Although the number of children receiving some services after the investigation
(1.3 million) exceeds the number of victims (899,000), not all victims received post-
investigation services.11 Instead, the data reported by states suggest that roughly three
out of every five victims received any services following the investigation. Overall,
states reported that, among children found to be victims of child maltreatment, an
estimated 22% were removed to foster care, and roughly equal portions of the
remaining victims were either served in their homes (39%) or received neither in-the-
home nor out-of-the home services following the investigation (40%). Among the
children who were not found to be “victims” in the investigation, a little more than
one out of every four received services, of which less than 5% were removed to foster
care, roughly 22% received services in the home, and the remaining 73% received
neither in-the-home nor out-of-the-home services.12
Finally, during FY2005, states reported serving some 800,000 children for at
least one day (24 hours) in foster care. This number includes some children who
were in care at the beginning of the year and some of those who entered care during
that fiscal year — whether due to abuse or neglect or another reason (e.g., child
behavior). On the last day of the fiscal year (September 30, 2005), an estimated
513,000 children were in foster care.13
Activities of the Child Welfare Agency. Federal statute authorizes state
child welfare agencies to use federal funds to offer a broad range of services and
other activities toward the central goals of ensuring the well-being of children and
their families and ensuring that children have safe and permanent homes.14 These
services and activities may take a variety of forms and include the following:
10 Child Maltreatment 2005.
11 Ibid. Not all states reported data on the number of victims and non-victims served
following an investigation. The total numbers and shares of victims served, or not served,
are national estimates using data provided by reporting states (45, including DC and PR,
regarding victims and 40 regarding non-victims). These data should be treated as rough
estimates.
12 Children who are non-victims may nonetheless be served because of risk factors
identified during the course of the investigation and consequent efforts intended to prevent
future abuse or neglect. The reason that children counted as “non-victims” are sometimes
removed from their homes is not fully understood. These children may be the siblings of
other children who have been found to be victims of maltreatment, they may have been
removed for alternative reasons (e.g., child behavior issue), or there may be other issues
(including those related to how states report these data).
13 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis
Reporting System (AFCARS) data, “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, FY2000-
FY2005.” (Based on data submitted by states as of January 2007.)
14 These broad goals are most clearly expressed in the federal regulations promulgated as
part of implementing the Title IV-B, Subpart 2 program (now known as the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program). See “Principals of Child and Family Services,” at U.S. Code
of Federal Regulations 45CFR 1355.22.
CRS-8
! efforts to educate the public about child abuse or neglect and how to
report suspected maltreatment;
! efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect and improve child and
family well-being generally (such as provision of community-based
family support services like parenting education classes);
! procedures to identify children who have been abused or neglected
(such as operating a hotline to receive and screen referrals and
investigating abuse or neglect allegations);
! procedures and services to protect children from unsafe home
situations by providing services to prevent the need for their removal
(such as parenting education, respite care, counseling, or mental
health, substance abuse or other treatment services); or, when
necessary, finding a temporary foster home for children and
supporting their stay in foster care;
! services and activities to enable children removed to foster care to
be returned to their families (e.g. permanency planning; counseling;
mental health, substance abuse, or other treatment services;
parenting education; or other supports for children or their parents);
! for children and youth who cannot be reunited with their biological
parents, services and activities to enable them to be placed in another
permanent family (e.g. locating and supporting adoptive parents or
fit and willing legal guardians for those children and youth); and
! procedures to identify children likely to “age out” of foster care
without finding a permanent family and services and activities to
enable these youth to succeed as independent adults (including
services and support to youth who have already aged out of the
foster care system).
Federal Child Welfare Funding in FY2008. For FY2008, Congress made
available just under $7.9 billion in dedicated child welfare funding. By far the largest
amount of this funding is made available for states to help support and provide
certain casework activities (e.g. permanency planning) for eligible children who have
been removed from their birth families — primarily due to abuse or neglect. These
include children in foster care ($4.6 billion) and children who have been adopted
(primarily out of foster care) ($2.2 billion). A smaller amount of FY2008 federal
child welfare funding ($763 million) is distributed to all states for a wide range of
child and family services and activities. These include to identify and assess children
at risk of child maltreatment; prevent the removal of children from their homes when
possible; plan for and permit the safe reuniting of children in foster care with their
parents (or when this is not possible, plan for and find another permanent home for
children in foster care); and, overall, to provide services intended to ensure the safety
and well-being of children in their homes (whether with biological parents, other
relatives, or in foster or adoptive families). Separately, states receive some funding
($185 million in FY2008) to help youth that are expected to leave foster care without
CRS-9
being placed in a permanent home (or for those who have already done so) to
successfully make the transition to independent adulthood. Finally, funds totaling
$173 million in FY2008 is made available (mostly as competitive grants to eligible
entities) primarily for support of research, demonstration or pilot programs, services
and other activities related to child welfare.15
Federal Program Administration. Nearly all federal child welfare programs
are administered by the Children’s Bureau, within the Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
A handful of programs (authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act and related
primarily to court adjudication of child abuse cases) are administered by the Office
of Justice Programs within the Department of Justice.
Congressional Committee Work. In Congress, the House Ways and Means
Committee and the Senate Finance Committee typically report legislation related to
the largest child welfare programs, all of which are authorized under the Social
Security Act. These include the Title IV-B programs (Child Welfare Services and
Promoting Safe and Stable Families) and the Title IV-E programs (Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance, Adoption Incentives, and the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program, including Education and Training Vouchers).
At the same time, the House Education and Labor Committee and the Senate
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee generally report bills
amending the grant programs authorized under the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA). That law authorizes grants to states to improve child
protective services; grants for research, demonstrations, and other activities; and
grants for community-based services to prevent child abuse and neglect.16 Those
same committees have typically dealt with legislative proposals related to two
additional and freestanding programs: Adoption Opportunities and Abandoned
Infants Assistance. Finally, several other committees deal with a variety of
competitive grant programs related to child welfare purposes (see Table 2).
Funding Authority. Many federal social service programs, including some
child welfare programs, have discretionary and time-limited funding authorizations.
This gives Congress the discretion to appropriate funds for the program (generally
up to the amount specified in the authorizing law) for a specific number of years
(e.g., for FY2004-FY2008). A discretionary funding authorization is said to “expire”
once the last year of the funding authorization is completed. Although Congress may
15 For more information, see CRS Report RL34121, Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed
Federal Funding, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
16 In addition to those three grant programs, Section 107 of CAPTA contains the program
authority for grants to all states to improve the handling and prosecution of child abuse and
neglect cases. These grants were initially authorized by the Children’s Justice Act of 1986
(Title I of P.L. 99-401) but program authority was subsequently moved to CAPTA. At the
same time, authority to fund these grants is not provided in CAPTA but remains in a
separate law. That law, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473, as amended),
authorizes a set-aside of up to $20 million annually (out of the Crime Victims Fund) for
these grants.
CRS-10
sometimes choose to appropriate funds even after the expiration of the funding
authorization, congressional committees that authorize federal programs often use
these dates as a time to revisit how the programs are working and to consider
“reauthorization” legislation.
Other child welfare programs have mandatory funding authorizations — either
capped (meaning the amount of funding that must be provided is specified in the
authorizing statute) or open-ended (meaning the funding level is ultimately
determined by the value of eligible claims submitted by states). The funding for some
of these child welfare programs is authorized on a time-limited basis (like the
discretionary authorizations discussed above), while for others it is authorized on a
“permanent” basis. A permanent funding authority may only be ended by repealing
the law that provides for this authority. For programs with a permanent funding
authority, there is no need for “reauthorization” legislation. All the same, just as with
programs that have time-limited funding authorities, an authorizing committee may
propose to amend the program at any time.
Table 2 shows selected federal child welfare programs by funding authority
(kind, expiration, and level of the program’s current, or most recent, certain sum
funding amount); FY2008 appropriation level; and committee that has previously
exercised jurisdiction over the program.
Table 2. Selected Child Welfare Programs by Funding Authority,
FY2008 Appropriation (Enacted Funding), and Committee
(Funding authority amount is shown as the most recent certain sum funding amount authorized.
If a program’s funding authority has expired, the amount of funding authorized at the time of
expiration is displayed in brackets.)
Program
Funding Authority
FY2008
Committeesa
Approp.
Kind
Expiration
Amount
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Child Welfare
discretionary
FY2011
$325
$282
House:
Services (Subpart 1)
million
million
Ways and Means
Promoting Safe and
discretionary
FY2011
$545
$408
Senate:
Stable Families
and capped
million
million
Finance
Program (Subpart 2)
mandatory
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
Foster Care
open-ended
permanent
amount
$4.6
House:
mandatory
necessary
billionb
Ways and Means
to pay all
Adoption Assistance
open-ended
permanent
eligible
$2.2
Senate:
mandatory
claims
billionb
Finance
Adoption Incentives
discretionary
FY2008
$43 million
$4
million
Chafee Foster Care
capped
permanent
$140
$140
House:
Independence
mandatory
million
million
Ways and Means
Program (CFCIP)
Senate:
Education and
discretionary
permanent
$60 million
$45
Finance
Training Vouchers
million
(CFCIP)
CRS-11
Program
Funding Authority
FY2008
Committeesa
Approp.
Kind
Expiration
Amount
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
State Grants
discretionary
FY2008
$120
$27
House: Education
millionc
million
and Labor
Discretionary
discretionary
FY2008
$37
Senate: Health,
Activities
million
Education, Labor
Community-Based
discretionary
FY2008
$80
$42
and Pensions
Grants to Prevent
millionc
million
(HELP)
Child Abuse and
Neglect
Victims of Child Abuse Act
Court Appointed
discretionary
FY2011
$12 million
$13
House: Judiciary
Special Advocates
million
Senate: Judiciary
Children’s Advocacy
discretionary
FY2005
[$20
$17
Centers
million]
million
Training for judges
discretionary
FY2005
[$2
$2
and judicial
million]
million
practitioners
Other Programs
Adoption
discretionary
FY2008
$40 million
$26
House: Education
Opportunities
million
and Labor
Abandoned Infants
discretionary
FY2008
$45 million
$12
Senate: HELP
Assistance
million
Adoption Awareness
discretionary
FY2005
[such sums
$12
House: Energy
as may be
million
and Commerce
necessary]
Senate:
HELP
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The committees listed are those committees that reported the legislation that initially authorized the program
(or reported the most recent legislation amending or reauthorizing the program).
b. The amount of funds provided for the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs is based on
the amount of funds the Administration estimates it will need to reimburse eligible claims under those
programs for the fiscal years. Any funds not needed for this purpose are returned to the treasury;
alternatively if not enough funds have been provided, Congress must provide the funds necessary to
reimburse the eligible claims.
c. For FY2004, P.L. 108-36 provided a combined funding authorization of $120 million for CAPTA state grants
and discretionary activities, along with a separate authorization of $80 million for CAPTA Community-
Based grants. Both funding authorizations were continued for each of FY2005 through FY2008 at “such
sums as may be necessary.”
CRS-12
Child Welfare Hearings in the 110th Congress
In 2007, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and
Family Support, the subcommittee that has exercised jurisdiction over the largest
share of federal child welfare programs, held several hearings that were directly
related to child welfare policy. No hearings were held in the Senate during the first
session of the 110th Congress that focused primarily on child welfare.
Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System. The first of these
hearings, and the broadest in scope, was held on May 15, 2007, and sought to
identify the major challenges facing the child welfare system.17 Witnesses at the
hearing included representatives of the American Public Human Services Association
(APHSA), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Casey Family Programs
(a private foundation that both provides foster care services and supports research to
improve those services), an independent consultant (who was also a former child
welfare administrator), and the first lady of Virginia (who previously served as a
judge in juvenile and domestic relations court).
Witnesses most often highlighted concerns related to
! the availability or adequacy of services provided to families and
children (including services to prevent placement, reunite families,
or to sustain permanence via post-reunification, post-adoption, or
guardianship supports and services);
! the recruitment of foster homes for children, especially older
children and those with special needs; and
! ensuring adequate child welfare workforce staffing and training, and
availability of federal funds for child welfare purposes.18
Other specific challenges cited included disproportionate representation of African-
American children (and other racial or ethnic minority groups) in the child welfare
system, and providing adequate services to youth in foster care, as well as those who
leave the system without being placed in a permanent home (i.e., those who “age-
out”).
Recommendations. With regard to the availability and adequacy of services,
witnesses noted both the difficulty and necessity of cross-system collaborations to
17 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support
Subcommittee, “Hearing on Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System,” May 15, 2007,
available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=559].
18 These concerns generally echoed or expanded on the challenges identified most frequently
by state child welfare administrators in a survey conducted by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) between October 2005 and August 2006. See U.S. GAO,
Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and Technical Assistance
Information Would Help Address Long-standing Service Level and Workforce Challenges,
GAO-07-75, October 2006.
CRS-13
treat child and family health, mental health, or substance abuse issues, and to respond
to housing and education needs. They also cited the importance of addressing how
federal funds are distributed for child welfare purposes. Among the recommendations
for change with regard to recruitment and retention of foster families, witnesses
suggested the need to focus on recruiting families willing and able to care for older
children in foster care or those with special needs and to better prepare foster parents
(both kin and non-kin) to adequately meet these needs. Recommendations on
workforce issues included setting national standards for the number of cases that may
be assigned to a single child welfare caseworker as well as providing standards for
staff levels needed among workers who receive and screen calls alleging abuse or
neglect (“hotline” workers). Improved training, support, and accountability for
supervisors and caseworkers was recommended. Finally, a number of witnesses
stressed the importance of accountability. Although some cited the federal Child and
Family Services Review (CFSR) as a positive step, others sought greater efforts in
this regard. Some witnesses also stressed the value and necessity of HHS-supported
training and technical assistance to improve child welfare practice.
Youth Aging-Out of Foster Care. At a June 19, 2007, hearing, the
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support looked broadly at issues
facing vulnerable youth populations — including those who are homeless or
“disconnected” (i.e., those not in school or employed) and those who “age-out” of
foster care.19 Several witnesses at this hearing spoke about children in foster care and
their need for educational stability.20 On July 12, the subcommittee held a hearing
specifically concerning the support services and activities available to those youth in
foster care who upon reaching the state age of majority (typically on their 18th
birthday) leave state custody without being reunited with their birth family or placed
in another permanent family.21 (These independent adolescents are frequently referred
to as youth who have “aged out.”) Witnesses at the July 12 hearing included
Representative Dennis Cardoza (who is the father of two children adopted from
foster care); the GAO; several youths who had “aged out” of foster care; and,
representatives of research and advocacy groups who are interested in learning about,
and improving, the outcomes for youth who age out of foster care.22
Advocates and researchers noted that although some youth managed to do well
when they left care, in many cases youth aging out of foster care had low educational
attainment, experienced homelessness, were unable to pay bills (e.g. rent, utilities),
experienced early pregnancy or parenthood, or had relatively frequent involvement
19 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support
Subcommittee, “Hearing on Disconnected and Disadvantaged Youth,” June 19, 2007,
available at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=569].
20 Ibid. See testimony of Representative Michele Bachmann, who has been a foster parent,
and of Dan Lips, an Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
21 For information about federal support services see CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare:
The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, by Adrienne Fernandes.
22 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support
Subcommittee, “Hearing on Children who ‘Age Out’ of the Foster Care System,” July 12,
2007; [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=576].
CRS-14
with the criminal justice system. Researchers testified that independent living
services for youth varied widely by state23 and were “spotty,” with one survey
showing that less than half of youth exiting foster care receive transitional services
related to vocational training and employment, budgeting and financial management,
health education, housing, and services to promote youth development. At least half
did indicate they had received some educational support.24
Recommendations. The youth who testified stressed the critical importance
of working to create permanent connections for youth before they leave foster care
— by matching the youth with a permanent supportive family, including relative
families, or, at the least, by helping the youth connect with an adult mentor. Some
suggested that youth should have the option to remain in foster care custody until at
least age 21 (with federal support), called on child welfare agencies to pay greater
attention to sibling connections for youth in care, and, overall, emphasized the
necessity of supports and services for youth who age out of foster care. Researchers
and advocates testifying also noted the critical importance of finding permanence for
foster youth by creating adult connections for them. They further highlighted the need
to provide services and supports related to housing, financial literacy, employment,
education, and job training. Finally, some emphasized the importance of private
foundation or other community engagement on the issue of youth aging out of foster
care and called for better data on outcomes for youth and the services that are now
offered.25
Health Care for Children in Foster Care. On July 19, 2007, the
subcommittee held a hearing to review the health and mental health status of children
in foster care, as well as their access to needed services. Witnesses included
researchers; medical doctors, including a representative of the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP); and a state child welfare administrator (representing APHSA).26
23 Testimony from the GAO about wide variety in independent living services (as well as
information available about those services) was based, in part, on a 2004 survey of state
independent living programs discussed in U.S. GAO, Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could
Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States’ Independent Living Programs,
GAO-05-25, November 2004. Available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0525.pdf].
24 Testimony from Mark Courtney, based on findings from the three-state “Midwest
Evaluation of Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth.” To learn more, see
[http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355].
25 In 1999 (P.L. 106-169) Congress required development of a national data system to track
outcomes for youth aging out of foster care. The system has not been implemented yet, but
a notice of proposed rule making was published in July 2006. For more information, request
a copy of CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum,”Notice of Proposed Rule Making
to Implement the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act Database,” by Adrienne Fernandes,
August 28, 2006.
26 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Income Security
and Family Support, “Hearing on Health Care for Children in Foster Care,” July 19, 2007;
[http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=578].
CRS-15
The witnesses referenced studies showing that children in foster care have high
rates of physical and mental health needs. A recent research review concluded that
35% to 60% of children in foster care have at least one chronic health issue or a
significant acute health condition. And a nationally representative study of children
in foster care for at least one year (ages 2-14) found that nearly half (47%) had
clinically significant emotional or behavioral issues. Children in foster care are
typically eligible for Medicaid and should receive screening and treatment under that
program’s Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT)
component. Further, many children in foster care are eligible for services under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but identification of the need for
such services and access to them is not always provided.27
Recommendations. Witnesses at the July 19 hearing stressed the importance
of early identification of problems. They noted the importance of establishing
channels for coordination between health, mental health, education, and child welfare
agencies to ensure that timely assessments are made and appropriate treatment is
offered. Testimony regarding the prescription of psychotropic medication for children
in foster care stressed the importance of a clinical review of a child’s medical history
and need, as well as clear consent protocols. The critical importance of access to
complete medical histories for children in foster care was also raised. Proposals
related to creating electronic records (e.g. web-based) to store and permit needed
access to medical histories, as well as establishment of a “medical home” for each
child in foster care were discussed.28
Legislative Proposals for Change
The 109th Congress enacted numerous changes intended to improve and
strengthen child welfare services, including a number of new requirements that states
must meet related to children in foster care.29 Many proposals to further amend
federal child welfare policy continue to be debated. Legislation that would respond
to a number of the concerns raised in the child welfare hearings held during 2007,
including proposals to change the federal child welfare financing structure, has been
introduced in the 110th Congress. These proposals would expand the eligible
populations served with Title IV-E funds and provide some additional support for
child and family services. (Appendix A discusses several child welfare financing
proposals made outside of Congress — including a proposal by the Bush
Administration — that have influenced or continue to influence legislative
proposals.)
27 Ibid. See written testimony of John Landsverk, Director, Child and Adolescent Services
Research Center, Rady Children’s Hospital and Senior Scholar, George Warren Brown
School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis.
28 A “medical home” refers to treatment of one child by one pediatrician/pediatric practice.
29 See CRS Report RL34252, Child Welfare: Recently Enacted Changes in Federal Policy,
by Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-16
Other legislative proposals would authorize or require new services and
protections for children in (or about to enter) foster care; seek to improve services for
youth who are aging out of care (including those who have already exited due to age);
encourage greater access to a range of services for kinship caregivers and further
encourage their involvement as decision-makers and use as caregivers for children
who cannot remain safely with their parents; aim to improve foster and adoptive
parent recruitment efforts of state child welfare agencies; permit direct access to
federal Title IV-E funds for tribal governments; and make other related changes
intended to enhance the safety, permanence, and well-being of children.
These legislative proposals are described in greater detail below. Most of the
bills discussed would amend child welfare programs and policy that currently exist;
however, some would create new and freestanding programs or would amend other
social service or education programs. An effort was made to identify bills with
proposals that highlight a wide range of child welfare policy concerns and that would
be expected to affect the primary populations served by the child welfare agency (as
well as the child welfare agency itself). At the same time, this discussion is not
comprehensive and inclusion of a bill (or exclusion) is not intended to suggest the
viability (or lack of viability) for a given proposal.
Proposals to Expand Title IV-E Eligible Populations
A number of bills would expand the population of children who are eligible for
federal assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security by de-linking the program
(or parts of it) from the eligibility rules of the former federal cash welfare program
(repealed in 1996 by P.L. 104-193). That program was known as Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC). Additional bills would further expand the
population of children who may be served with Title IV-E dollars by permitting
eligible children leaving foster care for legal guardianship (in a relative’s home) to
receive Title IV-E support and by extending the age at which youth could remain
eligible for Title IV-E foster care support to 21 years of age.
De-Link Foster Care and Adoption Assistance from AFDC Rules.
