Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed
Federal Funding
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
October 18, 2011
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown above, for inclusion in its 2011 Green Book website. CRS works
exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of
both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research Service
RL34121
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Summary
Child welfare services and supports are intended to ensure and improve the safety, permanence,
and well-being of children. This report describes the status of FY2012 appropriations and
discusses the President’s FY2012 budget request for child welfare programs, as submitted to
Congress on February 14, 2011. It compares that request to the funding levels under consideration
by Congress for FY2012 and to the amount provided by Congress for those same programs for
FY2011. Most child welfare programs are administered by the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, a few
are administered by the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice (DOJ).
FY2012 began on October 1, 2011, and full-year appropriations legislation has not yet been
enacted. Instead, Congress has continued funding via two short-term measures. The most recent
(P.L. 112-36) extends funding through November 18, 2011. In general, that measure provides an
annualized funding level for all child welfare programs with discretionary funding authorizations
at close to 98.5% of what they each received in FY2011 (via P.L. 112-10). For programs that
receive mandatory appropriations, it provides budget authority necessary to meet obligations of
current law.
Although the details of the funding measures vary somewhat, full-year FY2012 appropriations
legislation under consideration in the House (H.R. 3070 and H.R. 2596) and in the Senate (S.
1599 and S. 1572) would permit annual definite funding of a little more than $8.0 billion for the
child welfare programs discussed in this report. By contrast, the President’s FY2012 budget seeks
close to $8.3 billion for those programs. The primary difference in proposed funding levels is the
President’s request for an additional $250 million to support the first year of a 10-year ($2.5
billion) legislative proposal for foster care reform. In that proposal, the Administration seeks,
among other things, legislative authority to provide incentive funds to states to improve outcomes
for children in, or at risk of entering, foster care. These incentives have not been authorized,
however, and appropriations bills pending in the House (H.R. 3070) and Senate (S. 1599) would
not provide funding for the foster care reform proposal.
The President’s FY2012 budget also calls for a five-year reauthorization of the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program and assumes continued funding for the program and related
activities at the level provided for FY2011. With the Child and Family Services Improvement and
Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34), enacted September 30, 2011, Congress extended the mandatory
funding authorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program for five years (FY2012-
FY2016) at an annual level of $345 million. That amount is $20 million less than what was
provided in FY2011. H.R. 3070, as introduced, and S. 1599, as reported to the Senate, would both
provide $365 million in mandatory funding for this program, the same amount that was provided
in FY2011. (However, those bills were introduced prior to enactment of P.L. 112-34.)
The President’s FY2012 budget requests somewhat more funding under the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA) ($97 million) than would be provided by H.R. 3070 ($85 million) or S.
1599 ($93 million). Additionally, the President proposes $50 million for Adoption Incentives, while
H.R. 3070 and S. 1599 would maintain the FY2011 funding level of $39 million. In addition, the
President seeks no FY2012 funding for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA). By contrast,
H.R. 2596 would provide $6 million for CASA and S. 1572 would provide $2.5 million. Table 1 in
this report shows the share of dedicated child welfare funding provided by general category for
recent years, including final funding for FY2011 and proposed funding for FY2012. Table 2
includes recent and proposed funding levels by child welfare program.
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Contents
Current Status of FY2012 Appropriations ....................................................................................... 1
Full-Year Appropriation Bills Under Consideration.................................................................. 1
Funding Levels Proposed for FY2012....................................................................................... 2
Mandatory funding.............................................................................................................. 2
Discretionary funding.......................................................................................................... 3
Budget Control Act and Child Welfare Programs ..................................................................... 3
Overview of the President’s FY2012 Budget Request for Child Welfare........................................ 4
Legislative Proposals ....................................................................................................................... 5
Foster Care Reform Proposal .................................................................................................... 5
Proposal for Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.................. 6
Child Support Enforcement Proposal Related to Foster Care ................................................... 7
Continue Funding for Child Welfare Study............................................................................... 7
Requests to Increase, Reduce, Eliminate, or Redirect Certain Funding .......................................... 8
Increased Funding Sought for Adoption Incentives .................................................................. 8
Funding Changes Sought Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act............................................. 9
No Funds Sought for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Funding..................... 9
No Funds Sought for Training of Judicial Personnel and Practitioners ............................ 10
Reduced Funding Sought for Children’s Advocacy Centers............................................. 10
Share of Child Welfare Funding by General Purpose.................................................................... 11
FY2012 Title IV-E Budget Request Compared to Past Funding ................................................... 14
The Title IV-E Program ........................................................................................................... 14
Adoption Assistance.......................................................................................................... 15
Foster Care ........................................................................................................................ 16
Kinship Guardianship Assistance...................................................................................... 18
Funding for Child Welfare by Program ......................................................................................... 19
Tables
Table 1. Funding Appropriated or Proposed, by General Category............................................... 13
Table 2. Recent and Proposed Federal Funding Dedicated to Child Welfare ................................ 19
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
hild welfare services are intended to prevent the abuse or neglect of children; to ensure
that children have safe, permanent homes; and to promote the well-being of children and
C their families. Most federal child welfare programs are administered by the Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS). Funding for ACF programs is primarily provided in the annual appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. Several child welfare programs (authorized by the
Victims of Child Abuse Act) are administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) within the
Department of Justice. Their funding is provided in the annual appropriations bill for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice.
