.

Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed
Federal Funding
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
March 24, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL34121
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Summary
Child welfare services and supports are intended to ensure and improve the safety, permanence,
and well-being of children. This report discusses the President’s FY2012 budget request for child
welfare programs, as submitted to Congress on February 14, 2011. It compares that request to the
funding provided by Congress for those same programs in FY2010 (and pending for FY2011).
Most child welfare programs are administered by the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, a few are
administered by the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice.
The President’s FY2012 budget seeks close to $8.3 billion for the child welfare programs
discussed in this report. This includes $250 million to support the first year of a 10-year ($2.5
billion) legislative proposal for foster care reform. With these funds the Administration proposes
to (1) provide incentives to states to improve the safety, permanence, and well-being of children
in, or at risk of entering, foster care; (2) reduce “costly and unnecessary” administrative
requirements tied to the federal foster care program; and (3) support greater use of proven
strategies to continue states’ success at improving certain child welfare outcomes while also
expanding knowledge about those strategies by supporting child welfare demonstration projects.
The President’s budget also calls for a five-year reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families program that is aligned with this reform proposal. It does not seek additional funding for
the program.
Overall, the President seeks FY2012 funding for the child welfare programs discussed in this
report that is a little less than the FY2010 funding appropriated for them, but it is more than the
level of funding expected to be provided for those programs in FY2011. Although final funding
levels for the current fiscal year have not yet been approved, any sizeable difference between the
expected FY2011 funding level and the level of funding requested for FY2012 is not likely to
result from changes in discretionary funding that might be provided. This is because most federal
child welfare funding (roughly 92%) is provided on a mandatory basis (primarily under the Title
IV-E foster care and permanency program). Further, the Administration currently projects that it
will need fewer dollars for the Title IV-E program in FY2011 than it will require in FY2012.
Congress has not yet finalized FY2011 appropriations. Since the beginning of the current fiscal
year (October 1, 2010) funding has been provided through a series of continuing resolutions.
Those resolutions have for the most part supported child welfare programs at the funding levels
provided under current law and with discretionary funding levels as they were set in FY2010. The
current continuing resolution (P.L. 112-6) extends funding until April 8, 2011 (or until a full year
appropriations bill is enacted, whichever comes first). Like the earlier continuing resolutions, it
appropriates mandatory funding for the child welfare programs discussed in this report at current
law levels and, with one exception, it also continues discretionary funding for those programs at
the levels provided for them in FY2010. The exception relates to reduced funding for the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in the amount provided in FY2010 for earmark
projects under that act. Previously, on February 19, the House passed a bill (H.R. 1) that would
provide full year FY2011 funding for child welfare programs discussed in this report at the same
levels as P.L. 112-6.
Table 1 in this report shows the share of dedicated child welfare funding provided by general
category for recent years and as is pending, or proposed, for FY2011 and FY2012. Table 2
includes recent and proposed funding levels by child welfare program.
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Contents
FY2011 Funding ......................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of the President’s FY2012 Budget Request for Child Welfare ...................................... 2
Legislative Proposals .................................................................................................................. 3
Foster Care Reform Proposal ................................................................................................ 3
Proposal for Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program ................. 4
Child Support Enforcement Proposal Related to Foster Care ................................................. 5
Continue Funding for Child Welfare Study............................................................................ 5
Requests to Increase, Reduce, Eliminate, or Redirect Certain Funding......................................... 6
Increased Funding Sought for Adoption Incentives................................................................ 6
Recent Award History ..................................................................................................... 6
Request to Redirect Adoption Awareness Funding to Adoption Opportunities ........................ 7
Funding Changes Sought Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act ........................................... 8
No Funds Sought for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Funding .................... 8
No Funds Sought for Training of Judicial Personnel and Practitioners ............................. 9
Reduced Funding Sought for Children’s Advocacy Centers ............................................. 9
Share of Child Welfare Funding by General Purpose ................................................................. 10
FY2012 Title IV-E Budget Request Compared to Past Funding ................................................. 12
The Title IV-E Program....................................................................................................... 13
Adoption Assistance...................................................................................................... 13
Foster Care ................................................................................................................... 14
Kinship Guardianship Assistance .................................................................................. 16
Funding for Child Welfare by Program...................................................................................... 18

Tables
Table 1. Funding Appropriated or Proposed, by General Category ............................................. 12
Table 2. Recent and Proposed Federal Funding Dedicated to Child Welfare ............................... 18

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

hild welfare services are intended to prevent the abuse or neglect of children; to ensure
that children have safe, permanent homes; and to promote the well-being of children and
C their families. Most federal child welfare programs are administered by the Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). Funding for ACF programs is primarily provided in the annual appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. Several child welfare programs (authorized by the
Victims of Child Abuse Act) are administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) within the
Department of Justice. Their funding is provided in the annual appropriations bill for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice.
FY2011 Funding
FY2011 began on October 1, 2010, and, as of March 24, 2011, Congress had not yet approved
full FY2011 appropriations levels.1 However, beginning in late September 2010, the 111th
Congress passed a series of continuing appropriations acts (P.L. 111-242, P.L. 111-290, P.L. 111-
317, and P.L. 111-322) to temporarily permit the release of federal funding in FY2011. These
laws continued mandatory funding for the child welfare programs discussed in this report at the
level authorized in current law and have provided discretionary funding at the level provided for
these child welfare programs in FY2010. The 112th Congress has since enacted two continuing
appropriations acts (P.L. 112-4 and P.L. 112-6). The most recent continuing appropriations act
(P.L. 112-6) will remain in effect until April 8, 2011, or until a full FY2011 funding bill is
enacted—whichever comes first. P.L. 112-6 also continues mandatory funded child welfare
programs at the levels authorized in current law and, with one exception, provides discretionary
funding for the child welfare programs discussed in this report at the levels provided in FY2010.
The one exception relates to a reduction of funding for a single account under the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). (See more about this account in discussion of H.R. 1
below.)
On February 19, 2011, the House passed a bill (H.R. 1) that would appropriate federal funds
(including funds for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice,
and other departments and agencies of the federal government) for the remainder of FY2011.
That bill would provide FY2011 funding for all child welfare programs that receive mandatory
appropriations at the level authorized in current law and would also appropriate advance funding
for the Title IV-E foster care and permanency program in the amount requested by the
Administration in its FY2011 budget ($1.850 billion). Further, H.R. 1 would, with one exception,
provide identical funding levels for all the child welfare programs discussed in this report that
receive funding on a discretionary appropriations basis. The single exception is a $3.2 million
reduction of funds provided for CAPTA grants related to research, demonstration, and other
activities related to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect. The FY2010
legislation (P.L. 111-117, H.Rept. 111-366) stipulated that a part of the $29.0 million provided for
this account was to be made available for 10 specific projects in six states. H.R. 1 would reduce