The overall share of children in the national foster care caseload who are eligible for
Title IV-E foster care support has been in decline. This share was estimated to be less
than half of all children in foster care in FY2006 (43%) compared to a high of 51%-
55% in the mid-to late 1990s.30 Three bills would de-link federal Title IV-E foster
care and adoption assistance eligibility from the income (and all, or most, other
eligibility rules) of the prior law AFDC program: The Investment in Kids Instruction,
Development and Support Act, or Invest in KIDS Act (H.R. 5466), an omnibus child
30 There are various ways to estimate this coverage rate on a national basis and the coverage
rates shown here are based on the average monthly number of children claimed by states as
eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments (expenditure data) in a given fiscal
year compared to the number of children the state reported in foster care on the last day of
the same fiscal year (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, AFCARS
data). For example, there were an estimated 512,000 children in care on the last day of
FY2006, and during that year, states submitted Title IV-E foster care maintenance payment
claims for an average monthly number of 220,000 children in foster care.
CRS-17
welfare policy bill introduced by Representative McDermott; the Partnership for
Children and Families Act (H.R. 4207), introduced by Representative Berkley; and
the Place to Call Home Act (H.R. 3409), an omnibus youth policy bill introduced by
Representative Hinojosa.31 This change would potentially expand eligibility for
federal foster care maintenance payments and adoption assistance subsidies to
include any child in foster care as well as any child adopted from foster care who
meets state “special needs” criteria.
Share of Eligible Children. There are multiple criteria for federal Title IV-E
eligibility (see Appendix B) and wide variation among states in the estimated share
of children in foster care who meet these eligibility criteria. No simple correlation
between a state’s 1996 income eligibility rules and the share of its foster care
caseload that is Title IV-E eligible can be established. Nonetheless, the current law
requirement that links Title IV-E foster care (and in most cases adoption assistance)
eligibility to the income rules of the now-repealed AFDC program is viewed by many
as an explanation for the recent decline in the share of children who are eligible for
federal foster care support. Specifically, federal law requires a state to “look back”
to, and apply, the income and other eligibility rules that were in use in the state (on
July 16, 1996) under the prior law cash welfare program, AFDC.32
This requirement has limited Title IV-E eligibility to children from families
whose incomes represent a declining share of the federal poverty guidelines. In 1996,
the median value of all states’ AFDC income tests for a family of three was equal to
60% of the federal poverty level; by 2007 this median value had slipped to 45%. In
fully two-thirds of the states (34, including DC) the Title IV-E income eligibility test
for a family of three is now less than 50% of the federal poverty guideline for a
family of three (or less than $8,585).33
Nature of Funding. There is no upper (or lower) limit on federal Title IV-E
foster care (or adoption assistance) funding to states. Instead, the federal government
is committed to sharing a fixed part of every eligible claim submitted by a state on
behalf of an eligible child. This kind of federal funding is sometimes referred to as
“open-ended entitlement” funding. H.R. 5466, H.R. 3409, and H.R. 4207 would
continue to provide support for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments and
adoption assistance payments on an open-ended entitlement basis. These bills would
also provide for continued open-ended reimbursement for related child placement
31 H.R. 5466 would strike all references to the prior AFDC program with regard to
eligibility. However, for purposes of federal Title IV-E eligibility, H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4207
would continue to require that a child must have been removed to foster care from the home
of a specified relative as defined in the prior law AFDC program.
32 Whereas the current link was established by the 1996 welfare reform measure (P.L. 104-
193), the initial link between eligibility for cash aid and federal reimbursement for foster
care expenses was established in the early 1960s. For a brief review of the policy and its
legislative history, see CRS Report RL32849, Child Welfare Financing: An Issue Overview,
by Emilie Stoltzfus.
33 CRS calculations based on annualized state AFDC “need standards” for a family of three
(as they existed in 1996) and the federal poverty guidelines for a family of three in 1996 and
2007.
CRS-18
activities (e.g. case management), training, data collection costs, and other program
administration costs. However, H.R. 5466 would limit overall state reimbursement
for specific administrative costs — eligibility determination, setting payment rates
for foster care homes and institutions, and for related agency overhead — to no more
than 15% of a state’s federal Title IV-E administrative funding34 and H.R. 3409
would limit those same costs to no more then 15% of a state’s total federal Title IV-E
funding. (H.R. 4207 does not include this limit.)
Reimbursement Rates. H.R. 4207 would not make any changes to current
federal reimbursement rates under Title IV-E. However, H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409
propose to reduce the expected cost to the federal government of expanding
eligibility for Title IV-E by reducing the rate at which states are now reimbursed for
foster care and adoption assistance costs. In general, these bills propose to determine
what portion of all state’s total foster care and adoption assistance costs (whether
incurred on behalf of a IV-E eligible child or a non-IV-E eligible child) is now
provided by the federal government, and would ensure that this same national level
of commitment be continued into the future. To achieve this, each state’s current
reimbursement rates under the Title IV-E program (except those related to training,
and development and operation of a data collection system) would be reduced by the
same percentage. At the same time, H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409 would provide a three-
year period, following the enactment of these changes, during which any state that
received fewer federal foster care or adoption assistance dollars because of lowered
federal reimbursement rates, could submit additional claims to receive funding at the
level they would have received under prior law.35 Ultimately, the overall share of
federal support received by the state during that three-year period would be used as
part of establishing its Title IV-E reimbursement rates.
Current Law. Currently, the reimbursement rate for foster care maintenance
payments and adoption assistance payments is pegged to the state’s Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which ranges from a low of 50% (for highest per
capita income states) to as high as 83% (for lowest per capita income states);36 the
reimbursement rate for program administration costs, including child placement
activities is 50%; and the reimbursement rate for training costs is 75%. With the
exception of eligibility determination and certain data collection costs (both counted
as administrative costs), foster care and adoption assistance costs may only be
reimbursed if incurred on behalf of Title IV-E eligible children. States are expected
to pay the full costs for children who do not meet the federal eligibility criteria (either
out of state or local treasuries or, if allowable, some other federal funding).
34 H.R. 5466 would exclude from this calculation all administrative expenses related to
training or data collection.
35 This is the presumed intent of the language in these bills.
36 See CRS Report RL32950, Medicaid: The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage
(FMAP), by April Grady. The statute provides that for purposes of the Medicaid program,
the District of Columbia’s FMAP is fixed at 70%; however, for purposes of Title IV-E, the
FMAP is calculated annually and has consistently been 50%. Both H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409
would fix the District’s Title IV-E FMAP at 70%, making it equal to its FMAP for
Medicaid.
CRS-19
De-Link Adoption Assistance. In most cases, eligibility for Title IV-E
adoption assistance is also based, in part, on whether or not a child was removed
from a family that met a state’s 1996 AFDC income standards and other eligibility
criteria.37 About 74% of children adopted from foster care during FY2001 received
federal adoption assistance, and 14% received state assistance only. (The remainder
either did not meet state special needs criteria or for some other reason did not
receive ongoing adoption assistance.)38 Data comparable to that used to estimate the
share of all foster children receiving Title IV-E support are not available for the
adoption assistance caseload.39
The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 (S. 1462, introduced by Senator
Rockefeller, and H.R. 4091, introduced by Representative Cooper) would remove
the AFDC link for purposes of Title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility only.40 The
largely identical bills would potentially expand the adoption assistance caseload to
each child who is adopted from foster care, provided that the state has made
reasonable efforts to place the child for adoption without assistance (if appropriate)
and that the child meets the “special needs” criteria of a given state.41 Special needs
criteria are any factors that a state determines make it unlikely that a child will be
adopted without adoption assistance (or medical assistance). These criteria vary by
state but must include a determination by the state that the child cannot or should not
be returned to the home of his parents, and they often address some or all of the
37 A child may currently be eligible for Title IV-E adoption assistance without meeting the
AFDC-related requirements if he or she is eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
or if he or she is the son or daughter of a Title IV-E eligible youth (a “minor”) who is in
foster care and whose foster care maintenance payment includes costs incurred on behalf
of the child.
38 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, Understanding Adoption Subsidies: An Analysis of AFCARS Data,
January 2005. This analysis looks at the rate of federal eligibility among only those children
who were adopted during FY2001.
39 States currently report data on all children with an adoption assistance agreements in the
year an adoption is finalized. Although the number of children receiving Title IV-E
supported adoption assistance (regardless of the year of the adoption finalization) may be
estimated based on state Title IV-E expenditure claims, there are no data reported regarding
the total number of children who receive adoption assistance payments, whether federally
subsidized or solely state supported, regardless of the year the adoption was finalized. HHS,
however, has recently proposed to collect this data. See Federal Register, Proposed Rules,
“Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System,” January 11, 2008, p. 2083.
40 S. 1462 would also make optional the current requirement that for a foster child to be
eligible for adoption assistance, a judge (as opposed to, for instance, the child welfare
agency) must have determined that the child’s continuation in the home of their parents was
contrary to the child’s welfare. H.R. 4091 would maintain the requirement that such a
determination be made by a judge.
41 S. 1462 and H.R. 4091 would also remove the need for a child to meet the income
eligibility of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to be eligible for Title IV-E
Adoption Assistance and would permit the continued eligibility of other specific groups of
children who now may qualify for Title IV-E adoption assistance, including those
voluntarily relinquished and those who are the children of a Title IV-E-eligible minor in
foster care whose maintenance payment included costs incurred on behalf of the child.
CRS-20
additional factors suggested in federal law, including ethnic background, membership
in a minority or sibling group, medical conditions, or physical, mental, or emotional
handicaps.42
The number of children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance has grown
dramatically in the recent past — from 106,200 in FY1995 to more than 376,800 in
FY2006. The Administration predicts that in an average month in FY2009, 430,400
children will receive this assistance.43 The growth in the number of children receiving
federal adoption assistance is consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of
1997 (ASFA, P.L. 105-89), which among other things encouraged states to
expeditiously aid the adoption of children out of foster care (when returning home
is not possible for them). Some states had begun to increase these efforts even before
this legislative change, and between FY1995 and FY2000, the number of children
adopted with public child welfare agency involvement nearly doubled (from 25,700
to 51,100). Since FY2000, adoptions with public child welfare agency involvement
have remained roughly constant at between 50,000 and 53,000 children annually.44
Support for Subsidized Guardianship. Children in foster care frequently
live with relatives: on the last day of FY2005, about one in four of all children in
foster care (more than 124,000) were living in the home of a relative. In addition,
many children leave foster care to live with relatives. In FY2005, some 12,700
children left foster care to be adopted by a relative; about the same number of
children (n=12,900) left foster care for legal guardianship (most of these placements
are presumed to be with relatives), and many more left care to live with a relative in
some other (less formal) arrangement (n =31,300).45 The Kinship Caregiver Support
Act (S. 661, introduced by Senator Clinton, and H.R. 2188, introduced by
Representative Danny Davis), as well as H.R. 5466, an omnibus child welfare policy
bill, and H.R. 3409, an omnibus youth policy bill, would permit states to seek open-
ended federal reimbursement under Title IV-E for a part of the cost of providing
guardianship subsidies to relatives who assume legal guardianship of children who
were previously in foster care and were Title IV-E eligible.46
42 Section 473(c) of the Social Security Act.
43 U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Green Book 2004, Table 11-3; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and
Families, Title IV-E State Claims for Adoption Assistance Expenditures — FY2006, (May
2007); and Budget of the United States Government, FY2009 - Appendix, p. 462.
44 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), “Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfare Agency Involvement
By State, FY1995-FY-2005” (revised March 2007); available at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/
programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/adoptchild05.pdf].
45 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The AFCARS Report (13), Preliminary
FY2005 Estimates as of September 2006, available at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/
cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm].
46 S. 661 and H.R. 2188 would also authorize “such sums as may be necessary” for
guardianship payment programs established as demonstrations in large metropolitan areas
of any state that opted not to participate in the Title IV-E guardianship payment program.
CRS-21
Federal child welfare policy views guardianship as a positive permanent
placement for children who cannot be reunited with their parents and for whom
adoption is not possible or appropriate.47 Some research has found that on a range of
factors related to safety (recurrence of maltreatment), permanence (re-entry to foster
care) and well-being (school performance, engagement in risky behaviors, and access
to community resources), children placed in a subsidized guardianship fare at least
as well as children who left foster care to be reunited with birth families or were
adopted. Further, this research found that children placed in subsidized guardianships
cited as positive both an increased sense of stability and loss of the “stigma” of foster
care, while their caregivers pointed to their enhanced ability to make decisions for the
child around health care, family visits, and education as a principal advantage of
guardianship over foster care.48 In 2007, the GAO recommended that “Congress
consider amending federal law to allow federal reimbursement for legal guardianship
similar to that currently provided for adoption” as a way to reduce the
disproportionate representation of African-American children in foster care.49
Many relative caregivers have limited income. Advocates of federally supported
subsidized guardianship argue that financial support is critical for relatives to assume
care and that many relatives cannot afford to assume care of children outside of the
foster care system. According to a nationally representative survey, close to two out
of every three children (estimated 66%) who were placed in a kinship care
arrangement — after an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect in their own home
— were placed in households with income below 200% of the federal poverty
threshold, including some 40% who went to live in households with incomes below
100% of the federal poverty level.50
Relative caregivers are currently eligible for varying levels of financial support
depending on their legal relationship to the child and the licensing or other policies
of the state in which they live. Relatives may receive foster care maintenance
payments if they serve as formal foster parents for a relative child. However, those
payments may not be Title IV-E (federally) subsidized unless the relative meets the
state’s licensing standards and approval process. Similarly, children who exit foster
care to relative adoption may be eligible for a Title IV-E adoption assistance payment
(but only if that relative meets specific background check requirements). Some
47 Legal guardianship is defined in federal statute (Section 475(7) of the Social Security Act
and is also mentioned in connection with reasonable efforts to place a child in a permanent
home, making a written case plan regarding a child’s permanent placement, and reviewing
a child’s permanent plan. See Section 471(a)(15)(F), Section 475(1)(E), and Section
475(5)(C), all in the Social Security Act.
48 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Synthesis of Findings from the
State Assisted Guardianship Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration Projects (James Bell
Associates: September 2005, available at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_
fund/cwwaiver/agissue/index.htm].
49 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), African American Children in Foster
Care, GAO-07-816, July 2007, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07816.pdf].
50 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Survey of Child and
Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW), CPS Sample Component, Wave 1, Data Analysis Report
(April 2005), pp. 6-13 to 6-16.
CRS-22
(unlicensed) relatives caring for children in formal foster care may instead receive a
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) “child-only” benefit, and this may
also be true for children who exit foster care to either an informal relative-care
arrangement or to a more formal relative guardianship.51 TANF child-only benefit
levels vary by state but are typically worth significantly less than a foster care
maintenance payment. (A 2004 study of child-only benefits in five states found that,
depending on the number of children a relative cares for, a TANF child-only benefit
may represent as little as 22% of the foster care maintenance rate or as much as
82%.)52
Some children who exit foster care to a legal guardian may receive support
through a state-established subsidized guardianship program. There is no dedicated
federal source of funding for state subsidized guardianship programs, but more than
30 states (including DC) are believed to have such programs in place. These
programs vary in design and scope, but all provide monthly financial payments to
adults who assume legal guardianship of a child. Some, but not all, states require
these adults to be relatives, and most require that the child was previously in foster
care (under the responsibility of the state). Typically states rely entirely, or in some
part, on state and local funding to operate subsidized guardianship programs.
However, nine states (IL, IA, MN, MT, NC, OR, TN, VA, and WI) have child
welfare demonstration projects (waivers) specifically allowing federal Title IV-E
funds to provide guardianship payments, although these programs, generally, may not
operate on a statewide basis. As many as 11 states use TANF funds to support
subsidized guardianship programs (including AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IN, KY, LA,
NV, NJ, and ND).53
Proposed State Requirements for Reimbursement of Guardianship.
S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409 would each provide that to claim
federal reimbursement of guardianship payments under Title IV-E, the state child
welfare agency would need to enter into a kinship guardianship assistance agreement
with the legal relative guardian, provide a copy of the agreement to the relative
51 On an average monthly basis in FY2005, as many as 500,000 children who lived with a
non-parent relative received a TANF “child-only” benefit. (See CRS Report RL34206,
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Issues for the 110th Congress, by Gene Falk.)
These children may be living with a relative via private family arrangement, may be in
formal foster care, may be in a legal guardianship or may be in some other less formal
arrangement made by the child welfare agency or the court.
52 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation (report prepared by researchers at RTI International and University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) Children in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) Child-Only Cases with Relative Caregivers (June 2004), pp. 4-10.
53 Generations United, Grandfamilies: Subsidized Guardianship Programs , June 2006 and
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “Summary of Title IV-E Child
Welfare Waiver Demonstrations,” James Bell Associates, May 2007.
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/2007/summary_demo2
007.htm]. Certain additional states (or parts of states) have broad Title IV-E waivers that
might allow them to spend Title IV-E funds for subsidized guardianship.
CRS-23
guardian, and certify that any child moving to a Title IV-E kinship guardianship
arrangement is eligible for Medicaid.
The kinship guardianship assistance agreement would need to specify the
services to be made available to the family and the amount of the kinship
guardianship assistance payment. S. 661, H.R. 2188, and H.R. 3409 would provide
that this amount must take into account the needs of a relative guardian and of the
child and that it may not be less than what the child would otherwise receive as a
foster care maintenance payment. H.R. 5466 would make these same stipulations
except that it would also give states the option to set the payment amount at the
adoption assistance rate the child would have received had he or she been adopted.
All four bills would further provide that the state must pay nonrecurring expenses
associated with obtaining a legal guardianship. Finally, each of the four bills would
require that, for any child in foster care whose permanency plan was legal
guardianship, the state must have documented that relative guardianship is the most
appropriate permanent placement option for the child. And among other items, this
documentation would need to include the reasons the relative had for not pursuing
adoption and the efforts made by the state agency to obtain consent of the child’s
parent (or parents) to the relative guardianship arrangement.
Eligibility of Guardian. S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409 would
each provide that, for an adult guardian to receive assistance payments on behalf of
a former foster child, he or she must be related to the child in foster care; must have
been the foster parent of that child; must show a “strong attachment” to the child,
including a commitment to care for the child on a permanent basis; and must become
the legal guardian of the child through a legal guardianship established by a court.54
All four bills would also require that relative guardians complete a fingerprint-based
criminal background check. S. 661, H.R. 2188 and H.R. 3409 would specify that
relatives with certain criminal histories may not be approved as legal relative
guardians for a child who receives a Title IV-E guardianship assistance payment.
(These provisions regarding denial of approval for prospective caretakers with certain
criminal history records now apply with regard to prospective foster and adoptive
parents.)55 By contrast, although H.R. 5466 requires fingerprint-based criminal record
checks, it does not reference a list of findings that would disqualify a legal relative
guardian from receiving a federally supported (Title IV-E) kinship guardianship
assistance payment on behalf of a child.
Eligibility of Child. S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409 would each
further provide that to be eligible for a Title IV-E guardianship assistance payment,
the child must have been in foster care for at least 12 months and must demonstrate
a strong attachment to the relative guardian. Further, both reuniting with a parent(s)
54 The bills each reference “legal guardianship,” which is defined at Section 475(7) of the
Social Security Act as a “judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which
is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker
of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection, education, care and
control of the person, custody of the person, and decisionmaking.”
55 For more information on the Title IV-E criminal background check requirements see CRS
Report RL34252, Recently Enacted Changes in Federal Policy, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-24
and adoption must be considered inappropriate permanent placement options for the
child. In addition, a child who is 14 years of age or older must be consulted regarding
the kinship guardianship arrangement. And further, a child who does not meet all of
these criteria but is a minor sibling of a child that does may be placed in the same
kinship guardianship assistance arrangement with their eligible sibling, and both may
receive kinship guardianship assistance payments (provided the relative guardian and
child welfare agency agree that this placement is appropriate).
S. 661 and H.R. 2188 would further provide that the child must meet the current
requirements for Title IV-E foster care eligibility (including the income rules tied to
the prior law AFDC program). Both H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409 would also require a
child to have met Title IV-E eligibility requirements in order to be eligible for a Title
IV-E kinship guardianship assistance payment. However, as discussed above, both
of those bills would de-link Title IV-E foster care eligibility from the prior law
AFDC program, so those current law income eligibility rules would not apply. S. 661
and H.R. 2188 also would provide that to be eligible for Title IV-E guardianship
assistance, a child must be under the age of 18 (unless he or she is not yet 19 and is
a full-time student in a secondary school or equivalent level vocational or training
program) or under the age of 21 (if the state determines the child has a mental or
physical illness that warrants continued support). By contrast, H.R. 5466 would
permit a state to choose to provide a federally supported (Title IV-E) kinship
guardianship assistance payment for a youth who remains in the care of a legal
guardian up until his or her 21st birthday. And H.R. 3409 would also permit states to
make these payments on behalf of any otherwise eligible youth up to their 21st
birthday.
Eligible Placement Setting. S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409
would each effectively require that an otherwise eligible child be placed in a
“licensed” home in order for the states to claim reimbursement for the guardianship
payment. However, each of these bills would also amend current law to permit states
to design separate licensing standards that could be applied in the case of relatives.
(See discussion of “Licensing Standards,” below, for more information.)
Training for Relative Guardians. Under current law (Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act), states are permitted to seek reimbursement for 75% of their cost
of training current or prospective foster or adoptive parents (of Title IV-E eligible
children). S. 661, H.R. 2188, and H.R. 5466 would provide that states could also
make claims for reimbursement of 75% of the costs related to the short-term training
for current or prospective relative guardians of Title IV-E eligible children.