Current Status of FY2012 Appropriations
FY2012 began on October 1, 2012. Agreement on program appropriation levels for the full
FY2012 has not yet been reached by Congress. However, Congress has passed legislation that
extends availability of federal funds. The funding extension was provided via two measures. The
first (P.L. 112-33) extended funding through October 4, 2011, and the second (P.L. 112-36)
provides funding through November 18, 2011. The annualized funding level currently being
provided for the child welfare programs discussed in this report that receive mandatory funding
(e.g., Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance) is whatever level is necessary to meet
federal funding obligations specified under current law. Further, P.L. 112-36 continues funding
for all child welfare programs discussed in this report that receive discretionary funding (e.g.,
Child Abuse State Grants, the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program) at an
annualized funding level that is close to 98.5% of the funding they received in FY2011 (P.L. 112-
10).1
Full-Year Appropriation Bills Under Consideration
Nearly all of the child welfare programs discussed in this report receive funding via
appropriations provided to HHS. Separate from the short-term funding extensions, however,
Congress has taken some actions related to full-year funding of child welfare programs. In the
House, H.R. 3070 was introduced on September 29, 2011, by Representative Rehberg and would
provide FY2012 funding for the departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. No committee or
other action has been taken on this bill as of October 18, 2011. However, the House
Appropriations Committee includes the bill (in draft form) on its website and also provides a
comprehensive funding table showing funding levels that would be provided by the bill.2 On the
Senate side, the Senate Appropriations Committee agreed (by a vote of 16-14) to favorably report
S. 1599, which would provide FY2012 funding for the departments of Labor, HHS and
Education. The bill was reported to the full Senate (S.Rept. 112-84) on September 22, 2011.
A few child welfare programs are funded via appropriations provided to the Department of
Justice. In July 2011, the House Appropriations Committee reported to the full House a bill to
fund the departments of Commerce and Justice (H.R. 2596, H.Rept. 112-169), and in September
1 The annualized funding level for all discretionary funding is 98.497% of the FY2011 funding provided.
2 Funding table is at http://appropriations.house.gov/UploadedFiles/
FY12LH_Detail_SC_10_Rev_with_comparable.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
2011, the Senate Appropriations reported to the full Senate a bill to fund those departments (S.
1572, S.Rept. 112-78).
Funding Levels Proposed for FY2012
FY2012 appropriations legislation pending in the House would ensure $8.018 billion in funding
for the child welfare programs discussed in this report; comparable bills pending in the Senate
would provide $8.031 billion for those same programs.3
Mandatory funding
Most federal funding dedicated to child welfare is provided on a mandatory basis under Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act. The bills pending in the House (H.R. 3070) and the Senate (S. 1599)
would each provide the identical level of definite budget authority—$6.863 billion—for the Title
IV-E program. (That total includes $4.288 billion for foster care, $2.495 billion for adoption
assistance, and $80 million for kinship guardianship.)4 This is the amount the Administration
estimated it would need to fund the Title IV-E program under the provisions of current law. It
does not include the additional funds requested by the President ($250 million in FY2012) for a
foster care reform proposal. (See “Foster Care Reform Proposal.”)
In addition, H.R. 3070 and S. 1599 would each provide $140 million in mandatory funding for
the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, which primarily supports services for youth who
are expected to “age out” of foster care without placement in a permanent family or who have
recently aged out. (Additional Chafee program funds related to Education and Training Vouchers
for these youth are authorized on a discretionary basis and both bills would provide $45.3 million
for this purpose, which is the sum that was provided for the vouchers in FY2011.)
Finally, both H.R. 3070 and S. 1599 would provide $365 million under the section of the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program that authorizes mandatory funds.5 This amount of
funding is equal to the amount authorized and provided in FY2011 but is $20 million above the
mandatory funding level authorized for the program by the Child and Family Services
3 Both sums include $18 million in “pre-appropriated” dollars that earlier enacted legislation made available for child
welfare programs in FY2012, as well as $20 million in funds provided via the Crime Victims Fund (which is
administered by the Department of Justice and is not a part of the general treasury of the federal government.)
4 In addition to the “definite” budget authority provided (which includes some funds for first quarter of FY2013), both
bills also grant additional budget authority for HHS to meet any “unanticipated costs” incurred under the Title IV-E
program during the final three months of FY2012. This “indefinite” budget authority language has been a part of the
annual Title IV-E appropriation beginning with the appropriation for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7).
5 P.L. 111-242 increased the mandatory funding authorization for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)
program to $365 million from its prior-year mandatory funding level of $345 million. In addition, that law provided
that all of the additional PSSF funding ($20 million) was to be added to the previous and longstanding set aside of $10
million in mandatory PSSF funding for the Court Improvement Program (CIP). This statutory increase ensured that the
CIP maintained the same level of mandatory funding it had received in each year since FY2006 (i.e., $30 million)
despite the expiration in FY2010 of funds “pre-appropriated for CIP ($20 million annually) via the Deficit Reduction
Act (P.L. 109-171). The change made by P.L. 111-242 was scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as a one-
year cost; therefore, the mandatory dollars were not included in the baseline beyond FY2011. The Child and Family
Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34) returns the annual mandatory funding authorization for PSSF
to $345 million, consistent with level of funds included in the CBO baseline. At the same time, it maintained the $30
million set aside out of these mandatory funds for CIP. In effect then, this change reduces funding to states, territories,
and tribes for provision of child and family services under the PSSF program by $20 million.
Congressional Research Service
2
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34).6 (Both bills would also provide $63.2 million in
discretionary appropriations for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program, which matches
the amount of discretionary funding the program received in FY2011.)
Discretionary funding
Finally, with a few exceptions, the House and Senate proposals would fund child welfare
programs with discretionary funding at the level they received in FY2011. Exceptions include the
following:
• Child welfare training, research and demonstration activities authorized under
Section 426 of the Social Security Act: H.R. 3070 would set funding for these
activities at $26 million, down from the $27 million that was provided in
FY2011. Meanwhile, the bill reported in the Senate (S. 1599) would maintain the
FY2011 funding. (The President’s budget also seeks $27 million.)