1 During the 111th Congress, the House Appropriations Committee did not formally report FY2011 appropriations
legislation for HHS or the Justice Department. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported legislation to fund
Justice Department programs on July 22, 2010 (S. 3636, S.Rept. 111-229), and to fund HHS programs on August 2,
2010 (S. 3686, S.Rept. 111-243). That Senate committee-reported legislation would have provided a sum of $8.254
billion for the child welfare programs discussed in this report. However, as neither bill was finally enacted before the
close of the 111th Congress, that legislation is effectively moot in the 112th Congress and will not be discussed further
in this report.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

funding for that CAPTA account to $25.8 million, or by the same amount as was provided for
earmarks in FY2010.
Table 2 at the end of this report shows FY2010 funding levels and annualized FY2011 funding
levels based on the continuing resolution (P.L. 112-6) expected to be in effect through April 8,
2011.
Overview of the President’s FY2012 Budget Request
for Child Welfare
The FY2012 budget request submitted by the Obama Administration on February 14, 2011, seeks
$8.3 billion in federal support for the child welfare programs discussed in this report. Most
federal funding for child welfare programs (roughly 92%) is provided by Congress on a
mandatory basis. Generally, this means the federal law that authorizes a given program stipulates
that a certain level of funding must be appropriated each year by Congress. That certain level
might be a fixed sum—as in a capped entitlement—or it might be whatever level is necessary to
provide the specified federal level of support for costs identified in statute—as in an open-ended
entitlement. The remaining funding for child welfare program is provided by Congress on a
discretionary basis. That means that Congress, as part of the annual appropriations process,
determines whether and at what level to provide support for these programs.
The President’s FY2012 budget seeks about $7.7 billion in mandatory funding, including $250
million to support the first year of a requested 10-year legislative proposal related to the foster
care program that is authorized under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. A separate legislative
proposal related to requirements of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program (Title IV-D of
the Social Security Act) is estimated to increase federal support under the Title IV-E foster care
component by $370 million from FY2013 to FY2021. These proposals and others, including a
request for a five-year reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program (with
funding provided at current law levels), are discussed in more detail below under “Legislative
Proposals.”
For FY2012, the President also requests close to $636 million in discretionary funding for child
welfare programs. This includes $282 million for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare
Services program. The funding authorization for this program is set to expire with the end of
FY2011. However, the budget assumes continued congressional support (at the FY2010 funding
level). The request for discretionary funding also includes a proposed $10.5 million increase in
funding for the Adoption Incentives program, which would bring total funding for the program to
$50 million for FY2012. At the same time, the President’s FY2012 budget proposes to end
funding for two grant programs authorized under the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II
of P.L. 101-647). These are the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program, which
received $15 million in FY2010 funding and Training for Judges and Judicial Practitioners, which
received $2.5 million in that year. The FY2012 budget further proposes a decrease in funding
($20.0 million instead of $22.5 million provided in FY2010) for Children’s Advocacy Centers, a
third program authorized under the Victims of Child Abuse Act. Finally, as it did in the FY2011
budget request, the Obama Administration requests that funding provided for the Adoption
Awareness program (first authorized by the Children’s Health Act of 2000) be shifted instead to
the Adoption Opportunities program. These requests for increased, reduced, redirected, or
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

terminated funding are discussed in more detail below under “Requests to Increase, Reduce,
Eliminate, or Redirect Certain Funding.”
Legislative Proposals
Legislative proposals are included in the President’s budget when, apart from appropriating the
necessary funds, legislative authority does not exist for the Administration to carry out the
proposal. Therefore, to allow a legislative proposal to go forward Congress must both enact the
authority for the Administration (in this case HHS) to administer the program as requested and it
must appropriate funds for that purpose.
Foster Care Reform Proposal
The Obama Administration seeks additional annual mandatory funding authority of $2.5 billion
across 10 years ($250 million in each of FY2012-FY2021) “to reward States that achieve
improved outcomes for children and encourage efficient and effective use of Federal foster care
resources that lead to savings.”2 Specifically, the Administration proposes to streamline
administrative procedures; provide incentives to states that improve the safety, permanency, and
well-being of children who are at-risk of entering foster care, are in foster care, or have left foster
care; and test “innovative approaches” to improving outcomes for children served by child
welfare agencies. At the same time, the Administration notes that its proposal “maintains legal
protections for children and preserves a funding entitlement for States.”3
In justifying this request, the Obama Administration notes that current law “can discourage
investment and innovation that would serve children’s best interests.” The federal government, it
asserts, should be helping states to enable children who are served by the child welfare system “to
achieve safety, permanency and success in life.” The Administration does not currently propose
specific legislation to achieve this reform but “looks forward to working with Congress” to enact
this reform agenda based on the following principals:4
• Creating financial incentives to improve child outcomes in key areas by reducing
the length of stay in foster care; increasing permanency through reunification,
adoption, and guardianship; decreasing rates of maltreatment recurrence and any
maltreatment while in foster care; and reducing rates of re-entry into foster care.
• Improving the well-being of children and youth in the foster care system,
transitioning to permanent homes, or transitioning to adulthood.
• Reducing costly and unnecessary administrative requirements, while retaining
the focus on children in need.
• Using the best research currently available on child welfare policies and
interventions to help the states achieve further declines in the numbers of

2 The Appendix, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2012, p. 481.
3 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, p. 84.
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Fiscal Year 2012
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, February 2011, p. 337 (hereafter, HHS, ACF, FY2012
Budget Justification).
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

children who need to enter or remain in foster care; better reach families with
more complex needs; and improve outcomes for children who are abused,
neglected, or at risk of abuse or neglect.
• Expanding the knowledge base by allowing states to test innovative strategies
that improve outcomes for children and rewarding states for efficient use of
federal and state resources.5
Proposal for Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program
Funding authorization for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, authorized
under Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, is scheduled to expire with the end of
FY2011. The program primarily funds formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for provision
of a range of child and family services. In addition, funding provided for this program is reserved
to support (1) the Court Improvement Program, which provides grants to states’ highest courts to
improve their handling of child welfare proceedings; (2) program-related research, evaluation,
and technical assistance; and (3) (through FY2011) formula grants to states to support improved
monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care, as well as competitive grants to regional
partnerships to improve the outcomes of children in or at-risk of entering foster care due to
parental/caretaker abuse of methamphetamine or other substances. P.L. 111-242 increased the
FY2011 mandatory funding authorization for the PSSF program to $365 million and the program
is also authorized to receive $200 million in discretionary funding. For FY2011, the
Administration assumed it would receive combined funding of $428 million, including the full
mandatory funding authorized in current law ($365 million) as well as $63 million in
discretionary funding, which is the level of discretionary appropriations received by PSSF in
FY2010.6 No funding is authorized for the program beyond FY2011.
The Administration requests a five-year PSSF program reauthorization at the current funding
levels that (1) supports the overarching principles included in the foster care reform proposal; (2)
supports tribes through a Tribal Court Improvement Program; (3) funds research that expands the
continuum of high quality interventions to improve child outcomes; and (4) places all PSSF
components on the same reauthorization schedule (including Family Connection Grants, for
which separate funding is currently pre-appropriated through FY2013).7