Extending the Age Limit for Federal Foster Care Assistance. The
Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act of 2007 (S. 1512 introduced by Senator
Boxer), the Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act of 2007 (H.R. 4208,
introduced by Representative Berkley and S. 2560, introduced by Senator Kerry), the
omnibus child welfare policy bill (H.R. 5466), and the omnibus youth policy bill
(H.R. 3409), would each permit youth who remain in foster care until their 21st
birthday to remain eligible for federal foster care support.
Under current federal policy, children cannot be Title IV-E eligible once they
reach their 18th birthday or (in most states) their 19th birthday if they are finishing
CRS-25
high school or an equivalent level of training.56 Additionally, to be eligible for Title
IV-E foster care, a child must be under the care and placement responsibility of the
state (or any public agency with which the state agency has made an agreement).
However, in most states a child reaches the “age of majority” on their 18th birthday
and is considered to be legally “emancipated” from either his/her parents or, in the
case of a child in foster care, the state foster care system. Most youth leave foster care
upon reaching their 18th birthday, and this is true even though many states now permit
youth to choose to remain in care beyond that date.57 However, with a handful of
exceptions, few states appear to actively facilitate a youth’s extended stay in foster
care — possibly because states must pay most of these foster care costs.
S. 1512 and H.R. 5466 would permit a state to continue to make foster care
maintenance payment claims for an otherwise Title IV-E eligible youth who remains
in foster care (under the responsibility of the state) until the youth’s 21st birthday (or
at state option up until their 19th or 20th birthday). S. 1512 would explicitly state that
remaining in foster care would be a choice made by the youth. H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208,
and S. 2560 would require states to make foster care maintenance payments on
behalf of any otherwise eligible youth who chooses to be in foster care after their 18th
birthday (but not beyond their 21st birthday). Further, under each of H.R. 3409, H.R.
4208, and S. 2560, as part of choosing to remain in foster care, a youth would be
required to enter into a written “voluntary placement agreement” that would be
binding on both the youth and the state agency and that would specify the youth’s
legal status as well as the rights and obligations of both the state agency and the
youth while he or she remains in foster care.
Each of H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, H.R. 5466, and S. 2560 would expand eligible
placement settings for older youth in care. Current federal policy provides that a state
may only claim federal reimbursement for foster care maintenance payments made
on behalf of a child who is placed in a licensed foster family home or “child-care
institution,”and further, that these payments may not be made directly to an older
youth who is in a supervised independent living situation or to help an older foster
youth pay rent.58 Many older foster youth — even those who remain in state care —
do not live with a foster family (or in a child care institution) but instead live in
supervised independent living quarters or with relatives.59 H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and
56 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.3A.2, available at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?
citID=15]. This policy manual incorporates formal guidance and rules from HHS/ACF
related to federal child welfare policy.
57 Regarding states that permit youth to remain in care beyond age 18, see June Kim and
Kevin Sobczyk, Continuing Court Jurisdiction in Support of 18 to 21 Year-Old Foster
Youth, American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law, July 2004.
58 Section 472(b) and HHS, ACF, Child Welfare Policy Manual regarding allowable use of
Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. Section 8.3B, Question 2, available at
[http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citI
D=41#423].
59 A study published in 2005 by Chapin Hall tracked older foster youth in Illinois (where
(continued...)
CRS-26
S. 2560 would each amend the law to explicitly include a licensed supportive housing
facility as a federally eligible placement setting for older youth in foster care and
would also permit foster care maintenance payments to be used to cover the rent for
a youth’s apartment. Alternatively, H.R. 5466 would amend the definition of “child-
care institution” to include a “supervised setting in which the individual is living
independently,” but only for otherwise Title IV-E eligible youth who are at least 18
years of age, and in accordance with any conditions related to the supervised setting
established by HHS in regulations.
Funding for Services to Children and Families
A common criticism of federal child welfare financing is that most federal
support is for children after they have been removed from their homes (i.e., funds
provided for foster care or adoption assistance) and that relatively little federal
funding is provided to encourage states to provide services that would prevent
placement of a child in foster care or to help children who are placed in foster care
be successfully reunited with their parents. In recent years, the share of dedicated
child welfare funding that is available for all states to provide child welfare services
and activities on behalf of any child (or their family) needing them has been about
10% of all dedicated child welfare funding.60
Title IV-E Child and Family Services Component. H.R. 5466 would
authorize open-ended reimbursement of a new child and family services component
under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. This would enable states to seek federal
reimbursement for services that seek to (1) safely reduce the number of children in
foster care; (2) safely reduce the length of stay for children in foster care; (3) increase
the percentage of foster children who are cared for in family-like settings; and (4)
improve the well-being of children in foster care or those who are receiving a Title
IV-E supported adoption assistance or guardianship assistance payment. The federal
reimbursement rate for these services would be pegged to a state’s Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which may range from 50% in the highest per capita
income states to 83% in states with the lowest per capita income.
A state seeking funding under the Title IV-E child and family services
component would need to submit a plan to HHS describing what services it intends
to support with this funding, the process by which it intends to assess the effects of
the spending on the state’s established goals and on other indicators of child welfare
performance, and whether it intends to spend some or all of the funds on a required
Program Improvement Plan (PIP). The plan would also need to contain an assurance
59 (...continued)
youth are permitted to remain in care until their 21st birthday) and found that at age 19, half
(50%) of the surveyed youth lived in supervised independent living settings, about 20%
lived in foster family homes, and 19% lived with relatives. The remainder lived in group
quarters (7%) or other settings (4%). See Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of
Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, Chapin Hall Center for
Children and Families: University of Chicago, May 2005, p. 13.
60 See CRS Report RL34121, Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding, by
Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-27
that the state would submit detailed annual spending reports to HHS (in accordance
with a uniform reporting system to be developed by HHS). HHS would be required
to approve a state’s plan for the child and family services component provided it
meets these specified requirements, except that it may not approve the plan from a
state if a review (e.g., the Child and Family Services Review) has found that the state
is not in substantial conformity with child welfare policy and the state is not
implementing a PIP to correct the failure. Further, HHS would also be permitted to
disapprove a state’s Title IV-E child and family services component plan if the state
was not making meaningful progress toward ending its failure to conform with
federal child welfare policy. Finally, HHS would be allowed to disapprove a state’s
Title IV-E child and family service component plan if the state intended to spend the
funds on a service method substantially the same as one that was used in the last two
of the most recent five years and if the prior spending on that service method failed
to result in meaningful progress toward the goals the state described in its plan.
Finally, states would be required to use the funds received under this new service
component of Title IV-E to supplement, rather than supplant, any federal, state, or
local funds currently used for such child and family services.
Maintenance of Effort Provisions and Service Spending. H.R. 3409
would require each state to spend at least the same amount of money previously spent
to provide foster care maintenance payments for children who were not Title IV-E
eligible (because of the AFDC link) on either foster care maintenance payments or
any of the four services categories for which states must now spend Promoting Safe
and Stable Families funding (i.e. family support, family preservation, time-limited
reunification, and adoption promotion and support).61 S. 1462, which as described
above would remove the AFDC link for purposes of federal eligibility for Adoption
Assistance only, would provide that a state must spend any savings it derives from
the increased share of children that would be eligible for adoption assistance on any
purpose now authorized under Title IV-E or Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
(including post-adoption services). H.R. 4091, which would also expand eligibility
for federal adoption assistance support by removing the AFDC link, would not make
this requirement of states but would include a “Sense of Congress” statement to this
effect.
By removing the AFDC eligibility link and thus increasing the number of
children eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments, H.R. 5466, H.R.
3409, and H.R. 4207 would also increase the share of children in foster care for
whom states could seek federal support for certain caseworker activities (such as
monthly visits and permanency planning for children in foster care). Although these
activities are not considered “services” under the Title IV-E program, they are critical
efforts that federal law requires states to make on behalf of any child in foster care.
Currently, states may seek reimbursement for these activities only on behalf of Title
IV-E eligible children in foster care; states must use their own dollars (or find other
61 Specifically, a state’s maintenance of effort level — that is, the amount of its own money
it would need to continue spending regardless of the expanded federal funds — would be
based on past average annual total state spending (FY2001-FY2006) on foster care
maintenance payments for children who were ineligible for Title IV-E because of the
program eligibility rules related to the prior law AFDC program.
CRS-28
federal funds, such as Title IV-B or Social Services Block Grant funds) to pay for
these caseworker activities made on behalf of children who are not eligible for Title
IV-E support. Thus, the expanded eligibility for Title IV-E foster care maintenance
payments (described above) would make federal support available for caseworker
activities on behalf of all (or nearly all) children in foster care. This might free up
other federal funds provided to a state for services to children and their families.
Further, provided that states did not use this increased support to simply supplant
their current spending for these purposes, it might also increase available state
support for those purposes. (On the other hand, both H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409, but
not H.R. 4207, would reduce the reimbursement rate for those costs to limit the effect
of the expanded eligibility.) None of the proposed bills would address maintenance
of effort with regard to current funding for caseworker activities on behalf of children
not eligible for Title IV-E.
Transfer of “Unused” Title IV-E Funds for Services and Training.
H.R. 4207, which as described earlier would remove the AFDC link for purposes of
both federal Foster Care and Adoption Assistance eligibility, would separately permit
a state that reduces the number of days children in the state spend in foster care to
transfer any federal savings from this reduction to be used for child-welfare related
training or for any of the categories of services now authorized by the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program. (As noted earlier, those services are family support,
family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support.)
Under H.R. 4207, a state wishing to transfer funds would have to negotiate with HHS
the total number of days it expected children in its state to spend in foster care (i.e.,
its number of “placement days”). The maximum amount of savings that could be
generated would be the product of any fewer number of placement days and the
state’s per child (federal Title IV-E) cost of keeping a child in foster care. A state
applying to HHS for the ability to transfer funds would also need to submit a plan
detailing how it would use any funds generated and assuring that relevant current law
child protections would be maintained.
Additional Funding Authorization Sought. H.R. 3409 would increase by
$200 million the annual mandatory funding authorization for the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families (PSSF) program. This would raise the total annual funding
authorization for that program from $545 million to $745 million (of which $200
million would continue to be authorized on a discretionary basis). In FY2008, the
PSSF received funding of $408 million (of which $345 million was mandatory and
$63 million was discretionary).
Funding under Title I and Title II of CAPTA is appropriated on a discretionary
basis and the authorization of appropriations is set to expire with FY2008. For
FY2008, CAPTA state grants (under Title I) received an appropriation of less than
$27 million and the act’s Title II community-based grant program received funding
of less than $42 million. The Crime Control and Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 2237,
introduced by Senator Biden), seeks an additional funding authorization of $200
million in each of FY2008-FY2012 for CAPTA state grants under Title I and a
separate additional $200 million authorization for each of those same years for the
CRS-29
Title II community-based grants.62 Beyond this, the bill would authorize $545 million
in additional funds to be distributed to community-based groups in all states (via
Title II of CAPTA) for the purpose of “parent education and counseling services and
family-strengthening services, and referral to and counseling for adoption services.”
(See also discussion under “Parenting Education,” below.)
Improving Services for Older Current or Former Foster Youth
A number of proposals seek to bolster support for older youth in foster care and
particularly those who “age-out” of foster care. As discussed earlier, some proposals
would expand federal eligibility for foster care aid until a youth reaches their 21st
birthday (see “Extending the Age Limit for Federal Foster Care Assistance,” above).
In addition, these and other proposals seek to ensure greater attention to the needs of
older youth in foster care and to expand and improve access to education, medical,
and social services for older youths in foster care as well as those who age out.
Foster Child Protections. H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 3409 would amend
current law related to case planning and review of permanency plans to require earlier
and added actions on behalf of older youth in foster care. Federal statute now requires
states to apply specific case planning procedures for each child in foster care,
including preparation of a written case plan and regular review of this plan, including
the child’s permanency goal. Most of these protections apply without regard to age;
however, federal law now requires that the written case plan of any youth who is in
foster care on his her 16th birthday, “when appropriate,” describe the programs and
services that will help the child prepare for the transition from foster care to
independent living.63 Further, when holding a permanency hearing, a court (or other
administrative body) is required to consult (in an age-appropriate way) with the child
or youth concerning the content of the permanency plan, including any transition
plan.64
Written Case Plan. H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 3409 would amend the case
plan requirement now in law to provide that, for any youth in care at age 14 (and, at
state option, any other child), the case plan must include a written description of
programs and services that will facilitate the transition of the child from foster care
to independent living, and further, that it discuss the appropriateness of the services
that have been provided. These bills would also require the case plan for any youth
age 14 or older (or, at state option, any other child) to document the steps the agency
had taken to ensure a permanent placement of the child with a family or to establish
another adult connection and a permanent living arrangement for the child. Finally,
for any child age 17 or older (or with a permanency goal of emancipation), each of
62 H.R. 3409 would also extend the current CAPTA funding authorization levels without
significant changes.
63 Section 475(1)(D) of the Social Security Act.
64 Section 475(5)(C)(iii) of the Social Security Act.
CRS-30
these bills would require that the state agency document the youth’s permanent living
arrangement upon emancipation.65
Permanency Planning Review. H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 3409 would
require that at any permanency hearing that concerns a foster child/youth’s transition
to independence, all documented efforts to secure a permanent living arrangement
for the child upon emancipation would be reviewed. It would also require that the
final permanency hearing held with regard to the transition of a child from foster care
to a planned permanent living arrangement or independent living be held in a court.66
(Under current law this permanency hearing may be conducted by a court or a court-
appointed administrative body.)
Social Services. Several bills seek increased mandatory funds for the Chafee
Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) or other changes intended to improve
access to certain social services under that program. The CFCIP is the primary
federal child welfare program supporting services to older youth in foster care (and
those who have aged out of foster care). Under its authority, federal funds are
distributed to each state to support independent living services and other aids for
youth who leave foster care custody at age 18 (because of reaching the state age of
majority) or those who are expected to do so. These services are generally related to
completing education or training programs, finding and retaining a job, managing
personal finances and other daily living skills, and practicing good health. States may
also use CFCIP funds to “provide personal and emotional support to children aging
out of foster care, through mentors and the promotion of interactions with dedicated
adults.” Finally, states are required to provide assurances they will use some CFCIP
funds to provide services for youth who have left foster care at age 18 (but who are
not yet 21 years old) for activities related to educational achievement and
employment as well as for counseling, financial support, and housing assistance.
However, the law prohibits states from using more than 30% of the CFCIP allotment
for room and board purposes.
Funding Authorization and Youth Served. H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S.
2560 would amend the CFCIP program to increase the annual mandatory funding
authorization to $200 million (from the current $140 million). Those bills, along with
H.R. 2188, would also amend the purposes of the CFCIP program to provide that
states are to identify youth expected to remain in care until age 14 (current law
provides no lower age limit but instructs states to identify youth likely to remain in
care until 18 years of age) and to provide services to help them transition to
independent living.67 H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would further provide that
states could continue providing CFCIP services to youth once they had aged out of
foster care until age 25 (current law says age 21) and would also require states to
certify that they used some of their CFCIP funds to serve youth who had left foster
65 This appears to be the probable intent of certain provisions found in Section 103 of H.R.
4208, Section 103 of S. 2560, and Section 121 of H.R. 3409.
66 Ibid.
67 Section 477(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Although there is no lower age limit for
receipt of CFCIP services in current law, the proposed language appears intended to
encourage states to identify youth at an earlier age than may be current practice.
CRS-31
care at age 18 but had not reached the age of 25 (but no more than 30% for room and
board services to youth in this age category). Additionally, H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208,
and S. 2560 would add an additional purpose to the program that would permit states
to use CFCIP funds to provide independent living services for any youth who left
foster care (via adoption or guardianship) after reaching their 14th birthday.
Access to Program Information and Services. H.R. 3409 , H.R. 4208,
and S. 2560 would amend the CFCIP program to require states to certify that when,
or before, a youth leaves foster care, the state will inform him or her of the full range
of available financial, housing, counseling, health, public benefit, employment and
education services, and other appropriate supports and services for which the youth
is eligible. Further, these bills would also require HHS to provide for “efficient
distribution to States and local areas” of information about the full range of federal
programs that may assist youth making the transition to self-sufficiency and provide
guidance on how to access services under those programs.
Other CFCIP Changes. H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would modify
certain requirements related to program evaluation and would require states to
describe in their CFCIP plan how they intend to both distribute program funds
“among a diverse range of qualified” private providers and ensure that these entities
have equal opportunity to receive the CFCIP funds (to provide independent living
services and related supports).
Education Attainment. Under current law, youth eligible for Education and
Training Vouchers (ETVs) include any who are eligible for general independent
living services under the CFCIP as well as any youth adopted from foster care after
their 16th birthday. ETVs may be used by these youth to pursue post-secondary
education or training.68 An individual voucher may be valued at up to $5,000 and
may be used for the cost of attending an “institution of higher education,” including
universities, community colleges, and post-secondary technical training or vocational
schools.69 H.R. 2188, H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would expand eligibility
for the ETV program to permit any youth who left foster care to either guardianship
or adoption after reaching their 14th birthday to receive an ETV.70 S. 661 would
permit any youth exiting foster care via legal guardianship after reaching their 16th
birthday to be eligible for an ETV.
As passed by the House in early February 2008, The College Opportunity and
Affordability Act (H.R. 4137, introduced by Representative George Miller) would
amend the Higher Education Act to stipulate that the Education Department must
require applicants seeking funds to operate what are collectively called the federal
Trio programs to “identify services to foster care youth as a permissible service” and
68 Section 477(I) of the Social Security Act.
69 For the purposes of the ETV program, the terms “cost of attendance” and “institution of
higher education” are as defined in Section 472 and Section 102, respectively of the Higher
Education Act.
70 This is the assumed intent of the four bills although each also proposes separate language
that would permit access to ETVs for any youth who left foster care (for any reason) after
reaching their 14th birthday in care.
CRS-32
to “ensure that such youth receive supportive services, including mentoring, tutoring,
and other services provided by those programs.”71 The federal Trio programs are
designed to identify potential post-secondary students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, prepare these individuals for post-secondary education, provide certain
support services to them while they are in post-secondary education, and train
individuals who provide these services. The programs are known individually as
Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student Support Services, and Educational
Opportunity Centers.72
In addition, H.R. 4137, as passed by the House, would amend the early
intervention component of the GEAR UP program, also authorized in the Higher
Education Act, to make children in foster care “priority students.” Grants provided
under GEAR UP’s early intervention services must be used for comprehensive
mentoring, counseling, outreach, and supportive services to encourage and enable
students to stay academically engaged and to prepare them for post-secondary
education.73 Finally, H.R. 4137 would authorize the Department of Education to
make grants under its “Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education” to
support and assist demonstration projects that provide comprehensive support
services to students who were in foster care until the age of 18 (or who are homeless)
to allow them to enroll and succeed in postsecondary education, including to provide
“housing to such students during periods when housing at the institution of higher
education is closed or generally unavailable to other students.”
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-84) amended
and expanded the definition of “independent student,” which is used as part of
determining eligibility for federal student aid under the Higher Education Act, to
include in that definition an “emancipated minor;” someone who is “in legal
guardianship as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;” or any child who
“is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court, at any time when the individual
is 13 years of age or older.”74 The House has passed technical amendments to this law
(H.R. 4153, introduced by Representative George Miller), which would restate this
last provision to clearly indicate that it includes any individual who is or was an
orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court at any time when the individual was 13
years of age or older. In other words, any youth who spent at least some time in foster
care at age 13 or older — and without regard to the subsequent reason for exit from
71 H.R. 3409, which was introduced before House passage of H.R. 4137, proposes different
amendments to the federal Trio programs, which also appear intended to explicitly ensure
that services and supports are made available to children in foster care, including those who
have aged out of foster care.
72 For more information, see CRS Report RL31622, Trio and GEAR UP Programs: Status
and Issues, by Jeffery J. Kuenzi.
73 H.R. 3409, which was introduced before House passage of H.R. 4137, proposes to amend
the GEAR UP early intervention component to identify students in foster care and those
aging out of foster care among those eligible for specific activities designed to ensure
secondary school completion and college enrollment for “at-risk children.”
74 Section 604 of P.L. 110-84 enacted September 27, 2007.
CRS-33
this care — would be eligible for “independent student” status for purposes of
pursuing federal student aid.75 (See also “Educational Stability,” below.)
Medical Assistance. The Medicaid Foster Care Coverage Act (H.R. 1376,
introduced by Representative Cardoza) would require states to provide Medicaid
coverage to youths who have not yet reached their 21st birthday and who were in
foster care on their 18th birthday. H.R. 3409 would make this same change; however,
it would provide that this mandatory Medicaid coverage could continue until the
youth reached the age of 25. At the same time, both H.R. 1376 and H.R. 3409 would
permit states to limit this mandatory coverage to those youths who were in foster
care on their 18th birthday who meet certain income or asset criteria, were previously
Title IV-E eligible, or received CFCIP services.76
Under current law, states are given the option to provide federally subsidized
health insurance (Medicaid) to youth who age out of foster care. As many as 18 states
have done so, and, in addition, some states use other eligibility pathways to provide
coverage to these youth.77 However, research continues to suggest many youth are not
covered. For instance, a recent study that looked at 19-year-olds who were, or had
been, in foster care in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin found that less than half of the
youth (47%) who had left foster care had health coverage. By contrast, nearly all
(98%) of those who remained in foster care at age 19 had health insurance coverage.78
Other Supports or Assistance Proposed. Several proposals would seek
to increase the personal funds youth have available to them when making the
transition to adulthood or to ensure that certain immigrant youth have legal resident
status.