• Discretionary grants and research activities under the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act (CAPTA): H.R. 3070 would set funding for these activities at
$17.3 million, down from $25.8 million that was provided in FY2011.
Meanwhile, the bill reported in the Senate (S. 1599) would maintain the FY2011
funding. (The President’s proposal for this account is $29.0 million, which is the
amount of funding the account received in FY2010.)
• Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA): Legislation reported in the House
(H.R. 2596) would provide $6.0 million for CASA, while the bill reported in the
Senate (S. 1572) would provide $2.5 million. As part of FY2011 appropriations,
CASA received $12.4 million. The President proposes no funding for CASA in
FY2012. (See “No Funds Sought for Court Appointed Special Advocates
(CASA) Funding.”)
• Training of judicial personnel and practitioners: The bill reported in the House
(H.R. 2596) would provide no funding for this grant program; the bill reported in
the Senate (S. 1572) would provide $1.5 million. As part of FY2011
appropriations, this training funding—which is generally awarded to the National
Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and used to support its “model
courts initiative”—received $2.0 million. The President proposes no funding for
this grant program in FY2012. (See “No Funds Sought for Training of Judicial
Personnel and Practitioners.”)
FY2012 funding levels proposed for each child welfare program are shown in Table 2 at the end
of this report.
Budget Control Act and Child Welfare Programs
Roughly 8% of the funding provided for the child welfare programs included in this report is
provided as discretionary spending. The Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25) establishes an overall
6 P.L. 112-34 was enacted on September 30, 2011, which was after the introduction of both S. 1599 and H.R. 3070. For
information on the new law, see CRS Report R42027, Child Welfare: The Child and Family Services Improvement and
Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34), by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
3
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
spending cap for each of FY2012-FY2021 that applies to discretionary spending.7 If those
spending caps are exceeded in any of those years, an across-the-board uniform reduction of
funding—calculated to ensure discretionary funding remains within the spending cap—would be
applied to all “non-exempt” discretionary accounts. This process is sometimes referred to as
“sequestration.”8 All of the child welfare programs in this report that receive discretionary
funding would be subject to any reduction of funding required under such a sequestration process.
Further, the Budget Control Act established a Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction that is
charged with creating legislation that would reduce the federal deficit by a significant sum over
10 years (FY2012-FY2021). This legislation must be presented to Congress and voted on before
the end of calendar year 2011. If the legislation is not adopted, or is adopted and reduces the
deficit by less than $1.2 trillion over that 10-year period, a separate sequestration process—one to
ensure the deficit reduction target is met—would be set in motion. This sequestration process
would apply to programs that receive non-exempt discretionary and non-exempt mandatory
funding. The largest mandatory child welfare funding stream, the Title IV-E Foster Care and
Permanency account (which includes foster care, adoption assistance, guardianship assistance,
and the mandatory part of Chafee Foster Care Independence Program) is exempt from that
sequestration. However, the mandatory part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Program would be
subject to this deficit reduction sequestration, as would any of the child welfare accounts that
receive funding on a discretionary basis.
Overview of the President’s FY2012 Budget Request
for Child Welfare
The FY2012 budget request submitted by the Obama Administration on February 14, 2011, seeks
$8.3 billion in federal support for the child welfare programs discussed in this report. Most
federal funding for child welfare programs (roughly 92%) is provided by Congress on a
mandatory basis. Generally, this means the federal law that authorizes a given program stipulates
that a certain level of funding is, or must be, appropriated each year by Congress. That certain
level might be a fixed sum—as in a capped entitlement—or it might be whatever level is
necessary to provide the specified federal level of support for costs identified in statute—as in an
open-ended entitlement. The remaining funding for child welfare programs is provided by
Congress on a discretionary basis. That means that Congress, as part of the annual appropriations
process, determines whether and at what level to provide support for these programs.
The President’s FY2012 budget seeks about $7.7 billion in mandatory child welfare funding,
including $250 million to support the first year of a requested 10-year legislative proposal related
to the foster care program that is authorized under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. A
separate legislative proposal related to requirements of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) is estimated to increase federal support under the
7 For FY2012 and FY2013, this overall discretionary spending cap is divided into security and non-security categories.
For more information about this and P.L. 112-25 generally, see CRS Report R41965, The Budget Control Act of 2011,
by Bill Heniff Jr., Elizabeth Rybicki, and Shannon M. Mahan.
8 For more information, see CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and
Special Rules, coordinated by Karen Spar.
Congressional Research Service
4
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Title IV-E foster care component by $370 million from FY2013 to FY2021. This proposal and
others are discussed in more detail below under “Legislative Proposals.”
For FY2012, the President also requests close to $636 million in discretionary funding for child
welfare programs. This includes $282 million for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare
Services program (which is equal to the FY2010 funding level for the program but slightly above
what was provided in FY2011). The funding authorization for this program had been set to expire
with the end of FY2011 but was extended through FY2016 by the recently enacted Child and
Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34).
The Administration’s request for discretionary funding also includes a proposed $10.5 million
increase in funding for the Adoption Incentives program, which would bring total funding for the
program to $50 million for FY2012. At the same time, the President’s FY2012 budget proposes to
end funding for two grant programs authorized under the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990
(Title II of P.L. 101-647) and to adjust the funding level of a third. These changes would reduce
combined funding under that act from $40 million in FY2010 to just $20 million in FY2012.9
These requests for increased, reduced, redirected, or terminated funding are discussed in more
detail below under “Requests to Increase, Reduce, Eliminate, or Redirect Certain Funding.”