5 Ibid. Also see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Budget in Brief, pp. 93-94.
6 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 364. Page 361 of the HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications suggests
that funding ($20 million) was separately pre-appropriated for the Court Improvement Program in FY2011. However,
annual pre-appropriated funding for CIP (provided via P.L. 109-171) ended with FY2010. To maintain level CIP
funding in FY2011, Congress (in P.L. 111-242) increased the mandatory funding authorization for the overall PSSF by
$20 million (to a total of $365 million that year) and it provided in the same law that all of this increase in funds be set
aside for the CIP. This legislative change is reflected in the table shown on page 364 of the HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget
Justifications.
7 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 366. The Administration appears to define Family Connections grants in
its list of PSSF components (see pp. 363-364). Those grants are authorized in Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social
Security Act (Section 427) and were established by P.L. 110-351. That law also appropriated funding for the Family
Connections grants, $15 million for each of FY2009-FY2013. For more information, see CRS Report RL34704, Child
Welfare: The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Child Support Enforcement Proposal Related to Foster Care
Under current law, states are required to return to the federal government a part of the child
support collected on behalf of children who receive federal (Title IV-E) supported foster care
maintenance payments, and states may use the remaining funds collected to reimburse their part
of the cost of those payments.8 The Obama Administration seeks legislation to require that states
use those child support payments in the best interest of the children for whom they are made
rather than as general revenue for the state or to reimburse the federal government for a part of its
cost of providing this support. Because it would end federal “cost recovery” of Title IV-E foster
care maintenance payments, the proposal is estimated to increase the federal cost of foster care by
roughly $46 million each year, or by $370 million over the 10-year budget period. The
Administration proposes to make this legislative change effective in conjunction with several
other proposals that intend to ensure that a greater share of all child support payments made by
noncustodial parents reach the children on whose behalf they are paid and to encourage fathers
who are noncustodial parents to take a more active part in their children’s lives. The proposed
changes with regard to the Title IV-E foster care program would not become effective until
FY2013.9
For FY2009, the most recent year for which data are available, states collected about $69 million
in child support payments for children receiving Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments and
returned some $39 million of those payments to the federal government. In FY2007 and FY2008,
states collected $81 million and $85 million, respectively, and returned $45 million and $48
million, respectively, to the federal government.10
Continue Funding for Child Welfare Study
The President’s FY2012 budget proposes to continue mandatory funding ($6 million) under
Section 429 of the Social Security Act for research concerning children who are at risk of abuse
or neglect or who have been abused or neglected. Funds for this research were set to expire with
FY2010 but Congress provided a full one-year extension of this mandatory funding in P.L. 111-
242. This FY2012 request would enable HHS to continue to support a second phase of the
research study known as the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW).11
First authorized as part of the welfare reform legislation that created the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grant (P.L. 104-193), this survey provides nationally representative
and longitudinal data on children and families that come into contact with child protective
services via an investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect.12

8 Under the Title IV-E foster care program, state child welfare agencies are required “where appropriate” to work with
the state child support enforcement and cash aid agencies to secure to the state assignment of child support rights for
children in foster care (Section 471(a)(17) of the Social Security Act). For more on the Child Support Enforcement
program, see CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
9 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, pp. 278-279, 337.
10 Based on state Title IV-E foster care maintenance payment claims submitted for FY2007-FY2009, as compiled by
HHS, ACF, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB).
11 The request for continued funding of this survey is made as part of the request for a one-year extension of the TANF
program. See HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 297.
12 For more information on the survey and for a list of research briefs from the NSCAW study, see
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Requests to Increase, Reduce, Eliminate, or Redirect
Certain Funding
The President’s FY2012 budget proposes to increase, reduce, eliminate, or redirect funding for
certain child welfare programs. These proposals do not require congressional program
authorization to be carried out. However, they generally require Congress to appropriate funds in
different amounts or in different ways than in previous years.
Increased Funding Sought for Adoption Incentives
The President’s FY2012 budget seeks $49.9 million in discretionary appropriations for the
Adoption Incentive program. This is $10.4 million more than the funding provided for this
program ($39.5 million) in the FY2010 appropriations act (P.L. 111-117). The program is
authorized to receive $43 million for each fiscal year through FY2013.
Under the Adoption Incentives program, HHS must award bonuses to states that increase
adoptions out of foster care. States helped finalize record numbers of adoptions out of foster care
in recent years and that fact, combined with changes Congress made to the incentive scale during
2008 (P.L. 110-351), has meant that Adoption Incentive funding has fallen below the total amount
needed to fully pay states the bonus amounts they were calculated to have earned.13 The increased
funding requested for FY2012 anticipates states’ continued success in placing children in
adoptive homes and would also enable HHS to pay states their full awards for adoptions finalized
in FY2009.14
Recent Award History
During FY2009, states helped finalize the adoptions of nearly 54,400 children who were formerly
in foster care, a new annual record.15 Based on those adoptions, HHS, as of September 2010, had
awarded Adoption Incentive funds of $38.9 million to 38 states and Puerto Rico. This sum
represented all of the funds available in that month to make these Adoption Incentive awards. It
equals a little less than 89% of the $43.9 million states were calculated to have earned for
increasing the number of children adopted from foster care and none of the amount ($3.5 million)
calculated to have been earned by 30 states for increases in the rate of adoption. Provided

13 Beginning with awards made for adoptions finalized in FY2008, the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoption Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351) doubled the amount of incentive funding that may be earned for
increases in adoption of older children (age 9 or above) and for children with special needs (under age 9) while
maintaining the prior law incentive for an increase in the overall number of adoptions. Further, it fixed the state-by-
state baseline number of adoptions that must be exceeded in order for a state to earn Adoption Incentive awards to the
number of adoptions finalized during FY2007. Finally, it added a bonus (provided sufficient funds were appropriated)
for states that increase the rate at which children are adopted from foster care. For more information on changes in the
incentive structure made by P.L. 110-351, see CRS Report RL34704, Child Welfare: The Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
14 HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 156.
15As is typically the case, the number of adoptions finalized in FY2009 with public child welfare agency involvement
(close to 57,500) is slightly greater than the number of adoptions out of foster care (or adoptions eligible for the
Adoption Incentive program) because a small number of the former adoptions involve children who were not
previously in foster care. See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report # 17.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

additional appropriations are made available for FY2009 awards, as requested, and assuming past
practice is followed, HHS would be expected to distribute the additional award amounts (circa $5
million) linked to increases in the number of adoptions from foster care. However, it would not be
expected to provide any additional funds to the 30 states that met the criteria for increased rates
of adoptions from foster care during FY2009.16 This is because HHS has interpreted the statute
(Section 473A of the Social Security Act) to permit payment of the full award to states for any
increases based on the number of adoptions finalized—provided sufficient appropriations are
available at the time of the initial award or are made available in a subsequent year. At the same
time, it has read that statute (as amended by P.L. 110-351) to provide that an increase in adoptions
linked solely to a change in the adoption rate may only receive awards if funds are available to
make these bonus payments when the initial awards are made.
Request to Redirect Adoption Awareness Funding to
Adoption Opportunities
As first proposed for FY2011, the President’s FY2012 budget again seeks to redirect funding that
has been provided for Adoption Awareness program ($13 million in FY2010) to the Adoption
Opportunities program.
The Adoption Opportunities program was established in 1978 (P.L. 95-266) to support research,
demonstration projects, and other activities that reduce barriers to the adoption of children,
particularly children with special needs. It received funding of $26 million for FY2010. In
December 2010 (P.L. 111-320), Congress renewed annual funding authority for the Adoption
Opportunities program at its prior law level ($40 million for FY2010 and such sums as necessary
for FY2011-FY2015).17
The Adoption Awareness program, established by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
310), authorizes HHS to make competitive grants for infant adoption awareness,18 and special
needs adoption awareness.19 Funding authority for both components of the Adoption Awareness
program expired with FY2005, but Congress has continued to provide support.20 For FY2010, the
program received $13 million.