Individual Development Accounts. The Focusing Investments and
Resources for a Safe Transition Act (S. 2341, introduced by Senator Clinton), would
permit HHS to make competitive grants to states (or state partners) to establish
individual development accounts (IDAs) for any youth aging out of foster care. Funds
saved in this account could be used by a youth for housing, education, vocational
training, to operate a business or to purchase a car and, at the option of the state, for
purchase of work-related items or car insurance. (However, before a youth could
75 H.R. 3409, which was introduced before P.L. 110-84 was enacted and before H.R. 4153
was passed by the House, also proposes to amend the definition of “independent student”
under the Higher Education Act. However, it would provide that to be eligible a youth must
be in foster care or have been in foster care on their 18th birthday.
76 Under current law, any child who is eligible for a Title IV-E foster care maintenance
payment is deemed eligible for Medicaid assistance. Because S. 1512 , H.R. 4208, H.R.
5466, and S. 2560 would permit expansion of Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments
(to age 21), these bills would also provide expanded mandatory Medicaid coverage
provided the youth otherwise met all Title IV-E eligibility criteria.
77 For more information see CRS Report RS22501, Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP), by Adrienne Fernandes.
78 Mark Courtney, et al., Midwest Evaluation of Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth:
Outcomes at Age 19, Chapin Hall Center for Children and Families: University of Chicago,
May 2005, p. 44.
CRS-34
expend these funds to either operate a business or purchase a car, he or she would
first need to spend money on housing, education, or vocational training.) S. 2341
would establish this grant program as an amendment to CAPTA and would authorize
additional funding under that act of “such sums as may be necessary” for each of
FY2008-FY2012 solely for grants to establish these IDAs.
Social Security/SSI Benefit Accounts. The Foster Children Self-Support
Act (H.R. 1104, introduced by Representative Stark) would prohibit states from using
certain Social Security benefits (including survivors benefits authorized under Title
II and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits authorized under Title XVI) to
reimburse a state for the cost of a child’s foster care maintenance payment. The bill
would also require the state child welfare agency to ensure that children in foster care
were screened for potential eligibility for these benefits and to assist such children
in applying for the benefits. Further, for any foster child receiving an SSI or other
Social Security Act benefit (under Title II), H.R. 1104 would require states to
develop a plan specific to the needs of that child and which would conserve benefits
not necessary for the immediate needs of the child to enable the child to achieve self-
support after leaving foster care. Any savings accumulated under the plan would not
be counted for purposes of determining the child’s continued SSI eligibility.79
Special Immigrant Juvenile Classification. H.R. 3409 would amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to allow youth who may now be denied access to
special immigrant juvenile classification (due, for instance, to the length of
application processing time or other reasons) to achieve this classification. Congress
created the special immigrant juvenile classification in 1990 (P.L. 101-649) to allow
a child who was born in a foreign country, was brought to the United States illegally,
and who subsequently experienced abuse, neglect or abandonment, to petition for
special immigrant juvenile classification. A child or youth who receives this
classification may then petition to become a legal permanent resident of the United
States and may thus legally secure a driver’s license, get a job, obtain a mortgage, and
do any number of other things necessary to successfully live as an independent adult
in this country.80
79 For more description of these and additional changes proposed by H.R. 1104, see CRS
Report RL33855, Child Welfare: Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Benefits for Children in Foster Care, by Adrienne Fernandes, Scott Szymendera, and Emilie
Stoltzfus.
80 For information on the Special Immigrant Juvenile Classification , see Sally Kinoshita and
Katherine Brady, Immigration Benchbook for Juvenile and Family Court Judges,
Immigration and Legal Resource Center, San Francisco, CA: January 2005, pp. 8-19; and
with special attention to child welfare issues: Kathleen McNaught and Lauren Onkeles,
Improving Outcomes for Older Youth: What Judges and Attorneys Need to Know, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, National Resource Center for Youth
Development, Tulsa OK: 2004, pp. 83-87; and Annie E. Casey Foundation, Undercounted,
Underserved: Immigrant and Refugee Families in the Child Welfare System, Baltimore,
MD: 2006, pp. 22-23.
CRS-35
Services and Protections for Children in Foster Care
Federal law currently requires states to provide certain protections for each child
in foster care, and these are primarily related to ensuring the child’s safety and
finding a permanent home for the child. Several proposals would amend child
welfare programs authorized under Title IV-B or Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act to authorize or require that additional services or protections be offered to
children in foster care, including activities related to a child’s educational stability,
receipt of medical services, and access to court advocates or other supports.
Educational Stability. Children in foster care often experience more than one
placement, and this is disruptive to their academic achievement as well as to peer and
adult relationships.81 H.R. 5466 would require states to take new steps to ensure
stability in school placement for children in foster care and would permit support for
certain transportation costs to facilitate these efforts. Under current law, states are
required to maintain a health and education record for every child in foster care,
including the name and address of the child’s educational provider, a child’s grade
level performance, school record, and other relevant education information (as
determined relevant by the state agency). States are also required to make assurances
(as part of this health and education record) that a “child’s placement in foster care
takes into account the proximity to the school in which the child is enrolled at the
time of placement.” 82
H.R. 5466 would further require that a state have a plan for ensuring the
educational stability of each child in foster care. In addition to the current assurance
that the child’s placement take into account the proximity of the school where the
child is enrolled at the time of the placement, the plan would need to discuss the
efforts by the state agency to coordinate with appropriate local educational agencies
to ensure a child may remain enrolled in the school he or she attended at the time of
placement or, if remaining in that school is not in the child’s best interest, efforts to
coordinate with the appropriate educational agencies to ensure a child’s immediate
enrollment in a new school. Finally, H.R. 5466 would amend the definition of a
foster care maintenance payment (under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) to
include the cost of “reasonable travel” for a child to remain in the school he or she
was enrolled in at the time of the placement. This would permit states to seek partial
reimbursement of these transportation costs provided they were incurred on behalf
of Title IV-E eligible children in foster care.83
81 For more information, see the website of the National Working Group on Foster Care and
Education, which includes a number of legal and child welfare advocacy groups, as well as
foster parents, state human service administrators, and others. See [http://www.casey.org/
FriendsAndFamilies/Partners/NWGFCE].
82 Section 475(1)(C) of the Social Security Act.
83 Transportation cost is one of a number of issues that have been identified by advocates
as barriers to educational stability for children in foster care. See Jessica Feierman and Janet
Stotland, “Lessons Learned” Education Stability Conference, Chicago, October 23-24,
Education Law Center-PA and the Juvenile Law Center; see [http://www.abanet.org/child/
educ-1.pdf].
CRS-36
Alternatively, the School Choice for Foster Care Kids Act (H.R. 4311,
introduced by Representative Bachmann) would amend the CFCIP and its related
Education and Training Vouchers (ETV) to permit funds from those programs to be
used for vouchers to pay transportation costs related to school-age children in foster
care attending public elementary or secondary education schools or to enable those
school-age children to pay tuition for attendance at private elementary or secondary
schools.84 As discussed above, under current law CFCIP and ETV funds must be
used to help foster youth (of any age) who are expected to leave care without
placement in a permanent family — and those who have exited foster care on or after
their 18th birthday — to successfully make the transition to independent adulthood,
and this may include helping them secure a high school diploma (or a post-secondary
degree).85
Coordination of Child Welfare and Medical Services. Many children
in foster care have significant health and mental health needs.86 Although virtually
all children in foster care are eligible for Medicaid, needed services are not always
made available. Some research has identified “coordination” between child welfare
agencies and health and mental health agencies as important to improving foster
children’s access to necessary services.87 Under current law, Title IV-E eligible
children in foster care are automatically deemed eligible for Medicaid, and most or
all non-Title IV-E eligible children in foster care are eligible through other pathways
(e.g. income status).88 States are now required to maintain certain health and medical
records for each child in foster care89 and to describe how they consult with
physicians and other appropriate medical professionals to assess the health and well-
84 See also Dan Lips, “Foster Care Children Need Better Education Opportunities,”
Backgrounder, Heritage Foundation (June 5, 2007), available at [http://www.heritage.org/
research/Education/upload/bg_2039.pdf].
85 Section 477(a) of the Social Security Act.
86 See testimony of John Landsverk, U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee,
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, “Hearing on Health Care for
Children in Foster Care,” July 19, 2007.
87 For example: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector
General, Memorandum to Susan Orr, Associate Commissioner for the Children’s Bureau
and Dennis G. Smith Director Center for Medicaid State Operations, from Brian Ritchie,
Acting Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections, “Children’s Use of Health
Care Services While in Foster Care: Common Themes,” OEI-07-00-00645, July 2005; Neal
Halfon, et al, “Public Agencies and the Organization of Health Care Services for Children
in Out-of-Home Care: Findings from a National Survey, presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, March 2, 2004; and Testimony
of Abraham Bergman, M.D., at U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee,
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, “Hearing on Health Care for
Children in Foster Care,” July 19, 2007.
88 Section 1902(a)(10)(A) of the Social Security Act.
89 Section 475(1)(C) of the Social Security Act
CRS-37
being of children in foster care and to determine appropriate medical treatment for
them.90
H.R. 5466 would provide that states must, in addition, have a plan for ongoing
oversight and coordination of health care services (including mental health and dental
services) for any child in foster care. The bill would require each state to coordinate
and collaborate with its child welfare agency and its agency administering Medicaid
(in consultation with pediatricians, other health care experts, and recipients of child
welfare services) to develop such an oversight and coordination plan. In addition to
the current requirement that states consult with and involve physicians in assessing
and providing appropriate medical treatment to children in foster care, this oversight
and coordination plan would be required to outline (1) a schedule for initial and
follow-up health screens that meet reasonable standards of medical practice; (2) how
health needs identified through screens will be monitored and treated; (3) how
medical information for children in care will be updated and appropriately shared
(which may include development and implementation of electronic health records);
(4) steps to ensure continuity of health care services (which may including
establishing a medical home for every child in care); and (5) oversight of prescription
medicines. Finally, H.R. 5466 would provide that the requirement for a health
oversight and coordination plan must not be “construed to reduce or limit the
responsibility” of the state Medicaid agency to provide care and services for children
who are also served by the child welfare agency.
Reasonable Efforts to Place Siblings Together. H.R. 5466 would
require states, as part of their Title IV-E foster care plan, to make “reasonable efforts”
to place siblings in the same foster care placement unless the state documents that a
joint placement would be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the siblings.
Approximately 70% of children in foster care have another sibling who is also in
care. For a variety of reasons, including the size of sibling groups, adequacy of foster
care placement settings, differences in needs of siblings, and other reasons, many
siblings are not placed in the same foster care home. However the benefits of placing
siblings together can include sense of stability and well-being for children in foster
care, including better outcomes for these children as well as streamlined casework
efforts for child welfare workers.91
Access to Court Advocates. Most, but not all, children who enter foster
care do so because of parental abuse or neglect. The Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) currently provides that states must have “provisions and
procedures” for an appropriately trained guardian ad litem (GAL), including an
appropriately trained court-appointed special advocate (CASA), to be appointed to
represent any child in a judicial proceeding involving child abuse or neglect.
(Available data suggest that despite this CAPTA requirement, not all abused or
90 Section 422(b)(15) of the Social Security Act.
91 Child Welfare Information Gateway, Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption: A
Bulletin for Professionals, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2006.
CRS-38
neglected children receive such a court advocate.92) A CASA for Every Child Act of
2007 (H.R. 3283, introduced by Representative Cardoza) would require states (as a
part of their Title IV-E state plan for foster care) to have in place the “laws and
procedures” necessary to ensure that each child in foster care has a CASA.
Funding for CASAs. Currently, the Victims of Child Abuse Act authorizes
some funds ($13.2 million appropriated for FY2008) to initiate, sustain, or expand
local CASA programs and to provide related training and technical assistance to local
CASA programs. As amended in 2005 (P.L. 109-162) the purpose of this funding is
to “ensure that by January 1, 2010, a court appointed special advocate shall be
available to every victim of child abuse or neglect in the United States who needs
one.” Funding provided under this authorization is administered by the Department
of Justice, which typically provides these funds to the National CASA Association.
The National CASA, in turn, makes subgrants to local CASA programs and provides
related training and technical assistance.93
H.R. 3283 would prohibit any federal reimbursement of CASA-related costs
under the Title IV-E foster care program unless the CASA provided is a volunteer in
a member program of the National CASA (and that member program is in
compliance with national standards of the Association). Separately, S. 2237 (an
omnibus crime control and prevention measure) would authorize a discretionary
appropriation of $8 million for each of FY2008 through FY2011 for the following
purposes: to expand recruitment and build capacity of CASA programs located in the
15 largest areas to serve populations over-represented in foster care; to expand
recruitment of volunteers to serve populations of children significantly over-
represented in foster care; and to provide training and supervision of volunteers in
CASA programs serving children significantly over-represented in foster care.94 S.
2237 would provide that any CASA funds authorized or appropriated under the
authority of that law would be available to supplement, not supplant, other federal
CASA funding.
Training and Standards. Under current law, CAPTA provides that a
GAL/CASA who is appointed to advocate for a child in an abuse or neglect
proceeding is expected to gain a firsthand and clear understanding of the situation
and needs of the child and to make recommendations to the court concerning the best
interests of the child.95 S. 2237 would require HHS (in conjunction with the
Department of Justice) to develop model standards for curriculum and training for
individuals who act as GALs or CASAs, or other attorneys ad litem in child abuse
and neglect cases. (The bill describes the intended purpose of this model curriculum
as to improve the quality of representation by, and uniformity of practice of, such
individuals throughout the country.) S. 2237 would further require HHS, again after
92 Child Maltreatment 2005 (April 2007), Table 6-6.
93 For background information on this program, see CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare:
Programs Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
94 S. 2237 would authorize this funding under the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts
Act (SANCA, P.L. 106-314).
95 Section 106(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).
CRS-39
consulting with the Department of Justice, to develop caseload standards for these
child representatives in abuse or neglect cases. Finally, the bill would provide that not
later than 18 months after the enactment of these provisions, HHS must disseminate
the curriculum and caseload standards to state child welfare agencies (who receive
Title IV-B, Subpart 1 funds). H.R. 5466 would permit states to claim reimbursement
of the cost of certain training for GALs or CASAs, as well as other abuse and neglect
court attorneys or personnel. (See “Increased Federal Support for Training,” below.)
Provision of Mentoring. Several federal programs now target specific
populations of vulnerable youth for provision of mentoring services.96 The Foster
Care Mentoring Act of 2007 (S. 379 introduced by Senator Landrieu) would
permanently authorize funding (under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act) for
grants to provide mentoring to children in foster care. The grants would be awarded
by HHS to states (or to a political subdivision of the state if it serves a “substantial
number” of youth in foster care) to support, establish, and expand networks of public
and private community entities to provide this mentoring. Successful applicants
would be eligible to receive a maximum of $600,000 annually, would be required to
spend no less than 50% of the federal grant funds for training (and no more than 10%
on program administration) and would need to provide matching funds (in cash or
in kind) of 25%. The bill would authorize $15 million for this grant program in each
of FY2008 and FY2009 and “such sums as may be necessary” in every following
fiscal year.
S. 379 would also authorize an additional $4 million for each of FY2008 and
FY2009 (and “such sums as may be necessary” in each following fiscal year) for a
national hotline (or website) to provide information to individuals interested in being
mentors to youth in foster care. The bill would further require an annual report on the
mentoring program for children in foster care (prepared by HHS and submitted to
Congress) and a separate evaluation of the program’s effectiveness.
Finally, S. 379 would amend the Higher Education Act to authorize loan
forgiveness for any individual who has served as a mentor in a statewide foster care
mentor program for at least 200 hours in a single calendar year. The amount of loan
forgiveness would equal $2,000 for every 200 hours of eligible service (not to exceed
a total of $20,000). The bill would further provide that funds otherwise made
available under the Higher Education Act — to make “payments to lenders for the
discharge of indebtedness of deceased or disabled individuals” — would be available
to pay for this loan forgiveness program.
Reducing the Number of Children Who Run Away from Foster Care.
H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would require a state to include in its Title IV-E
state plan a description of the written policies and procedures it has to reduce the
incidence of children missing or running away from foster care and to locate and
return such children to foster care. As of the last day of FY2005, states reported that
close to 4,500 children had “exited” foster care by running away.
96 See CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues,
by Adrienne Fernandes.
CRS-40
Preventing Certain Foster Care Placements
Several proposals seek to prevent placement of children in foster care solely due
to inadequate housing or because this is the only way a parent(s) may access mental
health services for a seriously emotionally disturbed child.
Prohibition on Removal Related to Homelessness. H.R. 3409, H.R.
4208, and S. 2560 would amend the state plan provisions of the Title IV-E foster care
program to require states to have in effect “laws and procedures” necessary to ensure
that no child is placed in foster care solely because the child’s family is homeless or
living in substandard housing. The proposed change would further require that the
state, as a part of meeting the federal Title IV-E state plan requirements, have in
place laws and procedures to ensure that it will work with a family and state housing
authorities to secure permanent housing for any family that includes a minor child
and is homeless or “at risk” of becoming homeless.
Alternative to Relinquishment for Mental Health Reasons. The
Keeping Families Together Act (S. 382, introduced by Senator Collins, and H.R. 687,
introduced by Representative Ramstad) would amend Title V of the Public Health
Service Act to authorize competitive “family support grants” for states to establish
systems of care for mental health treatment and services that would prevent the
practice of parents relinquishing their children to child welfare or juvenile justice
custody in order to obtain mental health services for their children. The GAO
reported in April 2003 that a survey of 19 state child welfare directors and juvenile
justice officials in 30 counties had produced a conservative estimate of 12,700
children who, during FY2001, were placed in child welfare or juvenile justice
custody so that the children could receive mental health services. State and county
officials surveyed by GAO reported that limitations of public and private health
insurance, inadequate supplies of mental health services, limited availability of
services through mental health agencies and schools, and difficulty meeting eligibility
rules of services influenced these kind of placements.97
S. 382 and H.R. 687 would authorize $8.5 million for FY2008, $11.5 million
for FY2009, and $20 million in each of FY2010 through FY2013 to award grant
funds to states to establish a “sustainable system of care” for child and youth (under
the age of 21) who are in state custody for the purpose of receiving mental health
services or who are at risk of this kind of placement. States winning grant funds
would be able to use them to to establish a state and local infrastructure that permits
interagency cooperation and cross-system financing; expand public health insurance
programs to cover an array of community-based mental health and family support
services; deliver mental health care and family support services to eligible children
and youth (but only as part of a transition to a “sustainable system” of mental health
and family support services); provide outreach and public education; provide the
necessary training and professional development for personnel who work with
eligible children and youth to implement the state’s plan; and to carry out other
97 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal
Agencies Could Play a Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children
Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services, GAO-03-397, April 2003.
CRS-41
administration of the plan, including development and maintenance of data systems.
The grant funds would be received over six years and states would be required to
provide increasing levels of matching funds (beginning in the third year of the grant).
A state plan would need to be submitted before the second year of the grant and,
among other things, would need to describe how the planned “sustainable” system
of care would be financed — including through contributions from state agencies,
state use of funds via Medicaid options or waivers, the State Children’s Health
Insurance Program (SCHIP), and other public health insurance mechanisms.
The grants would be administered within HHS by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), in consultation with a task force
established to examine the issue of mental health and children and youth in the child
welfare and juvenile justice systems, including issues related to access to services and
the role of agencies in promoting access to these services for children and youth. The
task force would need to be established jointly with the Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS)
(both also within HHS); the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP) (at the Department of Justice); and the Office for Special Education (at the
Department of Education).
The task force would be required to work with stakeholders to make
recommendations to Congress for strategies to improve the delivery of mental health
services to children and youth with serious emotional disturbances and to develop
improved reporting requirements concerning the numbers of children entering child
welfare and juvenile justice systems solely to access mental health service (including
creating standard definitions for categories of data to be collected). The task force
would further be required to encourage interagency cooperation to eliminate the
practice of custody relinquishment; provide advice to SAMHSA on administering the
grant program; coordinate and deliver technical assistance for states and agencies
implementing the grant program; make recommendations for breaking down barriers
to coordination in existing federal programs; and, finally, provide a biannual report
to Congress on its recommendations and progress in carrying out its duties. S. 382
and H.R. 687 would authorize funding of $1 million in each of FY2008 through
FY2013 to fund this task force (with 60% of funds authorized for HHS, 20% for the
Department of Justice, and 20% for the Education Department).
Services for Kinship Care Providers
As discussed above, several bills would permit federal support (via Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act) for guardianship payments to relative caregivers who
become the legal guardians of eligible foster children (see “Support for Subsidized
Guardianship,” above). Other provisions in these bills would seek to strengthen
family connections for children in foster care (or at risk of entering foster care),
including children in formal or informal kinship care arrangements, and to facilitate
greater use of relatives as foster parents.
Children Cared for by Relatives. Kinship care may be broadly defined as
a living arrangement in which an adult who is not the parent of a child but who is
emotionally close to a child (typically a grandparent or other relative) assumes
primary responsibility for raising this child. Children may be in a kinship care
CRS-42
situation for a variety of reasons, including their parents’ military deployment, death
or serious illness, poverty, abuse of drugs or alcohol, mental illness, or incarceration.