Legislative Proposals
Legislative proposals are included in the President’s budget when, apart from appropriating the
necessary funds, legislative authority does not exist for the Administration to carry out the
proposal. Therefore, to allow a legislative proposal to go forward Congress must both enact the
authority for the Administration (in this case HHS) to administer the program as requested and it
must appropriate funds for that purpose.
Foster Care Reform Proposal
The Obama Administration seeks additional annual mandatory funding authority of $2.5 billion
across 10 years ($250 million in each of FY2012-FY2021) “to reward States that achieve
improved outcomes for children and encourage efficient and effective use of Federal foster care
resources that lead to savings.”10 As of October 18, 2011, Congress had not acted on this
legislative proposal, and pending appropriations legislation would not fund this proposal.
Specifically, the Administration proposes to streamline administrative procedures; provide
incentives to states that improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of children who are at-
risk of entering foster care, are in foster care, or have left foster care; and test “innovative
approaches” to improving outcomes for children served by child welfare agencies. At the same
time, the Administration notes that its proposal “maintains legal protections for children and
preserves a funding entitlement for States.”11
9 The President’s FY2012 budget request also seeks to transfer funding for the Adoption Awareness program to the
Adoption Opportunities program. The request was made before final approval FY2011 appropriations, under which this
change was permitted, and is not further discussed in this report.
10 The Appendix, Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2012, p. 481.
11 Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2012, p. 84.
Congressional Research Service
5
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
In justifying this request, the Obama Administration notes that current law “can discourage
investment and innovation that would serve children’s best interests.” The federal government, it
asserts, should be helping states to enable children who are served by the child welfare system “to
achieve safety, permanency and success in life.” The Administration does not currently propose
specific legislation to achieve this reform but “looks forward to working with Congress” to enact
this reform agenda based on the following principals:12
• Creating financial incentives to improve child outcomes in key areas by reducing
the length of stay in foster care; increasing permanency through reunification,
adoption, and guardianship; decreasing rates of maltreatment recurrence and any
maltreatment while in foster care; and reducing rates of re-entry into foster care.
• Improving the well-being of children and youth in the foster care system,
transitioning to permanent homes, or transitioning to adulthood.
• Reducing costly and unnecessary administrative requirements, while retaining
the focus on children in need.
• Using the best research currently available on child welfare policies and
interventions to help the states achieve further declines in the numbers of
children who need to enter or remain in foster care; better reach families with
more complex needs; and improve outcomes for children who are abused,
neglected, or at risk of abuse or neglect.
• Expanding the knowledge base by allowing states to test innovative strategies
that improve outcomes for children and rewarding states for efficient use of
federal and state resources.13
Proposal for Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program
The Administration requested a five-year reauthorization of funding for the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families (PSSF) program, authorized under Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security
Act. The program’s funding authorizations had been scheduled to expire with the end of FY2011,
but with the recently enacted Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L.
112-34), Congress extended them (through FY2016).
The PSSF program primarily funds formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for provision
of a range of child and family services. In addition, funding provided for this program is reserved
to support (1) the Court Improvement Program, which provides grants to states’ highest courts to
improve their handling of child welfare proceedings; (2) program-related research, evaluation,
and technical assistance; (3) formula grants to states to support improved monthly caseworker
visits of children in foster care; and (4) competitive grants to regional partnerships to improve the
outcomes of children in or at-risk of entering foster care due to parental substance abuse.14
12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Fiscal Year 2012
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, February 2011, p. 337 (HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget
Justification).
13 Ibid. Also see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Budget in Brief, pp. 93-94.
14 For more information on the PSSF program overall, and each of the activities for which funds are reserved, see CRS
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Child Support Enforcement Proposal Related to Foster Care
Under current law, states are required to return to the federal government a part of the child
support collected on behalf of children who receive federal (Title IV-E) supported foster care
maintenance payments, and states may use the remaining funds collected to reimburse their part
of the cost of those payments.15 The Obama Administration seeks legislation to require that states
use those child support payments in the best interest of the children for whom they are made
rather than as general revenue for the state or to reimburse the federal government for a part of its
cost of providing this support. Because it would end federal “cost recovery” of Title IV-E foster
care maintenance payments, the proposal is estimated to increase the federal cost of foster care by
roughly $46 million each year, (or by $370 million over the 10-year budget period). The
Administration proposes to make this legislative change effective in conjunction with several
other proposals that intend to ensure that a greater share of all child support payments made by
noncustodial parents reach the children on whose behalf they are paid and to encourage fathers
who are noncustodial parents to take a more active part in their children’s lives. The proposed
changes with regard to the Title IV-E foster care program would not become effective until
FY2013.16
Continue Funding for Child Welfare Study
The President’s FY2012 budget proposes to continue mandatory funding ($6 million) under
Section 429 of the Social Security Act for research concerning children who are at risk of abuse
or neglect or who have been abused or neglected. As of October 18, 2011, Congress has not acted
on this proposal, and funding for this research expired as of September 30, 2011. According to
HHS, the FY2012 request would enable HHS to continue to support a second phase of the
research study known as the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW),
including completing additional data collection, archiving these data for researcher use, and
providing reports on the survey findings.17 First authorized as part of the welfare reform
legislation that created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant (P.L.