16 Based on CRS communication with staff at HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau. Twenty-seven of the 30
jurisdictions that met the criteria for an adoption rate increase award also earned an incentive based on an increase in
adoption rate. (The three states that met the rate increase award criteria only were CO, MA, NJ.) For FY2009 awards
by state see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2010/fy10_adoption_incentive_awards.htm.
17 The program was authorized to receive funding of $40 million for FY2004 and “such sums as may be necessary” for
each of FY2005-FY2008. Congress continued to provide funding for this program during the lapse in funding
authority.
18 Under the Infant Adoption Awareness component, HHS is authorized to make competitive grants to adoption
organizations to train staff at eligible public and private nonprofit health centers on informing pregnant women about
adoption and, as requested, on making referrals to adoption agencies on an equal basis with all other courses of action.
Funds appropriated for this purpose have been roughly $9 million or $10 million annually in each of FY2001-FY2010.
Most recently, HHS awarded five-year Infant Adoption Awareness grants (FY2006-FY2010) to six organizations for
projects considered national in scope as well as regional or local projects.
19 Under the Special Needs Adoption Awareness component, HHS is authorized to make grants to nonprofit groups to
plan, develop, and carry out a national campaign informing the public about the adoption of children with special
needs. Funding available for this component of the Adoption Awareness program has been roughly $3 million in each
of FY2001-FY2010 and has primarily supported development of public service announcements.
20 The programs were authorized to receive “such sums as may be necessary” for each of FY2001-FY2005.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

The President’s FY2012 budget proposes to redirect the $13 million provided in previous years
for Adoption Awareness programs to the Adoption Opportunities program. Combined with its
prior funding level, this would bring Adoption Opportunities funding for FY2012 to $39 million.
In justifying this request, the Administration stated that the Adoption Opportunities program
includes “broad authority to fund projects supporting adoption, including projects similar to those
under the Children’s Health Act programs such as assuring adoption awareness among pregnant
women. Consolidating these funds will provide a more efficient mechanism for financing projects
and will allow the Administration to target adoption funds to a broader range of grantees and
adoption purposes.”21
Funding Changes Sought Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act
The Obama Administration’s FY2012 budget proposes to end funding for the Court Appointed
Special Advocates (CASA) program, which received $15 million for FY2010, as well as for the
Training for Judges and Judicial Practitioners grant, which received $2.5 million in FY2010.
Finally, the Administration’s FY2012 budget proposes $20 million in FY2012 funding for
Children’s Advocacy Centers, which is $2.5 million less than the $22.5 million provided for that
purpose in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117). All three of these programs are authorized under the Victims
of Child Abuse Act (established by Title II of P.L. 101-647, 1990) and are administered by the
Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice.
No Funds Sought for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Funding
Local CASA programs train volunteers, who are asked by the court to represent the best interests
of children in certain child welfare-related cases. Federal funds have been provided to the
National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association, which makes subgrants to help develop
and sustain local CASA programs and provides training and technical assistance for a national
network of some 1,000 local CASA program offices.22 Federal funding authority for the CASA
program (Sec. 219 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act, or 42 U.S.C. 13014), was most recently
extended in the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-162) and is slated to expire at the end of FY2011.23
Discussing the proposal to end federal CASA funding under this program authority, the
Administration notes that its commitment to cutting the federal deficit and “restoring fiscal
sustainability” required it to make “very difficult funding decisions,” including ones that redirect
federal dollars to meet urgent national priorities. It further notes that where possible the FY2012
Budget seeks to consolidate programs in a way that gives states greater flexibility to meet their
criminal justice needs, supports evidence-based criminal justice programs, and provides new
resources to address unmet needs in this area or to increase knowledge of evidence. It does not

21 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 144.
22 While local CASA programs receive funding from diverse sources (which may or may not include subgrants from
National CASA Association), according to its own website the majority of National CASA Association funding is
provided via a Department of Justice grant. See http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5301303/
k.6FB1/About_Us__CASA_for_Children.htm.
23 For more on CASA and the most recent reauthorization, see CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare: Programs
Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

provide specific information about alternative supports in the budget for CASA or similar
services.24
No Funds Sought for Training of Judicial Personnel and Practitioners
Support for the Training of Judicial Personnel and Practitioners (to improve the handling of child
abuse and neglect proceedings) is authorized in Subtitle C of the Victims of Child Abuse Act (42
U.S.C. 13021-13024). Although specific funding authority for this training ($2.3 million
annually) expired with FY2005, Congress has continued to provide funds for the program.25 This
money has been awarded annually to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
(NCJFCJ) for support of its Model Courts initiative.26
Discussing the proposal to end funding for this program, the Administration notes that the
program “will be incorporated into the new Race to the Top Juvenile Incentive System
Improvement Grants proposed in the President’s FY2012 budget request.” According to the
Administration, integrating this program into the proposed grant program “will allow OJP and its
grantees greater flexibility in using juvenile justice grant funding and help OJP coordinate all of
its juvenile justice programs more efficiently.”27 The budget documents do not call for specific
focus on child abuse and neglect court proceedings, but along with other key indicators, they do
seek improvements of the juvenile court system under the newly proposed grant.28
Reduced Funding Sought for Children’s Advocacy Centers
Funding for Children’s Advocacy Centers (CAC) (including related training and technical
assistance) is authorized to support local, regional, and national efforts to improve the
investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases, especially to ensure that victims of
child abuse or neglect are not re-traumatized by the handling of these cases. Federal funding
under this program has been awarded to the National Children’s Alliance (NCA), which makes
subgrants to help create or maintain local Children’s Advocacy Centers. The NCA, along with
four federally authorized regional Child Advocacy Centers (located in Philadelphia, PA; St. Paul,
MN; Huntsville, AL; and Colorado Springs, CO) provide training and technical assistance to local
CACs.29 Funds from this account also are awarded to other organizations that provide training
related to improving the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases.