At least 2.3 million children are believed to be living with grandparents or other
relatives who are responsible for their care,98 and some estimates of children living
with kin who are responsible for them are larger.99
The very large majority of children living in kinship care arrangement are doing
so by private arrangement. On the last day of FY2005, only about 24,000 children
were in formal (court-ordered) foster care and were living with a relative.100 At the
same time, some children living in kinship care arrangements neither came to this
living arrangement privately, nor are they currently in foster care. These children may
be living with a relative after some involvement with the child welfare agency
(including prior foster care placement) or because of some court activity.101
Toward the goal of increased family connections for children in foster care (or
at risk of entering care), H.R. 5466 would authorize discretionary funds for
competitive grants (under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act) to (1) establish
“kinship navigator” programs; (2) help identify family members with whom a child
may be placed; or (3) encourage involvement of family members in planning for a
child’s care through family group decision-making meetings. S. 661 and H.R. 2188
would authorize discretionary funds for competitive grants to establish kinship
navigator programs and would, separately require states to identify and give notice
to relatives when a child is placed in foster care. Finally, H.R. 5466, S. 661, H.R.
2188, and H.R. 3409 would each permit states to establish separate licensing
standards for relative foster care providers.
98 The 2002 National Survey of American Families (conducted by the Urban Institute)
estimated 2.3 million children lived with grandparents or other relatives without either
parent present in the household. See “Children in Kinship Care,” Assessing the New
Federalism, Urban Institute, no date (based on 2002 survey).
99 Estimates of the number of children in kinship care are considerably larger if they include
households where a parent may be present but the grandparent is considered responsible for
the child. For FY2006, the American Community Survey (conducted by the U.S. Census
Bureau) reported 2.6 million children lived with grandparents who were responsible for
them (of which 1 million lived in households without any parent present) and that an
additional 2.0 million children lived in the households of “other relatives.” Although the
available analysis of these data do not indicate the number of those 2.0 million children for
whom the “other relatives” were responsible (nor the number who were living without at
least one parent in the household), it seems plausible that a significant share of these
children are also in kinship care living arrangement. (See U.S. Census Bureau, Table
S.1001, Grandchildren Characteristics and Table B09006, Relationship to Householder for
Children Under 18 Years in Households. American Community Survey, 2006.)
100 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report #13 (Preliminary FY2005 Estimates as
of September 2006).
101 “Children in Kinship Care,” Assessing the New Federalism, Urban Institute, no date
(based on 2002 survey).
CRS-43
Kinship Navigator. Kinship providers may lack the legal authority to enroll
the children they are caring for in their neighborhood school or to access other
education services for them. In addition, they may not have the legal right to make
needed medical care decisions for these children, and they may not have access to
information about the kinds of health, education, or other services they and the
children they care for may be eligible to receive. Further, advocates note that many
kin must assume care for a young relative with little notice and may be unprepared
or lack critical social or community supports for their efforts.102
S. 661 and H.R. 2188 would establish an independent program authorizing the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) within HHS to make grants to
states, metropolitan agencies, or tribal organizations to establish information and
referral systems for kinship care providers known as “kinship navigator” programs.
By contrast, H.R. 5466 would establish Family Connection Grants as a new subpart
under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act and would permit state, local, or tribal
child welfare agencies, as well as certain private nonprofit organizations to seek
grants from HHS for three separate purposes, one of which would be to establish
kinship navigator programs. (For more information, see “Family Connection Grants”
below).
Under S. 661 and H.R. 2188, the primary purpose of the Kinship Navigator
grants would be to help kinship caregivers learn about and access services or other
assistance needed for the children they are caring for and for themselves. Grantees
would be required to support certain core activities, including information and
referral systems (to link kinship caregivers to the full range of supports available to
them) and promotion of partnerships between public and private, not-for-profit
agencies to help the agencies better meet the needs of kinship caregiving families and
to familiarize them with the special needs of those families. Additional activities that
grantees would be permitted to fund include a kinship care ombudsman and other
efforts designed to assist caregivers in obtaining benefits and services or intended to
improve their caregiving. S. 661 and H.R. 2188 would authorize $25 million in
FY2008, $50 million in FY2009, and $75 million in FY2010 for these grants. Grants
would be for a maximum of three years, and no less than half of the funds
appropriated would need to be awarded to state agencies. After the first year of
funding, grantees would need to provide increasing levels of non-federal support for
the kinship navigator program, and as part of a final report on services and activities
funded by the grant, a grantee would be required to describe to ACF its plans for
continuing the program after the expiration of the federal grant. Finally, ACF would
be permitted to reserve up to 1% of any of the funds appropriated to provide technical
assistance to grantees related to the purposes of the Kinship Navigator program.
Family Connection Grants. As noted above, H.R. 5466 would establish a
new competitive grant program under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act known
as Family Connection Grants and would authorize HHS to award grants to help
102 Generations United, “Grandparents and Other Relatives Raising Children: The Second
Intergenerational Action Agenda,” January 2005. See also Rob Geen, “Providing Services
to Kinship Foster Care Families,” pp. 129-152 in Rob Geen, ed., Kinship Care: Making the
Most of a Valuable Resource, The Urban Institute Press: Washington, D.C.: 2003.
CRS-44
children in foster care, or at risk of entering foster care, reconnect with family
members through implementation of (1) kinship navigator programs to help kinship
caregivers learn about and access programs and services and obtain assistance in
meeting the needs of the children they are caring for and their own needs; (2)
intensive family-finding efforts using “search technology” to find biological family
members of children in the child welfare system and work to reestablish relationships
and explore ways to find permanent family placements for children; or (3) family
group decision-making meetings for children in the child welfare system that engage
and involve family members in plans to nurture children and protect them from
further abuse and neglect.
Eligible grantees, including state, local, or tribal child welfare agencies and
nonprofit organizations (with experience in working with foster children or children
living in kinship care arrangements) would need to submit an application to HHS
that, among other things, would describe how funds received would be used to
implement one or more of the programs; identify the types of children and families
to be served, the manner in which they would be identified and recruited, and the
initial number expected to be served; and give assurance that the grantee would
cooperate fully in any evaluation of the program by HHS. (Private agency grantees
would need to document support from the relevant local or state child welfare
agency.) The bill would authorize $50 million in each of FY2009 through FY2013
for these grants. Family Connection Grants would be authorized for a maximum of
three years, and HHS would be authorized to make no more than 20 payments
annually under the program. After the first year of funding, grantees would need to
provide increasing levels of non-federal support for the activities supported by the
Family Connection Grant. Finally, HHS would be required to reserve 3% of any of
the funds appropriated for these grants to conduct “rigorous evaluation” of the
activities they fund, and it would be permitted to reserve 2% of any funding to
provide technical assistance to grantees under the program.
Notify Relatives of a Child’s Placement in Foster Care. States must
now “consider giving preference” to suitable relatives (over non-relatives) when
placing a child in care.103 S. 661 and H.R. 2281 would seek to ensure that relatives
are aware of and understand their options related to a child’s placement in foster care.
The bills would require a state, within 60 days of removing a child from the custody
of his/her parents, to identify the child’s grandparents and other adult relatives and
to give them notice of the removal (subject to exceptions due to family or domestic
violence). The notice to the identified relatives would need to specify that the child
is being removed from the custody of his/her parent(s) and to explain options the
relative has under federal, state, or local laws to participate in the child’s care and
placement. In addition, it would need to explain any options that might be lost if the
relative fails to respond to the notice.
Licensing Standards. H.R. 2188, S 661, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409 would
amend the requirements of Title IV-E to permit states to establish and maintain
separate licensing standards for relative caregivers of foster children. The separate
standards would be required “at a minimum” to protect the safety of the child and
103 Section 471(a)(19) of the Social Security Act.
CRS-45
specifically to provide for criminal records checks. H.R. 2188, S. 661, and H.R. 3409
would require those criminal record checks to be the same as those now required for
prospective foster or adoptive parents. H.R. 5466 does not specify this
requirement.104 Both H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409 would further amend the licensing
requirement to provide that any child in foster care must be placed in a licensed foster
family home or institution (not just those who are receiving federal support under
Title IV-E or Title IV-B of the Social Security Act).
Under current federal child welfare policy, states are required to have in place
licensing standards for foster family homes (or institutions that care for foster
children) that are “reasonably in accord with recommended standards of national
organizations concerned with [such] standards.” These standards must at least
address “admission policies, safety, sanitation, and protection of civil rights” and
must apply to any foster family home (or institution) that receives federal support
(under Title IV-B or Title IV-E of the Social Security Act).105 Separately, states are
required to have background check procedures in place for prospective foster and
adoptive parents and may not approve a placement until these checks have been
completed. Further, a prospective foster or adoptive parent with certain criminal
convictions may not be an approved caregiver.106 A child placed in an unlicensed
home (or institution) or with an individual who is not “approved” may not receive a
federally supported (Title IV-E) foster care maintenance payment.107
Since the January 2000 publication of the federal regulations to implement the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA, P.L. 105-89), HHS has clearly
stated that licensing standards for relatives and non-relatives must be the same.108
More recently, changes made in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171)
also limit the ability of states to seek reimbursement under Title IV-E for eligible
costs related to case planning for children living in unlicensed (relative) homes.109
And finally, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-248)
requires fingerprint-based federal criminal history checks of prospective foster and
adoptive parents, as well as child abuse and neglect registry checks.110
104 H.R. 5466 would establish separate federal criminal record check requirements for
relatives who are receiving kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of a child
for whom they have assumed legal guardianship. (See “Subsidized Guardianship,” above.)
However, the bill does not reference that separate criminal records check language in this
provision and the intent is not certain.
105 Section 471(a)(10) of the Social Security Act.
106 Section 471(a)(20) of the Social Security Act.
107 Section 472(c) and Section 471(a)(20)(A)(i) and (ii) of the Social Security Act.
108 See “Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments,” pp. 4032-4033,” in supplementary
information to final rule, Federal Register, January 25, 2000.
109 CRS Report RL33155, Child Welfare: Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Provisions
in Budget Reconciliation, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
110 CRS Report RL34252, Child Welfare: Recently Enacted Changes in Federal Policy, by
Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-46
Yet for a variety of reasons, relative caregivers are less likely to be licensed than
non-relative caregivers. Unlike non-relative foster care providers, relatives typically
do not anticipate being a foster care provider, and thus they do not seek a license
before becoming a foster parent. Further, some relatives may find the licensing
process intrusive and too time consuming, and in some states, licensing of relatives
was not routinely done.
Additional Provisions Related to Kin Accessing Services. H.R. 2188
would amend the definition of “family support” that is included in the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families (PSSF, Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act)
program to include “assisting kinship caregivers or guardians in locating and
accessing needed services.” States must now (generally) spend no less than 20% of
their federal PSSF funds on “family support” services, and the H.R. 2188 proposal
would explicitly include certain aids to kinship caregivers in this spending. H.R.
2188 would further provide that, as part of establishing a Title IV-E kinship
guardianship program as is elsewhere proposed in the bill, a state must certify to
HHS that it will inform workers who prepare case plans for children in foster care,
as well as families who are considering guardianship, of the full range of permanency
options for children. Further it would require states to provide, or otherwise make
accessible to these workers and families, information on the range of physical and
mental health, financing, housing, counseling, employment, education, and other
support services that guardians and children may receive.
Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment
The Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment Act of 2007 (H.R. 4198,
introduced by Representative Lampson) and the Adoption Improvement Act of 2007
(S. 2395, introduced by Senator Clinton) propose separate grant programs aimed at
improving child welfare agency recruitment practices for finding foster or adoptive
parents.
States are now required to have a plan to do “diligent recruitment” of foster and
adoptive parents that reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of children in the state for
whom foster and adoptive homes are needed.111 Further, states are permitted to seek
federal reimbursement (under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) for a portion of
their costs related to licensing foster family homes and recruiting foster families.112
In the initial round of Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR), which are
conducted to assess state conformity with federal child welfare policy, most states
(n=31) were told they needed to make improvements in their foster and adoptive
parent recruitment plans.113 The final reports from the initial round of the CFSR
discussed use of multiple recruitment efforts, including those aimed at the general
population (via television, billboards, or other mass media); targeted recruitment in
111 Section 422(b)(7) of the Social Security Act.
112 Code of Federal Regulations, 45 C.F.R. 1356.60(c)(2)(vii).
113 This initial round of reviews was conducted from 2001 through 2004. CRS Report
RL32968, Child Welfare: State Performance on Child and Family Services Reviews, by
Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-47
neighborhoods (via church or other faith-based groups; and child specific recruitment
(via websites or adoption photo books). Those reports also noted that some states
have sought to streamline recruitment efforts by combining their training and
licensing efforts for foster and adoptive parents. Nonetheless, as part of the CFSR,
stakeholders in many states talked about a shortage of foster and adoptive homes —
or more specifically — about a shortage of these homes for specific populations of
children (e.g., teenagers or children with special health needs). The HHS Office of
Inspector General, in a 2002 report, emphasized the importance of both targeted and
child-specific recruitment, as did more recent research that was supported by the
Casey Family Programs.114
One Church, One Child. H.R. 4198 would amend Title IV-E to add a new
section authorizing competitive grants to eligible entities that conduct “one church,
one child” foster and adoptive parent recruitment programs. These programs rely on
churches and church leaders to help identify families willing to adopt or foster a
child. Some states and localities now use this recruitment approach, and it has been
identified as a useful recruitment strategy by child welfare researchers, advocates,
and practitioners.115 H.R. 4198 would permit state or local governments, local public
agencies, community-based or nonprofit organizations, or private groups (including
charitable or faith based organizations) to apply for grants to establish or expand
programs that “use networks of public, private, and faith-based organizations to
recruit and train qualified foster parents and qualified adoptive parents and provide
support services to adoptive and foster children and their families.” The bill would
authorize not more than $20 million for each of FY2008 through FY2013 for this
purpose. Separately, H.R. 4198 would require HHS to enter into a contract with a
nationally recognized nonprofit adoption promotion and foster parent recruitment
organization to establish a National Clearinghouse for Adoption Promotion and
Foster Parent Program and would authorize up to $1 million in funds for each of
FY2008 through FY2013 for this purpose.
Improving Agency Responsiveness. The Adoption Improvement Act of
2007 (S. 2395) would authorize funding for grants to child welfare agencies to
strengthen their responsiveness to prospective adoptive parents and increase
prospective adoptive parents’ access to adoption information.
Surveys of interest in adoption indicates that many more people consider
adopting children than ultimately act on that thought. Further, a recent survey that
looked at how child welfare agencies responded to individuals who expressed interest
114 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Inspector General,
Recruiting Foster Parents, OEI-07-00-00600 (May 2002); and Casey Family Programs,
Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families: Promising Practices and Lessons
Learned, Breakthrough Series Collaborative (June 2005). Hereafter Casey Family Programs,
Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families.
115 Casey Family Programs, Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families, pp.18, 23-26.
See also Eileen Mayers Pasztor, et al., Foster Parent Recruitment, Development, Support,
and Retention: Strategies for the Twenty-First Century,” pp. 665-686 in Gerald P. Mallon
and Peg McCartt Hess, eds., Child Welfare for the 21st Century: A Handbook of Practices,
Policies, and Programs, p. 674.
CRS-48
in adopting children concluded more could be done by those agencies to encourage
and enable interested adults to complete an adoption. The researchers estimated that
annually 240,000 calls are made to child welfare agencies concerning adoption, but
in most cases (78%), the caller did not subsequently fill out an application or attend
an orientation meeting; and only about 6% of the calls resulted in a completed
adoption home study — a prerequisite for any adoption. This research further showed
that prospective parents seeking adoption information faced numerous
discouragements, including difficulty contacting the child welfare agency, unpleasant
and unhelpful initial contacts, and continued frustration throughout the adoption
process.116
S. 2395 would authorize HHS to award grants to state, regional, local, or tribal
child welfare agencies (that have primary responsibility to facilitate adoptions from
the child welfare system) to increase the share of prospective adoptive parents who
actually adopt a child(ren) from the agency through a variety of methods. Among
other things, a grantee would be required to (1) involve a legitimate and independent
marketing firm in its adoption recruitment, training, and retention efforts (to
incorporate business and consumer product marketing techniques); (2) establish a
specialized adoption hotline, hire employees with counseling backgrounds and
provide them with specialized training for adoption work, and establish a process to
incorporate feedback from all prospective adoptive parents (to improve the first
contact between the agency and prospective adoptive parents); (3) coordinate all
adoption sources to give prospective parents immediate access to all children
available for adoption; (4) provide written information about necessary qualifications
for adoptive parents, as well as clear information on a range of other topics ranging
from the agency adoption process and procedures to how children and prospective
parents are matched, and the availability of post permanency services; (5) involve
successful adoptive parents in designing recruitment strategies, as well as in training
and matching children with parents (including developing a mentoring system to link
prospective adoptive parents with parents who have successfully adopted and
establishing an adoption advisory committee to strengthen matching procedures);
and, finally, (6) participate in program evaluation.
HHS must (through an expert entity) conduct research on the successes and
challenges of grantees’ efforts and must report on its findings to Congress (no later
than two years after the date on which funds are dispersed). HHS would further be
required to include in the “national annual review of child welfare agencies” an
examination of each state’s progress regarding accessibility and responsiveness of
child welfare agencies to prospective adoptive parents. The act would authorize $50
million for these grants and would require HHS to award no fewer than 10 grants.
116 Jeff Katz, “Listening to Parents: Overcoming Barriers to the Adoption of Children from
Foster Care,” Evan B. Donaldson Institute, in collaboration with Harvard University and
the Urban Institute: (March 2005). See also Urban Institute Child Welfare Research
Program, “Foster Care Adoption in the United States: An Analysis of Interest in Adoption
and a Review of State Recruitment Strategies, “ Commissioned by the National Adoption
Day Coalition (November 2005).
CRS-49
Tribal Access to Title IV-E Funds and Technical Assistance
The Tribal Foster Care and Adoption Access Act of 2007 (S. 1956, introduced
by Senator Baucus and H.R. 4688 introduced by Representative Pomeroy) and the
omnibus child welfare policy bill, H.R. 5466, would permit Indian tribes, tribal
organizations, or tribal consortia to make direct claims under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act for federal reimbursement of eligible foster care or adoption assistance
payments and other related costs made on behalf of eligible children under tribal
responsibility. Current law permits states to make these direct claims but does not
permit tribes to do so. Some tribes, however, currently enter into intergovernmental
agreements with states to receive some Title IV-E funding on behalf of children in
care under tribal responsibility.
Tribal Access to Title IV-E Funds. S. 1956, H.R. 4688 and H.R. 5466
would provide that to receive Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance funds,
a tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium must operate a Title IV-E program,
have a cooperative agreement with a state, or submit to HHS a description of the
arrangements it has made (jointly, and in consultation with the state) to provide foster
care and adoption assistance (including certain protections for the child in care).
These bills would permit tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia to receive
Adoption Incentives on the same basis as states. Further, under S. 1956 and H.R.
4688, eligible tribes, tribal organizations or tribal consortia would be permitted to
receive a part of a state’s allotment of Chafee Foster Care Independence Program and
Education and Training Voucher funds (in proportion to the tribal entity’s share of
the foster care population living in the state) in exchange for providing independent
living services to tribal youth in the state who are “aging out” or are expected to “age
out” of tribal foster care. Alternatively, those bills would provide that states and
tribes are explicitly permitted to enter into cooperative agreements to ensure services
to older tribal foster youth and youth aging out of foster care under the CFCIP
program.
Definition of Tribe. S. 1956 would define “Indian tribe” as any federally
recognized tribe, including an Alaska Native village, and would define “tribal
organization” as the governing body of any such tribe. H.R. 4688 and H.R. 5466
would use this same definition, except for native groups in Alaska, which they would
define to mean any one of 12 Alaska Native Regional nonprofit corporations and the
Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Islands Reserve.
Plan Requirements. With certain exceptions, S. 1956, H.R. 4688, and H.R.
5466 would require a tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium seeking to
operate a Title IV-E program to meet all of the requirements currently made of states
— including, for instance, those related to case planning and review for each child
in foster care and data reporting. All three bills, however, would modify certain plan
requirements. Rather than operating programs on a “statewide” basis, each tribe
would be required to identify the service area or areas and populations to be served
under its Title IV-E plan. Further, in lieu of the requirement that states establish
uniform foster home licensing standards that are “reasonably in accord with the
recommended standards of national organizations concerned with standards for such
institutions or homes,” all three bills would generally permit tribes to establish
licensing standards that met “tribal standards” to ensure the safety of and
CRS-50
accountability for children placed in foster care. (However, H.R. 5466 would not
permit tribes in Alaska to establish separate licensing standards.) Finally, S. 1956,
H.R. 4688, and H.R. 5466 would permit HHS to modify any requirement of Title IV-
E if it determined that doing so would best advance the interests and safety of the
tribal children being served.
Background Checks. S. 1956 and H.R. 4688 would modify Title IV-E state
plan requirements related to background checks for prospective foster and adoptive
parents in slightly different ways. (H.R. 5466 would not amend these provisions
relative to tribes.) S. 1956 would require tribes to conduct background checks in
accordance with the rules of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence
Prevention Act (ICPFVPA) instead of the procedures described in Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act (and would further require that tribes include child abuse and
neglect registry checks as a part of those procedures). By contrast, H.R. 4688 would
permit tribes to choose between the background check procedures detailed in Title
IV-E or the ICPFVPA procedures (and to conduct child abuse and neglect registry
checks).