104-193), this survey provides nationally representative and longitudinal data on children and
families that come into contact with child protective services via an investigation of alleged child
abuse or neglect.18
(...continued)
Report R41860, Child Welfare: Funding for Child and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social
Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
15 Under the Title IV-E foster care program, state child welfare agencies are required “where appropriate” to work with
the state child support enforcement and cash aid agencies to secure to the state assignment of child support rights for
children in foster care (Section 471(a)(17) of the Social Security Act). For more on the Child Support Enforcement
program, see CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
16 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, pp. 278-279, 337.
17 The request for continued funding of this survey is made as part of the request for a one-year extension of the TANF
program. See HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 297. Specific components that would be funded in a one-
year extension were described to CRS in more recent communications with HHS (September 2011). At that time, HHS
indicated that it needed just $3 million in FY2012 to complete research begun, make reports, and archive data for
researcher access.
18 For more information on the survey and for a list of research briefs from the NSCAW study, see
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/index.html.
Congressional Research Service
7
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Requests to Increase, Reduce, Eliminate, or Redirect
Certain Funding
The President’s FY2012 budget proposes to increase, reduce, eliminate, or redirect funding for
certain child welfare programs. These proposals do not require congressional program
authorization to be carried out. However, they generally require Congress to appropriate funds in
different amounts or in different ways than in previous years.
Increased Funding Sought for Adoption Incentives
The President’s FY2012 budget seeks $49.9 million in discretionary appropriations for the
Adoption Incentives program. This is $10.5 million more than the estimated final funding
provided by P.L. 112-10 for this program ($39.4 million). The program is authorized to receive
$43 million for each fiscal year through FY2013. Pending appropriations legislation (S. 1599 and
H.R. 3070) would maintain the FY2011 funding level ($39.4 million) rather than provide an
increase.
Under the Adoption Incentives program, HHS must award bonuses to states that increase
adoptions out of foster care. States helped finalize record numbers of adoptions out of foster care
in recent years and that fact, combined with changes Congress made to the incentive scale during
2008 (P.L. 110-351), has meant that Adoption Incentive funding has fallen below the total amount
needed to fully pay states the bonus amounts they were calculated to have earned.19 The increased
funding requested for FY2012 anticipates states’ continued success in placing children in
adoptive homes and would also enable HHS to pay states their full awards for adoptions finalized
in previous years for which inadequate funds were available.20
For adoptions finalized in FY2010—the most recent year for which awards have been made—32
states earned more than $43.7 million in awards based on an increase in the number of adoptions
finalized (as compared to the previous year). However, after making states whole for awards
earned in prior years (and for which insufficient funds were available), HHS was able to
distribute just $32.5 million (or about 75%) of the awards earned for those FY2010 adoptions. 21
19 Beginning with awards made for adoptions finalized in FY2008, the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoption Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351) doubled the amount of incentive funding that may be earned for
increases in adoption of older children (age 9 or above) and for children with special needs (under age 9) while
maintaining the prior law incentive for an increase in the overall number of adoptions. Further, it fixed the state-by-
state baseline number of adoptions that must be exceeded in order for a state to earn Adoption Incentive awards to the
number of adoptions finalized during FY2007. Finally, it added a bonus (provided sufficient funds were appropriated)
for states that increase the rate at which children are adopted from foster care. For more information on changes in the
incentive structure made by P.L. 110-351, see CRS Report RL34704, Child Welfare: The Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
20 HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 156.
21 Beginning with adoptions finalized in FY2008, states have also been able to earn awards based on an increase in the
rate at which children are adopted from foster care. However, because of a lack of appropriations, awards based on an
increase in the state’s adoption rate have only been awarded in that first year. Since then all the available funds have
been used to pay states for an increase in the number of adoptions, which the statute provides must be paid first.
Further, as HHS has interpreted the statute (Section 473A of the Social Security Act) payment of the full award to
states for any increases based on the number of adoptions finalized may be made at the time of the initial award—if
sufficient appropriations are available at that time—or in a subsequent year if additional appropriations are necessary.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Funding Changes Sought Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act
The Obama Administration’s FY2012 budget proposes to end funding for the Court Appointed
Special Advocates (CASA) program, which received $15 million for FY2010 and an estimated
$12.4 million for FY2011, as well as for the Training for Judges and Judicial Practitioners grant,
which received $2.5 million in FY2010 and an estimated $2.0 million for FY2011. Finally, the
Administration’s FY2012 budget proposes $20 million in FY2012 funding for Children’s
Advocacy Centers, which is between the $22.5 million provided for that purpose in FY2010 and
the estimated $18.6 million provided for FY2011. All three of these programs are authorized
under the Victims of Child Abuse Act (established by Title II of P.L. 101-647, 1990) and are
administered by the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice.
Appropriations bills pending in the House (H.R. 2596) and Senate (S. 1572) respond to this
proposal differently. H.R. 2596 would provide $15 million for Children’s Advocacy Centers, $6
million for CASA, and $0 for training for judges and judicial practitioners. S. 1572 would provide
$20 million for Children’s Advocacy Centers, $2.5 million for CASA, and $1.5 million for
training for judges and judicial practitioners.
No Funds Sought for Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Funding
Local CASA programs train volunteers, who are asked by the court to represent the best interests
of children in certain child welfare-related cases. Federal funds have been provided to the
National Court Appointed Special Advocates Association, which makes subgrants to help develop
and sustain local CASA programs and provides training and technical assistance for a national
network of some 1,000 local CASA program offices.22 Federal funding authority for the CASA
program (Section 219 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act, or 42 U.S.C. 13014), was most recently
extended in the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005
(P.L. 109-162) and expired as of September 30, 2011.23
Discussing the proposal to end federal CASA funding under this program authority, the
Administration notes that its commitment to cutting the federal deficit and “restoring fiscal
sustainability” required it to make “very difficult funding decisions,” including ones that redirect
federal dollars to meet urgent national priorities. It further notes that where possible the FY2012
Budget seeks to consolidate programs in a way that gives states greater flexibility to meet their
criminal justice needs, supports evidence-based criminal justice programs, and provides new
resources to address unmet needs in this area or to increase knowledge of evidence. It does not
(...continued)
At the same time, it has read that statute to provide that any funds earned by a state for an increase in adoptions linked
solely to a change in the adoption rate may only be awarded if funds are available to make these bonus payments in the
year when the initial awards are made.