24 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2012 Performance Budget (February 2011), p. 233
(hereafter, DOJ, OJP, FY2012 Performance Budget).
25 For more on the legislative history of and funding for this program, see CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare:
Programs Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
26 Information on the model courts initiative, prepared by the NCJFJ, is available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/
stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/modelctoutcomesfinalf.pdf.
27 DOJ, OJP, FY2012 Performance Budget, p. 246.
28 The Administration seeks $120 million for the Race to the Top Juvenile Incentive System Improvement Grants,
which it proposes as a replacement to and consolidation of funding now provided to states under the Juvenile
Accountability Block Grant and Title II, Part B of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. (Those two
grant programs received a total of $130 million in FY2010.) The proposed new grant program would award grants to
states on a competitive basis designed to reward or incentivize states for improvements made against key progress
indicators in the juvenile justice system. See DOJ, OJP. FY2012 Performance Budget, pp. 108-111 and pp. 192-197.
29 Local CACs receive funding from diverse sources, which may or may not include subgrants from NCA. The NCA,
however, serves as an accrediting agency for the circa 700 local CACs. For more information see the organization’s
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Federal funding authorization for development and support of local CACs, establishment and
operation of regional CACs, and grants for related training and technical assistance is included in
Subtitle A of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001-13004). The combined
annual federal funding authority was set at $20 million for each of FY2004 and FY2005 (P.L.
108-21).30 Although funding authorization for these program activities has expired, the program
has continued to receive annual appropriations, including $20 million in FY2009 and $22.5
million in FY2010.
Share of Child Welfare Funding by General Purpose
By far the largest share of dedicated federal child welfare funding (roughly 86% in recent years)
is provided to support, or otherwise administer aid to, children who were removed from their
birth families primarily due to abuse or neglect. These include eligible children in foster care and
eligible children who left foster care for permanent families via adoption or, as authorized by P.L.
110-351, for kinship guardianship. The largest share of this program funding continues to support
children in temporary foster care, including related program administration and training costs. At
the same time, funding that is appropriated or requested for support of children leaving foster care
for permanent adoptive or guardianship homes has been growing while the share appropriated or
requested under the Title IV-E program for children in foster care has been in corresponding
decline. The President’s FY2012 budget continues this trend of requesting a larger share of
support for permanency. In addition, a part of the Title IV-E funding for foster care is requested to
make incentive grants to states related to improving outcomes for children in foster care as well
as preventing entry of children into foster care.
In recent years, roughly 9% of federal funding dedicated to child welfare purposes has been
appropriated for distribution to all states via formula grants for child welfare-related services to
children and families. This remained true for the FY2012 budget request. These funds are
authorized under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, Title 1, State Grants
and Title II, Community-Based Grants) and under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (Subpart
1-Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services and Subpart 2-Promoting Safe and Stable
Families, PSSF).31 Funds provided for these programs are used to support services or activities
designed to prevent child abuse and neglect; screen and investigate child abuse and neglect
allegations; provide family support, family preservation, reunification, and adoption promotion
and support services; and improve monthly caseworker visits to children in foster care.
Separately, all states receive formula grant funding under the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (and related Education and Training Vouchers) to provide services and other support to
youth who “age out” of foster care without being placed in a permanent family. Despite an overall
decline in the number of children who remain in foster care on the last day of a given fiscal year,

(...continued)
website at http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/mediaroom.
30 Separately, P.L. 109-162 authorized training and technical assistance funds of $7.5 million (for each of FY2006-
FY2010) related to purposes of Children’s Advocacy Centers. However, that law referenced but did not amend the
Victims of Child Abuse Act funding authorization for this program and no funds were appropriated under this separate
funding authority.
31 This funding share counts the $20 million provided to states and tribes via the Children’s Justice Act grants, which
are provided as a set-aside from the Crime Victims Fund (rather than out of the general treasury).
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

the number of children who leave foster care without placement in a permanent home (referred to
as “aging out” or “emancipating” from care) grew from roughly 20,000 during FY2000 to more
than 29,000 during FY2009 (the most recent year for which national data have been published).
During that time the annual funding amount dedicated to provide services to these youth ($140
million) has remained unchanged. It represents a little more than 2% of overall funding
appropriated or requested for child welfare purposes in recent years. The FY2012 budget request
seeks this same level of funding.
Finally, in recent years around 3% of federal child welfare funding was requested for competitive
grants to public agencies, national or community-based service agencies, research groups, or
other eligible entities that provide child and family services or conduct relevant research,
including for awards to states that increase the number of children adopted out of foster care. The
FY2012 budget seeks to provide incentives for improved program outcomes under the Title IV-E
funding program. Including the $250 million funding increase sought for this reform proposal as
competitive or incentive funding to states, as is done in Table 1 below, would boost the share of
dedicated federal child welfare spending for this general purpose to about 6%.
Table 1 shows the final funding, and the share of total funding authority provided, for each of
these general categories as appropriated for FY2009 and FY2010 and as proposed by the
President for FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Table 1. Funding Appropriated or Proposed, by General Category
($ in millions; % shown is of total funding authority provided or proposed)
Final FY2009
Final FY2010
President’s
General Category of Child Welfare Funding
Funding
Funding
FY2012 Request
FOSTER CARE—Funds to al states to provide
foster care for eligible children.a
$4,733
57%
$4,681
56% $4,288 52%
PERMANENCY—Funds to al states to provide
adoption assistance or kinship guardianship
$2,342
28%
$2,511
30% $2,575 31%
assistance for eligible children.a
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES—Funds to all
states to improve child protective services and to
$768
9%
$758
9% $778 9%
provide a range of services to children and families.
SERVICES FOR YOUTH—Funds to al states to
provide services to youth who are expected to “age
out” of foster care and those who have aged out of
$185
2%
$185
2% $185 2%
foster care.
RESEARCH, EVALUATION, TRAINING,
DEMONSTRATION and INCENTIVES—Funds for
competitive grants to eligible entities (including
states in many cases) to provide child and family
$228
3%
$231
3% $471 6%
services or do research and evaluation related to
such services, including prevention of abuse and
neglect; and for provision of Adoption Incentives.
Total
$8,257
100%
$8,386
100%
$8,298
100%
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Percentages may not total to 100 because of rounding.
Note: Final sums shown may not equal amounts given in previous versions of this report in instances where HHS used
indefinite budget authority to access funds beyond the certain sum authority given in an appropriations bill.
a. The FY2009 and FY2010 appropriated amounts include funds required to meet the enhanced federal share of
certain Title IV-E costs as authorized by P.L. 111-5 and P.L. 111-226.
FY2012 Title IV-E Budget Request Compared to
Past Funding
The President’s FY2012 budget request for child welfare programs closely followed funding
provided by Congress for those programs in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), the most recent year for
which full-year appropriations have been finalized. The largest differences reflect changes in the
Administration’s estimate of funds needed to reimburse eligible state claims related to foster care,
adoption assistance, and guardianship assistance, which is authorized under Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act. The following section discusses the Title IV-E request for FY2012 compared
to funding authority provided for FY2010.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

