Child Welfare: Funding for Child and Family
Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the
Social Security Act
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
June 13, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41860
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Summary
Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, the federal government provides funds to states, tribes,
and territories for the provision of child welfare-related services to children and their families.
These services may be made available to any child, and his or her family, and without regard to
whether the child is living in his or her own home, living in foster care, or was previously living in
foster care. Title IV-B funds are primarily distributed via two formula grant programs. Under the
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) program, states may provide a broad range of
services designed to support, preserve, and/or reunite children and their families. States are required
to use funding received under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program for specific
categories of child and family services. Combined FY2011 funding for these two programs was
$709 million ($281 million for CWS and $428 million for PSSF), which represented close to 94%
of the total $757 million provided for all programs and activities under Title IV-B.
The CWS and PSSF programs have overlapping purposes and are used to fund some of the same
services. At the same time, the programs have distinct federal requirements and spending patterns.
Many requirements under the CWS program are specific to children in foster care, including
ensuring provision of certain protections for all children in foster care. Requirements under the
PSSF program center on state planning for the delivery of child and family services, more
generally, including establishment of goals and regular review of progress toward those goals.
Under the CWS program states must ensure provision of case review and permanency planning for
each child in foster care, including those children who do not meet the federal eligibility criteria to
receive those services under the Title IV-E Foster Care and Permanency program. Spending for
“protective services”—including child abuse and neglect investigations; caseworker visits to, and
permanency planning for, children in foster care; and other activities—represents the largest share
of federal funds expended under the CWS program. Combined, states anticipated spending more
than 41% of their federal FY2010 CWS funding on that purpose. At the same time, they expected to
spend close to that same share of CWS funding (more than 37%) on the four categories of child and
family services for which they are required to use their PSSF funding.
States are required to spend no less than 90% of their PSSF child and family services funds on four
categories of services. Family support services are considered “upfront” spending in that these
dollars are spent to strengthen families so that children’s developmental needs are met and neither
abuse nor neglect occurs. The three remaining categories for which states must spend their PSSF
funds target some, or all, services on children in foster care and their families: Family preservation
services may be used to prevent a child’s placement in foster care, or to help children in care reunite
with their parents. Time-limited family reunification services and adoption promotion and support
services target children in foster care—either to permit their expeditious return home or, when this
is not possible, to find them a new adoptive home.
Authorization to fund both the CWS and PSSF programs expires with the end of FY2011. The 112th
Congress may consider legislation to reauthorize the funding. This report discusses the CWS and
PSSF programs, separately, including their purposes, unique requirements, funding levels, and
funding distribution. It also describes several grants and activities that are supported by funds
reserved from the overall PSSF appropriation. These include the Court Improvement Program,
grants to regional partnerships to improve the outcomes of children affected by their parents’ abuse
of methamphetamine or other substances, grants to improve monthly caseworker visits of children
in foster care, and funds reserved to HHS for research, evaluation, training, or technical assistance.
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Federal Title IV-B Programs and Activities............................................................................ 2
Federal-State Framework ............................................................................................................ 4
What is Expected of Public Child Welfare Agencies? ............................................................ 4
Children and Families Who May Be Served Under Title IV-B ............................................... 5
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program (CWS) .................................................. 8
States Planned Use of CWS Funds ........................................................................................ 8
Limitations on the Use of CWS Funds........................................................................... 11
CWS State Plan Requirements ............................................................................................ 12
Protections and Services for Children in Foster Care ..................................................... 12
Services or Protections for Other Children..................................................................... 13
Program Development, Description, and Staff Training Plan ......................................... 13
Agency Administration and Coordination with Other Programs..................................... 13
CWS Program Funding, Authorization and Distribution ...................................................... 14
Distribution of Funds .................................................................................................... 14
Matching Requirement .................................................................................................. 15
Tribal Receipt of CWS Funding .................................................................................... 15
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program ............................................................................ 16
Use of PSSF Funds for Child and Family Services .............................................................. 16
PSSF State Plan Requirements ............................................................................................ 19
Planning for Child and Family Services and Reporting on Services and Spending............... 19
Coordination and Administration................................................................................... 20
Majority of Funds to Be Spent for Services and Other Fiscal Requirements ................... 20
PSSF Funding Authorization and Appropriation .................................................................. 21
Reservation of Funds for Additional Purposes ............................................................... 22
PSSF Funding in FY2011 by General Purpose............................................................... 22
Allocation of PSSF Child and Family Services Funds.......................................................... 23
Tribal Receipt of PSSF Funding .................................................................................... 24
Other Programs or Activities for Which PSSF Funds Must Be Reserved.................................... 25
Court Improvement Program (CIP) ..................................................................................... 25
Eligibility for CIP Grants .............................................................................................. 25
Application Requirements ............................................................................................. 26
Formula and Entitlement ............................................................................................... 26
Federal Funding for CIP................................................................................................ 26
Targeted Purposes Funded with PSSF Dollars ..................................................................... 27
Grants to Regional Partnerships to Improve Outcomes for Children Affected by
Parental Substance Abuse................................................................................................. 28
Funding Awarded to 53 Regional Partnerships Operating in 29 States............................ 28
Activities Funded.......................................................................................................... 29
Populations Served........................................................................................................ 29
Amount of Funding to Grantees .................................................................................... 30
Measuring Outcomes and Reporting.............................................................................. 31
Grants to Improve Monthly Case Worker Visits of Children in Foster Care.......................... 32
Children Visited Monthly .............................................................................................. 32
Content of Caseworker Visits As of 2006 ...................................................................... 33
Efforts to Improve Frequency and Content of Caseworker Visits ................................... 34
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Research, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance Funding..................................................... 34
Use of Funds................................................................................................................. 35
Report to Congress ........................................................................................................ 35
Figures
Figure 1. Children Brought to the Attention of Public Child Welfare Agencies............................. 7
Figure 2. Planned Use of FY2010 Federal CWS Funds by Kind of Service or Activity ................ 9
Figure 3. State Use of Federal FY2007 PSSF Child and Family Services Funds by Kind
of Service or Activity ............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 4. Planned Spending of FY2010 Federal PSSF Child and Family Services Funds
by Kind of Service or Activity................................................................................................ 19
Figure 5. FY2011 Funding for the PSSF Program by Purpose.................................................... 23
Tables
Table 1. Programs and Activities Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act ............ 3
Table 2. Description of Purpose and Activities by Selected Service Category............................. 10
Table 3. Mandatory PSSF Funding for Targeted Purposes.......................................................... 27
Table 4. Key Program Activities of Regional Partnerships, Selected Examples .......................... 30
Table 5. Frequency of Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care ...................................... 33
Table A-1. Description of Selected Categories of Services Used for Reporting
Expenditures Under Title IV-B ............................................................................................... 36
Table B-1. Planned Use of Federal CWS Funding for FY2010 by State and Service
Category ................................................................................................................................ 41
Table B-2. FY2010 Funding Under the CWS Program,
by State and per Certain Individuals ....................................................................................... 45
Table C-1. Title IV-B Funding for Services in Nominal Dollars, FY1990-FY2011 ..................... 47
Table C-2. Title IV-B Funding for Services in Constant (FY2010) Dollars................................. 48
Table D-1. Funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program .................................. 49
Table D-2. PSSF Annual Funding Authorization and Distribution, FY2011................................ 50
Table D-3. State Use of Federal PSSF Child and Family Services Funding for FY2007 by
Service Category.................................................................................................................... 51
Table D-4. Planned Use of Federal PSSF Child and Family Services Funding for FY2010
by State and Service Category ................................................................................................ 54
Table D-5. FY2010 Funding under the PSSF Program for Four Categories of Child and
Family Services by State and per Certain Individuals ............................................................. 57
Table E-1. Funding Authority and Appropriations for the Court Improvement Program,
FY1995-FY2011 .................................................................................................................... 59
Table E-2. Funding by CIP Grant Type and State, FY2009......................................................... 60
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table E-3. Funding by CIP Grant Type and State, FY2010......................................................... 61
Table F-1. Grantees by State, Grant Focus, Duration of Grant and Federal Funding ................... 63
Table G-1. Allotments for Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care,
FY2006-FY2011 .................................................................................................................... 67
Table G-2. Percentage of Children in Foster Care Who Were Visited on a Monthly Basis,
by State, FY2007-FY2009, and Target Percentage Established for FY2010 ............................ 69
Appendixes
Appendix A. Services or Activities that May Be Supported Under Title IV-B............................. 36
Appendix B. Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) Funding: Planned
Use of Funds and Allotments.................................................................................................. 41
Appendix C. Title IV-B Funding to States, Tribes, and Territories for Child and Family
Services ................................................................................................................................. 47
Appendix D. Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF): Funding History,
Funding Reservations, Use of Funds, and Allotments ............................................................. 49
Appendix E. Court Improvement Program (CIP): Funding History and Funding by Grant
Type and State........................................................................................................................ 59
Appendix F. Grants to Improve the Outcomes of Children Affected by Parental Abuse of
Methamphetamine or Other Substances: Grantees by State, Project Focus, and Funding ......... 63
Appendix G. Monthly Caseworker Visits: Allotments by State and Percentage of Children
Visited on a Monthly Basis..................................................................................................... 67
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 71
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Introduction
The broadest mission of public child welfare agencies is to strengthen all families in ways that
ensure children can depend on their parents to keep them safe, give them a stable and permanent
home, and, overall, enhance their well-being. Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, the
federal government provides funds to states, tribes, and territories for the provision of services to
children and their families, whether those children are living in their own homes (biological,
adoptive, or extended); have been removed from their homes and placed in temporary foster care
settings; or have left foster care for any reason.
Title IV-B funds are provided primarily through two formula grant programs. States may use
funding provided under the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) program (Title
IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act) to provide a broad range of services designed to
support, preserve, and/or reunite children and their families. They are required to use funding
received under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of
the Social Security Act) for four categories of services: family support, family preservation, time-
limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support.1 In FY2011, these two
programs received combined federal funding of $709 million, of which $281 million was for
CWS and $428 million was for the PSSF program.2
Title IV-B funds—that is, funds provided under the CWS or PSSF programs—are often referred
to as “upfront” funding. This means they are dollars available to support activities that prevent the
need to remove children from their homes as opposed to providing support for them in foster
care. This distinction is drawn with the Title IV-E Foster Care and Permanency program in mind.
Under that program, states receive federal funds to offset a part of the cost of providing support to
children placed in foster care (or those who leave foster care for adoption or guardianship),
provided those children meet federal eligibility criteria.3 In recent years, this federal support to
states has totaled about $7 billion annually.4
It is true that Title IV-B dollars may be used to provide upfront services, including services to
prevent abuse or neglect of children, as well as to prevent their placement in foster care.
However, most federal Title IV-B dollars may also be used by states to provide services to
children in foster care and those who have left foster care, and to the parents of children living at
home or in foster care. Federal law in fact stipulates that some Title IV-B dollars be spent on
children in foster care and their families.
1 Hereinafter, any mention of a section, part, or title of the law is made with reference to the Social Security Act.
2 Apart from funding to states, territories, and tribes for the provision of child and family services, the PSSF sum
includes funds reserved for (1) grants to state highest courts for the Court Improvement Program; (2) grants to states to
improve monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care; (3) grants to regional partnerships to improve outcomes
for children affected by their parents’ abuse of methamphetamine or other substances; and (4) HHS-administered
research, evaluation, training, and technical assistance related to the PSSF program and its purposes.
3 Federal Title IV-E eligibility criteria vary by each of the program’s components. For more information, see 2008
Green Book, http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/s11cw.pdf, pp. 49-51 for foster care eligibility,
p. 68 for kinship guardianship, and pp. 75-76 for adoption assistance.
4 In recent years, roughly 60% of this Title IV-E funding has been for the foster care component of the program while
the remainder has been used for support of children in permanent families, primarily via adoption assistance.
Congressional Research Service
1
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
States appear to spend significant portions of their Title IV-B funds to provide services to children
in foster care. However, there are some key distinctions between how the funds in Title IV-B may
be used in support of children in foster care versus how Title IV-E funds may be used to support
those children. First, Title IV-B funding may be used to provide a much broader range of services
than are supported under the Title IV-E program. Further, Title IV-B funding may be used to offer
these services to any child; by contrast, Title IV-E dollars may only be spent on behalf of children
with a past or current connection to foster care, and, even then, only when those children meet
specific, additional federal eligibility criteria. Finally, Title IV-B funds may be used to provide
services to the families of children—specifically, their parents and other caregivers. Typically,
these individuals may not be served with Title IV-E funds.
Federal Title IV-B Programs and Activities
The primary focus of this report is on the CWS and PSSF programs, under which the large
majority of Title IV-B funds are appropriated. Both the CWS and PSSF provide formula grants to
states, territories, and tribes for provision of child welfare-related services to children and their
families. Those grant programs are discussed in this report. In addition, funds appropriated for the
PSSF program support (1) grants to state highest courts under the Court Improvement Program;
(2) grants to regional partnerships to improve the outcomes of children affected by their parents’
abuse of methamphetamine or other substances; (3) grants to states and territories for monthly
caseworker visits of children in foster care; and (4) program-related research, evaluation, training,
or technical assistance. Each of those PSSF-funded activities is also discussed in this report.
Title IV-B authorizes several additional programs or activities for which separate funds are
authorized or appropriated. These include Family Connection grants, Child Welfare Training,
Research and Demonstration projects, the National Random Sample Study of Child Welfare, and
the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program. All of these programs or activities are listed in
Table 1, but they are not discussed further in this report. All of the Title IV-B programs (with the
exception of the Mentoring Children or Prisoners program5) are administered by the Children’s
Bureau within the Administration on Children Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for
Children and Families (ACF), of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Authorization to fund both the CWS and PSSF programs expires with the end of FY2011 and the
112th Congress may consider legislation to reauthorize this funding and to make other changes to
the Title IV-B programs. In its FY2012 budget request, the Obama Administration assumes
funding reauthorization for the CWS (no specific program changes were sought) and seeks a five-
year extension of PSSF funding (with some changes proposed).6
5 The Mentoring Children of Prisoners program has been administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau
within ACYF, ACF, HHS. It did not receive funding for FY2011. For more information about this program, see CRS
Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
6 The Administration has not proposed legislative language but seeks to work with Congress to reauthorize the PSSF.
See CRS Report RL34121, Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
2
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table 1. Programs and Activities Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Total FY2011 funding provided for Title IV-B programs and activities = $757 million
Program
Program Purpose as Authorized
FY2011
Funding
(Section)
in the Law
Funding
Authorization
SUBPART 1
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child
Formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for
$281 million Expires with the
Welfare Services Program (CWS)
child welfare-related services to children and their
last day of FY2011.
(Secs. 420-425, 428)
families.
Child Welfare Training, Research
Competitive grants to public agencies, nonprofits,
$27 million
Permanent: “such
and Demonstration
or universities for child welfare-related research
sums as Congress
(Sec. 426)
or demonstrations and for workforce training.
determines.”
Family Connection Grants
Competitive grants to eligible public or nonprofit
$15 million
$15 million
(Sec. 427)
entities to support kinship navigator programs,
appropriated
special family finding efforts, family group decision-
annual y through
making meetings, and/or residential family
FY2013
treatment programs.
(via P.L. 110-351).
National Random Sample Study of
Competitive grant to support a national y
$6 million Expires
with
the
Child Welfare (a.k.a., the National
representative, longitudinal study of children at risk
last day of FY2011.
Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-
of, or exposed to, child abuse or neglect (including
Being) (Sec. 429)
their caregivers).
SUBPART 2
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)
$428 million (all purposes)
PSSF—Child and Family Services
Formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for
$341 million Expires with the
(Secs. 430-437)
four categories of services: family preservation,
last day of FY2011.
family support, time-limited family reunification,
and adoption promotion and support .
PSSF—Targeted Purpose: Improve
Formula grants to states and territories to support
$20 million
PSSF funding
Caseworker Visitsa
quality, monthly caseworker visits with children in
set-aside expires
(Sec. 436(b)(4)
foster care.
with the last day of
FY2011.
PSSF—Targeted Purpose: Improve
Competitive grants to regional partnerships to
$20 million
PSSF funding
Outcomes of Children Affected by
improve services available to children in substance-
set-aside expires
Parental Abuse of “Meth” or Other
abusing families to increase children’s well-being
with the last day of
Substances (Secs. 436(b)(5) and
and improve their permanency outcomes.
FY2011.
437(f))
PSSF—Court Improvement Program
Formula grants to state highest courts to improve
$32 million
PSSF funding
(CIP) (Sec. 436(b)(2); Sec. 437(b)(2)
1) handling of child welfare proceedings,
set-aside
and (Sec. 438)
2) data col ection and analysis to achieve better
permanently
and more timely outcomes for children, and
authorized.b
3) training related to child welfare proceedings.
PSSF—Research, Evaluation, Training
Funds reserved to HHS for support of program-
$8 million
PSSF funding
and Technical Assistance
related evaluation, training, research, and technical
set-aside
(Sec. 436(b)(1); Sec 437(b)(1)
assistance.
permanently
and Sec. 435)
authorized.
Mentoring Children of Prisoners
Competitive grants to community-based, public, or
$0 Expires
with
the
(Sec. 439)
private entities to provide mentoring services.
last day of FY2011.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. See also related provisions in Subpart 1 at Section 422(b)(17) and Section 424(e)(1) and (2).
Congressional Research Service
3
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
b. Funding for the CIP is permanently set aside from the PSSF program (Sections 436(b)(2 and 437(b)(2)).
However, the provisions that entitle state highest courts to these funds (Section 438(c)(1)(A) and (c)(2(a))
expire with FY2011, as does the stipulation that some of these funds are for CIP data or training grants
(Section 438(e)).
This report begins by outlining the federal-state framework with regard to child welfare,
discussing the activities public child welfare agencies are expected to perform, and discussing the
children and families who may be served under the Title IV-B child and family services funds
provided via the CWS and PSSF programs. The report follows this with separate descriptions of
those formula grant programs and additional activities supported with PSSF funds.
Federal-State Framework
Under the U.S. Constitution, states are believed to have the primary obligation to ensure the
welfare—sometimes referred to as the “well-being”—of children and their families. At the same
time, the federal government has demonstrated longstanding interest in working with states to
strengthen their child welfare services and supports. Further, through the provision of funding to
states, the federal government is able to require certain standards for those services and supports.
Federal child welfare funding is largely distributed to state-level child welfare agencies and most
federal child welfare program requirements apply to those same agencies.7 At the state level, the
child welfare “system” consists of workers at state and county child welfare agencies who work
with private-agency child welfare workers, state and local judges, attorneys, prosecutors, law
enforcement personnel, and workers at a wide variety of public and private social services
agencies to carry out their child welfare duties.
What is Expected of Public Child Welfare Agencies?
Children depend on adults—usually their parents—to protect, support, and nurture them in their
homes. The broadest mission of public child welfare agencies is to strengthen all families in ways
that ensure children can depend on their parents to protect their safety, ensure they have a stable
and permanent home, and enhance their well-being. More specifically, public child welfare
agencies are expected to identify families where children are at risk of abuse or neglect and to
provide services to prevent maltreatment. These typically are services provided to children and
families while the children remain in their own homes. Public child welfare agencies are also
expected to identify children who have been abused and neglected and to provide services and
supports necessary to ensure no further maltreatment occurs. Again, these services might be
provided while the child remains living in his/her parent’s home or might mean moving the child
to foster care.
Foster care is understood—in federal policy and in child welfare practice—to be a temporary
living situation. Public child welfare agencies must work to establish, or re-establish, permanent
and stable living arrangements, as quickly as possible, for any child entering foster care.
Whenever provision of services and other assistance can permit children to return safely to their
7 Some states provide for local (e.g., county) administration of federal child welfare funds. However, even in these
states, federal funds are provided to the state agency, and the state agency is required to supervise the local provision of
services to ensure they are provided in a manner consistent with all federal requirements.
Congressional Research Service
4
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
parents, they are expected to be reunited with them. However, if returning home is not possible or
appropriate, the child welfare agency is charged with both quickly and competently identifying
another permanent home for these children—preferably via adoption or guardianship, or through
placement with another relative on a less formal basis. Re-establishing or achieving safety and
permanence are critical and immediate needs of children who enter foster care. Child welfare
agencies act as de facto parents for these children and must also ensure their well-being, including
facilitating their access to a stable education and appropriate health care.
When children leave foster care—whether for a permanent home via reunification, adoption, or
legal guardianship—child welfare agencies may also be called on to provide services to ensure
the ongoing stability and continued safety of the family home. And, finally, for those youth who
leave foster care due to their age rather than their placement in a permanent home, child welfare
agencies are called on to support and enable their successful transition to adulthood.