22 While local CASA programs receive funding from diverse sources (which may or may not include subgrants from
National CASA Association), according to its own website the majority of National CASA Association funding is
provided via a Department of Justice grant. See http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5301303/
k.6FB1/About_Us__CASA_for_Children.htm.
23 For more on CASA and the most recent reauthorization, see CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare: Programs
Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
9
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
provide specific information about alternative supports in the budget for CASA or similar
services.24
No Funds Sought for Training of Judicial Personnel and Practitioners
Support for the Training of Judicial Personnel and Practitioners (to improve the handling of child
abuse and neglect proceedings) is authorized in Subtitle C of the Victims of Child Abuse Act (42
U.S.C. 13021-13024). Although specific funding authority for this training ($2.3 million
annually) expired with FY2005, Congress has continued to provide funds for the program.25 This
money has been awarded annually to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
(NCJFCJ) for support of its Model Courts initiative.26
Discussing the proposal to end funding for this program, the Administration notes that the
program “will be incorporated into the new Race to the Top Juvenile Incentive System
Improvement Grants proposed in the President’s FY2012 budget request.” According to the
Administration, integrating this program into the proposed grant program “will allow OJP and its
grantees greater flexibility in using juvenile justice grant funding and help OJP coordinate all of
its juvenile justice programs more efficiently.”27 The budget documents do not call for specific
focus on child abuse and neglect court proceedings, but along with other key indicators, they do
seek improvements of the juvenile court system under the newly proposed grant.28
Reduced Funding Sought for Children’s Advocacy Centers
Funding for Children’s Advocacy Centers (CAC) (including related training and technical
assistance) is authorized to support local, regional, and national efforts to improve the
investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases, especially to ensure that victims of
child abuse or neglect are not re-traumatized by the handling of these cases. Federal funding
under this program has been awarded to the National Children’s Alliance (NCA), which makes
subgrants to help create or maintain local Children’s Advocacy Centers. The NCA, along with
four federally authorized regional Child Advocacy Centers (located in Philadelphia, PA; St. Paul,
MN; Huntsville, AL; and Colorado Springs, CO) provide training and technical assistance to local
24 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2012 Performance Budget (February 2011), p. 233
(hereafter, DOJ, OJP, FY2012 Performance Budget).
25 For more on the legislative history of and funding for this program, see CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare:
Programs Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
26 Information on the model courts initiative, prepared by the NCJFJ, is available at http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/
stories/dept/ppcd/pdf/modelctoutcomesfinalf.pdf.
27 DOJ, OJP, FY2012 Performance Budget, p. 246.
28 The Administration seeks $120 million for the Race to the Top Juvenile Incentive System Improvement Grants,
which it proposes as a replacement to and consolidation of funding now provided to states under the Juvenile
Accountability Block Grant and Title II, Part B of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. (Those two
grant programs received a total of $130 million in FY2010.) See DOJ, OJP. FY2012 Performance Budget, pp. 108-111
and pp. 192-197. The budget justifications released in February proposed that all of this grant money be made available
to states on a competitive basis (rather than the formula basis under which much of it is currently provided). However,
on April 1, 2011, it revised this proposal so to include distribution of most of the proposed combined grant on a
formula basis. See http://www.ojjdp.gov/enews/11juvjust/110401.html.
Congressional Research Service
10
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
CACs.29 Funds from this account also are awarded to other organizations that provide training
related to improving the investigation and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases.
Federal funding authorization for development and support of local CACs, establishment and
operation of regional CACs, and grants for related training and technical assistance is included in
Subtitle A of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13001-13004). The combined
annual federal funding authority was set at $20 million for each of FY2004 and FY2005 (P.L.
108-21).30 Although funding authorization for these program activities has expired, the program
has continued to receive annual appropriations, including $20 million in FY2009, $22.5 million in
FY2010, and an estimated $18.6 million for FY2011.
Share of Child Welfare Funding by General Purpose
By far the largest share of dedicated federal child welfare funding (roughly 86% in recent years)
is provided to support, or otherwise administer aid to, children who were removed from their
birth families primarily due to abuse or neglect. These include eligible children in foster care and
eligible children who left foster care for permanent families via adoption or, as authorized by P.L.
110-351 (2008), for kinship guardianship. The largest share of this program funding continues to
support children in temporary foster care, including related program administration and training
costs. At the same time, funding that is appropriated or requested for support of children leaving
foster care for permanent adoptive or guardianship homes has been growing while the share
appropriated or requested under the Title IV-E program for children in foster care has been in
corresponding decline. The President’s FY2012 budget continues this trend of requesting a larger
share of support for permanency. In addition, a part of the Title IV-E funding for foster care is
requested to make incentive grants to states related to improving outcomes for children in foster
care.