The Title IV-E Program
The Obama Administration requests $7.188 billion in budget authority for the Title IV-E foster
care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship program.32 This amount includes $250 million
in FY2012 budget authority requested as part of the Administration’s legislative proposal to
provide incentive funding (under the Title IV-E foster care program) to states that improve child
welfare outcomes for children at risk of entering foster care, as well as those who are in care or
have left care for permanent homes.
The Title IV-E federal foster care, kinship guardianship, and adoption assistance program (also
referred to as the Foster Care and Permanency program) is authorized on an indefinite basis (i.e.,
the funding authorization never expires). This Title IV-E funding is also authorized on an open-
ended entitlement basis. This means the funding provided by Congress for the Title IV-E program
must match the federal share of state Title IV-E eligible claims. To ensure adequate funds are
annually appropriated for the program, the Administration estimates, each year, how much money
will be necessary to reimburse states for the federal share of the eligible foster care, adoption
assistance, and kinship guardianship costs they incur. Congress typically provides this definite
level of budget authority as part of its annual appropriations process. In the event that the definite
amount of funding Congress provides exceeds the amount needed to pay the eligible claims
submitted by states, these excess funds are eventually returned to the Treasury. On the other hand,
if the definite sum turns out to be less than the needed amount, HHS may access the additional
funds necessary to meet the federal obligations under this program by using the “indefinite”
budget authority included in annual appropriations bills.33
Adoption Assistance
HHS seeks $2.495 billion in Title IV-E adoption assistance funding for FY2012. This amount is
more than the $2.462 billion provided by Congress for this Title IV-E program component in
FY201034 and it also exceeds the $2.480 billion HHS expects it will need to provide the federal
share of adoption assistance payments for FY2011.35 The increased budget authority requested is
based on the Administration’s assumption of continued growth in the number of children who
receive Title IV-E adoption assistance. That growth is expected to be strong enough to require
increased federal funding for this program despite the end of enhanced federal support to states
for payment of Title IV-E adoption assistance payments.36

32 For each fiscal year, the definite budget authority requested by HHS includes a certain amount expected to be
necessary to make timely payments to states for Title IV-E claims during the first quarter of the following fiscal year.
Because funding is requested this way each year, for comparability the total budget authority sought in a given year
(regardless of the year for which it is sought) is discussed as the budget request for the given year.
33 Beginning with the annual appropriation bill for FY2003, Congress has regularly provided additional funding
authority of “such sums as may be necessary” to allow HHS to reimburse states for any eligible amounts in the last
quarter of the fiscal year that are above the definite amount appropriated for that fiscal year. Since that time, HHS used
this indefinite authority in only two years, FY2007 and FY2009.
34 Some earlier versions of this report cited a larger number here, based on HHS’ expected use of indefinite budget
authority. However, this additional funding was not needed, and the sum shown here is the definite budget authority
provided.
35 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 330.
36 Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), Congress agreed to temporarily (October
1, 2009-December 31, 2010) increase (by a minimum of 6.2 percentage points) the share of total Title IV-E adoption
assistance payments it paid to states. Subsequently, as part of P.L. 111-226 it provided a minimum enhanced
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

HHS projects the average monthly number of children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance
will grow to 470,400 in FY2012. By comparison, the average monthly number of children
receiving federally supported adoption was around 228,300 in FY2000, but had grown to an
estimated 429,700 children in FY2010.37 States’ continued success in finding permanent adoptive
homes for children in foster care combined with changes to federal law that expand federal
eligibility for Title IV-E adoption assistance are factors in the continued caseload growth that is
expected. The number of children adopted with public child welfare agency involvement roughly
doubled between FY1995 and FY2000, and since that latter year has been at or above 50,000
each year. In FY2009 (the most recent data available), the number of adoptions that involved
public child welfare agencies reached an annual recorded high of 57,500. Further, some increase
in the Title IV-E adoption assistance caseload is also expected due to continued implementation
of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351),
which broadened eligibility for federal adoption assistance. FY2012 will be the third year of a
nine-year phase-in of the new eligibility criteria. The new criteria remove income and resource
tests (traditionally tied to a child’s birth parents) from federal Title IV-E adoption assistance
eligibility criteria.38
Foster Care
HHS anticipates it will need FY2012 funding of $4.288 billion for the Title IV-E foster care
program under current law. In addition to that sum, it seeks an additional $250 million in FY2012
(for a total of $4.538 billion) for support of its legislative proposal to (1) provide incentives to
states that improve certain child welfare outcomes; (2) streamline administrative procedures
under the IV-E foster care program; and (3) support greater use of proven strategies to improve
child welfare outcomes and to develop more of such strategies. This funding request is less than
the $4.681 billion in Title IV-E foster care funding included in the FY2010 appropriations bill
(P.L. 111-117) but is greater than the $3.967 billion the Administration projects it will need for
this program in FY2011.39 The primary reason cited by HHS for the increase in requested foster
care funding (apart from its legislative proposal) is increased costs related to continued
implementation of changes enacted as part of the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351). Many of these changes affect what are called
“administrative” costs under the Title IV-E foster care program, including, for example,

(...continued)
reimbursement rate for those same costs of 3.2 percentage points for the second quarter of FY2011 and 1.2 percentage
points for the 3rd quarter of that fiscal year.
37 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 334 and unpublished Title IV-E expenditure claim data provided to
CRS by HHS, ACF, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget.
38 Income and resource tests continue to apply to children for whom the new criteria are not applicable. During
FY2010, the phase-in was applicable principally to children adopted at age 16 or 17 during that same fiscal year.
During FY2011, it applies principally to children adopted at age 14 or older and during FY2012 it will apply
principally to children adopted at age 12 or older. Children who are siblings of youth meeting these age eligibility
criteria and who are to be placed in the same adoptive home with their siblings may also be eligible without regard to
the income or resource test. Additionally, any otherwise eligible child who is adopted after spending 60 continuous
months in foster care is also eligible without regard to income or resource tests. Further, beginning with FY2011 states
have the option to extend (until age 21) federal adoption assistance to otherwise eligible youth who were adopted after
their 16th birthday. Under current law, this federal assistance generally ends at age 18.
39 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 330.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

requirements related to diligent searches for relatives of children in care, or development of
education stability plans for children in foster care.40
Additionally, although not cited by HHS as a specific factor in its estimate of increased FY2012
federal foster care costs, P.L. 110-351 permits states, effective with the first day of FY2011
(October 1, 2010), to offer Title IV-E foster care assistance to youth who remain in foster care
past their 18th birthday (up to age 21).41 As of early March 2011, 11 jurisdictions (Alabama,
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York,
Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia) had submitted Title IV-E plan amendments indicating that
they intend to exercise the option to provide foster care to some or all of the older youth in foster
care who meet federal eligibility requirements.42 Additional states are expected to take up this
option later this year.
Unlike the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance caseload, the number of children receiving Title IV-E
foster care assistance continues to decline. For FY2012, HHS estimates that an average monthly
number of 166,800 children will receive federal foster care assistance. By comparison, an
estimated 181,500 children received Title IV-E foster care assistance on an average monthly basis
in FY2010, while the comparable number in FY2000 was 287,800. Between FY2000 and
FY2009, then, the number of children receiving Title IV-E foster care assistance declined by
42%.43
This decline in the number of children receiving Title IV-E foster care assistance is driven in
some part by a decrease in the total number of children who are in foster care (those who are
eligible for Title IV-E and those who are not). On the last day of FY2000, there were an estimated
552,000 children in foster care, while on the last day of FY2009, the most recent year for which
national data are available, fewer than 424,000 children were in care. That represents a decline of
23% in the total number of children in foster care. However, as noted above, the decline in
children receiving Title IV-E foster care assistance across that time period was even more
precipitous.
Not surprisingly, administrative data show erosion in the share of all children in foster care who
were Title IV-E eligible—from roughly 52% in FY2000 to between 42%-44% in FY2009.44