Children and Families Who May Be Served Under Title IV-B
There are an estimated 75 million children (individuals under the age of 18) living in the United
States. Title IV-B funds may be used to serve any of these children and their families if that
service is related to child welfare.8 Most children and families who receive child welfare-related
services come into contact with a public child welfare agency following an allegation of child
abuse or neglect.
Figure 1 shows that as many as 6 million children have been referred to child welfare agencies in
a given year and that these agencies conducted investigations or assessments related to allegations
of child abuse or neglect involving as many as 3.6 million children. More than a million of these
children receive some kind of child welfare service after that investigation or assessment is
completed. The large majority of those services are provided in the child’s own home rather than
in a foster care setting. CWS funds may be used to support investigations of abuse or neglect and
both CWS and PSSF funds may be used to provide other services to strengthen or support
families to ensure children can safely remain in their own homes.
Some children must be placed in foster care to ensure their safety. As suggested in Figure 1,
nationwide, fewer than half of all children in foster care on a given day meet the eligibility
criteria to receive Title IV-E assistance. Under the CWS program, federal law requires states to
provide all children in foster care (including those eligible for Title IV-E assistance and those who
are not eligible for Title IV-E assistance) with the same protections related to case planning and
regular case review, including permanency planning. Further, it stipulates that state child welfare
agencies must provide the services necessary to ensure a child’s safe and expeditious return to his
or her family, or, if this is not possible, to work as quickly as possible to find a new safe,
appropriate, and permanent home for the child. CWS funds may be used to provide case planning
and review services to children in foster care and both CWS and PSSF funds may be used to
provide other services to children in foster care and their families (e.g., parenting skills training or
substance abuse treatment to promote reunification).9
8 Child is defined generally, for purposes of Title IV-B and Title IV-E, as under the age of 18 (Section 475(8)).
However, there is no age eligibility limit applicable to the Title IV-B programs and states may provide child welfare
services to individuals (who are not parents) who are age 18 or older.
9 States are permitted to use Title IV-E funds to provide case planning and case review-related services to children in
foster care who meet the Title IV-E eligibility criteria. However, they are not permitted to use Title IV-E funds to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Finally, although these children are not shown in Figure 1, some 275,000 children (or more)
leave foster care each year. Some of these children return to their parents, others go to live with
relatives, some go to new permanent homes via adoption or legal guardianship and others reach
the age of majority and leave care without placement in a family. CWS and PSSF funds may be
used to provide post-reunification, adoption, or guardianship services to strengthen or otherwise
assist the families children go to live with when they leave foster care. Funds may also be used to
assist youth who leave care without a permanent home.10
(...continued)
provide those services to children in foster care who are not Title IV-E eligible. Further, in general, states are not
permitted to use Title IV-E funds to provide other services to children or their families. This restriction applies to all
children who are in foster care, and without regard to their Title IV-E eligibility status.
10 The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program provides funding to state child welfare agencies that is wholly
dedicated to provision of services to youth who are expected to leave care without placement in a permanent family or
those who have left care in that manner (and are under the age of 21). For more information, see CRS Report RL34499,
Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
Congressional Research Service
6
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Figure 1. Children Brought to the Attention of Public Child Welfare Agencies
Reflects national estimates or counts based on data reported by states for FY2009
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Child Maltreatment 2009 (December 2010); FY2009 data reported by states via the
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) as of July 29, 2010; and Title IV-E expenditure
claims data as compiled by HHS, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, May 2010.
Note: Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.
The CWS and PSSF programs under Title IV-B have overlapping purposes and may be used to
fund some, but not all, of the same services. At the same time, they have distinct program
requirements, funding, and funding distribution methods. The following sections of the report
describe the two programs separately, including each of their purposes, federal requirements for
receipt of funds, state use of funds, federal funding level, and distribution of those funds.
Congressional Research Service
7
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services
Program (CWS)
Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act (Sections 420-425, 428)
The CWS program provides funds to states, territories, and tribes and is intended to “promote
state flexibility” to develop and expand a program of services to children and families that uses
community-based agencies and works to
• protect and promote the welfare of all children;
• prevent child abuse and neglect;
• permit children to remain in their own homes, or to return to those homes
whenever it is safe and appropriate;
• promote safety, permanency, and well-being for children in foster care or those in
adoptive families; and
• provide training, professional development, and support to ensure a well-
qualified child welfare workforce.11
The CWS program was first authorized in 1935 as part of the original Social Security Act and has
been amended many times since then, including most recently by the Child and Family Services
Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288), the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351), and the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act
(P.L. 111-148).12 Funding for this program is authorized on a discretionary basis and that
authorization is set to expire with the last day of FY2011. Congress provided $281 million for the
CWS program for FY2011.
States Planned Use of CWS Funds
States are generally permitted to spend CWS funds on any service or activity (and on behalf of
any child or family) that is intended to meet the program’s broad purposes. Examples of services
or activities that may be supported include investigations of child abuse or neglect, homemaker
services, respite care, family or individual counseling, caseworker visits to children whether in
their own homes or in foster care, case planning and case review services for children in foster
care, pre- and post- adoption support services, and emergency assistance. As discussed further
below, states, however, are not permitted to spend CWS money to meet regular education costs or
medical care needs of a child or his/her family and the statute limits the amount of CWS funds
that may be used for program administration and for foster care maintenance payments, adoption
assistance payments, or child care.
Combined, states planned to spend the largest single share (41%) of their FY2010 CWS funds for
child protective services. Among other things, those services may include child abuse and neglect
11 These purposes apply to all programs authorized in Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act, including the
separate funding authorized in Sections 426 (Child Welfare Research, Demonstration and Training), 427 (Family
Connection Grants), and 429 (National Random Sample Study of Child Welfare).
12 The amendments made by P.L. 109-288 were more global than those made by P.L. 110-351 and P.L. 111-148.
Congressional Research Service
8
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
investigations, and caseworker activities on behalf of families and their children, whether those
children are in foster care or living in their own homes. States also planned to spend more than
37% of their FY2010 CWS funds on the four categories of services (family support, family
preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support) for which
they are required to spend the majority of funds they received under the PSSF program (the
program is described later in this report).
Figure 2 depicts total state planned spending of FY2010 CWS funds by category. The “All
Other” category includes spending by a few states on a range of purposes, including guardianship
assistance, independent living services, child care related to employment or training of a
parent/caretaker, or caseworker training and recruitment.
Figure 2. Planned Use of FY2010 Federal CWS Funds by Kind of Service or Activity
Estimated spending for 52 jurisdictions (50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico)
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state planned spending as
reported on CFS101, Part II (prepared 2009) and submitted as part of FY2010 funding request.
Notes: An * indicates that spending category is one of the four categories under which states are required to
spend 90% of their funds under the separate, PSSF program, which is discussed below. For more information on
these data and specific notes on how some state data were interpreted see Table B-1 in Appendix B.
Table 2 below provides descriptions of the purpose and kinds of activities that may be supported
in selected service categories. These descriptions are meant to be illustrative rather than
exclusive. They are based largely on guidance provided to states regarding reporting their planned
child and family services spending, including spending under the CWS program.13
13 See ACYF-CB-PI-09-06 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2009/pi0906.htm.
Congressional Research Service
9
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table 2. Description of Purpose and Activities by Selected Service Category
Protective Services. These services are intended to prevent or remedy the abuse, neglect, or
exploitation of children. They may include investigations of child abuse and neglect; caseworker activities
on behalf of children and their families (both those in foster care and those at home); counseling;
arranging for alternative living arrangements; and emergency assistance.
Family Preservation (or Crisis Intervention) Services. These are services offered to prevent
removal of a child from the home (whether biological, adoptive, or extended) or to permit a child to
return to a family from which he/she was removed. They may include homemaker services, respite care,
parenting skills training and knowledge development, day care, case management, post-adoption support
services, family or individual counseling, any service identified by states as necessary to permit
reunification, and post-reunification services.
Family Support (or Prevention and Support) Services. These are community-based services that
may be provided to any child or family and are intended to promote the safety and well-being of children
and the stability of their families, increase parents’ competence and confidence in parenting, and enhance
child development. They may include parenting skills training; early developmental screening of children
and assistance in obtaining services to meet any identified needs; counseling or home visiting; parent
support groups and other center-based activities (e.g., informal drop-in centers for families/parents);
mentoring, tutoring, and health education for youth; and respite care for parents and other caregivers.
Time-Limited Family Reunification Services. These are services designed to permit expeditious
reunification of a child with his/her family and may only be offered where a child has been in foster care
for less than 17 months.14 They include individual, group, and family counseling; substance abuse treatment
(including inpatient, outpatient, or residential); mental health services; assistance to address domestic
violence; temporary or crisis child care; and transportation to and from any of these services or activities.
Foster Care Maintenance Payments. These are regular “room and board” payments made to foster
parents, group homes, or other institutions that provide daily care, support, and living space for children
in foster care. A state’s expenditure of CWS funds for this purpose may not exceed its FY2005
expenditures for foster care maintenance payments under the CWS program.
Adoption Promotion and Support Services. These services are available to encourage adoptions
out of foster care when that is in the child’s best interest. Services may include activities to expedite the
adoption process, and activities to support prospective adoptive families and adoptive families.
Adoption Subsidies. These are regular payments made to adoptive parents on behalf of their adoptive
children (typically these are children adopted out of foster care). They may be used by those parents in
any manner they choose. A state’s expenditure of CWS funds for this purpose may not exceed its FY2005
expenditures for adoption subsidies under the CWS program.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: Descriptions provided are intended to be illustrative rather than exclusive. For a table giving more
detailed descriptions, as well as target populations, for these and additional service categories, see Appendix A.
14 Seventeen months is a maximum time frame; for some children the time frame may be as short as 15 months. Section
431(7) stipulates that these services may be made “during the 15-month period that begins on the date a child is
considered to have entered foster care pursuant to Section 475(5)(F).” Under Section 475(5)(F) a child is considered to
have entered foster care on the earlier of (1) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to
child abuse or neglect; or (2) 60 days after the child is removed from his/her home.
Congressional Research Service
10
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Limitations on the Use of CWS Funds
In policy guidance, HHS has stipulated that CWS funds may not be spent to pay education costs
or to meet medical expenses.15 The statute also includes specific limitations on the use of CWS
funds for child care, monthly assistance for children in foster care settings or adoptive homes, and
program administration.
Foster Care Maintenance and Adoption Assistance Payments, Child Care
Current law prohibits states from spending any federal CWS funds for foster care maintenance
payments, adoption assistance payments, or child care unless the state can show that it spent some
of its federal CWS dollars for those purposes in FY2005.16 If a state can show this, then it may
continue to spend CWS money for those purposes, but only in an annual amount no greater than
what it spent under the program for those purposes in FY2005.17
Further, states are not permitted to count state or any other non-federal dollars used to provide
foster care maintenance payments for the purpose of providing non-federal matching funds under
the CWS program unless the state can show that it did this in FY2005. If the state can show this,
then it is permitted to count non-federal state spending for foster care maintenance payments as
matching dollars (under the CWS program) in an annual amount no more than it counted that
spending for this purpose in FY2005.18
Program Administration
States are prohibited from spending more than 10% of their CWS funds (both federal dollars and
the non-federal dollars used to match those dollars) for CWS program administration.19 For
purposes of the CWS program, administration costs do not include the cost of salaries for
caseworkers providing services (e.g., case planning or case review-related services for children in
foster care). They also do not include the cost of salaries of case managers for direct supervision
of caseworkers providing those services, or travel expenses related to provision of services by
caseworkers or program oversight. (By contrast, under the Title IV-E program time spent by a
15 This guidance was first issued in 1982 and is now included in the Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 7.4,
Questions 4 and 5. The guidance cites the definition of child welfare services included in Section 425 of the Social
Security Act to justify this prohibition. That definition was removed from the statute in 2006 by P.L. 109-288 (Child
and Family Services Improvement Act). However, that law incorporated much of the prior law definition in a new
“purposes” section and this guidance is presumed to continue to represent HHS policy on the matter.
16 This requirement was made effective, beginning with FY2008, by the Child and Family Services Improvement Act
of 2006 (P.L. 109-288). However, states have faced some restriction on the amount of federal CWS funds they could
spend for foster care maintenance payments (as well as adoption assistance payments and child care related to work or
training purposes) for roughly three decades (i.e., beginning with FY1980).
17 Prior to FY2008, the limit on spending related to child care was specifically restricted to child care spending that was
necessary because of a parent’s work or employment-related training. That qualification was removed from statute in
changes made in 2006 by P.L. 109-288. However, because child care that is offered outside the context of work or
employment training may be defined as a family support service, or a family preservation service, there may be no real
practical effect to this change (i.e., restriction may still essentially apply only to work or training-related child care).
18 This requirement was added in 2006 by P.L. 109-288, which made it effective with FY2008.
19 As initially required by P.L. 109-288, states must assure they will meet this requirement as part of their CWS plan
(Section 422(b)(14)). Additionally, HHS is prohibited from making payments under the CWS program to states that
exceed the 10% cap (Section 424(e).
Congressional Research Service
11
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
child welfare worker to do case planning or case review for an eligible child in foster care, and
supervision of that work, would be considered an administrative cost.)20
CWS State Plan Requirements
Federal law stipulates a series of plan requirements that states must meet in order to receive CWS
funds. These requirements deal with protections and services to children in foster care;
protections for other children served; program development and description; and agency
administration of the CWS plan, including its coordination with other programs.
Protections and Services for Children in Foster Care
As part of its CWS plan, each state is required to assure HHS that it has a statewide information
system that enables the state to “readily” determine the status, demographic characteristics,
location, and goals of every child who is in foster care (or who was in foster care in the past 12
months). A state must also assure under its CWS plan that each child in foster care has a case plan
that is regularly reviewed, outlines the child’s permanency goals, and provides other protections
for children in foster care. In addition, the state must assure that it has a service program designed
to either reunite children in foster care with their parents, or, when this is not safe or appropriate,
to find them new permanent homes or living arrangements.21
Each state is further required under the CWS plan (1) to have standards related to the frequency
and quality of caseworker visits of children in foster care; (2) to ensure “diligent recruitment” of
potential foster and adoptive homes that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in
the state needing foster family homes; (3) to work with the state agency that administers the
Medicaid program to develop (in consultation with other experts and stakeholders) a specific
health oversight plan for children in foster care; and, (4) with regard to children under state care
or supervision, to have specific procedures in place to ensure continuity of program operation and
services in the event of a disaster.22
20 Administrative costs for purposes of the CWS program are defined in the law at Section 422(c)(1). Administrative
(including training) costs for purposes of the Title IV-E program include all eligible program costs that are not
assistance payments made on behalf of children and, in most instances, they may only be claimed if the cost is incurred
for a Title IV-E eligible child. Federal reimbursement for Title IV-E administrative costs is authorized at Section
474(a)(3) and the kinds of costs that are reimburseable are further described in regulation at 45 CFR 1356.60(c).
21 Section 422(b)(8)(A)(i)(ii) and (iii). These requirements ensure that children who are in foster care and who do not
meet the Title IV-E eligibility criteria receive the same case plan and case review (including permanency planning)
services provided to children in foster care who are Title IV-E eligible. The bulk of these child protection requirements
were added to the statute in 1980 by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272). At the time,
compliance (that is, extending these protections to children not eligible for Title IV-E foster care assistance) was
considered voluntary. States that didn’t meet the requirement could still access CWS funds, although those that met the
requirement were potentially able to access greater funding under the program. In 1994, however, Congress made
extension of these protections to all children in foster care a part of the CWS state plan (P.L. 103-432). Thus, they
became mandatory for any state seeking to receive any amount of CWS funding.
22 Section 422(b)(7), (15), (16), and (17).
Congressional Research Service
12
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Services or Protections for Other Children
The CWS plan must also incorporate specific descriptions or reports concerning other child
populations. Most broadly, each state must assure in its CWS plan that it has a service program in
place to help children who are at risk of placement in foster care to remain safely in their own
homes.23 For children who are abandoned at or shortly after birth, the state must have judicial and
administrative procedures in place to provide these infants with legal representation (to enable
expeditious decisions on their permanent placement). Finally, with regard to children who are
adopted from other countries, the state must describe any activities undertaken on behalf of these
children, including provision of adoption or post-adoption services. Further, it must collect and
report certain data to HHS, including numbers of such children who enter state custody following
disruption or dissolution of the adoption.24
Program Development, Description, and Staff Training Plan
In their CWS plans, states must describe their efforts to provide child welfare services on a
statewide basis, to expand and strengthen the range of services available, and to develop and
implement services that improve child outcomes. The services provided to children must utilize
the facilities and experience of voluntary (private) agencies as authorized by the state. Further, the
state must also describe its staff development and training program for child welfare workers and
it must provide reports or other information to HHS, as requested.25
A state must also demonstrate “meaningful and ongoing collaboration” with state courts in the
development of its CWS plan, as well as in the development of other child welfare-related
plans.26 Additionally, a state must describe in its CWS plan the specific measures it undertakes to
remain in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, and these measures must be developed
after consulting with Indian tribal organizations.27
Agency Administration and Coordination with Other Programs
CWS state plan requirements stipulate that the program must be administered by the same state
agency that administers the state’s Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Finally, delivery of
services under the CWS plan must be coordinated with those provided for children via SSBG, the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the PSSF program, the Title IV-E
Foster Care and Permanency program, and any other state programs that have purposes related to
promoting the welfare of children and their families.28
23 Section 422(b)(8)(A)(iv).
24 Section 422(b)(8)(B), (11), and (12).
25 Section 422(b)(3) through (6).
26 As part of its CWS plan, a state must also demonstrate meaningful and ongoing collaboration with state courts in the
development of its PSSF state plan, Title IV-E state plan, and any Program Improvement Plan (PIP) in the state.
27 Section 422(b) (9) and (13).
28 Section 422(b)(1) and (2). Section 106 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) authorizes grants to
states to improve their child protective services. It requires states, to the “maximum extent practicable,” to coordinate those
services with the state plans required under Title IV-B. There is no comparably specific reference in Title IV-B.
Congressional Research Service
13
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
CWS Program Funding, Authorization and Distribution
Federal funding for the CWS program has been flat or in decline for most of the past 15 years.
The program is authorized to receive discretionary appropriations of $325 million each fiscal
year, through FY2011.29 For FY2011, it received an appropriation of $281 million (P.L. 112-10).
The current CWS funding authorization level was initially set for FY1990, but Congress has
never appropriated the full $325 million authorized. Instead, funding for the CWS program
peaked in FY1994 at $295 million but has drifted down to the current $281 million since then.
Because these funding amounts are not adjusted for inflation, the actual decline in purchasing
power to states is greater than the nominal dollars suggest. However, this decline in funding for the
CWS program generally coincides with the period in which separate federal support for child
welfare-related child and family services became available under what is now called the PSSF
program. As described later in this report, that program currently provides funding to all states for
some, but not all, of the purposes for which CWS funds may be used. (For the history of Title IV-B
funding to states for child and family services, in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars, see
Appendix C.)
Distribution of Funds
Under the CWS funding formula, each state (the 50 states and the District of Columbia) and
territory (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands) receives a base allotment of $70,000. The remaining CWS funds are allocated based on a
formula that takes into account both the number of individuals in a state under the age of 21 and
the state’s average per capita income. The formula is intended to ensure that states with lower
relative per capita income receive greater federal support per individual under age 21. HHS
allocates funds to tribes out of a state’s initial allotment from this formula. The amount of a state’s
initial allotment that is directed to a particular tribe is based on the tribe’s (or tribes’) share of the
population in the given state that is under the age of 21.
In FY2010, states and territories received $276 million in CWS funding, and the remaining $6
million was distributed to tribes or tribal organizations in 30 states. The median annual funding
provided to each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia per individual under age 21
(excluding tribes) was $3.21; the amount of funding to state governments per individual under
age 21 (excluding tribes) ranged from a low of $1.43 in Alaska to a high of $3.79 in both
Mississippi and West Virginia. When all funds distributed within a state (either to the state or a
tribal government) were counted, the median annual funding per individual under 21 (including
those in tribal populations) was $3.31 and ranged from a low of $2.33 in Connecticut to a high of
$3.82 in Mississippi.30 (For federal allotments under this program, by state, including funding per
individual under age 21 and per poor child under age 18, see Table B-2 in Appendix B.)
29 The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) ended the permanent funding authorization
for the CWS program, which had been in place since the program’s 1935 inception. The 2006 law provided that the
program’s annual funding authorization ends with FY2011 (i.e., as of September 30, 2011).
30 CRS calculations based on final FY2010 CWS allotments to states and territories, received from HHS, ACF, OLAB,
December 2010; final FY2010 CWS allotments to tribes as provided in ACYF-CB-PI-04, issued April 2011 (including
estimates of the tribal under-age-21 population); and the state under-age-21 population, as provided by the American
Community Survey (for 2009).