In recent years, roughly 9% to 10% of federal funding dedicated to child welfare purposes has
been appropriated for distribution to all states via formula grants for child welfare-related services
to children and families. This remained true for the FY2012 budget request. These funds are
authorized under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, Title 1, State Grants
and Title II, Community-Based Grants) and under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (Subpart
1-Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services and Subpart 2-Promoting Safe and Stable
Families, PSSF).31 Funds provided for these programs are used to support services or activities
designed to prevent child abuse and neglect; screen and investigate child abuse and neglect
29 Local CACs receive funding from diverse sources, which may or may not include subgrants from NCA. The NCA,
however, serves as an accrediting agency for the circa 700 local CACs. For more information see the organization’s
website at http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/mediaroom.
30 Separately, P.L. 109-162 authorized training and technical assistance funds of $7.5 million (for each of FY2006-
FY2010) related to purposes of Children’s Advocacy Centers. However, that law referenced but did not amend the
Victims of Child Abuse Act funding authorization for this program and no funds were appropriated under this separate
funding authority.
31 This funding share counts the $20 million provided to states and tribes via the Children’s
Justice Act grants, which are provided as a set-aside from the Crime Victims Fund (rather than out
of the general treasury).
.
Congressional Research Service
11
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
allegations; provide family support, family preservation, reunification, and adoption promotion
and support services; and improve monthly caseworker visits to children in foster care.
Separately, all states receive formula grant funding under the Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program (and related Education and Training Vouchers) to provide services and other support to
youth who “age out” of foster care without being placed in a permanent family. Despite an overall
decline in the number of children who remain in foster care on the last day of a given fiscal year,
the number of children who leave foster care without placement in a permanent home (referred to
as “aging out” or “emancipating” from care) grew from roughly 23,000 during FY2004 to more
than 29,000 during FY2008 and FY2009 and was just below 28,000 in FY2010 (the most recent
year for which national data are available). During that time the annual funding amount dedicated
to provide services to these youth (roughly $185 million) has remained unchanged. It represents a
little more than 2% of overall funding appropriated or requested for child welfare purposes in
recent years. The FY2012 budget request seeks this same level of funding.
Finally, in recent years around 3% of federal child welfare funding was requested for competitive
grants to public agencies, national or community-based service agencies, research groups, or
other eligible entities that provide child and family services or conduct relevant research,
including for awards to states that increase the number of children adopted out of foster care. The
FY2012 budget seeks to provide incentives for improved program outcomes under the Title IV-E
funding program. Including the $250 million funding increase sought for this reform proposal as
competitive or incentive funding to states, as is done in Table 1 below, would boost the share of
dedicated federal child welfare spending for this general purpose to about 6%.
Table 1 shows the final funding, and the share of total funding authority provided, for each of
these general categories as appropriated for FY2010 and FY2011 and as proposed by the
President and in pending legislation for FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
12
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Table 1. Funding Appropriated or Proposed, by General Category
($ in millions; % shown is of total funding authority provided or proposed)
Final
Final
President’s
Pending FY2012 Approps.
General Category of Child
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Welfare Funding
Funding
Fundinga
Request
House Senate
FOSTER CARE—Funds to al states to
$4,681
$3,967
$4,288c
$4,288
$4,288
provide foster care for eligible children.b
(56%)
(52%)
(52%)
(53%)
(53%)
PERMANENCY—Funds to all states to
$2,511
$2,512
$2,575
$2,575
$2,575
provide adoption assistance or kinship
(30%)
(33%)
(31%)
(32%)
(32%)
guardianship assistance for eligible children.b
CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES—Funds to
all states to improve child protective
$778
$777
$778
$777
$777
services and to provide a range of services
(9%)
(10%)
(9%)
(10%)
(10%)
to children and families.
SERVICES FOR YOUTH—Funds to all
states to provide services to youth who are
$185
$185
$185
$185
$185
expected to “age out” of foster care and
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
those who have aged out of foster care.
RESEARCH, EVALUATION, TRAINING,
DEMONSTRATION and INCENTIVES—
Funds for competitive grants to eligible
entities (including states in many cases) to
$231
$220
$471c
$193
$205
provide child and family services or do
(3%)
(3%)
(6%)
(2%)
(3%)
research and evaluation related to such
services, including prevention of abuse and
neglect; and for provision of incentive funds.
Total $8,386
$7,662
$8,298
$8,018
$8,031
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Pending FY2012 figures are based on funding
levels included in H.R. 3070 as introduced, H.R. 2596 as reported, S. 1599 as reported, and S. 1572 as reported.
Al totals included funds pre-appropriated or otherwise provided for a given year.
Notes: Percentages may not total to 100 because of rounding. Final sums shown may not equal amounts given in
previous versions of this report in instances where HHS used indefinite budget authority to access funds beyond
the certain sum authority given in an appropriations bill.
a. P.L. 112-10 provided final FY2011 funding levels. It is not accompanied by a conference report or
explanatory statement that indicates the exact appropriation level or budget authority provided for each
program. FY2011 funding levels used to create this table are based on discretionary program operating
levels provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children
and Families (ACF), http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan_acf.pdf; the current law
estimate of necessary FY2011 budget authority for Title IV-E (as provided in the President’s FY2012
budget); and, for Victims of Child Abuse Act programs, estimates by CRS based on certain provisions in P.L.
112-10.
b. The FY2010 and FY2011 appropriated amounts include funds required to meet the enhanced federal share
of certain Title IV-E costs as authorized by P.L. 111-5 and P.L. 111-226. That enhanced match was greater
during FY2010 and is being phased out in FY2011.
c. The President’s request for $250 million in incentive funds for states, which is made under the Title IV-E
foster care program, is not included in the foster care row of this table, but is instead shown in the row
related to funds for research, evaluation, training, demonstration, and incentives.
Table 2 at the end of this report shows, by child welfare program, final FY2010 and FY2011
funding levels and the President’s FY2012 requested funding levels.