40 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 331.
41 For more information, see CRS Report R40218, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Issues for Congress, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
42 CRS communication with HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau staff. All states except Tennessee indicated their
intent to extend assistance to otherwise eligible youth who remained in care until their 21st birthday. Tennessee
proposes to provide this assistance until a youth reaches his/her 20th birthday. All states except West Virginia indicated
that they intended to provide this assistance to otherwise eligible older youth in care who met any of the employment,
education, or other related criteria that establish federal eligibility. West Virginia seeks to provide this assistance only
to those otherwise eligible youth who remain in school (either secondary or post-secondary).
43 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 333 and unpublished Title IV-E expenditure claim data provided to
CRS by HHS, ACF, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget.
44 There are additional reasons that children may not be eligible for Title IV-E assistance, including, for example, the
child’s placement in an unlicensed foster family home or care facility. Further, the share of children eligible for Title
IV-E foster care assistance varies greatly by state and it can be estimated in more than one way. For a discussion of
Title IV-E eligibility criteria and various estimates of the federal Title IV-E foster care coverage rate over time, see
Green Book 2008, Child Welfare, pp. 11-52 through 11-57, available on the website of the House Ways and Means
Committee at http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/s11cw.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Although Title IV-E criteria are multifaceted, the program’s static income test is sometimes
blamed for this erosion in IV-E eligibility status.45 Specifically, to meet the federal foster care
income test a child must have been removed (to foster care) from a home that met the income
criteria for a “needy” family under their state’s prior law cash welfare program (as the program
existed in July 1996 and without adjustment for inflation).46 States were able to establish their
own need standards under that prior law program and they vary significantly. However, the
median state need standard (annualized for a family of three) is just below $7,400, an amount that
represents 42% of the federal poverty guideline for a family of that size in 2011. (By comparison,
in 1996 this same dollar amount represented roughly 60% of the federal poverty guideline for a
family of three.) In a large majority of states (73%, or 37 states), eligibility for federal Title IV-E
foster care assistance is limited to children removed from homes with countable income that is
50% or less of the 2011 federal poverty guidelines.47
Kinship Guardianship Assistance
HHS seeks $80 million as part of its FY2012 budget request to reimburse states for eligible
guardianship claims. This is more than double the $32 million states are expected to claim under
this Title IV-E component for FY2011.48 The request for increased funding for this Title IV-E
component reflects expected growth in the number of children who will be eligible for
guardianship assistance as more states (and some tribes) implement this relatively new Title IV-E
program option. An estimated 6,000 children will receive Title IV-E guardianship assistance, per
month, during FY2011 (which is the second full year that states could claim this Title IV-E
funding) and HHS expects this number to grow to 13,900 for FY2012.49
The kinship guardianship assistance component of the Title IV-E program was authorized by the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). States are
not required to provide this assistance but may choose to do so. Close to half of all the states have
now opted to do so—although by the end of calendar year 2010, only about half of those states
had received formal approval to seek federal reimbursement of a part of their guardianship
assistance costs. Specifically, as of early March 2011 26 states, including the District of
Columbia, had submitted Title IV-E plan amendments to enable them to make claims for federal
support of guardianship assistance provided on behalf of eligible children. Of those jurisdictions,
11 had final approval of those amendments from HHS/ACF (Rhode Island, Pennsylvania,

45 See, for example, HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 333.
46 The prior law cash welfare program was known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It was
repealed by Congress in 1996 (P.L. 104-193) and replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
block grant.
47 CRS calculations based on unpublished 1996 need standard data (for a family of three) received from HHS compared
to the federal poverty guidelines. “States” as discussed here include the District of Columbia (i.e., total of 51 states).
Many states paid monthly benefits (referred to as “payment standards”) that were less than a state’s need standard.
States determined their own need standard, as required by federal law, and this standard represented the maximum
amount of countable income a family could have and be eligible for AFDC. Federal law additionally established that no
family could be eligible for AFDC if it had gross income above 185% of the state’s need standard. The median
(annualized) gross income limitation for a family of three is just below $13,700, or 77% of the 2011 federal poverty
guidelines for a family of three.
48 HHS earlier anticipated greater cost for this program component but states have made claims for kinship
guardianship assistance at a slower pace than had been assumed. For FY2010, the federal share of kinship guardianship
claims under Title IV-E was roughly $10 million. See HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 346.
49 HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 338.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Tennessee, Michigan, Montana, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and the District of Columbia,
Colorado, and Maine) and the remaining 15 (Missouri, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington,
Nebraska, South Dakota, Maryland, Texas, Louisiana, Vermont, Alabama, Oklahoma, New York,
Alaska, and Idaho) had plan amendments that were under review by HHS/ACF or were being
revised. 50 In addition, HHS notes that several tribes are expected to make Title IV-E guardianship
assistance claims in FY2012.51

50 Based on CRS communication with ACF.
51 HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 338.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

Funding for Child Welfare by Program
Table 2 lists the federal funding streams dedicated to child welfare purposes that were included in
this analysis, briefly describes those purposes, and shows recent and proposed funding levels.
Table 2. Recent and Proposed Federal Funding Dedicated to Child Welfare
(dollars in millions; NA = not authorized; amounts shown in italics are funds that have been provided in
acts other than major appropriations bills, in whole or in part)
P.L. 112-6
President’s
Final
Funding
Annualizeda
Budget
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Table TOTAL
$7,858 $8,257 $8,432
$7,670
$8,298

TITLE IV-B, SUBPART I of the Social Security Act
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services: Formula grants to
282
282
282 282
282
states, territories, and tribes to improve child welfare services.
Child Welfare Training, Research, and Demonstration:
7.3
7.2
27.2 27.2
27.2
Competitive grants to nonprofits or universities for child welfare
related research or demonstration and for workforce training.
Family Connection Grants: Competitive grants to eligible public or
NA
15
15 15
15
nonprofit entities to support kinship navigator programs, special
family finding efforts, family group decision-making meetings, and/or
residential family treatment programs.b
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW):
6
6
6 6
6
Competitive grant to support longitudinal study of children at risk of,
or exposed to, child abuse or neglect. c

TITLE IV-B, SUBPART 2 of the Social Security Act
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) (subtotal) 408
408
408
428d 428
PSSF: Formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for family
356
356
356 356 e
preservation, support, time-limited reunification, and adoption
promotion and support services. (Includes fund reserved for HHS to
conduct program-related research, evaluations, and technical
assistance in each year.)
PSSF- Monthly Caseworker Visits with Foster Children: Formula
5
10
20 20 e
grants to states and territories to support quality, monthly
caseworker visits with children in foster care.c
PSSF -Child Welfare and Substance Abuse: Competitive grants to
35
30
20 20 e
regional partnerships to improve outcomes of children affected by
parent or caretaker abuse of methamphetamine (or other
substances).c
Court Improvement Program: Formula grants to states’ highest
32
32
32
32 32
courts to improve handling of child welfare proceedings. (Before
FY2011, funding includes set-aside from PSSF subtotal plus separate
$20 million in pre-appropriated funds.)d
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