Congressional Research Service
14
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Matching Requirement
To receive its full CWS allotment, a state must comply with rules related to the use of program
funds and must provide $1 in non-federal program funding for every $3 in federal program funds
it receives (i.e., 75% federal financial participation rate). States failing to meet established state-
specific targets for improving the frequency of caseworker visits with children in foster care are
subject to reduced federal financial participation in the CWS program. For FY2010, 11
jurisdictions (10 states and Puerto Rico) saw their federal financial participation rate in this
program lowered from 75% to 74%, 72%, or 70%, commensurate with the degree to which they
failed to meet their established targets. (This provision for reduced federal financial participation
is discussed in greater detail later in this report under the heading “Grants to Improve Monthly
Case Worker Visits of Children in Foster Care.”)
Tribal Receipt of CWS Funding
Tribes and tribal organizations that wish to receive CWS funding must submit a plan to HHS for
approval and may receive funds directly from the federal government. The law gives HHS the
authority to provide CWS funds to tribes “in such manner and in such amounts” as HHS
“determines to be appropriate.” However, it stipulates that amounts provided to tribes must be
considered as a part of the allotment made to the state in which the tribe or tribal organization is
located.31 As noted above, HHS provides funds to tribes based on the tribe’s share of a state’s
under-age-21 population. Further, these funds are weighted by HHS in a manner that ensures
greater resources to tribes per tribal person under the age of 21.
For FY2010, 157 tribes or tribal organizations, located in 30 states, received just over $6 million
in CWS tribal funding. These tribes and tribal organizations counted roughly 572,500 individuals
under the age of 21 in their populations. More than 91% of those under-21 individuals lived in 11
states: Oklahoma (213,200), Arizona (81,700), New Mexico (53,400), Alaska (45,600), South
Dakota (32,400), Montana (26,400), Michigan (19,100), Wisconsin (17,200), Washington
(13,700), North Dakota (11,300), and Minnesota (10,200). Accordingly, a little more than 91% of
the CWS funding for tribes was distributed among some 118 tribes or tribal organizations in those
11 states.
The median tribal CWS grant was $13,333, and the grant amounts ranged from a low of $1,300
(to the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians in Louisiana) to a high of $921,410 (to the Navajo Nation
for services involving its under-21 population in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah).
The median annual funding provided to a tribe or tribal organization per each individual under
age 21 was $10.50, and ranged from a low of $7.68 (to a single tribe in Massachusetts) to a high
of $11.52 (to each of seven tribes in Montana).32
31 Section 428.
32 For FY2010 CWS allotments by tribe or tribal organization, go to Attachment A of HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-04,
issued March 23, 2011, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2011/pi1104.htm.
Congressional Research Service
15
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
Title IV-B, Subpart 2, Sections 430-437
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program provides funds to states, territories, and
tribes to enable them to develop, establish, expand, or operate a coordinated set of community-
based family support services, family preservation services, time-limited family reunification
services, and adoption promotion and support services. The objectives of these coordinated
service programs are to
• prevent maltreatment among at-risk families through provision of support
services;
• assure children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which
children have been maltreated;
• address problems of families whose children have been placed in foster care—in
a timely manner—so reunification can occur; and
• support adoptive families by providing support services necessary for them to
make a lifetime commitment to children.
This program was established in 1993 (P.L. 103-66) to provide support to states for the provision
of family preservation and family support services. Congress renamed these grants to states as the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program in 1997 (P.L. 105-89) and at the same time required
states to use these funds additionally to support time-limited family reunification and adoption
promotion and support services. The program’s funding authorization was again extended, and
other program changes were made by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of
2001 (P.L. 107-133) and, most recently, by the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of
2006 (P.L. 109-288).33
Funding authorized for the PSSF program is set to expire on September 30, 2011. For FY2011,
the PSSF program received a total appropriation of $428 million (P.L. 112-10). About 81% of this
PSSF funding was provided to states, territories, and tribes for support of four specific categories
of child welfare-related child and family services. This part of the PSSF program is described
immediately below. The remaining FY2011 PSSF funds were reserved, as stipulated in statute, for
the following activities: grants to state highest courts under the Court Improvement Program;
grants to improve outcomes of children affected by parental abuse of methamphetamine or other
substances; grants for monthly caseworker visits; and support for research, evaluation, training
and technical assistance. Use of PSSF funds for these additional purposes is described at the end
of this report.
Use of PSSF Funds for Child and Family Services
States are required to spend no less than 90% of the federal PSSF child and family services
funding they receive on four specified categories of services: community-based family support,
33 For more information on this program’s legislative history, see CRS Report RL33354, The Promoting Safe and
Stable Families Program: Reauthorization in the 109th Congress, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
16
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support. 34 Further,
the statute stipulates that states must spend “significant portions” of program funding on each of
those four specified categories of child and family services. HHS has interpreted this language (in
guidance) as requiring states to spend approximately 20% on each service category unless a state
successfully seeks an exemption. 35
The PSSF program is available for states to spend on a somewhat more limited set of child
welfare purposes than is true of the CWS program. Further, its state plan requirements, discussed
below, are considerably less focused on children in foster care than are the requirements included
in the CWS plan. At the same time, three of the four categories of child and families services for
which states must spend the majority of their federal PSSF funds target services, in whole or in
part, on children in, or formerly in, foster care and the families of those children.36
For FY2007 (the most recent year for which final expenditure data are available), states reported
spending $357 million in federal PSSF funds. Of that sum, they reported combined spending of
about 6% for other service-related costs and program administration. The remaining 94% of those
funds were expended for the four categories of child and family services stipulated in the law. The
percentage and amount of spending by each of the service categories is shown in Figure 3. For a
description of the activities that may be funded under each of the service categories, see the
Description of Purposes and Activities by Selected Service category in Table 2.
34 See Section 434(d) and Section 433(a)(4). The latter provides that a state may not spend more than 10% of program
funds for administrative costs, and, further, that all remaining program funds must be used to provide the specified
child and family services. In regulation, however, HHS has defined administrative costs to exclude certain “program
costs” that are incurred while developing and implementing the state’s plan to provide child and family services. For
example, the planning provision of child and family services, which is a requirement of the PSSF plan, is considered a
“service”-related activity rather than an administrative cost. See 45 C.F.R. 1357.32(h)(3).
35 Section 432(a)(4). For recent guidance on this matter see HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-06 (issued April 28, 2011),
which provides that a state must provide a written rationale if any of the four spending categories “does not
approximate 20 percent.” See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2011/pi1106.htm.
36 Each of the services categories are defined in Section 431.
Congressional Research Service
17
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Figure 3. State Use of Federal FY2007 PSSF Child and Family Services Funds by
Kind of Service or Activity
Total spending: $357 million; 52 jurisdictions (50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico)
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state actual expenditures of
FY2007 federal PSSF funding as reported in CFS-101, Part III (reported 2009; forms sent to Congress by HHS,
July 2010).
Note: For more information on these data and specific notes on how some state data were interpreted and
represented, see Table D-3 in Appendix D.
The combined shares of actual spending of FY2007 PSSF funds are roughly comparable to how
states, in aggregate, planned (as of mid- to late 2009) to spend federal PSSF funds they were to
receive in FY2010. At the same time, because PSSF funding for child and family services to
states (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) was somewhat lower in FY2010—
$336 million in FY2010 as compared to $357 million in FY2007—the dollar amounts are lower
in each service category. The family support and family preservation service categories were
again expected to receive the largest shares of PSSF funding. At the same time, those categories
of services were expected to absorb more of the effect of the reduced funding for FY2010 than
either the adoption promotion and support category or the time-limited family reunification
category.
States expected to use 13% fewer FY2010 PSSF dollars for services under each of the family
support and family preservation categories than they provided for those services out of federal
FY2007 PSSF funds. Funding provided under the PSSF program for adoption promotion and
support was expected to decline by about 8% and funding for time-limited family reunification
services was expected to remain virtually unchanged.
For FY2010, states also reported that they planned to spend greater sums of PSSF funds on
program administration. However, it is not clear whether this simply represents more states
reserving the right to spend up to 10% of program funding on this purpose (as it permitted under
the statute) or whether states will actually spend greater amounts of their FY2010 PSSF funds for
program administration (see Figure 4, below).
(For final spending of federal PSSF funds for FY2007 and planned spending of federal PSSF
funds for FY2010, by state and service category, see Table D-3 and Table D-4 in Appendix D.)
Congressional Research Service
18
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Figure 4. Planned Spending of FY2010 Federal PSSF Child and Family Services
Funds by Kind of Service or Activity
Total federal funds expected: $336 million; 52 jurisdictions (50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico)
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state planned spending of
federal PSSF funding as reported by each state in its CFS-101, Part I (prepared 2009).
Notes: For state-specific information, including notes regarding how data were interpreted for certain states,
see Table D-2 in Appendix D.
PSSF State Plan Requirements
As is true with the CWS program, federal law stipulates a series of plan requirements under the
PSSF program. States are required to assure that the safety of children will be their “paramount
concern” in administering and conducting services under the PSSF program.37 Apart from this
broad child-protection related assurance, the PSSF state plan requirements focus in large part on
how states are to plan for child and family services, including establishing goals and measuring
progress toward those goals, coordinating services, and reporting on services provided. Additional
PSSF state plan requirements stipulate fiscal and program administration-related rules.
Planning for Child and Family Services and Reporting on Services and Spending
The statute requires each state to establish a five-year plan for services provided under the PSSF
plan. This five-year plan must include goals to be achieved via provision of these services and the
measures that will be used to assess progress toward these goals. In the interim years, states must
annually provide an assessment of their progress toward the goals—making any necessary
adjustments. At the end of the five-year period, they must develop a final report assessing what
the plan achieved. Further, as part of that final report—and after consulting with appropriate
public and nonprofit private agencies and community-based organizations—states are to develop
a new set of goals (for a new five-year plan).38
Each state is required by statute to provide to HHS its five-year plan, annual updates of the plan,
and a final progress review of the five-year plan.39 As part of this reporting, states are also
37 Section 432(a)(9).
38 Section 432(a)(2) and (5).
39 The final review of progress on the five-year plan must be made available to the public as well. Section
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
19
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
required in the law to provide to HHS on an annual basis a description of child and family
services (by service category) that will be provided under the PSSF program, including the
geographic areas and populations to be served. In addition, they must provide to HHS annual data
showing planned expenditures for child and family services by the child welfare agency; the
funds they actually spent under the Title IV-B programs (CWS and PSSF); and who was served.40
Each state must also provide in its PSSF state plan that it will participate in any evaluations that
HHS may require and that it will furnish such reports, containing such information, as HHS may
require.
HHS implemented the initial planning and reporting provisions under this part of the law via
regulations issued in November 1996. Those regulations established requirements related to the
five-year Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) and the Annual Progress and Services Review
(APSR).41 In implementing this provision, HHS sought to encourage states to plan across
programs and to reduce the number of required, discrete child welfare-related plan submissions.
Accordingly, the five-year CFSP and its annual update (the APSR) are to incorporate required
information and assurances for states seeking funds under the PSSF program, the CWS program
(discussed earlier in this report), and several other child welfare programs.42 The final regulations
have in some aspects been superseded by changes in the law, not all of which have been reflected
in changes to the regulation. However, HHS annually issues guidance to states (via a “program
instruction”) on complying with the planning and reporting requirements.43
Coordination and Administration
To the extent feasible and appropriate, states must provide for coordination of PSSF-funded
services with services or benefits provided under any other federal (or federally assisted) program
that serves the same populations. Additionally, the PSSF program must be administered by the
same state agency that administers the CWS program.44
Majority of Funds to Be Spent for Services and Other Fiscal Requirements
Each state must assure in its PSSF state plan that no more than 10% of program funds (federal
and non-federal) will be spent for program administration and, as noted above, that “significant
portions” of the remaining funds will be spent on community-based family support services,
(...continued)
432(a)(2)(C)(ii).
40 Separately, the statute, as amended by P.L. 109-288, requires HHS to compile these state reports on annual planned
and final spending, including information about those served, and to send those compiled reports to the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance.
41 Final regulations at 45 C.F.R. 1357.10, 1357.15, and 1357.16. See Federal Register, November 18, 1996, p. 58655;
and amendments at Federal Register, November 23, 2001, p. 58677.
42 The additional child welfare programs for which plan requirements or assurances must be incorporated are Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) State Grants under Section 106 of CAPTA; the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program (CFCIP) (Section 477); and Chafee Education and Training Vouchers (Section 477(i)).
43 The most recent request for a new five-year plan was issued in June 2009 (requesting plans covering FY2010-
FY2014), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2009/pi0906.htm, and the most
recent guidance on an annual update to the plan was issued April 28, 2011, and is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/pi/2011/pi1106.htm.
44 Section 432(a)(1) and (3).
Congressional Research Service
20
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
family preservation services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion
and support services.45 There is not a statutory definition of administrative costs for the PSSF
program. However, as implemented by HHS (via regulation) administrative costs do not include
planning for services, delivery of services, consultation, training, quality assurance measures, data
collection, evaluation, and supervision.46
Finally, a state must include in its PSSF plan assurances that funds provided under the program
will not be used to supplant federal or non-federal funds for services that existed prior to
establishment of the program (i.e., those that existed in state fiscal year 1992) and states are
required to document compliance with this rule.47 Finally, each state is required to provide for any
methods of program administration found necessary by HHS to allow proper and efficient
administration of the plan.
PSSF Funding Authorization and Appropriation
Total PSSF program funding was authorized at $545 million annually for FY2007-FY2010 and
was increased to $565 million for FY2011 (by P.L. 111-242). Of the FY2011 authorization, $365
million is authorized on a mandatory basis (capped entitlement to states) and $200 million is
discretionary. Both mandatory and discretionary PSSF funding authorization expires with
FY2011.
From FY1994—the first year the program was funded—through FY2001, federal law provided
for regular increases in the mandatory funding authorized. Accordingly, total PSSF program
funding rose from $60 million in FY1994 to roughly $404 million in FY2003. Amendments made
by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized
additional discretionary funding for the PSSF program but maintained the program’s previous
level of mandatory funding. Subsequently, as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
171), Congress increased the mandatory funding authorized for the program (by $40 million
annually) and the program received funding of $434 million in each of FY2006 and FY2007.
Cuts to the amount of discretionary funding provided for the PSSF program, however, reduced its
annual funding level to roughly $408 million for each of FY2008-FY2010. Most recently, for
FY2011, Congress again raised the mandatory funding authorized for the program (P.L. 111-242)
and PSSF funding rose to $428 million. (All numbers cited are nominal dollars, which means
they are not adjusted for inflation.)
The two most recent increases in mandatory funding provided to the PSSF program have been
accompanied by legislation that directed these new funds to specific purposes other than PSSF
formula grants to states for provision of child and family services. The $40 million increase
provided initially in FY2006 was directed to support specific “targeted purposes” (discussed
below) and the $20 million in additional mandatory funding authorized for FY2011 was reserved
for the Court Improvement Program. (Table D-1 in Appendix D shows the complete funding
history of the PSSF program, including funding by purpose.)
45 Section 432(b)(4),(6) and (7); and Section 434(d).
46 45 CFR 1357.32(h).
47 45 CFR 1357.32(f) specifies that for purposes of meeting this non-supplant requirement, the applicable “base” year is
state fiscal year 1992.
Congressional Research Service
21
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Reservation of Funds for Additional Purposes
Set-asides from the PSSF appropriation for purposes other than state or territorial support of child
and family services have been a part of the program from its creation. The program enacted in
1993 (renamed PSSF in 1997) required reservation of funds for (1) the Court Improvement
Program (CIP); (2) tribal child and family services; and (3) program-related evaluation, research,
and technical assistance. Funding reservations for those purposes are now in effect for any year in
which Congress appropriates PSSF funds. In addition, the Child and Family Services
Improvement Act (P.L. 109-288), required—for a limited time period (FY2007-FY2011)—that a
combined total of $40 million in PSSF funds be set aside for two additional “targeted” purposes:
supporting monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care and addressing child welfare
concerns raised by parent or caretaker abuse of methamphetamine or other substances.48 (Table
D-2 in Appendix D shows requirements for reservations of funds that are included in the statute.
Use of these reserved PSSF funds is discussed in greater detail at the end of this report.)
PSSF Funding in FY2011 by General Purpose
Of the $428 million in federal PSSF funding provided for FY2011, 81% ($348 million) is to be
distributed, by formula, to states, territories, or tribes for the provision of services to children and
families. The remaining funds are for distribution as follows: more than 7% ($32 million) for the
Court Improvement Program; a little less than 5% ($20 million) for formula grants to states to
improve monthly caseworker visits; a little less than 5% ($20 million) for competitive grants to
regional partnerships to improve outcomes for children affected by parental or caretaker abuse of
methamphetamine or other substances; and less than 2% for program-related research, evaluation,
and technical assistance activities.
Figure 5, below, shows total federal funding for PSSF by purpose for FY2011.
48 In addition, P.L. 109-288 provided (as part of freestanding language that did not amend the Social Security Act) that
$40 million in FY2006 PSSF funds (made available in late FY2006) would remain available for expenditure through
FY2009, but only for expenditures related to improving frequency and content of monthly caseworker visits.
Congressional Research Service
22
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Figure 5. FY2011 Funding for the PSSF Program by Purpose
Total FY2011 program funding = $428 million
Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Funding by purpose is based on
statutory language (included in Sections 436 and 437) specifying reservation of certain amounts for given
purposes.
Allocation of PSSF Child and Family Services Funds
After reservation of funds for other purposes—including $11.6 million for tribal child and family
services—there were $336.4 million in FY2011 PSSF funds available for formula grants to states
and territories for the provision of child and family services. As in every other year, HHS must
annually allocate those PSSF funds as follows: each state (plus the District of Columbia) is
entitled to an allotment of those funds based on its relative share of children receiving benefits
under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); each territory (American Samoa,
Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) is entitled to an
allotment based on the formula that is used under the CWS program (described above). To
receive their full allotment amounts, states must provide $1 in program funding for every $3 in
federal funds provided and they may not spend more than 10% of total program funds (federal
and non-federal) for program administration.
For FY2010, the median amount of federal PSSF funding provided to each of the 50 states and
the District of Columbia per individual under age 21 in that state (excluding tribal individuals
under age 21) was $3.68 and ranged from a low of $1.73 in Utah to a high of $6.49 in Missouri.
When all funds distributed within a state (either to state or tribal governments) were counted, the
Congressional Research Service
23
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
median annual funding per individual under age 21 (including those in tribal populations) was
$3.85 and ranged from a low of $1.75 in Utah to a high of $8.45 in Oklahoma.49 (Table D-5 in
Appendix D shows federal allotments under this program, by state, including funding by
individual under 21 and by poor child under age 18.)
Tribal Receipt of PSSF Funding
Funding for tribal child and family services is reserved from the overall PSSF appropriation
before allocation of those funds to states and territories for child and family services. The statute
provides that 3% of most mandatory PSSF funding be reserved for tribal grants in addition to 3%
of any discretionary funds provided for the program.50 For FY2010, the tribal set-aside was $11.0
million. (This amount rose to $11.6 million for FY2011 because of the increase in mandatory
funding authorized for the PSSF program.) Tribes, tribal organizations, or tribal consortia that
seek PSSF funding must submit a plan to HHS for approval. In general, they must meet the same
state plan requirements under the PSSF program that states are required to meet. However, a
tribal entity may be exempted from the requirements that (1) no less than 90% of the funds be
spent on provision of services, and (2) that “significant” portions of funding will be devoted to
each of the four named service categories if, “taking into account the resources, needs, and other
circumstances of the Indian tribe or tribal consortium,” HHS considers these requirements
inappropriate.51
HHS is required to make an allotment to each tribe or tribal consortium based on that tribal
entity’s relative share of children among all tribal entities with an approved PSSF plan.52
However, HHS may not approve a plan of a tribal entity if, based on this distribution formula, the
PSSF funds available to the tribal entity would be less than $10,000.53
For FY2010, HHS awarded PSSF funds to 121 tribal entities in 24 states.54 The median funding
to a tribal entity under the PSSF program was $38,111. Tribal entities received just under $20 for
each individual under age 21 in their population. The largest single tribal grant, $1.7 million, was
made to the Navajo Nation, which has an under-age-21 population of some 85,500 (in three
states: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah). Two tribal entities received the minimum $10,000 grant;
both entities had tribal under-age-21 populations of between 450 and 500.55
49 CRS calculations based on final PSSF allotments to states and territories for FY2010 as received from HHS, ACF,
OLAB in December 2010 and final FY2010 PSSF allotments to tribes as provided in HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-04,
issued April 4, 2011 (including tribal under-age-21 population estimates); and state under-age-21 population estimates
for 2009 as provided by the American Community Survey.
50 The 3% is applied to the mandatory funding total after reserving $40 million of those funds for targeted purposes, but
before any other set-asides are applied.