Tribal Matching Rates. S. 1956, H.R. 4688, and H.R. 5466 would provide
that tribes operating a Title IV-E plan (or those with a cooperative agreement with
a state or other formal arrangement) would receive reimbursement of foster care
maintenance payments and adoption assistance based on the per capita income of the
tribal population served, and HHS would determine the appropriate reimbursement
rate for their administrative and training costs. However, in no case could a tribe
receive a lower reimbursement rate than that provided for the state in which it is
located. To meet Title IV-E matching requirements, tribes would be permitted to use
federal, state, tribal, or private funds (including in-kind funds).
Title IV-E Eligibility Requirements for Indian Children. Children must
be the subject of a variety of judicial determinations in order to be eligible for Title
IV-E support. These include a judicial finding that the child’s home was found
“contrary to the welfare” of the child at the time of removal from the home and that
reasonable efforts were made to prevent the child’s removal from home. These
findings must be made within specific time frames. S. 1946 and H.R. 4688 would
permit tribes to use certain affidavits or other legal instruments to establish
retroactively that these findings had been made. S. 1946 and H.R. 4688 would also
provide that any residency requirement related to a state’s prior law Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) program is not applicable for purposes of
establishing federal Title IV-E eligibility of a child in foster care under tribal
responsibility. (H.R. 5466 does not include these or any similar provisions.)
Other Stipulations and Requirements. S. 1956, H.R. 4688, and H.R. 5466
would require HHS (in consultation with Indian tribes and tribal organizations) to
issue regulations regarding tribal access to Title IV-E funds. Separately, S. 1956 and
H.R. 4688 would stipulate that none of the legislative changes proposed (with regard
to tribal access to Title IV-E funding) would affect the current and ongoing
responsibility of states to provide foster care, adoption assistance, or independent
living supports or services to eligible tribal children or youth, if those supports or
services are not made available under a tribal program, cooperative agreement, or
other formal arrangement. Further, a state would not be permitted to terminate foster
CRS-51
care or adoption assistance payments currently made on behalf of a tribal child (and
for whom it receives federal reimbursement) regardless of whether there was a
cooperative agreement between the state and tribe or the tribe chose to operate a Title
IV-E plan.
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Tribes. S.Amdt. 3899
(introduced by Senator Dorgan) would provide a complete substitute for S. 1200 (the
Indian Child Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2007) and would
appropriate $1 million in each of FY2009 through FY2013 for HHS to establish a
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Tribes. The resource center must not be
established as part of any existing national child welfare resource center and must be
“specifically and exclusively dedicated to meeting the needs of Indian tribes and
tribal organizations” by providing information, advice, and educational materials
regarding the types of services, administrative functions, data collection, program
management, and reporting that are provided for under Title IV-B and Title IV-E of
the Social Security Act.
Funds to Train or Improve the Child Welfare Workforce
H.R. 5466 would establish a new grant program, which would be intended to
help states improve the quality of their child welfare services by improving the
quality and capacity of their child welfare workforce. H.R. 5466 would also permit
states to claim federal reimbursement for a share of training costs associated with a
broader range of workers, including some court personnel and (as would H.R. 2314,
introduced by Representative Weller) private agency workers.
Grants to Support Quality Child Welfare Workers. In 2003 the GAO
reported that a survey of state child welfare agencies, including interviews with
caseworkers in some states, and an analysis of exit interviews completed by child
welfare staff across the country, identified a number of factors believed to hinder
both recruitment and retention of child welfare workers and supervisors or to
negatively affect the quality of child welfare services. These included high caseloads
(with extensive related administrative work), lack of supervisory support, low
salaries, the risk of violence, and insufficient time to take training.117
H.R. 5466 would require the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
(within HHS) to make grants to eligible states to implement strategies that make
measurable improvements related to the following specific indicators in a state: the
caseload size of child welfare workers, the number of child welfare caseworkers
assigned to a single supervisor, the average duration of child welfare workers
(supervisors and non-supervisors), the number or share of child welfare workers with
(relevant) higher education degrees, and the range and scope of training opportunities
as well as the number or share of child welfare staff engaged in training.
117 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role
in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff, GAO-03-357, March 2003. See
also CRS Report RL32690, The Child Welfare Workforce: An Overview, by Linda Levine.
CRS-52
The bill would appropriate $200 million for this purpose in each of FY2009
through FY2013. Every state (including the District of Columbia and each of the
territories) would be eligible to receive an allotment of funds, provided they
submitted an application that stated which indicator (or indicators) they planned to
improve, how they intended to spend funds to make these improvements, what the
status of those indicators was currently (i.e., baseline data), and which gave assurance
that they would submit annual reports to HHS on spending under the plan and the
effects of the spending with regard to improving the selected indicators. HHS would
be permitted to disapprove an application if it included a plan to spend the funds in
a manner substantially similar to the way a state had spent funds in the last two of
five years and provided that prior spending did not result in “meaningful progress.”
After setting aside funds for the territories, Indian tribes, and for training and
technical assistance, allotments to the states (including the District of Columbia)
would be based on the relative share of children (among all states receiving the grant
funds). However, pro rata adjustments would be made, if necessary, to ensure that no
state would receive less than $300,000 annually. A state would need to spend at least
$1 on the purposes of the grant for every $3 allotted to it in federal grant funds.
If HHS determined that a state was not complying with federal child welfare
policy, it would be required to withhold a certain share of the state’s workforce
improve grants (for the fiscal year of the finding(s)); any state with three findings of
noncompliance in a single fiscal year would be disqualified from receiving the grant
in any future fiscal year. H.R. 5466 would further require HHS (in consultation with
the states, representatives of child welfare workers, and advocates for children and
families) to prescribe regulations for the grant program, including how states would
be expected to obtain baseline data for the program indicators. HHS would also be
required to do an interim and final evaluation of the grant program and to send a final
report to Congress by the last day of FY2010.
Increased Federal Support for Training. Under current law, a state is
permitted to seek federal reimbursement of 75% of its cost of providing short-term
training for individuals employed (or preparing to be employed by) a public child
welfare agency — provided the training is related to foster care and adoption
assistance activities (allowed under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act).118 Many
states make use of private agencies to provide casework and other services to
children in foster care. H.R. 5466 and H.R. 2314 (as introduced by Representative
Weller) would additionally permit states to receive federal reimbursement of 75% of
the cost of short term program-related training for child welfare workers employed
by private agencies that provide services to Title IV-E eligible children (but only if
those private agencies are state-licensed or state-approved child welfare agencies).
In addition, H.R. 5466 would permit states to seek reimbursement under Title IV-E
118 Section 474(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act. States are also permitted under current
law to seek reimbursement of 75% of the costs of long-term training at institutions of higher
education for current or prospective public child welfare agency workers, and (under
Section 474(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act) they may seek 75% reimbursement of short-
term training of staff of child care institutions (caring for adopted children or children in
foster care), as well as for current or prospective foster or adoptive parents. Eligible training
claims, in all cases must be made on behalf of children who are Title IV-E eligible and only
with regard to activities considered Title IV-E eligible.
CRS-53
(75% reimbursement rate) for short-term training costs related to certain individuals
who work for or in abuse and neglect courts, including staff of such courts, agency
attorneys, attorneys representing children and parents, or guardians ad litem or other
court-appointed special advocates who represent children in abuse and neglect court
proceedings. Further, H.R. 5466 would permit states to claim Title IV-E
reimbursement for 75% of their short-term training costs incurred on behalf of
individuals who work for public or private (non-profit) “child-serving agencies” that
are working with the state or local agency administering the Title IV-E plan to keep
children safe and provide permanent families for them. (See also, “Training of
Relative Guardians” under “Support for Subsidized Guardianship,” above.)
Other Child Welfare or Related Proposals
Some additional changes proposed to child welfare or related policy are
discussed below.
Home Visiting. The Healthy Children and Families Act of 2007 (S. 1052,
introduced by Senator Salazar and H.R. 3024, introduced by Representative DeGette)
would amend the Medicaid and SCHIP programs to explicitly permit the use of these
funding streams for “evidence-based nurse home visitation programs.” The
Education Begins at Home Act (S. 667, introduced by Senator Bond and H.R. 2343,
introduced by Representative Danny Davis) would authorize funds for formula grants
to states to “expand quality programs of early childhood home visitation” and would
also make changes intended to strengthen home visiting as a component of the Early
Head Start program. For FY2008, Congress appropriated $10 million to fund a nurse
home visitation initiative. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the
omnibus FY2008 appropriations measure (H.R. 2674, enacted as P.L. 110-161)
provides that HHS must “ensure that states use the funds to support models that have
been shown, in well-designed randomized controlled trials, to produce sizeable,
sustained effects on important child outcomes such as abuse and neglect” and to
“support activities to assist a range of home visitation programs to replicate the
techniques that have met these high evidentiary standards.”119 This funding appears
largely consistent with a request by HHS in its FY2008 Budget for $10 million in
funds to enable it to make competitive grants to states to “encourage investment of
existing funding streams into evidence-based nurse home visitation programs.” The
FY2009 HHS budget requests a continuation of this funding.120
Home visiting for “at-risk” parents is advocated as a way to prevent abuse and
neglect; reduce the cost to government that is associated with such abuse and neglect;
and improve the health, safety, and well-being of the children and families served.
Program models vary but typically services are intended to improve family or parent
119 This information is based on the version of H.R. 2764 and the accompanying Joint
Explanatory Statement (Division G) as posted on the House Rules Committee website
December 17, 2007. See [http://www.rules.house.gov/110_fy08_omni.htm].
120 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families FY2008 Budget Justifications, p. 115. For more information about the initiative as
proposed and as funded by Congress, see section on “Home Visiting” in CRS Report
RL34121, Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-54
functioning, promote the physical health of children and mothers as well as the social
and emotional development of children, and to ensure children’s school readiness.
Depending on the program model, these services may be delivered by nurses, social
workers, teachers, or para-professionals.121 Numerous home visiting program
evaluations have been carried out. At least one program model has been found to be
both effective in improving outcomes for those served as well as reducing costs to
government.122 At the same time, results from many evaluations have shown mixed
or no effects and researchers caution that home visiting is not a panacea.123
Parenting Education. S. 2237 would amend the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) to authorize $545 million to provide “parent education and
counseling services and family strengthening services,” as well as referral and
counseling for adoption services. The bill would stipulate that any funds appropriated
under this authority are to be distributed through the Community-Based Grants to
Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect (Title II of CAPTA). Under that program local,
community-based grantees in each state are required to support parent education,
leadership, and mutual support efforts, all of which are intended to improve parenting
skills and in so doing prevent child abuse and neglect.124
Under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program (Title IV-B,
Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act), states are required to spend a portion of the
federal funds they receive for both family support and family preservation services
and the definition of both of these service categories includes improving parenting
abilities. For example, the definition of “family preservation services” includes
“services designed to improve parenting skills (by reinforcing parents’ confidence in
their strengths, and helping them to identify where improvement is needed and to
obtain assistance in improving these skills) with respect to matters such as child
development, family budgeting, coping with stress, health, and nutrition.”125 In
addition, states must spend a portion of their PSSF funds on “adoption promotion and
support,” and this service category is broadly defined to include any activity that
121 See Miriam Wasserman, “Implementation of Home Visitation Programs: Stories from
the States,” Chapin Hall Center for Children: University of Chicago (September 2006).
Deanna Gomby, Home Visitation in 2005: Outcomes for Children and Parents, Invest in
Kids, Committee for Economic Development, working paper number 7, July 18, 2005.
122 Julia B. Isaacs, “Cost-Effective Investments in Children,” The Brookings Institution:
Washington, D.C., January 2007, pp. 15-17. Judith Glazner, et al. “Final Report to the
Administration for Children and Families: Effect of Nurse Family Partnerships on
Government Expenditures for Vulnerable First-Time Mothers and their Children in Elmira,
New York, Memphis Tennessee, and Denver Colorado,” (no date).
123 Deborah Daro, “Home Visitation: Assessing Progress, Managing Expectations,” Ounce
of Prevention Fund and Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago
(2006).
124 Section 206(a)(3) of CAPTA.
125 Section 431(1)(E) of the Social Security Act defines “family preservation services” for
purposes of the PSSF program. See also definition of “family support services” at Section
431(2) of the Social Security Act.
CRS-55
encourages the adoption of a child out of foster care (when this is in the child’s best
interest). (S. 2237 does not propose to amend this program.)
Funds provided for family preservation under the PSSF program are intended
to serve families at high risk of having a child/ren enter foster care or who may be
reunited with a child in foster care. In either case, these are typically families with an
open child welfare case — whether the child remains in the home or has been
removed to foster care. By contrast, as implemented by HHS, funds provided under
CAPTA’s community-based grant program may not be used to serve families who
have an open child welfare case (regardless of whether the child is living at home).
Instead, they are intended to reach and serve families before child welfare
involvement is needed.
Child welfare workers regularly come into contact with caregivers whose
parenting skills they assess as “poor.”126 At the same time, federal policy charges
child welfare agencies with ensuring the safety and well-being of children broadly
and more specifically with providing “reasonable efforts” to prevent the removal of
a child from his or her home, or, whenever safe and appropriate, to return a child who
has been placed in foster care to his or her home.127 It should be no surprise then that
parent training is a widely offered child welfare service — with at least one estimate
suggesting that annually as many as 800,000 families receive parent training as a
child welfare service.128
Research indicates, however, that despite its widespread use, child welfare
agencies frequently do not pay for parent training (and possibly as a consequence do
126 Across a nationally representative sample of children who were in families that were the
subject of a child abuse and neglect investigation, the large majority (79%) of parents whose
children were removed from their care following the investigation were assessed as having
“poor parenting” skills by child welfare workers, and this was also true of nearly half (47%)
of the parents in families where the child welfare agency opened a case to provide services
to the child and family in the home. Finally, “poor parenting” skills were reported by child
welfare workers for one in five (20%) of the parents whose children remained in the home
following an investigation and for whom no child welfare agency case was opened. See
Richard Barth, et al., “Parent-Training Programs in Child Welfare Services: Planning for a
More Evidence-based Approach to Serving Biological Parents,” Research on Social Work
Practice, September 2005, vol. 15, no. 5, p. 357 (Table 1).
127 For the broadest mandate, see purposes of the Social Security Act’s Title IV-B programs:
Child Welfare Services, Section 421 and Promoting Safe and Stable Families, Section 430,
as well as requirements at Section 422(b)(8)(iii) and (iv). For “reasonable efforts”
requirement, see Section 471(a)(15) and 472(a)(2)(ii).
128 Presentation of Richard Barth at “Child Protection and Parent Training Programs,”
sponsored by the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., July 26, 2007. A nationally
representative study of children who remained in their homes following an investigation by
the child protection agency (and without regard to whether a child welfare cased was
opened) close to one-third (30%) received parent training. (USDHHS, NSCAW - CPS
Component, 2005, p. 8-12.) Additionally, among a nationally representative survey of
children who were in foster care for at least one year, 40% of the biological caregivers from
whom the children had been removed, received parent training (USDHHS, NSCAW - OYFC
Component, 2003, p. 115).
CRS-56
not often control the kind of training provided) and that the effectiveness of the
training models used has rarely been evaluated or otherwise shown as effective. A
recent nationally representative survey found that in the majority of counties (61%),
child welfare agencies do not always pay for the provision of parent training; instead
the service is provided (and funded) by another community organization. While
acknowledging that research available on effective models of parent training for child
welfare-involved families is limited (and that this is particularly true where neglect
is the reason for the involvement as opposed to physical abuse), researchers
nonetheless advocate more attention by child welfare agencies to what is known
about effective parent training and to implementing those models or at least the
principles behind those models. They also suggest that a single model is unlikely to
meet the range of needs among child welfare-involved families, given the different
ages and developmental needs of the children in these families, and because the
parenting skills most deficient in a family where neglect is the main issue are likely
different from those where physical abuse (or child behavior) is the major reason for
child welfare involvement.129
Infant Safe Haven. S. 2237 would require states receiving certain newly
proposed funding (related to law enforcement and victims assistance) to have in place
an “infant safe haven” law that includes specific provisions related to the legal and
anonymous relinquishment of care and responsibility for a newborn.130 Since 1999,
nearly every state has enacted infant safe haven legislation.131 Federal legislation
enacted in 2002 (P.L. 107-133) explicitly permits states to use PSSF funds to
“support infant haven programs to provide a way for a parent to safely relinquish a
newborn infant at a safe haven designated pursuant to a State law.”
S. 2237 would require state infant safe haven laws to include the following
provisions: permit a parent to anonymously leave a newborn baby with a medically
trained employee of a hospital emergency room without criminal or other penalty.
(States would be permitted, however, to pursue criminal or other penalties if the
newborn showed signs of abuse or appeared to have been intentionally harmed.) S.
2237 would further require that this state infant safe haven law include a “mechanism
to encourage and permit” a hospital employee in the receiving hospital to collect
information about the medical history of the family subject to the approval of the
parent, and it must require that immediately following the relinquishment, law
129 Michael S. Hurlburt, “Building on Strengths: Current Status and Opportunities for
Improvement of Parent Training for Families in Child Welfare,” pp. 81-106 in Ron Haskins,
Fred Wulczyn, and Mary Bruce Webb, eds. Child Protection: Using Research to Improve
Policy and Practice, The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC, 2007.
130 S. 2237 would require a state to establish a safe haven law, as described in the text above,
no later than three years after its enactment provided the state was receiving one of two new
grants proposed to be established by the act. Those grants are for federal assistance to state
and local law enforcement and for education, prevention, and victim assistance. S. 2237
provides that the Justice Department must make grants for these purposes to a variety of
eligible entities and would authorize new funding for them.
131 Hawaii is the most recent state to enact such legislation (summer 2007). As of September
2007, Alaska and Nebraska were the only states that had not enacted infant safe haven laws.
(In addition, the District of Columbia does not have an infant safe haven law.)
CRS-57
enforcement entities search state and federal missing person databases (to ensure the
child has not been reported as missing). Finally, the state law would be required to
include a plan for publicizing the state’s safe haven law.
A summary analysis of infant safe haven laws in place as of November 2004
suggests that many state laws have similar provisions to those that would be required
by S. 2237. That analysis showed that safe haven providers are defined in state laws
to include a variety of settings, including hospitals, emergency medical services,
police stations, and fire stations; states have defined a range of ages under which an
infant may be legally relinquished to a safe haven provider (but most provide a limit
between three days and one month); typically these state laws provide for the
relinquishing parent’s anonymity and that no abandonment charges may be filed
(except in cases where child abuse or neglect is indicated) and that the parent(s)
relinquishing the baby may not be compelled to provide personal information (or
accept information offered); and many states require the safe haven provider to ask
the parent for family and medical history information (although in some states the
safe haven provider is required to attempt to give the parent(s) information about the
legal effects of leaving the infant and information about referral services). Finally,
children relinquished to a safe haven provider are typically transferred to the custody
of a child welfare agency, which is expected to petition for the termination of the
parental rights of the child’s birth parents and to seek an adoptive home for the child.
Some states permit the relinquishing parent to petition to reclaim his or her parental
rights typically within a specified time period and a smaller number of states have
provisions for a father who did not relinquish the child to petition for the child’s
custody.132
Advocates of safe haven laws believe they will reduce the number of infants
discarded (or abandoned) in dangerous places, preventing risk to the newborns and
possible death. Eliminating the fear of prosecution, they argue, enables a desperate
birth parent to act in the child’s best interest and ensure the child’s safety, even when
the parent does not feel able to personally care for the child. Others argue that the
laws encourage irresponsible behavior and might induce birth parents to simply
relinquish the child rather than to seek additional support and services. By allowing
birth parent anonymity, they further argue that important medical or other genetic
information may be lost forever to the child. Further, they add that these laws might
interfere with the parental rights of fathers, if they are unaware of the baby’s birth and
subsequent relinquishment.133 Some practical considerations in implementing the
laws have included ensuring public awareness of the laws (so that pregnant women
and their partners know about this option) as well as ensuring knowledge of the law’s
provisions among employees at safe haven providers. Finally, the timing and conduct
132 Information is based on state statutes as of November 2004 when 46 states had enacted
safe haven laws. See Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Infant Safe Haven Laws,” State
Statutes Series, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Current through November
2004.
133 Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, “Unintended Consequences: “Safe Haven Laws
are Causing Problems, Not Solving Them,” released March 2003, available at
[http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/whowe/Last%20report.pdf].
CRS-58
of termination of parental rights proceedings with regard to children left with a safe
haven provider may also be an issue.
Children of Incarcerated Parents. S. 2237 would authorize funds ($2.5
million for each of FY2008 and FY2009) for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to carry
out a pilot program to collect certain information about the children of federal
prisoners as part of its standard intake procedures (e.g. number of children, their ages,
and living arrangement). The pilot program would also require a review of policies,
practices, and facilities to ensure that — “as appropriate to the health and well-being
of the child” — they support a relationship between the family and the child, and,
further, to “identify training needs of staff concerning the impact of incarceration on
children, families and communities, age-appropriate interactions, and community
resources for families of incarcerated persons.” Close to 88% of prisoners are in state
prisons rather than federal prisons, and thus they are under the jurisdiction of state
correctional agencies rather than the Federal Bureau of Prisons.134 S. 2237, however,
would require the Federal Bureau of Prisons to “encourage” state correctional
agencies to implement the same intake procedures; policy, practices and facilities
review; and staff-training related measures that would be required of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons under this pilot program.