P.L. 112-6
President’s
Final
Funding
Annualizeda
Budget
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
FY2011
FY2012

TITLE IV-E of the Social Security Act
Foster Care: Open-ended reimbursement of eligible state claims for
4,581
4,660g
4,681 3,967h 4,538
children in foster care and for related data collection, administrative,
and training costs. f
Adoption Assistance: Open-ended reimbursement of eligible state
2,156
2,371g
2,462 2,480h 2,495
claims for subsidies to special needs adoptees and related
administrative and training costs. f
Kinship Guardianship Assistance: Open-ended reimbursement of
NA
14
49 32
80
eligible state claims for subsidies to eligible children who leave foster
care for legal guardianship with a relative and for related
administrative and training costs.f
Technical Assistance and Tribal Implementation: Competitive
NA
3
3 3
3
grants for technical assistance to tribes and states (to improve
services to and outcomes for the Indian children they serve) and for
implementation funds (to tribes preparing to submit a Title IV-E plan
to claim direct federal support).i
Adoption Incentives: Bonus funds to states that increase foster child
4.3
36.5
39.5 39.5
49.9
adoptions.

CHAFEE FOSTER CARE INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM
CFCIP (subtotal)
185
185
185
185
185
Basic Program: Formula grants to states for provision of
140
140
140 140
140
independent living services to foster youth who have, or are
expected to, “age out” of care.
Education and Training Vouchers: Formula grants to states to
45.4
45.4
45.4 45.4
45.4
provide vouchers for education and training to foster youth who age
out of care.

CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT
CAPTA (subtotal)
105
110
97
97
97
Basic State Grants: Formula grants to states and territories to
26.5
26.5
26.5 26.5
26.5
improve their child protection services.
Discretionary Activities: Competitive grants for demonstration,
37.1
41.8
29.0 25.8j 29.0
research, or other activities to prevent or treat child maltreatment.
(FY2008 and FY2009 includes funds for home visiting initiative.)
Community-Based Grants for Child Abuse Prevention: Formula
41.7
41.7
41.7 41.7
41.7
grants to lead entity in each state and territory to support
community-based programs to prevent child abuse and neglect.l
Congressional Research Service
19

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

P.L. 112-6
President’s
Final
Funding
Annualizeda
Budget
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
FY2011
FY2012

CHILDREN’S HEALTH ACT
Adoption Awareness (subtotal)
12.5
13.0
13.0
13.0
0m
Infant Adoption Awareness: Competitive grants to train staff in
9.6
10.1
10.1 10.1 0m
nonprofit health centers about adoption counseling.
Special Needs Adoption Awareness: Competitive grants for a
2.9
2.9
2.9 2.9 0m
public campaign about adoption of children with special needs.

OTHER PROGRAMS
Adoption Opportunities: Competitive grants to eliminate barriers
26.4
26.4
26.4 26.4
39.3m
to adoptions—especially special needs adoptions.
Abandoned Infants Assistance: Competitive grants to prevent
11.6
11.6
11.6 11.6
11.6
abandonment of infants exposed to HIV/AIDS or drugs and for
services and programs to address needs of abandoned children.
Children’s Justice Act Grants: Formula grant to states and tribes to
20
20
20 20
20
improve the handling of child abuse and neglect cases.k

VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE ACT
Children’s Advocacy Centers: Competitive grants for services to
16.9
20.0
22.5 22.5
20.0
child victims of abuse (and non-offending family members), to
coordinate child abuse investigations in ways that reduce their
trauma, and for related training and technical assistance.
Court Appointed Special Advocates: Competitive grants to
13.2
15.0
15.0 15.0 0
support court advocates for child victims of abuse and neglect.
Training for Judicial Practitioners and Personnel: Competitive
2.4
2.5
2.5 2.5 0
grant to improve handling of child abuse and neglect cases.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The annualized numbers represent full-year funding for the program if it was provided at the level given in
the three-week continuing resolution, P.L. 112-6. That resolution funds mandatory programs and
entitlements at the level currently authorized by law. Mandatory funding shown for FY2011 then is based on
the Administration’s assumptions of funding levels it will need/receive for FY2011 as given in the HHS, ACF,
FY2012 Budget Justifications.
b. Funds for these grants ($15 million for each of FY2009-FY2012) were appropriated as part of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). They are therefore assumed
in the President’s Budget, but do not show up in annual appropriations language.
c. Funds for this survey ($6 million) were appropriated as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
171) (FY2006-FY2010) and for FY2011 (P.L. 111-142). The President seeks this same funding for FY2012.
d. For FY2010, the PSSF program received $63 million in discretionary funding and was authorized to, and did,
receive mandatory funding of $345 million. P.L. 111-242 increased the mandatory funding authorization for
this program to $365 million for FY2011. However, that law also provided that all of that $20 million
increase in funding be set aside for the Court Improvement Program. The HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget
Justifications assume that in addition to discretionary funding, the full mandatory funding authorized for
FY2011 ($365 million) will be appropriated in FY2011 (see p. 364) and that is assumed in numbers shown
here.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

.
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding

e. The level of funding for grants to states, tribes, and territories under the PSSF program is determined in
part by the amount of program funding reserved for other purposes. FY2011 is the final year for which
funds from the PSSF program are reserved for the targeted purposes (related to monthly caseworker visits
and substance issues among the child welfare population). However, Congress may choose to extend
funding for these purposes. CRS was unable to determine from the FY2012 budget documents whether the
Administration would seek this continuation or would like the funds to be used in another way.
f.
Each year, the appropriation for this Title IV-E account includes an advance amount to permit HHS to make
payments for the first quarter of the next year. For purposes of annual comparison, the full amount
appropriated (including the advance) is shown as part of funding made available each year.
g. The final FY2009 funding amount shown is different from previous versions of this report because HHS
used indefinite budget authority (included in the annual appropriations bills).
h. This funding level represents HHS’ current estimate of funds necessary to pay state claims for FY2011.
i.
Funds for these grants ($3 million for FY2009 and every succeeding fiscal year) were appropriated as part of
P.L. 110-351. They are therefore included in the President’s Budget but do not appear in annual
appropriations bills.
j.
This is also the annual funding level proposed in H.R. 1 as passed by the House on February 19, 2011.
k. Funds for these grants ($3 million for FY2009 and every succeeding fiscal year) were appropriated as part of
the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351).
l.
This program also authorizes a 1% set-aside of appropriated funds for grants to tribes and migrant
programs.
m. The President’s FY2012 budget seeks to redirect all funding for Adoption Awareness to the Adoption
Opportunities program.
n. Program authority for these grants is included in CAPTA but annual funding is set aside from the Crime
Victims Fund (as provided by the Victims of Crime Act, P.L. 98-473, as amended). Therefore, funds are not
provided for them from the general treasury and are not shown in an individual appropriations account.

Author Contact Information

Emilie Stoltzfus

Specialist in Social Policy
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov, 7-2324


Congressional Research Service
21

---