51 Section 432(b)(2)(A).
52 For purposes of distributing tribal PSSF funds, HHS has interpreted “children” to mean individuals under the age of
21. This allows it to use the same tribal population data for the PSSF program as is used in the CWS program.
53 Section 432(b)(2)(B).
54 Two of those tribal entities received grants in one state, but they also had small tribal under-age-21 populations in an
additional two states that were counted as part of the allocation process and could be served with those funds.
55 CRS calculations based on information provided in HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-04, issued April 4, 2011, PSSF
allotment amount by tribal and tribal under-age-21 population estimates.
Congressional Research Service
24
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Other Programs or Activities for Which PSSF Funds
Must Be Reserved
Support for child and family services provided, or funded, by states, tribes, and territories is the
primary purpose for which PSSF funds are appropriated and spent. However, federal law also
requires that certain PSSF funds be reserved and used for additional programs or activities. These
include grants to state highest courts under the Court Improvement Program; grants for two
targeted purposes (to improve outcomes for children affected by their parents’ abuse of
methamphetamine or other substances and to support monthly caseworker visits of children in
foster care); and research, evaluation, and technical assistance related to programs and purposes
supported by the PSSF program. Each of these programs or activities is described below.
Court Improvement Program (CIP)
The Court Improvement Program (CIP, Section 438 of the Social Security Act) entitles eligible
state highest courts to receive grants for three separate purposes:56
• Grants to assess and improve handling of child abuse and neglect cases, referred
to as “basic” grants;
• Grants to train judges and legal personnel and attorneys in handling of child
welfare cases, referred to as “training” grants; and
• Grants to improve the timeliness of court decisions regarding the safety,
permanence, and well-being of children (through collection and analysis of
relevant data), referred to as data grants.
Eligibility for CIP Grants
To be eligible for any CIP grant, a highest court must be located in a state (or other jurisdiction)
that operates a Title IV-E Foster Care and Permanency program and it must have a rule in effect
requiring courts in that state (or jurisdiction) to ensure that foster parents, pre-adoptive parents,
and relative caregivers of a child in foster care are notified of any proceedings to be held with
respect to the child.57 The highest courts in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico currently participate in the CIP.58
56 For legislative history and related programs, see CRS Report RL33350, Child Welfare: The Court
Improvement Program, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
57 Section 438(b)(1) as amended by the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-239).
58 Before FY2010, tribes were not eligible to directly operate a Title IV-E program and tribal highest courts do not now
participate in the CIP. However, the definition provided for “state” in Section 431(4) includes tribes and tribal
organizations. Therefore, any tribe or tribal organization that receives approval to operate a Title IV-E plan should be
eligible to participate in CIP. The Administration has called for a tribal court improvement program as part of its PSSF
reauthorization proposal but does not stipulate if it would limit this to tribes with an approved Title IV-E plan. See
HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, p. 366
Congressional Research Service
25
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Application Requirements
States must meet separate application requirements for each kind of CIP grant. Most states apply
for and receive funds under all three CIP grants. However, in recent years a small number of
states have occasionally applied for fewer than all three of the grants.59
In an application for any of the three CIP grant programs, eligible state highest courts must
demonstrate “meaningful and ongoing collaboration” between the courts, the state child welfare
agency,60 and Indian tribes (where applicable). Additionally, they must supply any
additional information or assurances that HHS might require.
Further, in any application for a CIP data grant, a state highest court must include a description of
how it and the child welfare agencies (on the local and state levels) jointly plan for the collection
and sharing of all relevant data and information. Separately, in an application for a CIP training
grant, a state highest court must demonstrate that at least part of the grant will be used for cross-
training initiatives jointly planned and carried out with the state child welfare agency (or an
agency under contract with the state agency).
Formula and Entitlement
Each state highest court with an approved CIP application is entitled to receive a minimum grant
of $85,000 and a portion of any of the remaining set-aside funds that is equal to the share of
individuals under 21 years of age in its state (compared to all states with an approved application
for the grant). This same formula applies to each of the three CIP grants. Thus, if a state highest
court successfully applies for all three grants, it receives three minimum allotments of $85,000 (a
total of $255,000) and a share of the remaining funds for each CIP grant based on the size of its
state’s population under 21 years of age. State highest courts must provide $1 in program funding
for every $3 in federal funding provided under the CIP. (Table E-2 in Appendix E shows funding
by kind of CIP grant and by state highest courts for FY2009 and FY2010).
Federal Funding for CIP
The 1993 legislation (P.L. 103-66) that created what is now known as the PSSF program required
that, beginning with FY1995, some of that larger program’s annual funding be reserved to
provide grants for state highest courts to assess their handling of child welfare proceedings.61 This
funding set-aside represented the total funding for the sole CIP grant (“basic” grant) authorized
for each of FY1995-FY2005.
59 According to HHS, South Carolina’s highest court did not apply for a basic grant for each of FY2008 through
FY2011; Massachusetts did not apply for a data grant in FY2008, but had done so in each succeeding fiscal year;
Maryland did not apply for a data grant in FY2010, but has done so for FY2011; Wisconsin did not apply for a data
grant in either of FY2010 or FY2011; and Hawaii did not apply for a data grant in FY2011.
60 Alternatively, the collaboration may be required with “any other agency under contract with the state child welfare
agency to administer child welfare programs authorized under the Social Security Act.”
61 The original Court Improvement Program authorization was provided as an independent piece of law within the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66). The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of
2001 (P.L. 107-133) moved that independent program authorization into the Social Security Act (by creating a new
Section 438).
Congressional Research Service
26
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
With the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171), however, Congress authorized two
additional CIP grants related to training and data collection. It also appropriated additional
funding ($20 million for each of FY2006-FY2010) for those new CIP grants. So for each of
FY2006 through FY2010, the overall CIP program (three grants) received funding that was
reserved from the PSSF program plus the additional funds provided in the DRA. FY2010 is the
last year for which funding for CIP was provided under the DRA.
Most recently, the Continuing Appropriations Act, FY2011 (P.L. 111-242) increased total
mandatory funding authorized for the PSSF program by $20 million and further provided that all
of that increase be added to the existing Court Improvement Program set-aside. This returned all
CIP funding to the PSSF program. As of FY2011, the CIP set-aside from the PSSF program is
$30 million (out of mandatory PSSF funding authorized) and 3.3% of any discretionary
appropriations provided for the PSSF. (Table E-1 in Appendix E shows total funds authorized to
be set aside for the CIP under the PSSF, as well as all federal funds appropriated for the program,
regardless of source, from FY1995, the first year of program funding, through FY2011.)
Targeted Purposes Funded with PSSF Dollars
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 109-288) authorized two new set-
asides of PSSF program funds for the following “targeted purposes:”
• Improving monthly caseworker visits with children in foster care; and
• Improving the well-being and other outcomes of children in, or at risk of
entering, foster care due to abuse of methamphetamine or other substances by
their parents or caretakers.
Funding to improve monthly caseworker visits has been provided, via formula grant, to states and
territories. Funding to improve outcomes for children affected by parental substance abuse was
provided via competitive grants to “regional partnerships” (described below). Combined funding
totaled $40 million (out of mandatory funds) for each of FY2006-FY2011. Those funds were
divided, in statute, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Mandatory PSSF Funding for Targeted Purposes
Funding is currently reserved for these purposes through FY2011
Grants to Improve Monthly
Grants to Improve Outcomes of
Fiscal
Caseworker Visits with
Children Affected by Parental Abuse of
Year
Children in Foster Care
Methamphetamine or Other Substances
2006 $40
million $0
2007 $0
$40 million
2008 $5
million $35
million
2009 $10
million $30
million
2010 $20
million $20
million
2011 $20
million $20
million
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service
27
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Grants to Regional Partnerships to Improve Outcomes for Children
Affected by Parental Substance Abuse
In a nationally representative study, caseworkers investigating allegations of abuse or neglect
noted active drug abuse by 37% of the primary caregivers from whom children were removed to
out-of-home care and active alcohol abuse among 29% of the primary caregivers from whom
children were removed.62 The percentage of children who remain in care due to issues related to
substance abuse is believed to be even larger because, among other reasons, accessing and
successfully completing treatment services is often time consuming and children may not be able
to safely return to their homes until treatment is successfully completed.63 After holding a hearing
that focused on the particular strains on child welfare agencies brought about by parental abuse of
methamphetamine, the Senate Finance Committee reported legislation titled the Improving
Outcomes for Children Affected by Meth Act of 2006.64 Grants proposed in that legislation
ultimately became one of the targeted purposes for which PSSF funding was provided by the
Child and Family Services Improvement Act (P.L. 109-288).
As enacted, the 2006 law reserved $145 million in mandatory PSSF funds across five years
(FY2007-FY2011) to support competitive grants to “regional partnerships” for services and
activities designed to improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of children who are in an
out-of-home placement or are at risk of such placement because of a parent’s or caretaker’s abuse
of methamphetamine or another substance. All of this funding is a set aside from mandatory
funding provided for the PSSF program.
Funding Awarded to 53 Regional Partnerships Operating in 29 States
HHS awarded this funding to 53 regional partnerships operating in 29 states (including six tribal
areas). Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas,
Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Most grantees did not plan a statewide program but instead
identified a county, counties, or a region that they intended to serve. A slight majority of the
counties served by the grantees (54%) are rural.65 (Table F-1 in Appendix F lists the grantees by
state, project type, and funding level.)
As required by the statute, each of these regional partnerships was established by a collaborative
agreement between two or more public or private entities. The vast majority (96%) of the regional
partnerships included more than the minimum of two partners. Public child welfare agencies
62 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, CPS
Sample Component, Wave 1 [fielded 1999-2000] Data Analysis, April 2005, pp. 4-9 – 4-10.
63 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Targeted Grants to Increase the Well-Being of, and to
Improve the Permanency Outcomes for, Children Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse: First
Annual Report to Congress, sent to Congress May 2010, pp. 1-2. (Hereafter cited as HHS, Targeted Grants: First
Annual Report, May 2010.)
64 See S.Rept. 109-269 to accompany S. 3525, which notes that the Senate Finance Committee held hearings related to
child welfare in the spring of 2006, including one entitled “The Social and Economic Effects of the Methamphetamine
Epidemic on America’s Child Welfare System,” April 25, 2006.
65 HHS, Targeted Grants: First Annual Report, May 2010. With one exception, all of the states listed are identified by
the location of the lead agency. The grantee operating in New Mexico is not headquartered in that state.
Congressional Research Service
28
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
(state, county, or tribal) were involved in each of the partnerships66 and, together with some
private child welfare service providers, served as the designated lead agency in close to half
(45%) of the regional partnerships. Public (state, county, or tribal) substance abuse prevention and
treatment agencies, together with private substance abuse treatment providers, headed 23% of the
regional partnerships and, additionally, were members of a majority of the partnerships. Other
partnership members who participated in nearly half, or more, of the 53 partnerships included
courts or judges (involved as members or as lead agencies in 59% of the partnerships) and mental
health services providers (involved as members or as lead agencies in 49% of the partnerships).
Agencies or service providers participating in roughly a third or fewer partnerships include public
state and county mental health agencies, public or private providers of education, housing
assistance, employment services or other child and family services; local law enforcement
agencies or other criminal justice entities; and university-based program evaluators, among
others.67
Activities Funded
Grantees focused on a range of strategies to improve outcomes for children (and their families)
who are affected by parental abuse of methamphetamine and other substances. Among these were
enhancements to or creation of court-based drug treatment programs; increasing timely access to
treatment services, including residential treatment and home-based services; strengthening and
expanding available services to families with substance abuse concerns or establishing new
continuums of care for these families; and improving service integration and knowledge skills
and collaboration across practice areas. (See examples of key activities in Table 4, below.)
Populations Served
Nearly all of the grantees included a response to methamphetamine abuse in their planned
activities but very few limited their focus solely to addressing effects of methamphetamine abuse.
Instead, many responded to substance abuse needs broadly, including both drug and alcohol
abuse.68
The majority of regional partnerships (73%) targeted their services and activities on children and
families who remained together in their own homes, as well as children who had been removed to
foster care (and their families); 21% focused exclusively on children who remained living in their
own homes (and their families); and 6% focused exclusively on children in out-of-home care (and
their families).69
66 The statute required that a state or tribal child welfare agency be involved in each partnership. HHS interpreted the
law to permit county agencies to meet the requirement for state agency involvement.
67 HHS, Targeted Grants: First Annual Report, May 2010.
68 In making the awards, the law required HHS to give additional weight to applications from regional partnerships
showing the negative effect of methamphetamine abuse and addiction on the child welfare system in the partnership
region.
69 HHS, Targeted Grants: First Annual Report, May 2010.
Congressional Research Service
29
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table 4. Key Program Activities of Regional Partnerships, Selected Examples
Compiled by HHS
Systems
89% are emphasizing cross-systems training on child welfare and substance abuse issues
Collaboration and
59% are implementing cross-system information sharing and data collection
Improvements
improvements
40% are developing new and/or expanding existing Family Treatment Drug Courts
Substance Abuse
77% are providing coordinated case management or integrated case planning
Treatment Linkages
74% are engaged in specific strategies to increase access to treatment
and Services
72% are focused on improved substance abuse screening and assessment
62% are providing mental health/psychiatric services
55% are providing wraparound and in-home screening and assessment
51% are implementing specialized engagement and outreach
51% are focused on providing intensive outpatient services
36% are concentrating on residential treatment
Services for Children
68% are providing developmental screenings, assessments, and services
and Youth
57% are focused on early intervention and prevention activities
55% are providing children’s mental health services and counseling
40% are providing additional therapeutic services and interventions (e.g., trauma-focused
cognitive behavioral therapy, therapeutic child care)
Support Services for
87% are ensuring families receive other essential clinical and community ancillary services
Parents and Families
(e.g., housing assistance, child care, transportation)
83% are providing parenting skills training and education
59% are implementing a specific family strengthening program or curriculum
57% are providing family counseling
77% are providing enhanced continuing care and recovery support
38% are using drug testing to help monitor treatment plan compliance
Expanded Capacity
62% are expanding the array of services provided to parents, children, and families
to Provide
Treatment and
60% are focused on increasing the number of child welfare clients served
Services to Families
28% are improving services for culturally diverse families
Source: HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Targeted Grants to Increase the Well-Being of, and to Improve
the Permanency Outcomes for, Children Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse: First Annual
Report to Congress” (sent to Congress May 2010), p. v.
Amount of Funding to Grantees
Funding to these regional partnerships was awarded under four program options based on
statutory requirements for the amount and duration of funding.70 Most grantees planned to receive
federal funds over five years (44 grantees), with the initial federal funds provided under this grant
in September 2007 and final federal funds expected in September 2011. The majority of these
70 P.L. 109-288 provided the minimum and maximum duration of these grants (no less than two years nor more than
five years) and their size (no less than $500,000 nor more than $1 million annually).
Congressional Research Service
30
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
five-year grantees planned to receive a fixed federal award of $500,000 for each of those five
years ($2.500 million to each of 35 grantees), while nine of the five-year grantees received a
declining amount in each year of the grant, with federal funding beginning at $1 million and
declining to $500,000 over five years (total award of $3.742 million to each of these grantees).
A total of nine grantees elected to receive funds over three years (final funds were expected in
September 2009).71 These grantees received a total of $1.500 million (six grantees) or $1.675
million (three grantees), depending on the program option they selected in their application.
Finally, and again as stipulated in statute, each regional partnership was required to provide no
less than 15% in non-federal matching funds in the first and second year of the award; 20% in any
third or fourth year; and 25% in the fourth or fifth year.
Measuring Outcomes and Reporting
Grantees are required to submit semi-annual reports to HHS on their activities and program
performance.72 Based on these reports, HHS in turn is required to annually report to Congress on
the services and activities provided with grant funds; program performance indicators (which the
statute required HHS, in consultation with other relevant entities, to develop);73 and progress
made in achieving the goals of the grant program. The first annual report on the grant program
was made available in May 2010 and covers the implementation of the program and its first six
months of operation.74
71 CRS assumes this is the time frame of the final funding based on description of these program options provided by
HHS.
72 The statute requires grantees to make these reports at least annually but HHS requires them semi-annually.
73 After consulting with other relevant groups, and with help of a technical assistance contractor, HHS developed a set
of data outcomes specific to this grant program. Each of the 53 grantees is required to report on one or more of 23
program indicators related to child and youth outcomes and service access; adult outcomes and service access; family
or relationship outcomes; and regional partnership collaboration and service capacity.
74 The report is available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/targeted_grants/targeted_grants.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
31
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Grants to Improve Monthly Case Worker Visits of Children in
Foster Care
Federal reviews of state performance in providing child welfare services have demonstrated that
frequent and adequate caseworker visits were associated with timely achievement of permanence
for children in care, as well as more positive outcomes related to ensuring children’s safety and
meeting the educational, physical, and mental health needs of children.75
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) committed $95 million in
mandatory PSSF funding to strengthen and improve the frequency of caseworker visits of children
in foster care. Each state and territory was allotted annual funds for this purpose through FY2011.
States were directed to place “primary emphasis on activities designed to improve caseworker
retention, recruitment, training, and ability to access the benefits of technology.”76 The 2006 law
also required states to develop standards related to the frequency and quality of caseworker visits
with children in foster care. Each state was further required to report to HHS on the percentage of
children in its foster care caseload who were visited on a monthly basis (and the percentage of those
visits that occurred where the child lives). Finally, the law required each state, in consultation with
HHS, to outline specific steps (including target percentages to be reached) to ensure that no later
than the first day of FY2012 at least 90% of the children in foster care receive a monthly visit from
their caseworker, and that most of these visits occur where the child lives. States that fail to meet
these target percentages are subject to reduced federal financial participation in the CWS program.77
(For allotment amounts by state, see Table G-1 in Appendix G.)
Children Visited Monthly
For FY2007—the first year for which these data were reported—only one state was able to report
that more than 90% of the children in its foster care caseload had been visited on a monthly basis.
Most states (31, or 60%) reported that less than half of the children in their foster care caseloads
had been visited on at least a monthly basis. Data reported by states for FY2009 (the most recent
available) show that nearly every state has improved the percentage of children visited on a
monthly basis, but that most states still have not met the 90% standard. For FY2009, five states
were able to report that 90% or more of the children in their foster care caseloads were visited on
a monthly basis and only 15 reported that less than half of the children in their care were visited
on a monthly basis.78 Across these years, most states did report that the majority of the monthly
visits that occurred took place where the child lived.
75 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Report to Congress on Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster
Care,” received January 2011. (Hereinafter, “HHS Report on Monthly Caseworker Visits.”) See also, National
Conference of State Legislators, Child Welfare Caseworker Visits with Children and Parents, September 2006,
http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/cyf/caseworkervisits.pdf.
76 Section 436(a)(4)(B).
77 Although the funding for this grant program is provided as a set-aside of PSSF funds and its basic purpose is
explained in the PSSF statute, the requirements related to development of standards for frequency and quality of
caseworker visits, reporting related data, as well as penalties for failure to make the required level of change were
included as amendments to the CWS program.
78 The law stipulates that a state is subject to reduced federal financial participation in the CWS program if it fails to
meet established monthly caseworker visit targets. Eleven jurisdictions failed to meet their target percentages in
FY2009 (although most of these showed improvement between FY2008 and FY2009). These jurisdictions were
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
32
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table 5. Frequency of Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care
Data as reported by states.
Percentage of Children in Foster Care
Who Received a Caseworker Visit on
at Least a Monthly Basis
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
less than 25%
15 states
8 states
4 states
25% but less than 50%
16 states
21 states
11 states
50% but less than 75%
16 states
16 states
19 states
75% but less than 90%
4 states
4 states
13 states
90% or more
1 state
3 states
5 states
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data included in HHS, ACF,
ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Report to Congress on Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care,”
(received January 2011) for FY2007 and FY2009 and, as included in online Child Welfare Outcomes database, for
FY2009.
Notes: For state-by-state data on frequency of caseworker visits, see Table G-2 in Appendix G.