More than 2.4 million children are estimated to have a parent (or parents) who
is incarcerated in a state or federal prison or in a local jail, and many more children
(5.1 million) are estimated to have a parent who is on probation or under parole.135
Children whose parents come into contact with the criminal justice system, and in
particular, those children with incarcerated parents, their caregivers, and their
incarcerated parents have unique needs and concerns related to preserving family
connections.136 S. 2237 would further authorize “such sums as may be necessary” in
FY2008 and FY2009 for HHS to fund the activities of the Federal Resource Center
for Children of Prisoners, “including conducting a review of the policies and
practices of State and Federal corrections agencies to support parent-child
relationships, as appropriate for the health and well-being of the child.” This resource
center was created in 2001 through a three-year cooperative agreement with the
National Institute of Corrections at the Department of Justice (and was initially
operated by the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA)). “With the close of
134 See William Sobol, et al.,”Prisoners in 2006,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (December 2007).
135 Estimates are for 2002 and are based on survey data from earlier years that was applied
to the FY2002 population of inmates and others under correctional supervision. See
Christopher Mumola, “Parents Under Correctional Supervision: Past Estimates, New
Measures,” presentation for “Children of Parents in the Criminal Justice System: Children
at Risk,” NIDA Research Meeting, November 6, 2006, available at [http://www.nida.nih.
gov/whatsnew/meetings/children_at_risk/epidemiology.html].
136 The federal government provides mentoring funds for this population of vulnerable
youth. See CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs, by
Adrienne Fernandes.
CRS-59
Federal Resource Center Operations, CWLA turned over training activities, selected
web pages, and other remaining resources to Family and Corrections Network.”137
Role of Child Protective Agencies. In related but separate provisions, S.
2237 would require HHS to review and make available to states a report on any
recommendations regarding the role of state child protective services at the time of
a person’s arrest and, by regulation, to establish services to preserve families affected
by the incarceration of a family member (“as appropriate to the health and well-being
of any child involved”). The share of children coming into contact with the child
welfare system whose caregiver(s) have come into contact with the criminal justice
system appears substantial. A recent nationally representative survey of children in
families investigated because of an allegation of abuse or neglect found that as many
as one in three of these children had a primary caregiver with an arrest record at some
point in their adult lives, and one in eight children in families investigated because
of abuse or neglect allegations had a primary caregiver (usually the mother) who had
been recently arrested (i.e. within roughly six months of the reported maltreatment).
Compared to other children in families that were the subject of abuse or neglect,
children whose primary caregivers were recently arrested were more likely to have
been the subject of abuse or neglect allegations that involved abandonment or neglect
and were less likely to be alleged victims of physical abuse. Further, these children
with a primary caregiver who had been recently arrested were more likely to have a
parent with a substance abuse or mental health problem and to be in families where
basic needs went unmet (generally indicating extreme poverty) or there was domestic
violence.138
Court Teams for Maltreated Infants and Toddlers. The Safe Babies Act
of 2007 (H.R. 1082, introduced by Representative DeLauro and S. 627, introduced
by Senator Harkin), as well as S. 2237, would authorize funds to support training and
technical assistance for local teams to promote developmentally aware and
appropriate court services for infants and toddlers (age three years or younger) who
have been abused or neglected and for their families. The purpose of the court teams
would be to promote the well-being of infants and toddlers and their families, help
prevent recurrence of abuse or neglect in these families, and promote timely
reunification (or other permanent outcome) for abused or neglected infants or
toddlers who are removed to foster care. S. 627 would authorize $5 million in each
of FY2008 through FY2012 for these purposes (and H.R. 1082 would authorize such
sums as may be necessary for the same time period) to enable the Department of
Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) to make a grant to
a “national early childhood development organization” to support such local court
teams and, separately, to establish a National Court Teams Resource Center.139 The
137 This information is from the Family and Corrections Network website; see
[http://www.fcnetwork.org/Resource%20Center/resource-center-main.htm].
138 Susan D. Phillips and James P. Gleeson, “Children, Families, and the Criminal Justice
System,” Research Brief, Center for Social Policy and Research, Jane Addams College of
Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago, July 2007.
139 H.R. 1082/S. 627 would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to
authorize this grant program.
CRS-60
court-team modeled was pioneered in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and has since
been replicated in a number of other locations.140
White House Conference on Children and Youth. H.R. 5461
(introduced by Representative Fattah) would require the President to convene a
White House Conference on Children and Youth in 2010 “to encourage
improvements in each State and local child welfare system and to develop
recommendations for actions.” Among other things, the bill would provide that the
policy of Congress is that “Federal, State, and local programs and polices should be
developed to reduce the number of children who are abused and neglected, reduce the
number of children in foster care, and to increase the number of children in
permanent placements through family reunification, kinship placements, and
adoption.” The bill would require HHS to plan, conduct, and convene this White
House Conference, in cooperation with other “appropriate” federal entities, including
the Department of Justice, Department of Education, and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development.
Adoption Tax Credit. The Adoption Tax Credit (and a related income tax
exclusion) is available to offset the qualified costs of taxpayers who adopt an eligible
child. In tax year 2005 (most recent data available), about $362 million in adoption
tax benefits were claimed by more than 56,400 taxpayers. These benefits helped
offset the cost of adoption for more than 65,800 children.141 Close to half of the
children for whom these adoption benefits were claimed are believed to have been
adopted domestically (primarily through private arrangements), about one-third are
expected to have been adopted from other countries (international adoption), and the
remaining children had special needs and were adopted domestically (primarily out
of foster care).142
Under current law, an individual adopting a child with special needs (defined
in the tax code to include most children adopted out of foster care) may claim the full
amount of the adoption tax credit without incurring (or documenting) any cost related
to that adoption. H.R. 5466 would require states (as part of their Title IV-E foster
care and adoption assistance plan) to inform individuals who are adopting children
from foster care (or those known by the state to be considering such adoptions) of
their potential eligibility for the adoption tax credit (without the need to document
expenses).
140 For more information about the court teams proposed and related research, visit the Zero
to Three Court Teams website at [http://zttcfn.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=ter_
pub_courtteams].
141 Of the $362 million in tax benefits, a little more than $355 million were allowed via the
credit and a little more than $6 million were claimed via the income exclusion. U.S.
Treasury Department, Office of Tax Analysis, Federal Income Tax Benefits for Adoption:
Use by Taxpayers 1999-2005, June 2007.
142 Ibid. The number of adoptions supported with tax benefits by kind of adoption is not
available for 2005. These shares are based on the total number of adoptions in 2004 for
which tax benefits were claimed (n= 69,100) of which 48% were domestic, non-special
needs; 34% were international adoptions; and 18% were domestic - special needs (primarily
out of foster care) adoptions.
CRS-61
The tax code provision related to claiming a tax credit for special needs
adoptions without the need to document costs, as well as those specifying the current
amount of the adoption tax credit and the income eligibility cutoff, is scheduled to
“sunset” with tax year 2010. H.R. 273 (introduced by Representative Camp), H.R.
471 (introduced by Representative Joe Wilson), H.R. 1074 (introduced by
Representative Tim Ryan), H.R. 3192 (introduced by Representative Lincoln Davis),
and S. 561 (introduced by Senator Bunning) would ensure that the current provisions
do not end but are instead made permanent.143 H.R. 1074 and H.R. 3192 would also
increase the amount of the maximum adoption tax benefits and would make the
credit refundable. Separately, H.R. 4313 (introduced by Representative Bean) would
expand the tax credit available to individuals who adopt children aged nine years or
older.
Original Provisions and Those Subject to Sunset. The current adoption
tax credit was established in 1996 (P.L. 104-188) and initially provided
reimbursement of up to $5,000 in qualified adoption costs for any child, or up to
$6,000 for adoptions of children with special needs (which was defined to mean most
children adopted from foster care). The full credit amount was available for taxpayers
with adjusted gross incomes up to $75,000, after which its value declined. The tax
credit is not refundable. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act
2001 (P.L. 107-16) continued the credit as non-refundable but expanded it in several
ways:
! it increased the maximum credit amount, initially to $10,000, and
provided that it be adjusted annually for inflation (the 2007
maximum credit amount is $11,390).
! it increased the income limit for taxpayers, initially to $150,000, and
provided that it be adjusted annually for inflation (the 2007
maximum income is $170,820); and
! it provided that the full credit amount is available to any taxpayer
who adopts a child with special needs (without regard to actual costs
of adoption).
Many of the tax provisions in P.L. 107-16, including the adoption tax benefits
described here, were made subject to a “sunset” date of December 31, 2010, and this
sunset would repeal the changes. Thus, beginning with tax year 2011, the adoption
tax credit is set to revert to $5,000 (or $6,000 for special needs adoptions); the
amount of the allowable credit would begin to decline for taxpayers with adjusted
incomes of $75,000 or more, and taxpayers adopting children with special needs
would again need to show qualified costs in order to claim the credit. H.R. 273, H.R.
471, H.R. 3192 and S. 561 would provide that the sunset does not apply to the
adoption tax benefit changes made in P.L. 107-16.
143 Similar provisions apply with regard to an income tax exclusion of qualified adoption
expenses. For more information about the tax credit and related exclusion, see CRS Report
RL33633, Tax Benefits for Families: Adoption, by Emily Mickelson and Christine Scott.
CRS-62
Increased Adoption Tax Benefits. H.R. 1074 and H.R. 3192 would
increase the maximum adoption tax credit (and exclusion) amount to $15,000 for tax
year 2008 and, as is true in current law, would continue to provide an increased
maximum in each following year by applying an inflation adjustment to the amount.
Further, the bill would make the adoption tax credit refundable. This would allow
taxpayers to be reimbursed for all qualified adoption costs without regard to whether
they owed taxes in that amount for the given year. Currently taxpayers are permitted
to carry over the part of the tax credit they are unable to use to offset their tax liability
in future (up to 5) years. In tax year 2005, the amount of unused adoption tax credit
carried forward to future years ($414 million) exceeded the amount of adoption tax
credit allowed ($355 million) in that year.144
Tax Benefits for Older Child Adoptions. The Advocates Dedicated to
Older Child Parental Tax Credit (ADOPT) Act of 2007 (H.R. 4313, introduced by
Representative Bean) would amend the adoption tax credit provisions to provide
additional tax benefits for families that adopt children aged 9 and older (beginning
with tax year 2008). A taxpayer adopting a child who is 9 years of age or older would
be able to claim the adoption tax benefits that currently exist; further, for each year
after the year in which the adoption was finalized (until the child’s 19th birthday), he
or she could claim an additional $2,000 (adjusted annually for inflation) and without
regard to any income limitation.
Relatively few of the adoptions currently supported by the federal adoption tax
credit (or exclusion) are for older children. (Less than 15% of the adoptions
supported by those benefits in tax year 2005 were for adoptions of children aged 10
years or older.)145 On the last day of FY2005, there were 114,000 children in foster
care waiting to be adopted, of whom nearly half (47%) were aged 9 or older.146
Expired or Expiring Programs
The following program funding or other authorizations are set to expire with
FY2008 or have already expired.
Adoption Incentives. Adoption Incentives (authorized under Section 473A
of the Social Security Act) are bonus funds awarded to states that increase the
number of children adopted out of foster care. Authority to appropriate funds for
Adoption Incentives was most recently reauthorized in 2003 (P.L. 108-145) and is
set to expire with FY2008. The Bush Administration, as part of its FY2009 budget,
144 Ibid.
145 Ibid.
146 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report #13 (Preliminary FY2005
Estimates as of September 2006). For analytic purposes, HHS defines the population of
children “waiting” to be adopted as all those children reported as having a goal of adoption
or whose parental rights have been terminated (excluding children 16 years old and older
whose parental rights have been terminated and who have a goal of emancipation).
CRS-63
discusses proposed legislation to increase the amount of certain bonuses, and H.R.
5466 would reauthorize funding for the program through FY2013.
Adoption Incentives were initially created in the Adoption and Safe Families
Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) as part of a larger legislative effort to encourage and
expedite appropriate placement of children from foster care into adoptive families.
The number of children adopted with public child welfare agency involvement
increased significantly from 25,700 in FY1995 to 51,100 in FY2000. Since then the
number of such adoptions has stabilized at between 50,000 and 53,000 annually
(even as the number of children waiting to be adopted from foster care has
declined).147 For increases in adoptions finalized between FY1998 (first year
incentives were awarded) through FY2006 (most recent awards made), states
collectively earned $221 million. All states have won an award in at least one of
these years (although no more than 44 states, including DC, did so in any one year).
The largest bonus amounts, however, were paid in the program’s earliest years
(when adoptions were rising); in the most recent award cycle (for adoptions finalized
in FY2006), 19 states earned a total of $7.4 million.
As provided in P.L. 108-145, for a state to be eligible to earn an incentive, it
must increase the overall number of adoptions out of its foster care caseload, or the
number of adoptions of those children aged nine or older. An eligible state may
additionally earn a bonus for an increase in the number of children adopted from
foster care who are Title IV-E eligible, have special needs, and are under the age of
nine. The law establishes three “baselines” for each state: these are equal to all
children adopted out of foster care in FY2002 (or any later year when that number
was higher), the number of children aged nine or older who were adopted in FY2002
(or any later year when that number was higher), and the number of Title IV-E
eligible, special needs children under age nine who were adopted in FY2002 (or any
later year when that number was higher). States are awarded a bonus of $4,000 for
each adoption that exceeds the overall baseline; $4,000 for each older child adoption
that exceeds the relevant baseline; and $2,000 for each Title IV-E eligible special
needs child under the age of nine that exceeds the relevant baseline.
Proposals for Reauthorization. H.R. 5466 would reauthorize funding for
the Adoption Incentives program for FY2009 through FY2013 at the current annual
authorization level of $43 million. The bill would double both the adoption incentive
award for children aged nine and older (from $4,000 to $8,000) and the award for
Title IV-E eligible special needs children under the age of nine (from $2,000 to
$4,000). H.R. 5466 would also add a new bonus for a state that increases the number
of children exiting foster care to legal guardianship. The bonus for each legal
guardianship achieved above the state’s baseline would be $4,000. Finally, the bill
would revise the year in which the adoption incentive baselines are determined,
fixing it at FY2007 for all the awards (including those for legal guardianship).
147 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), Children’s Bureau, “Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfare
Agency Involvement by State, FY1995-FY2005” (revised March 2007); available at
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/adoptchild05.htm].
CRS-64
The President’s Budget requests $20 million for Adoption Incentives in FY2009
(the FY2008 appropriation amount was $4 million). As included in H.R. 5466, the
Bush Administration also proposes to set FY2007 as the year in which the adoption
incentive baselines are established, and also like H.R. 5466, it would not require that
the baseline be adjusted in subsequent years if a state achieves a higher number of
adoptions. In justifying this proposed change, the Administration notes that the
“changed baselines will set goals for increasing adoptions that better reflect recent
changes in the child welfare population and ensure those goals are within a state’s
reach so there is a true fiscal incentive to increasing adoptions.”148 Also like H.R.
5466, the Administration proposes to double the adoption bonus for children aged
nine and older (from $4,000 to $8,000). However, it proposes to raise the award for
younger special needs children by just 50% (from $2,000 to $3,000). The
Administration notes that older children make up a growing share of the children
waiting to be adopted, that inflation has eroded the original value of the incentives,
and that the proposed increase in award amounts is “in recognition of the fact that
states will have to invest additional resources and devote greater efforts in achieving
adoption for the more challenging children who are waiting for adoption.”149 The
Administration would also stipulate that Adoption Incentive funds received by a state
could only be spent to finalize adoption or other permanency options. Currently states
are permitted to spend incentive funds on any purpose authorized under Title IV-B
or Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, including post-adoption services.150
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). First authorized
in 1974 (P.L. 93-247), funding for CAPTA was most recently reauthorized, through
FY2008, by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36). As
of early February 2008, legislation primarily devoted to CAPTA reauthorization has
not been introduced; however, several bills propose amendments or would extend
funding authority for CAPTA programs. The Administration’s FY2009 budget
requests a “straightline reauthorization” of the program with funding authority of
“such sums as may be appropriated.”151 The Administration notes that it has again
included $10 million in its requested FY2009 funding for CAPTA’s discretionary
activities component to continue the home visitation initiative (see “Home Visiting,”
above) and also states that the requested funding level includes “$500,000 to conduct
a feasibility study on the creation, development and maintenance of a national child
abuse and neglect offender registry.”152
CAPTA authorizes funding for three grant programs: grants to states for
improvement of their child protection system; grants to all states for use by
148 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families FY2009 Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, February 2008,
pp. D-92.
149 Ibid.
150 Ibid, pp. D-91-D-96.
151 Ibid, pp. D-57-D-70.
152 Ibid, p. D-63-D-64. In P.L. 109-248, Congress required HHS to establish a registry of
substantiated child abuse and neglect cases. For more information, see CRS Report
RL34252, Child Welfare: Recently Enacted Changes in Federal Policy, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
CRS-65
community-based groups to prevent child abuse and neglect; and grants to eligible
entities for research, pilot programs, or other activities related to the prevention and
treatment of child abuse or neglect. Combined funding for these programs was
authorized at $200 million for FY2004 and “such sums as may be necessary” for each
of FY2005 through FY2008; however, total funding appropriated for CAPTA has
never exceeded $106 million, and in FY2008 (P.L. 110-161), Congress provided a
total of $105 million.153 These funds are administered by HHS.
Proposed Amendments. H.R. 3409, an omnibus youth policy bill, would
make amendments that appear intended to ensure the issue of youth homelessness is
given greater attention, and it would extend the current funding authority under
CAPTA, authorizing total appropriations of $200 million for FY2009 and “such
sums as may be necessary” for each of FY2010 through FY2013. Also as noted
above (see “Services for Children and Families”), S. 2237, an omnibus crime control
and prevention bill, would authorize the appropriation of additional funds specifically
for CAPTA’s state grants to improve child welfare services ($200 million for each
of FY2008-FY2012) and for the act’s grants to support community-based activities
to prevent child abuse and neglect ($200 million in each of FY2008 through
FY2012). That bill would further amend CAPTA to provide a new funding
authorization of $545 million to be distributed via CAPTA’s community-based
grants for parent education, counseling, and family strengthening services and for
adoption referral and counseling (see “Parenting Education” above). Finally, and as
also discussed above, S. 2341 would amend CAPTA to add a new grant program to
develop individual development accounts for youth aging out of foster care; that act
would authorize the appropriation of “such sums as may be necessary” specifically
for this purpose.
Adoption Opportunities. The Adoption Opportunities program was
established in 1978 (P.L. 95-266) and was most recently reauthorized in 2003 (P.L.
108-36, with CAPTA). No legislation to reauthorize this program has been
introduced as of early February 2008, although the purposes of the bill are closely
aligned with proposals made by H.R. 4198 and S. 2395 (see “Foster and Adoptive
Parent Recruitment,” above). Further, the Administration has requested a
“straightline reauthorization” of the program with funding authority of “such sums
as may be appropriated.”154 Funding for Adoption Opportunities was authorized at
$40 million for FY2004 and “such sums as may be necessary” in each of FY2005-
FY2008. For FY2008, the program received an appropriation of $26.4 million (P.L.
110-161).
Funding provided for Adoption Opportunities is administered by HHS and is
distributed via competitive grants or contracts. Among other things, those
competitive grants support a national adoption information clearinghouse,155 a
153 For more information about the most recent program reauthorization, see CRS Report
RL31746, Child Welfare Issues in the 108th Congress, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
154 ACF FY2009 Budget Justifications, pp. D-80-D-83.
155 The adoption clearinghouse is now maintained under the umbrella of the Child Welfare
(continued...)
CRS-66
national resource center on special needs adoption,156 and a national internet photo
listing of children seeking adoption.157 These entities also provide training and
technical assistance related to adoption and recruitment of families who want to
adopt. Finally, other competitive grants are made to conduct research or provide
services related to reducing barriers to adoption; provide services to adoptive
families; or for other related purposes.
Abandoned Infants Assistance. The Abandoned Infants Assistance
program was created in 1988 (P.L. 100-505) in response to concerns about “boarder
babies.” The context for this concern included increased cocaine/crack use by
pregnant women, as well as the spread of HIV among infants whose parents abused
drugs intravenously. “Boarder babies” were understood as infants and young
children who were medically ready to be discharged from a hospital but for whom
the parent (due to drug or other reasons) was unable to care and had thus simply
abandoned in the hospital.158 The program was most recently reauthorized in 2003
(P.L. 108-36, with CAPTA), when funding was authorized at $45 million for FY2004
and “such sums as may be necessary” for each of FY2005 through FY2008. The
program received an appropriation of $11.6 million in FY2008 (P.L. 110-161). No
legislation to reauthorize this program has been introduced as of early February 2008,
but the Administration has requested a “straightline reauthorization” of the program
with funding authority of “such sums as may be appropriated.”159
Funds are administered by HHS and are distributed under this program through
competitive grants or contracts to public and private communities and entities for the
development, implementation, and operation of projects that aim to prevent
abandonment of infants and young children who have been exposed to HIV/AIDS
and drugs; identify and address the needs of abandoned infants (especially those born
with AIDS, exposed to drugs, or those with life-threatening illnesses or special
medical needs), including assisting them in living with their biological parents,
recruiting and retaining foster families who can care for such abandoned infants, or
providing residential care programs if neither the child’s biological parent nor a
foster family can care for the child; and recruiting and training health and social
services personnel to work with those caring for these abandoned infants. Finally,
some grant funding supports the National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource
155 (...continued)
Information Gateway. See [http://www.childwelfare.gov].
156 See [http://www.nrcadoption.org].
157 See [http://www.AdoptUSKids.org].
158 These babies are a distinct population from those who are left in a public place (or with
a safe haven provider), although both are sometimes described as abandoned. See National
Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center, “Boarder Babies, Abandoned Infants, and
Discarded Infants,” author: Berkeley, CA, December 2005; see [http://aia.berkeley.edu/
media/pdf/abandoned_infant_fact_sheet_2005.pdf].
159 ACF FY2009 Budget Justifications, pp. D-84-D-86.
CRS-67
Center, which provides training and technical assistance related to planning and
development of projects funded under this program.160
Children’s Advocacy Centers. Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) are
intended to coordinate a multi-disciplinary response to child abuse (e.g. law
enforcement, social service, medical, mental health) in a manner that ensures child
abuse victims (and any non-offending family members) receive the support services
they need and do not experience the investigation of child abuse as an added trauma.
Funding authority for this program expired with FY2005, although Congress has
continued to appropriate funds for this purpose. As of early February 2008, no
legislation to reauthorize funds for this program has been introduced. The
Administration has requested that funding and program authority for this and other
programs authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act, the Missing Children’s
Assistance Act, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act, and other acts
be combined into a single “Child Safety and Juvenile Justice” program. Funds would
be distributed on competitive basis to “assist state and local governments in
addressing multiple child safety and juvenile justice needs.”161
Funding to support local and regional advocacy centers (and for related training
and technical assistance) is administered by the Department of Justice and was first
authorized under the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II of P.L. 101-647,
as amended). The bulk of CAC funding is typically awarded to the National
Children’s Alliance (a member organization for local CACs), which makes subgrants
to support local CACs.162 The remaining funds support regional CACs, as well as
training and technical assistance. The CAC program was last amended in 2003 (P.L.
108-21) when authority to appropriate funds was provided for the program through
FY2005. Despite the expiration of this authorization, Congress has continued to
provide funding for the program in each year, and in FY2008, it provided $16.9
million (P.L. 110-161).
Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. The Victims of Child
Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II of P.L 101-647, as amended) also authorized funding to
provide expanded technical assistance and training to judicial personnel and attorneys
to improve the judicial system’s handling of child abuse and neglect cases “with
specific emphasis on the role of the courts in addressing reasonable efforts that can
safely avoid unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged foster care placement.”
Funding authority for this program expired with FY2005, although Congress has
continued to appropriate funds for this purpose. As of early February 2008, no
legislation to reauthorize funds for this program has been introduced.163
160 See [http://aia.berkeley.edu].
161 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2009 Performance Budget,
February 2008, pp. 101-102
162 The website of the National Children’s Alliance may be found at [http://www.nca-
online.org].
163 However, provisions included in the omnibus crime prevention and control bill, S. 2237,
would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act to authorize a new
(continued...)
CRS-68
Funds appropriated under this authority are administered by the Department of
Justice and have been used to support the “Model Courts Initiative” of the National
Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges.164 As part of the 2000 law that
reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act (P.L. 106-386), funding for this
purpose of the Victims of Child Abuse Act was extended through FY2005. Despite
the expiration of funding authority Congress has continued to provide funds under
this program authority; for FY2008, it appropriated $2.4 million (P.L. 110-161).
Adoption Awareness. Adoption Awareness funds are provided to support
both infant and “special needs” adoptions. This program authority is included in the
Public Health Service Act, and the program and its funding (“such sums as may be
necessary”) was initially authorized by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 ( P.L. 106-
310). Funding authority expired with FY2005, but Congress has continued to
appropriate funds; for FY2008, it provided $12.4 million for Adoption Awareness
(P.L. 110-161). These funds are administered by HHS, which continues to request
funding for the programs authorized by Adoption Awareness.165
Infant adoption awareness funds (expected to be $9.6 million in FY2008) are
distributed via competitive grants or contracts to support development and
implementation of programs that train staff in eligible health centers to “provide
adoption information and referrals to pregnant women on an equal basis with all
other courses of action included in non-directive counseling to pregnant women.”
Special needs adoption awareness funds (expected to be $2.9 million in FY2008) are
distributed via competitive grants to nonprofit entities to plan, develop, and carry out
a national campaign to provide information to the public regarding the adoption of
children with special needs. This campaign can include public service
announcements on television, radio, or billboards.
163 (...continued)
program that appears similar to what is currently funded under the Victims of Child Abuse
Act authority. See Section 2604 of S. 2237.
164 For more information, see the National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges
(NCJFCJ) website on Model Courts [http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/117/156].
165 ACF FY2009 Budget Justifications, pp. D-97-D-99.
CRS-69
Appendix A. Other Financing Proposals
Both the Administration, which first proposed the President’s Child Welfare
Option in February 2003, and the private Pew Commission on Children in Foster
Care, which first offered its financing reform recommendations in May 2004, have
offered broad proposals to change the way federal dedicated child welfare funds are
distributed to states.
President’s Child Welfare Option
The President’s FY2009 budget proposes to offer states an alternative method
for financing their foster care programs and other child welfare services. (This
proposal was first included in the President’s FY2003 budget and has been in every
successive one as well.) According to FY2009 budget documents, the proposal is
intended to be “budget neutral” and would give states the option to receive their
foster care funding as a flexible grant over five years to support a continuum of
services for families in crisis and children at risk.” 166
No specific legislative language to enact this plan has been introduced.
However, the Administration has indicated that under this “flexible funding” plan,
states could choose to receive their foster care funding as an annual pre-established
grant amount (rather than as open-ended reimbursement of eligible expenses) for a
period of five years. The amount of a state’s annual grant funding during those years
would be based on the funding that the state would be assumed to receive under the
Title IV-E foster care program (as it exists in current law) over those same five years.
States could use the grant funds for the full range of child welfare services, including
foster care payments, prevention activities, permanency efforts, case management,
administrative activities, training for child welfare staff, and other similar child
welfare activities. Further, the funds could be spent on any child without regard to
whether this child met the Title IV-E foster care eligibility criteria that are part of the
AFDC-program link. (The Administration’s proposals would not make any changes
to the current Title IV-E Adoption Assistance program, which also includes this
eligibility link.)
At the same time, the FY2009 budget documents note that states would be
required to uphold “child safety protections outlined in the Adoption and Safe
Families Act,” agree to maintain existing levels of state investment in child welfare
programs, and continue to participate in the HHS-administered Child and Family
Services Reviews (to ensure compliance with federal child welfare policy). States
experiencing a “severe foster care crisis” would, under certain circumstances, be able
to tap TANF contingency funds to meet this unanticipated need.167 Finally, the
166 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), FY2009 Budget in Brief, p. 86.
167 The state of Florida (beginning in October 2006) and the California counties of Los
Angeles and Alameda (beginning in July 2007) have implemented five-year demonstration
projects (under an HHS waiver of Title IV-E rules) that permit them to receive a pre-
established grant of funds under Title IV-E and to use those funds on behalf of any child,
and for generally any purpose now authorized under Title IV-E or Title IV-B. The authority
(continued...)
CRS-70
President’s proposal includes a $30 million set-aside to be available for Indian tribes
(tribes are currently not eligible to directly receive federal foster care funds under
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) and a one-third of 1% set-aside for monitoring
and technical assistance of state foster care programs.168
Recommendations of the Pew Commission
In May 2004, the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, co-chaired by
former Representatives Gray and Frenzel, released a set of recommendations to
restructure the current federal child welfare system.169 Those recommendations have
guided some aspects of introduced bills (in this and prior Congresses) and they
remain a part of the child welfare financing debate.
De-Link Payments. The Commission recommended removing the income
eligibility requirements for Title IV-E adoption assistance and foster care
maintenance payments — now in law as part of the link between the Title IV-E
program and the prior law AFDC eligibility requirements (discussed above) — and
continuing mandatory and “open-ended” funding for the program. To reduce the
federal cost of this expanded eligibility, it further recommended that the share of each
foster care maintenance or adoption payment reimbursed by the federal government
be reduced. Those reimbursement rates now range from 50% to 83%, depending on
the state’s per capita income, and the Pew Commission proposed an even 35%
reduction (i.e. new funding matching rates of roughly 32.5% to 54.0%). To ensure
that the lower reimbursement rates would not result in some states receiving less
federal support for adoption subsidies and foster care maintenance payments than
under current law, the Commission also recommended a three-year adjustment
period during which states would at a minimum receive the same level of funding
that would have been available to them before the adjustment of the program
167 (...continued)
for HHS to waive Title IV-E rules for demonstration projects was provided in Section 1130
of the Social Security Act but expired as of March 30, 2006. To read more about the
demonstration projects in California and Florida, see Profiles of Federal Child Welfare
Waiver Demonstration Projects, May 2007. Available at [http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/
programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/2007/profiles_demo2007.htm].
168 Separately, and with regard to the District of Columbia, the Administration’s FY2009
budget again proposes to “bring the match rate for title IV-E of the Social Security Act in
line with the Medicaid program as it currently is for all states.” This would set the federal
reimbursement rate for foster care maintenance payments and adoption assistance payments
at 70% (instead of 50%) in the District. See ACF FY2009 Budget Justifications, p. G-11.
169 Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence
and Well-Being for Children in Foster Care, May 2004. The full report is available at
[http://pewfostercare.org/research/docs/FinalReport.pdf]. The Commission also proposed
a set of recommendations intended to improve the interaction of courts with child welfare
agencies and to improve the work of courts on behalf of children. A number of these
recommendations were enacted as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171).
CRS-71
eligibility criteria and the reimbursement rate. Thus, the Commission believes this
de-link proposal would be cost neutral to both the federal and state governments.170
Service, Case Management, and Training Funds. The Commission
further recommended a single “Safe Children, Strong Families” grant program be
created to provide capped, mandatory funding that states would not be able to use for
foster care maintenance payments but that they could spend on virtually any other
child welfare purpose, including providing services to children and their families,
casework support for children, and training of child welfare, court and other relevant
personnel.
The Commission recommended that this grant be created by combining the
capped funding now available to states under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
(Child Welfare Services and Promoting Safe and Stable Families) with some of the
open-ended funding now available under Title IV-E for states to conduct specified
administrative and child placement activities. The initial grant funding level would
be based on the total amount of current funding for each of these funding streams
(estimated at about $3.7 billion at the time of the proposal) enhanced by $200 million
in the first year (for a total of about $3.9 billion). The Commission proposed that
states would receive a share of this money based on the share of the total pot of
money they receive under current law. Further, the Commission proposed that this
grant should be indexed so that each state’s funding would annually grow by 2%
plus the inflation rate (Consumer Price Index).
Under current law, the federal government provides between 50% and 75% of
the total eligible program costs for the programs that would be rolled into the Safe
Children and Strong Families grant. The Commission recommended adjusting this
rate to create a single federal matching rate that would ensure no state had to provide
more of its own funding to receive the same level of federal support. It estimated that
this federal share (matching rate) would be about 68%. Finally, with regard to other
funding currently provided under Title IV-E, the Commission recommended that
states continue to be able to claim open-ended reimbursement for the development,
170 The Commission proposed that states receiving more funding under the proposal’s
expanded eligibility (and despite the decreased reimbursement rates) would have some of
the funding diverted to ensure that no state received less federal support. Alternatively, the
Commission made two other proposals that would have accomplished a de-link and
maintained open-ended funding but that they expected would cost the federal government
some additional dollars. The first alternative would have permitted all states to keep any
additional funding they received under the proposal and would also have permitted states
who lost money under the proposal to file supplemental claims (during a three-year
adjustment period) to be paid by the federal government. The second alternative would de-
link the program over a roughly 17-year time frame. In the first year, the Title IV-E income
eligibility limit would be set at 50% of the federal poverty level and would rise 10
percentage points each year. By year 16 of the proposal’s implementation, the income
eligibility limit would be 200% of poverty and in year 17, all income eligibility criteria
would be eliminated. Further, some of the federal cost of this de-link would be recouped by
a phased-in reduction of the reimbursement rates, totaling 14 percentage points (i.e.
reimbursement range of 35%-69%) by year 17.
CRS-72
maintenance, and operation of a State Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS) at the current federal reimbursement rate of 50%.
Other Pew Financing Recommendations. Among other
recommendations, some of which had previously been proposed in Congress, the
Commission recommended that assistance payments for children who exit foster care
to a legal guardianship be reimbursed by the federal government on an open-ended
basis (under Title IV-E), proposed that Indian tribes be granted the ability to make
direct claims for federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E programs, and sought
to remove current limits set on the amount of Title IV-E funding that may be
accessed by the territories.
It further proposed that current law adoption incentive payments be revamped
to permit states that successfully found permanent homes for children (whether via
family reunification, adoption, or guardianship) to receive these bonus funds; sought
provisions that would permit states to transfer (“re-invest”) certain “unspent” Title
IV-E foster care dollars in the Safe Children, Strong Families Grant; recommended
payment of an enhanced federal matching rate for the Safe Children, Strong Families
Grant — if a state showed increased competence and reduced caseloads among its
child welfare workforce; proposed investment of at least some of a state’s assessed
penalties for noncompliance with federal child welfare policy in that state’s Program
Improvement Plan (with this spending directed by HHS) and, finally, recommended
continued reservation of funds for research, evaluation, and sharing of best
practices.171
The Partnership Recommendations
In May 2007, eight organizations representing public human services
administrators and employees, as well as private child welfare service providers,
researchers, and advocates, formed a partnership to propose child welfare reform.
Stating that the “federal-state partnership to help children and families must be
renewed and strengthened,” this partnership produced a list of reform proposals —
many of which are related to federal financing. The eight organizations included in
the partnership are the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), American Public Human Services Association (APHSA),
Catholic Charities USA, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Child Welfare
League of America (CWLA), Children’s Defense Fund, National Child Abuse
Coalition, and Voices for America’s Children. The partnership proposals are not
provided in legislative form. However some of the proposals have been addressed in
legislation introduced in this Congress and described in the body of the report. A
brief review of the proposals is given below.172
171 The Commission also supported continued authority for HHS to waive certain
requirements under Title IV-E and Title IV-B for the purpose of demonstrating improved
ways of operating child welfare programs. This authority was in place at the time the
proposals were made but subsequently expired on March 31, 2006.
172 To read the partnership’s proposals, see “Changes Needed in Federal Child Welfare Law
to Better Protect Children and Ensure Them Nurturing Families,” May 2007, available at
(continued...)
CRS-73
The partnership seeks to “guarantee services, supports and safe homes for every
child who is at-risk of being or has been abused or neglected.” It proposes to do this
by amending Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to permit states to use those funds
on a broader range of purposes and “without converting any of the Title IV-E to a
block grant.” The partnership calls for expanded federal eligibility for Title IV-E
foster care through elimination of the income eligibility criteria (de-link from
AFDC). (It does not propose a reduction in reimbursement rates or another
mechanism that would limit increased cost from this change to the federal
government.) And it further proposes that any state that safely reduces its foster care
caseload should be able to “reinvest” the federal Title IV-E funds, which would
otherwise be lost to the state, in services and supports that prevent abuse or neglect.
The partnership would further stipulate that any savings in state spending that might
accrue because of these changes must be similarly reinvested.
The partnership further proposes that states should be able to use Title IV-E
funds to (1) provide post-permanency services to children reunited with their parents,
placed permanently with a relative, or adopted, and to help older youth who age out
of foster care successfully transition to adulthood and (2) provide subsidized
guardianship for children placed with legal guardians (when neither reuniting with
parents nor adoption is appropriate). The proposal also calls for direct tribal access
to Title IV-E funding and suggests that states be permitted to establish relative-
specific licensing standards, provided those standards contain safety protections and
criminal background checks.
For most states, the partnership would increase the federal matching rate
available to states under the Title IV-E program for casework activities — including
assessment of child and family needs, development and refinement of permanency
plans, recruitment, licensing and supervision of foster and pre-adoptive parents.
Under current law, states may seek federal reimbursement of 50% of the cost of such
caseworker activities (provided they are incurred on behalf of Title IV-E eligible
children), which is the general reimbursement rate for Title IV-E program
“administrative” costs. The partnership proposes to change this matching rate for
caseworker activities under the Title IV-E program to the state’s Federal Medical
Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which may range from 50% to 83% with states that
have higher per capita income receiving lower rates and vice versa.173 Further, the
partnership proposes to permit states to use child welfare funds withdrawn (penalties)
or disallowed by the federal government to conduct evaluations of promising
approaches to achieve safety, permanency, and well-being for children and
implement approaches that have been demonstrated to improve these outcomes for
children.
172 (...continued)
[http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/nurturingfamilies.pdf].
173 A state’s FMAP may vary each year based on economic conditions. For FY2008, 19
states, including DC, had a Title IV-E FMAP reimbursement rate of 50%; the remaining
states had reimbursement rates ranging from just under 52% to just over 76%. See Federal
Register, November 30, 2006, pp. 69209- 69211.
CRS-74
The partnership further proposes to expand both the range of topics and the kind
of workers for whom states may seek federal Title IV-E training support at the 75%
reimbursement rate. Under current law, states may receive reimbursement of training
costs at the 75% rate if the topic is related to administering the Title IV-E foster care
or adoption assistance program, and only on behalf of public employees. Training
topics that are specifically not eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement include those
related to providing services, including training on how to conduct a child abuse and
neglect investigation, or how to provide treatment or other services related to
domestic violence, mental health issues, or substance abuse among children and
families coming into contact with the child welfare agency.174 The partnership
proposes to permit federal Title IV-E reimbursement at the 75% matching rate for
any training topic related to “ensuring safety, permanency and well-being for
children,” and further, it would permit states to make these claims on behalf of
private child welfare agency workers, court personnel, and other social service
agency workers (including those with expertise in health, mental health, substance
abuse, and domestic violence related services).
Finally, the partnership proposes to “enhance accountability” by requiring states
to report annually on funds spent on particular services and categories of services; the
number of children and families served; the duration of the services; and the number
of children and families who are unable to access a service for which they are
referred. Five years after the enactment of these reforms, the partnership would call
on the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the effectiveness
of the reforms as they relate to (1) enhancing preventive, permanence, and post-
permanency services; (2) changes in foster care placements; (3) recruitment,
retention, and workloads of child welfare workers; and (4) improved outcomes for
children at-risk of entering, or who have entered, the child welfare system. Finally,
to “increase the knowledge about outcomes for children,” the partnership would
permit states to submit additional state-level data during the Child and Family
Services Review (CFSR) process.
174 States that provide training on these topics may not claim reimbursement for that training
under the Title IV-E program at either the 75% (training) rate or the 50% (general
administration) rate. See Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1H, Question 11 (and
Question 8).
CRS-75
Appendix B. Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Criteria
Judicial Determinationsa
AFDC Requirements
Provider and Other Requirements
(court orders)
(the “link” or lookback)
1. Home of child was contrary to the welfare of the
Child must be under the age of 18 (or — if this
Child must be in the care and placement
child. (This finding must be made as part of the same
option was in state’s AFDC plan — under 19 if
responsibility of state or another public agency
order that removes the child from home.)
child is still in high school full-time or is in
with which state has an agreement.
equivalent secondary education training program
2. State made reasonable efforts to prevent removal
full time).
Child must be placed in an eligible facility
— or these efforts were not necessary. (This finding
(includes foster family homes and public
must be made no later than 60 days after child’s
Child must be deprived of parental support (due to
institutions caring for not more than 25
removal.)
at least one parent’s continued absence from the
children or private institutions of any size; does
home, death, or mental incapacity) OR because of
not include detention and certain other
3. State is making reasonable efforts to finalize a
the unemployment of the principal wage-earning
facilities).
permanent living situation for child. (This finding
parent.
must be made within 12 months of child’s entry to
Child must be placed in a licensed facility or
foster care and every 12 months thereafter while
Child must be living in home of parent or other
with a licensed provider.
child remains in care.)
specified relative (at time of removal or within six
months of the removal).
Foster family home provider must undergo
[Note: If a child’s parent voluntarily agrees to put
criminal background check and must not have
the child in foster care — and, along with an agency
Child must be defined as needy based on the
been convicted of certain crimes within certain
representative, signs a valid voluntary placement
income and resources of family he or she is
time frames. (Effective in all states as of
agreement — “contrary to the welfare” and
removed from (i.e. the home that is found “contrary
October 1, 2008, P.L. 109-248.)
“reasonable efforts to prevent placement” findings
to welfare” of the child). The income limit is based
are not required. However, in order for Title IV-E
on state “need standard” from AFDC program as it
Foster family home provider and other adults in
eligibility to continue, a judge must within 180 days
existed on July 16, 1996; resource limit is $10,000.
foster family household must undergo child
of the foster care placement determine that the
abuse and neglect registry check.
placement is in the child’s best interest.]
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of P.L. 109-248 and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Children’s Bureau,
Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility On-site Review Instrument and Instructions, March 2006 version.
a. Requirements shown are for all children whose removal occurred on or after March 27, 2000, which was the effective date of final rule implementing the Adoption and Safe Families
Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89). Slightly different judicial determination rules apply for children removed before that effective date.