Content of Caseworker Visits As of 2006
Even before the 2006 enactment of a federal requirement for monthly caseworker visits of
children in foster care, most states had policies in place that were consistent with this standard;
however, less than half were able to produce reports showing how frequently children were
actually visited. In further reviewing state standards for the content of caseworker visits that were
in place prior to the 2006 enactment of federal requirements for such standards, HHS noted that
all states require that the majority of caseworker visits occur in the home of the child and that the
majority of states required that any child who is verbal have an opportunity to speak with a
caseworker privately during a visit. States also encouraged caseworkers to make impromptu visits
to children in care, particularly those in new placement settings and to increase the frequency of
visits based on specific needs of a child and family.79
Further, in describing the content of caseworker visits, the large majority of states mentioned
ensuring a child’s safety and well-being and discussing issues pertinent to case planning and
achieving permanency goals. HHS also notes that the majority of states mentioned addressing the
child’s educational needs as well as his or her physical, emotional, and behavioral health. Finally,
(...continued)
required to provide a greater portion of non-federal funds to receive their full FY2010 allotment of CWS funds. As
stipulated in the law these penalties reduced federal financial participation for the CWS program from the regular 75%
to the following percentages—74% for the six states that failed to meet their target percentage by less than 10
percentage points (Arizona, Connecticut, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oregon, and Rhode Island); 72% for the two states
that failed to meet their target percentage by between 10 and 20 percentage points (Arkansas and Massachusetts); and
70% for the three jurisdictions that failed to meet their target percentage by 20 percentage points or more (Maryland,
Puerto Rico, and Vermont)
79 HHS Report on Monthly Caseworker Visits.
Congressional Research Service
33
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
some states required that additional content areas be addressed with youth who are emancipating
from care, including transition plans, and permanent connections to adults.80
Efforts to Improve Frequency and Content of Caseworker Visits
When states provided the initial data on the frequency of caseworker visits to children in foster
care, the “overwhelming majority” of states raised concerns about documentation of those visits.
As a result, states have worked to improve practice in this area. For most states, this meant
making changes to their child welfare information management systems to aid collection of these
data. Some states reported establishing remote and wireless connectivity to these information
systems and/or purchasing laptops to allow caseworkers to input data while in the field. Others
expanded data fields to allow workers to more accurately describe their visits with children in
foster care. Additionally, many states provided training to staff on proper data entry related to
caseworker visits.81
As part of working to align state policy with the new federal requirements, states also established
working groups to review challenges and address barriers to adequate visits. Among the strategies
employed by certain states were retention incentives for caseworkers; training on visitation
policies and State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) enhancements for
easier data collection and more accurate data reporting (Kansas); permitting caseworkers to
establish alternative work schedules and to use overtime to meet the caseworker visit
requirements (District of Columbia and West Virginia); developing a chart that specified required
frequency of contact and who was responsible for that contact (Delaware and Georgia); enhanced
supervisory training and supports (Mississippi); and implementing a one family/one worker
policy to improve continuity of service and foster trust and engagement between caseworker and
family.82
Research, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance Funding
HHS is required to annually reserve some PSSF funds to support evaluation of service programs
funded through PSSF, and any other program designed to achieve the same purposes as the
program. Further, to the extent funds are available for this purpose, HHS is specifically required
to provide technical assistance to help states and Indian tribes or tribal consortia to (1) better
identify and serve at-risk families in ways that improve outcomes for those families; and (2)
ensure that the individual needs of adoptive families are met and that fewer adoption placements
are ended (for example, because of a disruption in the plan to finalize the adoption or a
dissolution of an already-finalized adoption).83
The total annual set-aside authorized for this purpose is $6 million in mandatory PSSF funds plus
3.3% of any discretionary funds appropriated for the program. In recent years, the research set-
aside has totaled about $8 million annually.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 For each of FY2007 through FY2011, Congress further directed HHS to use a part of this set-aside to fund research,
evaluation, and technical assistance specific to the targeted purposes for which PSSF funding is provided.
Congressional Research Service
34
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Use of Funds
In recent years, this funding has been used primarily to support the Children’s Bureau training and
technical assistance network. The network consists of 13 resource centers; five quality improvement
centers; five regional policy implementation centers; and seven information, training, and technical
assistance centers. Most of these are funded solely by the Children’s Bureau, although some operate
with interagency support. The work of individual members of the network varies by topic and/or
purpose and by the scope of work defined in their contract or cooperative agreement.84
Entities or projects that receive a portion of their funding from this PSSF set-aside include five of
the national resource centers (the National Resource Center on Organizational Improvement; the
National Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues; the National Resource Center on
Permanency and Family Connections; the National Resource Center on Youth Development; and
the National Resource Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare) and one information
clearinghouse (the Child Welfare Information Gateway). In addition, the funds have supported
evaluation and coordination of work done by the regional implementation centers. Further, and
separate from this training and technical assistance network, the PSSF research set-aside has been
used to fund some discretionary grant projects, including demonstration grants supporting and
evaluating collaborations between and TANF and child welfare agencies to improve child welfare
outcomes.85
Report to Congress
HHS is required to report to Congress every two years on the effectiveness of the PSSF programs. The
report is to discuss any technical assistance provided and, with regard to program evaluations, include
funding level, status of any ongoing evaluations, and findings to date. As of the end of May 2011, the
most recent report had been submitted to Congress in March 2008 (and covered activities funded in
FY2005 and FY2006).
84 For an overview of this network and to read about their specific work, see Children's Bureau Training and Technical
Assistance Network (2010), and links to each of the supported entities and projects at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/tta/.
85 CRS communication with HHS, Office of Assistant Secretary of Legislation.
Congressional Research Service
35
Appendix A. Services or Activities that May Be Supported Under Title IV-B
Table A-1. Description of Selected Categories of Services Used for Reporting Expenditures Under Title IV-B
CWS funds may be spent in any of the categories shown in the table. Categories specific to the PSSF programs are indicated with an * after their names. Not
all categories are discrete, thus states may vary in what category they choose to report a given service provided.
Category
Aim
Target Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
PREVENTION
Promote the safety and well-being of
Any family with children.
Community-based services that include
AND SUPPORT
children and families.
• respite care for parents and other caregivers;
SERVICES*
(Family Support)
Increase the strength and stability of
a
•
families (including adoptive, foster,
early developmental screening of children to assess the needs of these
children and assistance in obtaining specific services to meet their needs;
and extended families).
Increase parents’ competence and
• mentoring, tutoring, and health education for youth;
confidence in their parenting abilities.
• a range of center-based activities (informal interactions in drop-in centers,
Afford children a safe, stable, and
parent support groups);
supportive family environment.
• services designed to increase parenting skills; and
Enhance child development.
• counseling and home visiting.
PROTECTIVE
Prevent or remedy the abuse,
Families for whom an
Services include
SERVICES
neglect, or exploitation of children.
investigation of child abuse
• investigation and emergency medical services;
or neglect is found
necessary.
• emergency shelter;
Children in foster care and
• legal action;
their families.
• developing case plans;
• counseling;
• assessment/evaluation of family circumstances;
• arranging alternative living arrangements;
• preparing for foster care placement, if needed; and
• case management and referral to service providers.
CRS-36
Category
Aim
Target Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
CRISIS
Prevent the unnecessary removal of
Biological, extended, and
Pre-placement prevention includes
INTERVENTION*
children from their families.
adoptive families with
• intensive family preservation services;
(Family
children who are at risk of
Preservation)
Help children in foster care—as
b
being placed in foster care.
•
appropriate—to be reunited with
post-adoptive support services;
families from which they have been
Children in foster care and
• case management;
removed or to be placed for
their families.
adoption or legal guardianship.
• counseling;
• day care;
• respite services;
• homemaker services;
• services designed to increase parenting skills with respect to family
budgeting, coping with stress, and health and nutrition.
Reunification services include
• day care;
• homemaker or caretaker services;
• family or individual counseling for parent(s) and child;
• follow-up care for families to whom a child has been returned after
placement; and
• other reunification services the state identifies as necessary.
TIME-LIMITED
Permit timely reunification of
Children in foster care for
Services include
FAMILY
children removed from their homes. no more than 17 monthsc
• individual, group, and family counseling;
REUNIFICATION
and their parents or primary
SERVICES*
caregivers.
• inpatient, residential, or outpatient substance abuse treatment services;
• mental health services;
• assistance to address domestic violence;
• temporary child care and therapeutic services for families, including crisis
nurseries; and
• transportation to or from any of these services and activities.
CRS-37
Category
Aim
Target Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
ADOPTION
Encourage more adoptions out of
Children in foster care;
Services include
PROMOTION
the foster care system, when such
prospective adoptive parents; • pre- and post-adoptive services;
AND SUPPORT*
adoptions promote the best interests adoptive parents and their
of children.
adopted children.
• activities to expedite the adoption process; and
• activities to support adoptive families.
FOSTER CARE
Provide income for support of
Children in foster care.
Payments to cover cost of the following items, including the cost of providing
MAINTENANCE
children and youth in foster care.
them
PAYMENTS
• food, clothing, shelter, and daily supervision;
(States are
• school supplies;
restricted in the
amount of CWS
• a child’s personal incidentals;
funds they may use
• liability insurance with respect to a child;
for this purpose.)
• reasonable travel to allow the child to remain in school where he or she
was enrolled at time of placement; and
• reasonable travel to allow visits to the child’s home.
For children in group or institutional placement settings, “reasonable costs of
administration of the institution or group home” is also included.
ADOPTION
Enable adoptions for children who
Children who have special
One-time payment to adoptive parents to cover non-recurring costs of finalizing
SUBSIDY
have special needs.d
needs (primarily, children
an adoption.
PAYMENTS
who are adopted from foster
care).
Recurring payments to adoptive parents to assist in the support of children with
(States are
special needs.
restricted in the
amount of CWS
funds they may use
for this purpose.)
FOSTER or
Increase number and quality of foster Prospective foster and
Cost of activities related to recruiting potential foster or adoptive parents and
ADOPTIVE
and adoptive homes available.
adoptive parents and
costs of providing short-term training to increase ability of foster or adoptive
PARENTS
individuals who are already
parents to provide assistance and support to foster and adoptive children.
TRAINING and
foster or adoptive parents.
RECRUITMENTe
STAFF and
Increase ability of staff and external
Public agency staff and other
Cost of short- and long-term training to increase the ability of staff, and external
EXTERNAL
partners to provide assistance to
individuals working with the
partner to provide assistance and support to children and families.
PARTNER
children and families.
public agency.
TRAINING
CRS-38
Category
Aim
Target Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
OTHER SERVICE-
Improved planning, coordination, and Not applicable.
Activities include
RELATED
delivery of services to children and
• planning;
ACTIVITIES*
families.
• services coordination;
• preparation for or follow-up to service delivery (e.g., recording progress
notes); and
• other activities supporting delivery of services under the program (but
excluding direct services or administration).
ADMINISTRATIVE
Administer program
Not applicable
Under both CWS and PSSF, includes procurement, payroll processing, personnel
COSTS* f
functions, management, maintenance and operation of space and property, data
processing and computer services, accounting, budgeting, and auditing.
Under CWS, also includes travel expenses, except that it excludes travel expenses
related to provision of services by caseworkers or the oversight of CWS funded
programs. Further, the reference to “personnel functions” excludes costs related
to provision of services by caseworkers or the oversight of programs funded
under the CWS.f
Under PSSF, also includes indirect costs allocable in accordance with the
agency’s approved cost al ocation plan.f
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), ACYF-CB-PI-11-06, issued April 28, 2011, Attachment B, CFS-101, Part II: “Annual Estimated Expenditure Summary of Child and Family Services
Instructions.” These appear largely identical to instructions issued in June 2009, which was the guidance available to states when they filled out planned expenditures
discussed in the report.
Note: Other categories described in the guidance but not described in this table are Guardianship Assistance Payments, Independent Living Services, and Education and
Training Vouchers.
a. Although not explicitly stated in the guidance, states are also permitted to spend “family support” funds “to strengthen parental relationships and promote healthy
marriages.” See Section 431(2), which provides a statutory definition of “family support services “ for purposes of the PSSF program.
b. “Family preservation services” are defined in statute for purposes of the PSSF program (Section 431(1)). The statutory definition does not divide services by pre-
placement and reunification, but this is the way in which they are presented in guidance to states. In addition to those given in the guidance, and shown in the table
above, the statutory definition includes “child development” as one of the topics related to parenting skills training (Section 431(1)(E)). Final y, although this is not
shown in the guidance (or in the table above), the statute permits states to spend funds under this category for “infant safe 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” (Section 431(1)(F).
c. Seventeen months is a maximum time frame; for some children the time frame may be as short as 15 months. Section 431(7) stipulates that these services may be
made “during the 15-month period that begins on the date a child is considered to have entered foster care pursuant to Section 475(5)(F).” Under Section 475(5)(F) of
the law, a child is considered to have entered foster care on the earlier of (1) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or
neglect; or (2) 60 days after the child is removed from his/her home.
CRS-39
d. “Special needs” in the context of children adopted with public child welfare agency involvement general y means that a state has determined that the child is unlikely to
be successfully placed for adoption without provision of adoption subsidy (and medical assistance) and that the child has a factor or condition (e.g., child is older, part
of a large sibling group, or has a mental or emotional disability) that makes this the case. States are permitted to define these special needs factors or conditions. See
Section 474(3)(c).
e. Although shown as one category in this table, states are asked to report separately on funds used for training and recruitment of foster parents and funds used for
training and recruitment of adoptive parents.
f.
For the statutory definition of CWS administrative costs, see Section 422(c)(1). For the regulatory definition of PSSF administrative costs, see 45 C.F.R. 1357.32(h).
CRS-40
Appendix B. Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) Funding:
Planned Use of Funds and Allotments
Table B-1. Planned Use of Federal CWS Funding for FY2010 by State and Service Category
Dollars shown in thousands. An empty cell indicates the state reported $0 dol ars spent for the category or that it left that cell blank on the reporting form.
Foster or
Adoptive
Staff or
Time-
Adoption
Foster Care
Parent
External Admin-
Protective
Family
Family
Limited
Promotion Adoption Maintenance Recruitment Partner istrative
All
TOTAL
Services
Support Preservation Reunification and Support Subsidy
Payment
and Training Training
Costs
Other
Alabama $4,829
$1,766
$1,400
$1,201
$35
$40
$387
Alaska $294
$29
$235
$29
Arizona $5,944
$5,349
$594
Arkansas $3,154
$788
$719
$473
$479
$378
$317
California $32,523
$20,343
$12,180
Coloradoa $3,650
$3,500
$150
Connecticut $2,419 $48 $121 $121 $48 $1,984
$97
Delaware $802
$564
$184
$54
Dist. of Col.
$327
$109
$109
$109
Florida $15,348
$4,365
$8,926
$1,654
$403
Georgia $9,797
$3,483
$1,729
$2,468
$549
$1,486
$82
Hawai $1,157
$1,157
Idaho $1,749
$1,430
$318
Illinois $11,109
$11,109
Indiana $6,331
$3,595
$835
$13
$634
Iowab $2,461
$192
$491
$128
$207
$11
$162
$1,092
$15
$52
$39
$72
Kansas $2,783
$423
$1,825
$535
Kentucky $4,297
$2,815
$1,052
$430
CRS-41
Foster or
Adoptive
Staff or
Time-
Adoption
Foster Care
Parent
External Admin-
Protective
Family
Family
Limited
Promotion Adoption Maintenance Recruitment Partner istrative
All
TOTAL
Services
Support Preservation Reunification and Support Subsidy
Payment
and Training Training
Costs
Other
Louisiana $4,727
$2,067
$886
$1,301
$473
Maine $1,176
$212
$50
$296
$200
$100
$118
$200
Maryland $4,303
$1,549
$2,754
Massachusetts $4,182 $3,772
$410
Michigan $9,117
$35
$2,607
$1,326
$2,831
$2,169
$149
Minnesota $4,301
$2,454
$318 $850
$256
$423
Mississippi $3,522
$1,372
$422 $424
$141
$809
$352
Missouri $5,660
$0
$3,113
$2,094
$453
Montana $713
$713
Nebraska $1,752
$197
$197
$1,183
$175
Nevada $2,399
$540
$540
$540
$540
$240
New Hampshire
$1,076
$20
$100
$45
$95
$125
$425
$266
New Jersey
$5,772
$2,373
$2,373
$449
$577
New Mexico
$1,664
$439
$91
$295
$8
$129
$455
$42
$20
$166
$19
New York
$14,344
$13,344
$1,000
North Carolina
$8,878
$1,343
$3,509
$214
$1,590
$399
$1,094
$682
$47
North Dakota
$570
$218
$57
$295
Ohioc $10,678
$6,035
$10
$225
$3,340
$1,068
Oklahoma $1,762
$359
$487
$400 $340
$176
Oregon $3,335
$1,000
$1,001
$1,001
$333
Pennsylvania $10,495
$356 $293
$568
$2,773 $5,456
$1,050
Puerto Rico
$4,931
$2,465
$740
$740
$247
$493
$247
Rhode Island
$954
$247
$242
$405
$15
$45
CRS-42
Foster or
Adoptive
Staff or
Time-
Adoption
Foster Care
Parent
External Admin-
Protective
Family
Family
Limited
Promotion Adoption Maintenance Recruitment Partner istrative
All
TOTAL
Services
Support Preservation Reunification and Support Subsidy
Payment
and Training Training
Costs
Other
South Carolina
$4,604
$588
$206
$588
$1,177
$89
$951
$251
$460
$294
South Dakotad $569 $123
$126
$203
$61
$51
Tennessee $5,920
$2,712
$2,616
$592
Texas $25,294
$18,596
$806
$122
$3,231
$386
$0
$2,154
Utah $3,495
$981
$208
$18
$1,876
$62
$350
Vermont $590
$590
Virginia $6,412
$5,771
$641
Washington $5,468
$2,734
$1,641 $1,094
West Virginia
$1,823
$1,640
$182
Wisconsine $4,920
$1,150
$736
$1,769
$1,036
$229
Wyoming $467
$25
$270
$100
$25
$47
TOTAL $274,847
$112,876
$26,923 $42,522 $25,277 $8,210
$7,945 $24,150 $6,109
$4,952
$12,251
$3,638
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state data included on CFS-101, Part II (prepared by states 2009; gathered and sent to
Congress by HHS, July 2010) .
Note: Data are as reported by states. However, some were difficult to read or contained apparent inconsistencies. CRS attempted to reconcile the state’s overall
expected spending of FY2010 dol ars, given on CFS-101, Part 1 with the state’s total estimated spending shown on Part II of that form. Further, it sought to reconcile the
sum of a state’s estimated spending by category with its total reported estimated spending for the program. The table notes below indicate some assumptions made in state
where this proved especially difficult. However, data in additional states were difficult to read and the numbers (as translated by CRS) should be understood as
approximate.
a. Colorado requested $4.019 million in FY2010 funding for the CWS program on its CFS-101, Part 1. However, data included in Part II of that form, and as included in
the table above, only indicated how the state intended to spend $3.650 million. (The state did indicate “unk” under the spending category for “guardianship payments”
on Part II of its CFS-101 form.) Further, the “total” estimated spending under CWS was listed as “$150,000.” CRS assumed this to be an error. For the table above, it
excluded that “total” and instead summed the larger subtotals the state reported.
b. Iowa requested $2.955 million in FY2010 funding for the CWS program on its CFS-101, Part 1. However, data included in Part II of that form indicated how the state
intended to spend “246,125” in funds. This was interpreted by CRS as a number reported in the tens. (Thus, total funds al ocated by spending category would be
$2.461 million, as shown in the table above.) However, all the other columns of data reported by Iowa, and as shown in Part II of the form, appear to report
information in thousands.
CRS-43
c. Ohio indicates on its CFS-101, Part II that estimated spending included in the “Protective Services” column includes funding the state intends to spend for family
support services.
d. In Part I of its CFS-101 form, South Dakota requested about $604,000 in FY2010 funding for the CWS program, of which it indicated roughly 10% would be spent on
program administration. However, data included in Part II of that form reported total estimated spending of $564,000, indicated how the state intended to spend only
$513,000, and did not show any funds in the administrative costs. CRS assumed 10% in administrative costs ($51,000), which then brought the state’s total estimated
federal spending under the program to $564,000.
e. Wisconsin requested $4.923 million in FY2010 funding for the CWS program on its CFS-101, Part 1; this is also the total estimated amount of spending it reported for
this program in the total column in Part II of the form. The number shown above is slightly less ($3,000), however, because this was the sum of estimated spending
reported by category (and as read by CRS). As with many other states, some of these data were blurry and difficult to read, however, and this could explain the slight
difference.
CRS-44
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table B-2. FY2010 Funding Under the CWS Program,
by State and per Certain Individuals
Total funding to state, tribes, and territories = $281,744, 000
Allotment Amounts
Funding per Individual
Funding per
(dollars in thousands)
under Age 21
Poor Child
(States and
STATE
States Only Tribes States and
States Onlyd
States and
Tribes)a
Onlyb
Tribesc
Tribese
Alabama $4,716
$6
$4,722
$3.55
$3.55
$17.18
Alaska $242
$459
$702
$1.42
$3.25
$30.35
Arizona $5,997
$858
$6,855
$3.15
$3.45
$17.22
Arkansas $3,070
$0
$3,070
$3.70
$3.70
$16.23
California $32,880
$33
$32,913
$2.98
$2.98
$17.82
Colorado $4,136
$0
$4,136
$2.88
$2.88
$19.65
Connecticut $2,254
$0
$2,254
$2.33
$2.33
$23.27
Delaware $809
$0
$809
$3.30
$3.30
$24.15
District of Columbia
$351
$0
$351
$2.39
$2.39
$10.60
Florida $15,160
$0
$15,160
$3.18
$3.18
$17.80
Georgia $9,777
$0
$9,777
$3.25
$3.25
$17.20
Hawai $1,152
$0
$1,152
$3.39
$3.39
$29.36
Idaho $1,727
$31
$1,758
$3.55
$3.60
$23.44
Illinois $11,232
$0
$11,232
$3.00
$3.00
$18.99
Indiana $6,253
$2
$6,255
$3.33
$3.33
$20.11
Iowa $2,921
$0
$2,921
$3.41
$3.41
$26.69
Kansas $2,760
$11
$2,771
$3.31
$3.32
$22.83
Kentucky $4,212
$0
$4,212
$3.54
$3.54
$16.49
Louisiana $4,711
$13
$4,724
$3.56
$3.57
$17.62
Maine $1,145
$17
$1,162
$3.54
$3.57
$25.71
Maryland $4,396
$0
$4,396
$2.76
$2.76
$28.54
Massachusetts $4,423
$3
$4,426
$2.54
$2.55
$23.84
Michigan $8,910
$184
$9,094
$3.21
$3.25
$17.49
Minnesota $4,326
$91
$4,417
$2.92
$2.97
$25.39
Mississippi $3,416
$45
$3,461
$3.79
$3.82
$14.88
Missouri $5,564
$11
$5,575
$3.30
$3.31
$19.16
Montana $693
$304
$997
$2.93
$3.79
$21.48
Nebraska $1,731
$45
$1,776
$3.25
$3.31
$26.77
Nevada $2,425
$2
$2,427
$3.13
$3.14
$20.61
New Hampshire
$1,078
$0
$1,078
$3.08
$3.08
$35.23
New Jersey
$6,049
$0
$6,049
$2.55
$2.55
$22.18
New Mexico
$1,601
$598
$2,199
$2.95
$3.68
$17.17
New York
$14,764
$0
$14,764
$2.80
$2.80
$17.00
North Carolina
$8,877
$49
$8,926
$3.31
$3.32
$17.68
North Dakota
$550
$129
$678
$3.23
$3.74
$37.38
Ohio $10,529
$0
$10,529
$3.29
$3.29
$18.02
Congressional Research Service
45
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Allotment Amounts
Funding per Individual
Funding per
(dollars in thousands)
under Age 21
Poor Child
(States and
STATE
States Only Tribes States and
States Onlyd
States and
Tribes)a
Onlyb
Tribesc
Tribese
Oklahoma $1,496
$2,284
$3,779
$1.73
$3.50
$18.84
Oregon $3,301
$84
$3,385
$3.24
$3.30
$20.60
Pennsylvania $10,428
$0
$10,428
$3.12
$3.12
$22.35
Rhode Island
$943
$10
$953
$3.36
$3.38
$25.25
South Carolina
$4,523
$11
$4,534
$3.53
$3.53
$17.48
South Dakota
$501
$357
$858
$2.44
$3.61
$24.18
Tennessee $5,855
$0
$5,855
$3.36
$3.36
$16.74
Texas $25,427
$19
$25,446
$3.19
$3.19
$15.32
Utah $3,528
$52
$3,580
$3.53
$3.56
$34.10
Vermont $580
$0
$580
$3.66
$3.66
$35.19
Virginia $6,490
$0
$6,490
$2.95
$2.95
$25.65
Washington $5,354
$120
$5,474
$2.94
$2.98
$21.82
West Virginia
$1,748
$0
$1,748
$3.79
$3.79
$19.73
Wisconsin $4,882
$167
$5,049
$3.14
$3.22
$23.55
Wyoming $476
$63
$539
$3.16
$3.44
$33.73
TOTAL
$270,371
$6,059
$276,429
MEDIAN
$3.21
$3.31
$20.61
AVERAGE
$3.12
$3.27
$20.16
American Samoa
$178
Guam $305
Northern Marianas
$149
Puerto Rico
$4,467
Virgin Islands
$216
Territories subtotal
$5,315
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Final allotment amounts by state and
territory as provided by HHS, ACF, ACYF, OLAB to CRS in December 2010. Funding to tribes (by state) is as
indicated in HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-04, issued March 23, 2011.
a. Number equals funding to state and tribal entity in the state divided by number of poor children (those
under the age of 18) in the state, based on CRS analysis of 2009 American Community Survey data.
b. Funding amount represents al funding distributed to a tribal entity and tied to the tribal entity’s population
in that state. If a tribe had an under-age-21 population living in more than one state, then funds to that tribe,
as shown in this table, would be divided among those states based on that population size in each state. A
$0 indicates there was no tribal population in the state for which CWS funds were provided. For grant
amounts by individual tribal entity, see HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-04, issued March 23, 2011.
c. Represents al funds distributed in the state (based on under-age-21 population in the state) whether the
funds were al ocated to a state government or to a tribal government or entity.
d. Numbers in this column represent funding to the state only, divided by the under-age 21-population in the
state (based on U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Table T8 – 2009) minus the under-age-
21 tribal population in that state (based on HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-04).
e. Numbers in this column represent funding to state and tribal entities in the state divided by total under-age-
21 population in the state (based on U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Table T8 – 2009).
Congressional Research Service
46
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Appendix C. Title IV-B Funding to States, Tribes,
and Territories for Child and Family Services
Table C-1. Title IV-B Funding for Services in Nominal Dollars, FY1990-FY2011
Dollars in millions; NA = Not Authorized
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Promoting Safe and
Child Welfare Services
Stable Families
(Subpart 1)
(Subpart 2)
Fiscal Year
all fundsa
service funds onlyb TOTAL
1990 $253
NA
$253
1991 $274
NA
$274
1992 $274
NA
$274
1993 $295
NA
$295
1994 $295
$58
$353
1995 $292 $139
$431
1996 $277 $209
$486
1997 $292 $224
$516
1998 $292 $239
$531
1999 $292 $259
$551
2000 $292 $279
$571
2001 $292 $289
$581
2002 $292 $354
$646
2003 $290 $382
$672
2004 $289 $382
$671
2005 $290 $381
$671
2006 $287 $372
$659
2007 $287 $372
$659
2008 $282 $348
$630
2009 $282 $348
$630
2010 $282 $348
$630
2011 $281 $348
$629
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. Funding shown for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program includes the program’s ful
appropriation amount that is distributed to a single public child welfare agency in each eligible state,
territory, or tribe.
b. Funding shown for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program includes only the funds appropriated under
that program that were distributed to states, territories, or tribes for support of one or more of the four service
categories that are the primary purpose of the program. This excludes funding appropriated under this program
and reserved for (1) state highest courts via the Court Improvement Program; (2) HHS to support
Research, Evaluation, Training and Technical Assistance; (3) grants to regional partnerships to improve the
outcomes of children affected by parental substance abuse; and (4) grants to states and territories for
monthly caseworker visits.
Congressional Research Service
47
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table C-2. Title IV-B Funding for Services in Constant (FY2010) Dollars
Dollars in millions; NA = Not Authorized
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Promoting Safe and
Child Welfare Services
Stable Families
(Subpart 1)
(Subpart 2)
Fiscal Year
all fundsa
service funds onlyb
TOTAL
1990 $427
NA
$427
1991 $440
NA
$440
1992 $428
NA
$428
1993 $446
NA
$446
1994 $435
$86
$521
1995 $419 $200
$619
1996 $387 $292
$679
1997 $397 $305
$702
1998 $391 $320
$711
1999 $383 $340
$724
2000 $372 $355
$727
2001 $360 $356
$716
2002 $355 $431
$785
2003 $344 $453
$798
2004 $336 $443
$779
2005 $325 $428
$753
2006 $311 $403
$714
2007 $304 $394
$698
2008 $286 $353
$638
2009 $286 $354
$640
2010 $282 $348
$630
2011 $277 $343
$619
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Dollars were adjusted for inflation using
the CPI-U for FY1990-FY2010. The FY2011 sum is calculated using the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
assumption of 1.6% annual inflation.
a. Inflation-adjusted funding amount shown for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
includes the program’s full appropriation amount that is distributed to a single public child welfare agency in
each eligible state, territory, or tribe.
b. Inflation-adjusted funding shown for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program includes only the funds
appropriated under that program that were distributed to a single public child welfare agency in each eligible state,
territory, or tribal entity for support of one or more of the four service categories that are the primary purpose of the
program. This excludes funding appropriated under the PSSF program and reserved for (1) state highest
courts via the Court Improvement Program; (2) HHS to support Research, Evaluation, Training and
Technical Assistance; (3) grants to regional partnerships to improve the outcomes of children affected by
parental substance abuse; and (4) grants to states and territories for monthly caseworker visits.
Congressional Research Service
48
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Appendix D. Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program (PSSF): Funding History, Funding
Reservations, Use of Funds, and Allotments
Table D-1. Funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
Nominal dollars in millions; NA = Not Authorized
Funding Provided by Entity and Purposeb
State
Regional
Appropriation by Kind of
Highest
Partner- States and Indian States and
Authoritya
Courtsc
HHS
ships
Territories Tribes Territories
Fiscal TOTAL
Court
Research &
“Meth"
Caseworker
Child and Family
Year Approp. Mandatory Discretionary Improvement
Evaluation
Grants
Visits
Services
1994 $60.0 $60.0
NA
NA
$2.0
NA
NA $0.6
$57.4
1995 150.0 150.0
NA
$5.0
6.0
NA
NA 1.5
137.5
1996 225.0 225.0
NA
10.0
6.0
NA
NA 2.3
206.8
1997 240.0 240.0
NA
10.0
6.0
NA
NA 2.4
221.6
1998 255.0 255.0
NA
10.0
6.0
NA
NA 2.6
236.5
1999 275.0 275.0
NA
10.0
6.0
NA
NA 2.8
256.3
2000 295.0 295.0
NA
10.0
6.0
NA
NA 3.0
276.1
2001 305.0 305.0
NA
10.0
6.0
NA
NA 3.1
286.0
2002 375.0 305.0
70.0
12.3
8.3
NA
NA 4.4
349.9
2003 404.4 305.0
99.4
13.3
9.3
NA
NA 5.0
376.8
2004 404.4 305.0
99.4
13.3
9.3
NA
NA 5.0
376.8
2005 403.6 305.0
98.6
13.3
9.3
NA
NA 5.0
376.1
2006 434.0 345.0
89.0
12.9
8.9
NA $40.0 4.8
367.3
2007 434.1 345.0
89.1
12.9
8.9
$40.0
0.0 11.8
372.2
2008 408.3 345.0
63.3
12.1
8.1
35.0
5.0 11.0
337.1
2009 408.3 345.0
63.3
12.1
8.1
30.0 10.0 11.0
337.1
2010 408.3 345.0
63.3
12.1
8.1
20.0 20.0 11.0
337.1
2011 428.2 365.0
63.2
32.1
8.1
20.0 20.0 11.6
336.4
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The amount of funding provided under mandatory authority is the same as the mandatory authorization provided in
statute for each of the given years. Annual discretionary funding authority of $200 million has been included in the act
for every year beginning with FY2002. Mandatory and discretionary funding authority expire with FY2011.
b. The amount of funding provided for each purpose was calculated by CRS based on total appropriation made in a
given fiscal year and the statutory language regarding reservation of funds for that fiscal year.
c. Funding shown in this column reflects only those dol ars reserved for the Court Improvement Program (CIP) out
of the PSSF program. For each of FY2006-FY2010, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) appropriated
an additional $20 million for CIP. See Table E-1, in Appendix E, for total CIP funding in each year.
Congressional Research Service
49
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table D-2. PSSF Annual Funding Authorization and Distribution, FY2011
All sums rounded to nearest million; columns may not sum to final total because of rounding
Purpose
Entity
(Permanent set-
Mandatory
Discretionary
Total Funds
Total Funds
Receiving
aside authority or
Funds
Funds
Authorized
Appropriated
Funds
expiration )
Authorized
Authorized
(for FY2011)
(FY2011)
HHS Program-related
$6 million
3.3% of any
$13 million
$8 million
training, technical
discretionary
assistance, and
funds provided
evaluation (permanent)
State highest
Court Improvement
$30 million
3.3% of any
$37 million
$32 million
courts
Program (CIP)
discretionary
(permanent)
funds provided
States and
Grants to improve
$20 million
No discretionary
$20 million
$20 million
territories
monthly caseworker
funds reserved
visits (FY2011)
Regional
Grants to improve the $20 million
No discretionary
$20 million
$20 million
Partnerships
well-being of children in,
funds reserved
or at risk of entering,
foster care because of
parent /caretaker
methamphetamine
abuse or abuse of
another substance
(FY2011)
Tribal entities Child and family
3.0% of al
3.0% of any
$16 million
$12 million
services
mandatory funds
discretionary
(permanent)
except those for
funds provided
regional partner-
ships and monthly
caseworker visits.a
States and
Child and family
Remaining funds
Remaining funds $460 million
$336 million
territories
services
TOTAL
All purposes
$365 million
$200 million
$565 million
$428 million
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on statutory requirements for
reservation of PSSF funds included in Sections 436 and 437 of the Social Security Act and funding provided for
FY2011 by P.L. 112-10.
a. The statute provides that the 3% set-aside of mandatory funds for tribes must happen after the reservation
of funds for targeted purposes but before al other PSSF reservations of mandatory funds. For FY2011, the
amount of mandatory PSSF funding to be reserved for tribes is $9.75 million. That amount is $600,000
above the amount of mandatory PSSF funds HHS was required to reserve for tribes in FY2010. The increase
in the tribal set-aside is due to the $20 million increase provided for the overall program authorization (all
of which is reserved for the Court Improvement Program).
Congressional Research Service
50
Table D-3. State Use of Federal PSSF Child and Family Services Funding for FY2007 by Service Category
Dollars shown in thousands. An empty cell indicates the state reported $0 dol ars spent for the category or that it left that cell blank on the reporting form.
Time-Limited
Adoption
Family
Family
Promotion and
Other Service-
Administrative
STATE TOTAL
Family
Support
Preservation
Reunification
Support
Related
Costs
Alabamaa
$7,549
$2,645 35%
$2,216
29%
$2,114
28%
$575
8%
Alaska
$801
$174 22%
$249 31%
$160 20%
$170 21%
$48 6%
Arizona
$8,472 $1,974 23%
$2,371 28%
$1,700 20% $1,260 15% $606 7% $561 7%
Arkansasb $5,029
$1,487
30%
$2,023
40%
$787
16%
$230
5%
$503
10%
California $37,397
$11,765
31%
$9,131
24%
$6,875
18%
$8,234
22%
$1,392
4%
Colorado
$2,696
$631 23%
$631 23%
$631 23%
$631 23% $39 1% $132 5%
Connecticut
$2,561
$640 25%
$512 20%
$640 25%
$538 21% $154 6%
$77 3%
Delaware
$854
$171 20%
$171 20%
$171 20%
$311 36% $23 3%
$6 1%
District of Columbia
$1,141
$342
30%
$228
20%
$228
20%
$228
20%
$114
10%
Florida
$16,058 $4,093 25%
$3,928 24%
$3,383 21% $4,271 27%
$384 2%
Georgia
$12,895 $2,587 20%
$2,724 21%
$3,715 29% $2,965 23% $793 6% $112 1%
Hawai
$1,211
$298 25%
$333
28%
$333
27%
$247 20%
Idaho
$1,337
$330 25%
$330 25%
$330 25%
$330 25%
$1 0%
$15 1%
Illinois $15,736 $3,147
20% $5,508 35% $3,147
20%
$3,934 25%
Indiana $7,276
$1,530
21%
$3,370
46%
$359
5%
$460
6%
$778
11%
$778
11%
Iowa
$2,525
$780 31%
$2 0%
$528 21%
$602 24% $452 18% $161 6%
Kansas
$2,395
$479 20%
$679
28%
$759
32%
$479 20%
Kentuckyc
$6,999
$1,400 20%
$1,610
23%
$1,513
22%
$2,476 35%
Louisiana $10,492
$2,336
22%
$2,336
22%
$2,336
22%
$2,336
22%
$1,149
11%
Maine
$1,507
$227 15%
$262 17%
$444 29%
$433 29% $84 6%
$57 4%
Maryland $3,973
$795
20%
$795
20%
$795
20%
$795
20%
$397
10%
$397
10%
Massachusetts $5,048
$1,867
37%
$951
19%
$425
8%
$835
17%
$969
19%
Michigan $13,122
$5,189
40%
$4,382
33%
$1,539
12%
$1,177
9%
$835
6%
CRS-51
Time-Limited
Adoption
Family
Family
Promotion and
Other Service-
Administrative
STATE TOTAL
Family
Support
Preservation
Reunification
Support
Related
Costs
Minnesota
$3,514
$748 21%
$748 21%
$1,390 40%
$398 11% $58 2% $171 5%
Mississippid
$5,232
$1,453 28%
$1,453
28%
$1,163
22%
$1,163 22%
Missouri
$9,504
$5,417 57%
$3,516
37%
$570
6%
$0
0%
Montana
$1,056
$233 22%
$233 22%
$233 22%
$325 31%
$30 3%
Nebraska $1,649
$412
25%
$412
25%
$330
20%
$330
20%
$165
10%
Nevada $1,760
$396
23%
$396
23%
$396
23%
$396
23%
$176
10%
New
Hampshire
$690
$141 21%
$141 21%
$141 21%
$141 21% $90 13%
$34 5%
New
Jersey
$5,405
$1,653 31%
$1,177
22%
$1,134
21%
$1,442 27%
New Mexico
$3,511
$702
20%
$702
20%
$702
20%
$702
20%
$351
10%
$351
10%
New
York
$20,525
$6,565 32%
$5,574
27%
$4,105
20%
$4,281 21%
North Carolinae
$10,465 $2,997 29%
$2,038 19%
$1,995 19% $2,403 23% $157 2% $875 8%
North Dakota
$578
$161
28%
$221
38%
$143
25%
$37
6%
$16
3%
Ohio
$13,684 $2,252 16%
$4,347 32%
$2,571 19% $3,323 24%
$1,190 9%
Oklahoma $5,731
$1,059
18%
$983
17%
$1,636
29%
$1,225
21%
$254
4%
$573
10%
Oregonf
$6,379 $1,796 28%
$1,349 21%
$1,371 21% $1,330 21%
$532 8%
Pennsylvania
$12,865 $5,823 45%
$1,548 12%
$1,903 15% $2,208 17% $457 4% $926 7%
Puerto Rico
$6,927
$1,385
20%
$1,385
20%
$1,385
20%
$1,385
20%
$693
10%
$693
10%
Rhode
Island
$1,149
$240 21%
$300
26%
$348
30%
$261 23%
0%
South
Carolina
$7,306 $1,502 21%
$1,780 24%
$1,568 21% $1,689 23% $91 1% $676 9%
South
Dakota
$851
$216 25%
$238
28%
$219
26%
$178 21%
Tennessee
$10,505
$3,398 32%
$2,295
22%
$2,220
21%
$2,592 25%
Texas
$37,546 $11,451 30%
$8,424 22%
$7,511 20% $8,677 23%
$1,483 4%
Utah $1,919
$349
18%
$739
39%
$215
11%
$597
31%
$18
1%
Vermont $502
$97
19%
$165
33%
$97
19%
$97
19%
$45
9%
Virginia
$6,363 $2,017 32%
$1,591 25%
$1,273 20% $1,273 20%
$210 3%
CRS-52
Time-Limited
Adoption
Family
Family
Promotion and
Other Service-
Administrative
STATE TOTAL
Family
Support
Preservation
Reunification
Support
Related
Costs
Washington $5,884
$1,177
20%
$1,765
30%
$1,177
20%
$1,177
20%
$588
10%
West
Virginia
$3,177
$744 23%
$1,086 34%
$651 20%
$660 21%
$36 1%
Wisconsin
$5,185 $1,234 24%
$1,231 24%
$1,069 21% $1,037 20% $355 7% $259 5%
Wyoming
$426
$166 39%
$143 34%
$47 11%
$47 11%
$23 5%
TOTAL $357,361
$100,675
28%
$90,726
25%
$70,475
20%
$72,892
20%
$8,257
2%
$14,336
4%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state final spending of FY2007 funds, as included on CFS-101, Part III (prepared by states
2009; gathered by HHS and submitted to Congress July 2010).
Notes: Total spending is based on the sum of a state’s reported spending by category. The table notes below indicate notes provided by states as well as some assumptions
made by CRS with regard to data from certain states.
a. Alabama reported that it included some Administrative Costs spending in its Adoption Promotion and Support Services category.
b. Arkansas reported that it included some spending for Other service-related activities in its Administrative Costs category.
c. Kentucky reported that it included some spending for Other service-related activities in its Administrative Costs category.
d. Mississippi reported spending a total of $581,350 more than the state categorized. The total shown here is the total of Mississippi’s categorized spending.
e. The sum of North Carolina’s categorized spending exceeded what it reported as its total spending by $551,777. Total spending shown here is the sum of the state’s
categorized spending.
f.
The sum of Oregon’s categorized spending exceeded what it reported as its total spending by $532,000. Total spending shown here is the sum of the state’s
categorized spending.
CRS-53
Table D-4. Planned Use of Federal PSSF Child and Family Services Funding for FY2010 by State and Service Category
Dollars shown in thousands. An empty cell indicates the state reported $0 dol ars spent for the category or that it left that cell blank on the reporting form.
Adoption
Family
Time-Limited
Promotion and
Other Service-
Administrative
STATE Total
Family
Support
Preservation
Family Reunification
Support
Related
Costs
Alabamaa
$7,108 $2,132 30% $1,777 25%
$1,777
25%
$1,422 20%
Alaska $693
$139
20%
$208
30%
$139
20%
$139
20%
$69
10%
Arizona $7,683
$1,537
20%
$1,537
20%
$1,537
20%
$1,537
20%
$768
10%
$768
10%
Arkansas $4,644
$1,811
39%
$1,254
27%
$1,022
22%
$93
2%
$464
10%
California $33,895
$10,169
30%
$6,779
20%
$6,779
20%
$6,779
20%
$3,390
10%
Colorado $3,310
$780
24%
$780
24%
$780
24%
$780
24%
$127
4%
$62
2%
Connecticut $2,141
$500
23%
$480
22%
$505
24%
$485
23%
$171
8%
Delaware $858
$228
27%
$182
21%
$184
21%
$200
23%
$49
6%
$15
2%
District
of
Columbia
$1,082
$433 40%
$216 20%
$216
20%
$216 20%
Florida $14,481
$3,254
22%
$3,705
26%
$3,351
23%
$3,466
24%
$100
1%
$604
4%
Georgia $12,447
$3,361
27%
$2,489
20%
$2,614
21%
$2,489
20%
$871
7%
$622
5%
Hawai
$966
$243 25%
$193 20%
$337
35%
$193 20%
Idaho $1,217
$245
20%
$451
37%
$267
22%
$244
20%
$11
1%
Illinoisb
$15,191 $3,342 22% $4,861 32%
$3,494
23%
$3,494 23%
Indiana $7,101
$1,420
20%
$2,485
35%
$355
5%
$1,420
20%
$710
10%
$710
10%
Iowa $2,650
$731
28%
$50
2%
$530
20%
$530
20%
$544
21%
$265
10%
Kansas
$2,245
$449 20%
$898 40%
$449
20%
$449 20%
Kentucky $6,398
$1,312
21%
$1,312
21%
$1,312
21%
$1,567
24%
$256
4%
$640
10%
Louisianab $8,522
$1,917
22%
$1,917
23%
$1,917
22%
$1,917
22%
$852
10%
Maine $1,527
$389
25%
$329
22%
$305
20%
$311
20%
$44
3%
$150
10%
Maryland $3,737
$747
20%
$747
20%
$747
20%
$747
20%
$374
10%
$374
10%
Massachusetts $4,737
$2,134
45%
$747
16%
$723
15%
$444
9%
$689
15%
CRS-54
Adoption
Family
Time-Limited
Promotion and
Other Service-
Administrative
STATE Total
Family
Support
Preservation
Family Reunification
Support
Related
Costs
Michiganb $13,174
$3,952
30%
$2,635
20%
$2,635
20%
$2,635
20%
$1,317
10%
Minnesota $3,379
$980
29%
$980
29%
$980
29%
$100
3%
$338
10%
Mississippi $5,322
$1,331
25%
$1,331
25%
$1,064
20%
$1,064
20%
$532
10%
Missouri
$10,544 $5,694 54% $4,112 39%
$738
7%
Montana $925
$208
23%
$208
23%
$208
23%
$208
23%
$92
10%
Nebraska $1,545
$386
25%
$386
25%
$309
20%
$309
20%
$154
10%
Nevada $1,533
$345
22%
$345
22%
$345
22%
$345
22%
$153
10%
New Hampshire
$625
$125
20%
$125
20%
$125
20%
$125 20%
$112
18%
$12
2%
New
Jersey
$5,107 $1,428 28% $1,055 21%
$1,036
20%
$1,588 31%
New Mexico
$3,267
$653
20%
$653
20%
$653
20%
$653 20%
$327
10%
$327
10%
New
York
$19,086 $6,297 33% $4,771 25%
$3,817
20%
$4,200 22%
North Carolina
$10,970
$2,194
20%
$2,194
20%
$2,194
20%
$2,194 20%
$1,097
10%
$1,097
10%
North Dakota
$517
$144
28%
$198
38%
$128
25%
$33
6%
$14
3%
Ohio $12,679
$2,952
23%
$3,105
24%
$2,717
21%
$2,636
21%
$1,268
10%
Oklahoma $5,242
$1,020
19%
$993
19%
$1,535
29%
$1,173
22%
$525
10%
Oregonc $4,733
$1,065
22%
$1,065
22%
$1,065
22%
$1,065
22%
$473
10%
Pennsylvaniad $12,328
$2,466
20%
$2,466
20%
$2,466
20%
$2,466
20%
$1,233
10%
$1,233
10%
Puerto Rico
$6,251
$1,250
20%
$1,250
20%
$1,250
20%
$1,250 20%
$625
10%
$625
10%
Rhode
Island
$934
$195 21%
$196 21%
$348
37%
$195 21%
South Carolina
$6,529
$1,319
20%
$1,319
20%
$1,319
20%
$1,319 20%
$600
9%
$653
10%
South Dakotabe $756
$151
20%
$151
20%
$212
28%
$197
26%
$45
6%
Tennessee
$9,951 $2,985 30% $2,985 30%
$1,990
20%
$1,990 20%
Texas $35,971
$8,938
25%
$8,000
22%
$8,009
22%
$8,023
22%
$3,001
8%
Utah $1,771
$383
22%
$626
35%
$319
18%
$420
24%
$24
1%
Vermont $481
$96
20%
$144
30%
$96
20%
$96
20%
$48
10%
CRS-55
Adoption
Family
Time-Limited
Promotion and
Other Service-
Administrative
STATE Total
Family
Support
Preservation
Family Reunification
Support
Related
Costs
Virginia $6,110
$1,466
24%
$1,479
24%
$1,222
20%
$1,528
25%
$31
1%
$385
6%
Washingtone $5,614
$1,191
21%
$1,444
26%
$1,191
21%
$1,191
21%
$596
11%
West Virginiae $2,760
$595
22%
$595
22%
$595
22%
$595
22%
$297
11%
$85
3%
Wisconsin $4,925
$1,105
22%
$1,105
22%
$1,105
22%
$985
20%
$380
8%
$246
5%
Wyoming $307
$61
20%
$61
20%
$61
20%
$61
20%
$31
10%
$31
10%
Total
$335,971 $88,250 26% $79,377 24%
$69,073 21% $67,467 20% $9,608 3% $22,200
7%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state planned spending of FY2010 federal PSSF funds as reported by states on CFS-101,
Part I (prepared 2009, gathered by HHS and submitted to Congress, July 2010).
a. Alabama reported that it included some Administrative Costs in the amount shown for Adoption Promotion and Support.
b. There were some differences in the state’s estimated spending of PSSF money by category as provided in CFS-101, Part 1 versus CFS-101, Part II. Data in this table
reflect numbers provided on CFS-101, Part 1.
c. The total spending and spending for administrative costs is as reported by Oregon on its CFS-101, Part 1. Oregon also reported identical spending amounts for each of
the four categories. However, the sum of the amounts shown in the form ($1.349 million in each category) exceeded the total funding Oregon expected to spend.
Numbers shown in italics were calculated by CRS to be equal shares of total expected funding after spending for administrative costs.
d. As received by CRS, Pennsylvania’s CFS-101, Part 1 reporting form was unreadable. Data provided regarding planned PSSF spending for FY2010 are shown as reported
on CFS-101, Part 11.
e. The state included in its total spending money allocated under the PSSF monthly caseworker grants. CRS subtracted this planned spending from total shown here.
CRS-56
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table D-5. FY2010 Funding under the PSSF Program for Four Categories of Child
and Family Services by State and per Certain Individuals
Allotment Amounts
Funding per individual
Funding
(dollars in thousands)
under Age 21
per Poor
Child
States
Tribes
States and
States
States and
STATE
(States and
Only
Onlyb
Tribesc
Onlyd
Tribese
Tribes)a
Alabama $7,154
$0
$7,154
$5.38
$5.38
$26.02
Alaska $668
$911
$1,579
$3.92
$7.32
$28.88
Arizona $7,932
$2,346
$10,278
$4.16
$5.17
$19.93
Arkansas $4,500
$0
$4,500
$5.42
$5.42
$23.79
California $33,751
$64
$33,816
$3.06
$3.06
$18.28
Colorado $3,284
$0
$3,284
$2.29
$2.29
$15.60
Connecticut $2,108
$0
$2,108
$2.18
$2.18
$21.76
Delaware $889
$0
$889
$3.63
$3.63
$26.53
District of Columbia
$919
$0
$919
$6.26
$6.26
$27.73
Florida $14,599
$0
$14,599
$3.06
$3.06
$17.14
Georgia $12,477
$0
$12,477
$4.15
$4.15
$21.95
Hawai $948
$0
$948
$2.79
$2.79
$24.17
Idaho $1,219
$57
$1,276
$2.51
$2.61
$16.25
Illinois $15,221
$0
$15,221
$4.06
$4.06
$25.74
Indiana $7,214
$0
$7,214
$3.85
$3.85
$23.19
Iowa $2,722
$0
$2,722
$3.18
$3.18
$24.87
Kansas $2,178
$23
$2,201
$2.61
$2.64
$17.94
Kentucky $6,371
$0
$6,371
$5.35
$5.35
$24.94
Louisiana $7,968
$22
$7,990
$6.03
$6.04
$29.73
Maine $1,574
$24
$1,598
$4.87
$4.91
$34.84
Maryland $3,808
$0
$3,808
$2.39
$2.39
$24.72
Massachusetts $4,929
$0
$4,929
$2.84
$2.84
$26.56
Michigan $13,268
$374
$13,642
$4.78
$4.88
$25.52
Minnesota $3,454
$203
$3,657
$2.33
$2.46
$19.85
Mississippi $5,352
$79
$5,431
$5.94
$6.00
$23.01
Missouri $10,941
$0
$10,941
$6.49
$6.49
$37.60
Montana $892
$527
$1,420
$3.77
$5.39
$19.24
Nebraska $1,516
$62
$1,578
$2.85
$2.94
$22.85
Nevada $1,571
$0
$1,571
$2.03
$2.03
$13.33
New Hampshire
$638
$0
$638
$1.82
$1.82
$20.85
New Jersey
$5,118
$0
$5,118
$2.15
$2.15
$18.77
New Mexico
$3,165
$404
$3,569
$5.82
$5.98
$24.71
New York
$18,856
$0
$18,856
$3.57
$3.57
$21.71
North Carolina
$11,138
$96
$11,234
$4.15
$4.18
$22.06
North Dakota
$525
$255
$780
$3.08
$4.30
$28.92
Ohio $12,783
$0
$12,783
$3.99
$3.99
$21.88
Oklahoma $5,082
$4,037
$9,119
$5.87
$8.45
$25.33
Congressional Research Service
57
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Allotment Amounts
Funding per individual
Funding
(dollars in thousands)
under Age 21
per Poor
Child
States
Tribes
States and
States
States and
STATE
(States and
Only
Onlyb
Tribesc
Onlyd
Tribese
Tribes)a
Oregon $4,668
$159
$4,826
$4.58
$4.70
$28.40
Pennsylvania $12,349
$0
$12,349
$3.70
$3.70
$26.46
Rhode Island
$927
$20
$947
$3.30
$3.36
$24.56
South Carolina
$6,577
$20
$6,597
$5.13
$5.14
$25.35
South Dakota
$755
$618
$1,373
$3.68
$5.78
$21.27
Tennessee $9,816
$0
$9,816
$5.63
$5.63
$28.06
Texas $35,724
$25
$35,749
$4.48
$4.49
$21.50
Utah $1,730
$25
$1,756
$1.73
$1.75
$16.48
Vermont $497
$0
$497
$3.13
$3.13
$30.10
Virginia $6,155
$0
$6,155
$2.80
$2.80
$24.32
Washington $5,880
$241
$6,121
$3.23
$3.34
$23.44
West Virginia
$2,705
$0
$2,705
$5.87
$5.87
$30.53
Wisconsin $5,076
$341
$5,416
$3.27
$3.45
$23.67
Wyoming $285
$117
$402
$1.89
$2.57
$17.86
TOTAL $329,876 $11,049
$340,926
AVERAGE
$3.82
$4.10
$23.69
MEDIAN
$3.68
$3.85
$23.79
Territories
American Samoa
$219
Guam $395
Northern Mariana
$179
Puerto
Rico $6,143
Virgin Islands
$271
Territory subtotal
$7,207
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Final allotment amounts by state and
territory as provided by HHS, ACF, ACYF, OLAB to CRS in December 2010. Funding to tribe (by state) is as
indicated in HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-04, issued March 23, 2011.
a. Numbers in this column equal funding to state and tribal entities in the state divided by number of poor
children (under the age of 18 in the state; based on CRS analysis of 2009 American Community Survey
data).
b. Represents al funding distributed to a tribal entity and tied to the tribal entity’s population in that state. If a
tribe had an under-age-21 population living in more than one state, then funds to that tribe, as shown in this
table, would be divided among those states based on that population size in each state. A $0 entry indicates
there was no tribal population in the state for which PSSF funds were provided. For grant amounts by
individual tribal entity see HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-04, issued March 23, 2011.
c. Represents al funds distributed in the state (based on under-age-21 population in the state) whether the
funds were al ocated to a state government or to a tribal government or entity.
d. Numbers in this column equal funding to the state agency only divided by under-age-21 population in the
state (based on U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Table T8 – 2009) minus the under-age-
21 tribal population in that state (based on HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-11-04).
e. Numbers in this column equal funding to state agency and tribal entity in state divided by total under-age
21-population in the state (based on U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Table T8 – 2009).
Congressional Research Service
58
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Appendix E. Court Improvement Program (CIP):
Funding History and Funding by Grant Type
and State
Table E-1. Funding Authority and Appropriations for the Court
Improvement Program, FY1995-FY2011
Nominal Dollars; NA = Not Authorized or Appropriated
Funds Appropriated for CIP
CIP Funds
Authorized as Set-
PSSF Set-
Deficit Reduction
Fiscal Year
Aside from PSSF
Aside
Act of 2005 funds
TOTAL
1995 $5
million
$5 million
NA
$5 million
1996 $10
million
$10 million
NA
$10 million
1997 $10
million
$10 million
NA
$10 million
1998 $10
million
$10 million
NA
$10 million
1999 $10
million
$10 million
NA
$10 million
2000 $10
million
$10 million
NA
$10 million
2001 $10
million
$10 million
NA
$10 million
2002 $16.6
million
$12.3 million
NA
$12.3 million
2003 $16.6
million
$13.3 million
NA
$13.3 million
2004 $16.6
million
$13.3 million
NA
$13.3 million
2005 $16.6
million
$13.3 million
NA
$13.3 million
2006 $16.6
million
$12.9 million
$ 20 million
$32.9 million
2007 $16.6
million
$12.1 million
$ 20 million
$32.1 million
2008 $16.6
million
$12.1 million
$ 20 million
$32.1 million
2009 $16.6
million
$12.1 million
$ 20 million
$32.1 million
2010 $16.6
million
$12.1 million
$ 20 million
$32.1 million
2011 $36.6
million
$32.1 million
NA
$32.1 million
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Congressional Research Service
59
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Table E-2. Funding by CIP Grant Type and State, FY2009
A blank cel indicates the state did not apply for the grant.
STATE Basic Data
Training
TOTAL
Alabama
$202,936 $168,658 $168,933 $540,527
Alaska $103,894
$98,402
$98,446
$300,742
Arizona
$256,626 $206,743 $207,143 $670,512
Arkansas
$157,983
$136,770
$136,940
$431,693
California $1,073,323
$786,069
$788,370
$2,647,762
Colorado
$208,508 $172,611 $172,898 $554,017
Connecticut
$171,719 $146,514 $146,716 $464,949
Delaware
$106,828 $100,484 $100,535 $307,847
District
of
Columbia $98,000 $94,221 $94,251 $286,472
Florida $507,555
$384,739
$385,723
$1,278,017
Georgia
$346,323 $270,370 $270,978 $887,671
Hawai
$114,926
$106,228
$106,298
$327,452
Idaho
$127,067 $114,840 $114,938 $356,845
Illinois $422,163 $324,167 $324,952 $1,071,282
Indiana
$251,130 $202,845 $203,231 $657,206
Iowa
$161,064 $138,956 $139,134 $439,154
Kansas
$158,577 $137,192 $137,363 $433,132
Kentucky
$189,359 $159,027 $159,270 $507,656
Louisiana
$199,500 $166,221 $166,487 $532,208
Maine
$114,598 $105,995 $106,064 $326,657
Maryland
$228,045 $186,469 $186,802 $601,316
Massachusetts
$238,829 $194,119 $194,477 $627,425
Michigan
$342,878 $267,926 $268,527 $879,331
Minnesota
$217,664 $179,106 $179,415 $576,185
Mississippi
$165,785 $142,305 $142,493 $450,583
Missouri
$234,060 $190,736 $191,083 $615,879
Montana
$108,148 $101,420 $101,474 $311,042
Nebraska
$132,139 $118,438 $118,548 $369,125
Nevada
$151,442 $132,130 $132,285 $415,857
New
Hampshire
$116,606 $107,419 $107,493 $331,518
New
Jersey
$299,899 $237,439 $237,939 $775,277
New
Mexico
$137,726 $122,401 $122,524 $382,651
New York
$558,452
$420,843
$421,946
$1,401,241
North
Carolina
$316,895 $249,495 $250,035 $816,425
North Dakota
$101,003
$96,351
$96,389
$293,743
Ohio
$373,843 $289,891 $290,563 $954,297
Oklahoma
$179,324 $151,908 $152,128 $483,360
Oregon
$174,929 $148,791 $149,001 $472,721
Pennsylvania
$384,146 $297,199 $297,896 $979,241
Puerto
Rico
$190,436 $159,791 $160,036 $510,263
Congressional Research Service
60
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
STATE Basic Data
Training
TOTAL
Rhode
Island
$110,743 $103,261 $85,000 $299,004
South
Carolina
$164,512 $164,773 $329,285
South Dakota
$105,837
$99,781
$99,830
$305,448
Tennessee
$237,709 $193,324 $193,680 $624,713
Texas $770,313
$571,127
$572,723
$1,914,163
Utah
$169,352 $144,836 $145,032 $459,220
Vermont $99,349
$95,179
$95,212
$289,740
Virginia
$277,668 $221,669 $222,118 $721,455
Washington
$244,949 $198,459 $198,832 $642,240
West
Virginia
$126,026 $114,101 $114,197 $354,324
Wisconsin
$224,792 $184,161 $184,487 $593,440
Wyoming $98,197
$94,361
$94,392
$286,950
TOTAL
$12,089,263 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $32,089,263
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on final al otment amounts, by
grant type and state, received from HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau in May 2011.
Table E-3. Funding by CIP Grant Type and State, FY2010
A blank cel indicates the state did not apply for the grant.
STATE Basic Data
Training
TOTAL
Alabama
$202,775 $174,265 $168,492 $545,532
Alaska $103,662
$99,144
$98,546
$301,352
Arizona
$260,111 $217,721 $209,776 $687,608
Arkansas
$158,032 $140,353 $137,098 $435,483
California $1,071,920
$833,016
$778,551
$2,683,487
Colorado
$209,761 $179,560 $175,002 $564,323
Connecticut
$170,918 $150,120 $145,654 $466,692
Delaware
$106,838 $101,551 $100,388 $308,777
District
of
Columbia $97,886 $94,767 $94,208 $286,861
Florida $503,929
$402,519
$384,013
$1,290,461
Georgia
$348,032 $284,360 $273,928 $906,320
Hawai
$114,929 $107,684 $106,322 $328,935
Idaho
$127,453 $117,177 $115,678 $360,308
Illinois $421,347 $339,927 $320,206 $1,081,480
Indiana
$250,618 $210,527 $202,749 $663,894
Iowa
$161,050 $142,641 $138,766 $442,457
Kansas
$158,758 $140,903 $137,408 $437,069
Kentucky
$189,518 $164,217 $159,730 $513,465
Louisiana
$201,915 $173,613 $168,046 $543,574
Maine
$114,102 $107,057 $105,411 $326,570
Maryland $226,494
$185,123
$411,617
Massachusetts
$239,382 $202,011 $194,128 $635,521
Michigan
$337,638 $276,482 $260,463 $874,583
Congressional Research Service
61
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
STATE Basic Data
Training
TOTAL
Minnesota
$216,820 $184,910 $178,500 $580,230
Mississippi
$165,681 $146,151 $141,808 $453,640
Missouri
$233,507 $197,557 $190,809 $621,873
Montana
$108,190 $102,577 $101,517 $312,284
Nebraska
$132,098 $120,697 $118,677 $371,472
Nevada
$152,162 $135,904 $133,577 $421,643
New
Hampshire
$116,083 $108,558 $106,955 $331,596
New
Jersey
$298,253 $246,631 $234,168 $779,052
New
Mexico
$137,747 $124,979 $122,479 $385,205
New York
$558,471
$443,858
$416,267
$1,418,596
North
Carolina
$319,821 $262,978 $253,900 $836,699
North Dakota
$100,915
$97,062
$96,388
$294,365
Ohio
$371,621 $302,238 $285,924 $959,783
Oklahoma
$179,613 $156,710 $152,771 $489,094
Oregon
$175,183 $153,352 $149,471 $478,006
Pennsylvania
$381,496 $309,723 $294,579 $985,798
Puerto
Rico
$188,540 $163,476 $156,227 $508,243
Rhode
Island
$110,323 $104,193 $102,673 $317,189
South
Carolina
$170,483 $165,558 $336,041
South
Dakota
$105,900 $100,841 $99,904 $306,645
Tennessee
$238,028 $200,985 $194,520 $633,533
Texas $779,031
$611,026
$585,113
$1,975,170
Utah
$172,190 $151,083 $148,092 $471,365
Vermont $99,138
$95,716
$94,964
$289,818
Virginia
$277,612 $230,986 $222,945 $731,543
Washington
$245,396 $206,569 $200,201 $652,166
West
Virginia
$125,802 $115,925 $113,938 $355,665
Wisconsin $224,094
$183,571
$407,665
Wyoming $98,480
$95,217
$94,818
$288,515
TOTAL
$12,089,263 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 $32,089,263
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on final al otment amounts, by
grant type and state, received from HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau in May 2011.
Congressional Research Service
62
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Appendix F. Grants to Improve the Outcomes of
Children Affected by Parental Abuse of
Methamphetamine or Other Substances: Grantees
by State, Project Focus, and Funding
Table F-1. Grantees by State, Grant Focus, Duration of Grant and Federal Funding
Lead Agency of the
Expected Total Expected
Regional Partnership
Project Title
Grant Focus
Duration Federal
Location of Lead Agency Office in State
(as given by grantee)
(as assigned by HHS)
of Grant Funding
ALASKA
Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc.—
Alaska Native Family Preservation
Tribal
5 years
$2.500 million
Anchorage
Unit
ARIZONA
State of Arizona—Phoenix
Arizona Families F. I. R.S.T., Parent to Treatment focused
5 years
$3.742 million
Parent Recovery Program
CALIFORNIA
County of Butte, Department of
Northern California Regional
System-wide
3 years
$1.500 million
Employment and Social Services—
Partnership for Safe and Stable
collaboration
Oroville
Families
Center Point, Inc.—San Rafael
“Family Link”—Residential and
Child focused
5 years
$2.500 million
Outpatient Treatment
County of San Diego, Health and
Family Integrated Treatment (FIT)
Treatment focused
5 years
$2.500 million
Human Services Agency, Child Welfare Program
Services—San Diego
County of Santa Clara, Social Services
Santa Clara County Zero to Three
Child focused
5 years
$3.742 million
Agency—San Jose
Dependency Drug Treatment Court
Project
County of Santa Cruz Health Services
Treatment Alliance for Safe Children Drug court
5 years
$2.500 million
Agency, Alcohol and Drug Program—
(TASC)
Santa Cruz
County of Mendocino, Health and
Mendocino County Dependency
Drug court
5 years
$2.500 million
Human Services Agency—Ukiah
Drug Court
County of Sacramento, Department of Early Intervention Family Drug Court Drug court
5 years
$2.500 million
Health and Human Services—
Sacramento
SHIELDS for Families, Inc.—Los
Tamar Village Family Centered
Treatment focused
5 years
$3.742 million
Angeles
Residential Treatment Program
WestCare California, Inc.—Fresno
SMART-2 Model of Care Partnership Child focused
5 years
$2.500 million
COLORADO
Connect Care, Inc.—Colorado Springs Fourth Judicial District Family
Drug court
5 years
$2.5 million
Reunification Project
Denver Department of Human
Denver Entire Family Focused
System-wide
3 years
$1.675 million
Services—Denver
Comprehensive Treatment
collaboration
Congressional Research Service
63
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Lead Agency of the
Expected Total Expected
Regional Partnership
Project Title
Grant Focus
Duration Federal
Location of Lead Agency Office in State
(as given by grantee)
(as assigned by HHS)
of Grant Funding
Island Grove Regional Treatment
Northeastern Colorado Child
Treatment focused
3 years
$1.675 million
Center, Inc.—Greeley
Welfare Project
FLORIDA
Hillsborough County Board Of
Children’s Reunification Services
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Commissioners—Tampa
Collaborative
GEORGIA
Juvenile Justice Fund—Atlanta
Fulton County Family Drug Court
Treatment focused
5 years
$2.5 million
Expansion Project Ready, Set, Go
Supreme Court of Georgia—Atlanta
Family Treatment Systems
Drug court
3 years
$1.500 million
Collaborative
IDAHO
Idaho Department of Health and
Improving Positive Outcomes for
Drug court 5 years $3.742 million
Welfare—Boise
Children Through Family Drug Court
ILLINOIS
Children’s Research Triangle—Chicago Moving Families Forward: A Regional System-wide
5 years $3.742 million
Partnership to Enhance Safety and
Collaboration
Stability in the Lives of Children
IOWA
Judicial Branch, State of Iowa—Des
Parents and Children Together: A
Drug court
5 years
$2.500 million
Moines
Family Drug Court Initiative (PACT)
Upper Des Moines Opportunity, Inc.— Parent Partners of NW Iowa
System-wide
5 years
$2.500 million
Okoboji
collaboration
KANSAS
Kansas Department Of Social and
Kansas Serves Substance Affected
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Rehabilitation Services—Topeka
Families
KENTUCKY
Kentucky Department for Community Kentucky Sobriety Treatment and
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Based Services—Martin County
Recovery Teams (K-Start)
Kentucky River Community Care,
Families in Safe Houses Network
System-wide
5 years $3.742 million
Inc.—Jackson
(FISHN)
collaboration
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Department of Public
Family Recovery Project
Array of Services
5 years
$2.500 million
Health—Boston
MINNESOTA
White Earth Band of Chippewa—
White Earth Reservation Child Well Tribal
5 years
$2.5 million
White Earth
Being Project
MISSOURI
Kids Hope United, Hudelson Region— Circle of Hope: Keeping Children
System-wide
5 years
$3.742 million
St. Louis
Safe & Families Together
collaboration
St. Patrick Center—St. Louis
Project Protect
Array of services
5 year
$2.500 million
Congressional Research Service
64
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Lead Agency of the
Expected Total Expected
Regional Partnership
Project Title
Grant Focus
Duration Federal
Location of Lead Agency Office in State
(as given by grantee)
(as assigned by HHS)
of Grant Funding
MONTANA
Apsaalooke Nation Housing
Crow Nation Methamphetamine and Tribal
5 year
$2.500 million
Authority—Crow Agency
Substance Abuse Early Intervention
and Prevention Project
The Family Tree Center, Billings
Second Chance Home and Sober
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Exchange Clubs’ CAP Center—Billings Supported Living
NEBRASKA
Omaha Nation Community Response
‘”Sacred Child” Program
Tribal
3 years
$1.500 million
Team—Walthill
NEVADA
State of Nevada—Las Vegas
To develop a regional partnership
Treatment focused
5 years
$3.742 million
that provides interagency
collaboration and services
NEW MEXICO
Clarity Counseling P.C.—Dolores,
Recovering Together in San Juan
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Coloradoa
County: Cross-Discipline
Collaboration and a Specialized
Outpatient Treatment Program
NEW YORK
University of Rochester—Rochester
Fostering Recovery: Supporting
Child focused
3 years
$1.500 million
Young Children Exposed to
Substance Abuse and Their Families
Westchester County—White Plains
Protecting Westchester
Child focused
5 years
$2.500 million
Families/Integrating Systems of Care
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Department of Health Robeson County Bridges for Families Drug court
5 years
$2.500 million
and Human Services—Raleigh
Program
OHIO
Butler County Children’s Services—
Child Abuse and Neglect Substance Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Hamilton
Abuse Focus and Expansion
(CANSAFE): Butler County’s
Approach to Improving the 4 R’s
County of Lucas—Toledo
Pre-Removal Family Drug Court:
Drug court
3 years
$1.500 million
OKLAHOMA
Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma—
Choctaw Project SOAR (Serving
Tribal
5 years
$2.500 million
Durant
Out At Risk)
Oklahoma Department of Mental
Oklahoma Partnership Initiative
Child focused
5 years
$2.500 million
Health and Substance Abuse
(OPI)
Services—Oklahoma City
OREGON
Klamath Tribes—Chiloquin
Klamath Tribes: Methamphetamine
Tribal
5 years
$2.500 million
and Substance Abuse Eradication
Project
Congressional Research Service
65
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Lead Agency of the
Expected Total Expected
Regional Partnership
Project Title
Grant Focus
Duration Federal
Location of Lead Agency Office in State
(as given by grantee)
(as assigned by HHS)
of Grant Funding
Multnomah County—Portland
Family Involvement Team
Drug court
5 years
$3.742 million
Northeast Oregon Collaborative/Baker Funding a collaborative of Child
System-wide
5 years
$2.500 million
County—Baker City
Welfare and substance abuse
collaboration
treatment providers
OnTrack Inc.—Medford
(Collaboration to reduce foster
Treatment focused
5 years
$2.500 million
care placement secondary to
parental substance abuse)b
RHODE ISLAND
Children’s Friend and Service—
Project Connect Statewide
Treatment focused
5 years
$2.500 million
Providence
TENNESSEE
Child and Family Tennessee—Knoxville New beginnings for Women and
Child focused
5 years
$3.742 million
Children
Tennessee Department of Mental
Building Strong Families In Rural
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Health and Developmental
Tennessee
Disabilities—Nashville
TEXAS
Aliviane, Inc.—El Paso
Project Aware
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Houston Council on Alcoholism and
SAFE4Kids
Child focused
5 years
$2.500 million
Drug Abuse—Houston
Travis County—Austin
Parenting in Recovery Project
System-wide
5 years
$2.500 million
collaboration
VERMONT
Lund Family Center—Burlington
A Regional Interagency Screening,
Array of services
5 years
$2.500 million
Assessment, and Treatment
Collaboration
WASHINGTON
Pierce County Alliance—Tacoma
Regional partnership to effect
Treatment focused
3 years
$1.675 million
systems change for the purpose of
increasing the reunification of
children with parents recovering
from substance dependency and to
reduce the number of children
returned to child welfare
WISCONSIN
Wisconsin Department of Health and
Western Wisconsin Col aborative
System-wide
5 years
$2.500 million
Family Services—Madison
for Children’s Safety and
collaboration
Permanency
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on Appendix B in HHS, ACF, ACYF,
Children’s Bureau, “Targeted Grants to Increase the Well-Being of, and to Improve the Permanency Outcomes
for, Children Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse: First Annual Report to Congress” (sent
to Congress May 2010).
a. This lead agency is officially located in Dolores, CO. However, its regional partnership program is operating
and serving families in New Mexico.
b. This grantee does not give a project title. This description is based on the grantee’s project abstract.
Congressional Research Service
66
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Appendix G. Monthly Caseworker Visits:
Allotments by State and Percentage of Children
Visited on a Monthly Basis
Table G-1. Allotments for Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care,
FY2006-FY2011
No FY2007 funds were provided for this purpose. States were permitted to spend FY2006 funds
during that year.
State FY2006
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Alabama $840,806
$105,385
$211,030
$424,784
$424,165
Alaska $91,458
$10,646
$20,574
$39,650
$37,997
Arizona $939,577
$116,805
$228,112
$471,024
$494,916
Arkansas $552,829
$68,614
$137,873
$267,241
$254,976
California $4,306,545
$508,439
$1,006,364
$2,004,176
$2,005,524
Colorado $380,276
$49,871
$98,287
$195,003
$197,918
Connecticut $295,772
$33,463
$63,575
$125,199
$123,725
Delaware $89,393
$12,456
$25,471
$52,797
$55,194
District of Columbia
$129,235
$15,482
$28,839
$54,554
$51,091
Florida $1,745,727
$218,437
$429,932
$866,876
$952,123
Georgia $1,374,242
$182,296
$369,550
$740,873
$758,248
Hawai $156,974
$15,257
$28,694
$56,319
$57,152
Idaho $146,098
$18,717
$36,142
$72,388
$78,193
Illinois $1,707,839 $222,601 $451,032 $903,845
$880,090
Indiana $842,071
$105,369
$210,832
$428,370
$424,621
Iowa $267,284
$37,372
$78,673
$161,607
$164,238
Kansas $267,406
$33,284
$66,668
$129,351
$126,667
Kentucky $786,785
$95,225
$189,951
$378,317
$378,518
Louisiana $1,199,691
$136,018
$253,023
$473,137
$456,580
Maine $166,113
$21,753
$45,343
$93,486
$93,570
Maryland $432,768
$54,689
$110,960
$226,106
$238,840
Massachusetts $547,303
$70,359
$140,657
$292,688
$303,622
Michigan $1,512,784
$189,646
$391,136
$787,884
$765,946
Minnesota $405,513
$48,726
$100,326
$205,106
$204,446
Mississippi $665,160
$80,052
$158,018
$317,802
$311,008
Missouri $978,380
$142,385
$313,046
$649,675
$584,918
Montana $119,161
$14,405
$27,450
$52,996
$51,208
Congressional Research Service
67
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
State FY2006
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
Nebraska $179,526
$23,409
$45,864
$90,017
$86,822
Nevada $199,971
$23,360
$45,508
$93,279
$105,562
New Hampshire
$77,609
$9,388
$18,543
$37,885
$39,249
New Jersey
$601,557
$75,577
$151,637
$303,901
$294,864
New Mexico
$375,608
$49,389
$96,992
$187,968
$185,438
New York
$2,307,345
$281,120
$566,657
$1,119,705
$1,119,944
North Carolina
$1,194,760
$160,950
$325,715
$661,379
$674,399
North Dakota
$68,385
$7,615
$15,347
$31,163
$30,743
Ohio $1,474,225
$189,676
$376,453
$759,063
$768,537
Oklahoma $641,887
$77,447
$155,739
$301,751
$286,725
Oregon $626,990
$72,322
$140,527
$277,171
$280,022
Pennsylvania $1,399,207
$183,376
$366,009
$733,297
$719,059
Rhode Island
$142,498
$14,701
$27,734
$55,037
$55,553
South Carolina
$809,185
$98,405
$193,853
$390,558
$394,729
South Dakota
$95,326
$11,449
$22,459
$44,841
$45,166
Tennessee $1,137,165
$147,293
$295,464
$582,901
$576,014
Texas $3,987,472
$532,717
$1,067,996
$2,121,342
$2,094,943
Utah $210,202
$27,367
$52,596
$102,744
$108,544
Vermont $58,092
$6,934
$14,273
$29,484
$31,447
Virginia $688,603
$90,492
$181,418
$365,505
$365,424
Washington $629,604
$84,442
$171,715
$349,144
$372,769
West Virginia
$364,134
$42,366
$81,472
$160,647
$156,532
Wisconsin $596,290
$71,426
$146,234
$301,408
$315,812
Wyoming $46,135
$5,142
$9,121
$16,931
$16,195
50 States + DC
$38,858,966
$4,894,115
$9,790,884
$19,588,375
$19,599,986
American Samoa
$86,317
$2,224
$4,473
$8,920
$8,828
Guam $105,698
$4,865
$9,785
$19,514
$19,313
Northern Mariana Islands
$81,960
$1,630
$3,278
$6,538
$6,471
Puerto Rico
$774,972
$94,156
$185,526
$364,579
$353,453
Virgin Islands
$92,087
$3,010
$6,054
$12,074
$11,949
Territories $1,141,034
$105,885
$209,116
$411,625
$400,014
TOTAL $40,000,000
$5,000,000
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$20,000,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on data received from HHS, ACF,
OLAB (various times) for FY2006-FY2010 and as included in HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-11-06 for FY2011.
Note: HHS, ACF, OLAB indicated that the al otment amounts shown for Connecticut for FY2008 and FY2009
were not ultimately issued to the state. It was not able to indicate why, or whether this was also true for other
years and for other states.
Congressional Research Service
68
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Reporting Frequency of Caseworker Visits with Children in
Foster Care
P.L. 109-288 (2006) required states to collect and report data on the number of children in foster
care who were visited on at least a monthly basis. In implementing this requirement, HHS
required states to report on the percentage of all children who had spent at least one month in
foster care during the fiscal year—including children who were placed out of state and children
who were in runaway status, but excluding any individual older than age 18.
States were further required to establish annual target percentages for each of FY2008 through
FY2011 to ensure that no later than October 1, 2011, every child in foster care is visited no less
frequently than once a month (and that the majority of the visits occur where the child lives).
Table G-1 shows the actual percentage of children who were visited on a monthly basis for
FY2007 through FY2009, as reported by states, as well as the percentage of children the state
intends to ensure are visited no less frequently than once a month for FY2010 (i.e., the “target
percentage”). All states have a 90% target percentage for FY2011.
Table G-2. Percentage of Children in Foster Care Who Were Visited on a Monthly
Basis, by State, FY2007-FY2009, and Target Percentage Established for FY2010
All states have a target percentage of 90% for FY2011
Actual % Visited At Least Monthly
Target
State
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Alabama 59%
46%
58%
80%
Alaska 3%
5%
19%
50%
Arizona 40%
45%
47%
55%
Arkansas 32%
48%
53%
80%
California 57%
63%
67%
75%
Colorado 59%
69%
72%
66%
Connecticut 72%
73%
73%
84%
Delaware 43%
63%
64%
75%
District of Columbia
67%
77%
83%
83%
Florida 85%
90%
92%
85%
Georgia 51%
58%
86%
85%
Hawai 53%
37%
62%
75%
Idaho 51%
57%
76%
70%
Illinois 7%
9%
41%
70%
Indiana 23%
70%
85%
85%
Iowa 32%
42%
53%
70%
Kansas 43%
66%
89%
80%
Kentucky 33%
38%
52%
70%
Louisiana 55%
61%
80%
82%
Maine 49%
73%
87%
80%
Maryland 74%
45%
49%
85%
Massachusetts 39%
43%
45%
75%
Congressional Research Service
69
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Actual % Visited At Least Monthly
Target
State
FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Michigan 14%
27%
43%
70%
Minnesota 36%
40%
47%
75%
Mississippi 65%
74%
77%
84%
Missouri 56%
48%
76%
76%
Montana 2%
35%
51%
60%
Nebraska 27%
40%
44%
60%
Nevada 19%
40%
52%
65%
New Hampshire
28%
45%
76%
75%
New Jersey
20%
30%
54%
69%
New Mexico
60%
79%
85%
82%
New York
12%
21%
47%
75%
North Carolina
39%
30%
67%
77%
North Dakota
2%
13%
46%
65%
Ohio 18%
34%
67%
80%
Oklahoma 46%
73%
65%
80%
Oregon 43%
40%
44%
60%
Pennsylvania 77%
81%
92%
80%
Puerto Rico
56%
50%
18%
80%
Rhode Island
23%
28%
38%
65%
South Carolina
82%
85%
90%
87%
South Dakota
36%
70%
86%
67%
Tennessee 89%
90%
91%
90%
Texas 54%
61%
77%
80%
Utah 94%
95%
96%
90%
Vermont 11%
20%
19%
65%
Virginia 14%
19%
59%
24%
Washington 9%
13%
18%
50%
West Virginia
10%
22%
54%
60%
Wisconsin 27%
29%
58%
75%
Wyoming 71%
71%
71%
90%
National State Average
42%
50%
62%
73%
National State Median
42%
46%
63%
75%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). FY2009 actual % of children visited is
based on reporting included in Child Welfare Outcomes online database. Data for all other columns is from
HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Report to Congress on Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in
Foster Care (January 2011).”
Congressional Research Service
70
Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Author Contact Information
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov, 7-2324
Congressional Research Service
71