Congressional Research Service
13
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
FY2012 Title IV-E Budget Request Compared to
Past Funding
The President’s FY2012 budget request for child welfare programs closely followed funding
provided by Congress for those programs in FY2010 (P.L. 111-117), the most recent year for
which full-year appropriations have been finalized. The largest differences reflect changes in the
Administration’s estimate of funds needed to reimburse eligible state claims related to foster care,
adoption assistance, and guardianship assistance, which is authorized under Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act. The following section discusses the Title IV-E request for FY2012 compared
to funding authority provided for FY2010 and FY2011.
The Title IV-E Program
The Obama Administration requests $7.113 billion in definite budget authority for the Title IV-E
foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship program.32 This amount includes $250
million in FY2012 budget authority requested as part of the Administration’s legislative proposal
to provide incentive funding (under the Title IV-E foster care program) to states that improve
child welfare outcomes for children at risk of entering foster care, as well as those who are in care
or have left care for permanent homes.
The Title IV-E federal foster care, kinship guardianship, and adoption assistance program (also
referred to as the Foster Care and Permanency program) is authorized on an indefinite basis (i.e.,
the funding authorization never expires). This Title IV-E funding is also authorized on an open-
ended entitlement basis. This means the funding provided by Congress for the Title IV-E program
must match the federal share of state Title IV-E eligible claims. To ensure adequate funds are
annually appropriated for the program, the Administration estimates, each year, how much money
will be necessary to reimburse states for the federal share of the eligible foster care, adoption
assistance, and kinship guardianship costs they incur. Congress typically provides this definite
level of budget authority as part of its annual appropriations process. In the event that the definite
amount of funding Congress provides exceeds the amount needed to pay the eligible claims
submitted by states, these excess funds are eventually returned to the Treasury. On the other hand,
if the definite sum turns out to be less than the needed amount, HHS may access the additional
funds necessary to meet the federal obligations under this program by using the “indefinite”
budget authority included in annual appropriations bills.33
32 For each fiscal year, the definite budget authority requested by HHS includes a certain amount expected to be
necessary to make timely payments to states for Title IV-E claims during the first quarter of the following fiscal year.
Because funding is requested this way each year, for comparability the total budget authority sought in a given year
(regardless of the year for which it is sought) is discussed as the budget request for the given year.
33 Beginning with the annual appropriation bill for FY2003, Congress has regularly provided additional funding
authority of “such sums as may be necessary” to allow HHS to reimburse states for any eligible amounts in the last
quarter of the fiscal year that are above the definite amount appropriated for that fiscal year. Since that time, HHS used
this indefinite authority in only two years, FY2007 and FY2009.
Congressional Research Service
14
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Adoption Assistance
HHS seeks $2.495 billion in Title IV-E adoption assistance funding for FY2012. This amount is
more than the $2.462 billion provided by Congress for this Title IV-E program component in
FY201034 and it also exceeds the $2.480 billion HHS expects it will need to provide the federal
share of adoption assistance payments for FY2011.35 The increased budget authority requested is
based on the Administration’s assumption of continued growth in the number of children who
receive Title IV-E adoption assistance. That growth is expected to be strong enough to require
increased federal funding for this program despite the end of enhanced federal support to states
for payment of Title IV-E adoption assistance payments.36
HHS projects the average monthly number of children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance
will grow to 470,400 in FY2012. By comparison, the average monthly number of children
receiving federally supported adoption was around 228,300 in FY2000, but had grown to an
estimated 429,700 children in FY2010.37 States’ continued success in finding permanent adoptive
homes for children in foster care combined with changes to federal law that expand federal
eligibility for Title IV-E adoption assistance are factors in the continued caseload growth that is
expected. The number of children adopted with public child welfare agency involvement roughly
doubled between FY1995 and FY2000, and since that latter year has been at or above 50,000
each year. In FY2009 (the most recent data available), the number of adoptions that involved
public child welfare agencies reached an annual recorded high of 57,500. Further, some increase
in the Title IV-E adoption assistance caseload is also expected due to continued implementation
of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351),
which broadened eligibility for federal adoption assistance. FY2012 will be the third year of a
nine-year phase-in of the new eligibility criteria. The new criteria remove income and resource
tests (traditionally tied to a child’s birth parents) from federal Title IV-E adoption assistance
eligibility criteria.38
34 Some earlier versions of this report cited a larger number here, based on HHS’ expected use of indefinite budget
authority. However, this additional funding was not needed, and the sum shown here is the definite budget authority
provided.
35 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 330.
36 Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5), Congress agreed to temporarily (October
1, 2009-December 31, 2010) increase (by a minimum of 6.2 percentage points) the share of total Title IV-E adoption
assistance payments it paid to states. Subsequently, as part of P.L. 111-226 it provided a minimum enhanced
reimbursement rate for those same costs of 3.2 percentage points for the second quarter of FY2011 and 1.2 percentage
points for the 3rd quarter of that fiscal year.
37 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 334 and unpublished Title IV-E expenditure claim data provided to
CRS by HHS, ACF, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget.
38 Income and resource tests continue to apply to children for whom the new criteria are not applicable. During
FY2010, the phase-in was applicable principally to children adopted at age 16 or 17 during that same fiscal year.
During FY2011, it applies principally to children adopted at age 14 or older and during FY2012 it will apply
principally to children adopted at age 12 or older. Children who are siblings of youth meeting these age eligibility
criteria and who are to be placed in the same adoptive home with their siblings may also be eligible without regard to
the income or resource test. Additionally, any otherwise eligible child who is adopted after spending 60 continuous
months in foster care is also eligible without regard to income or resource tests. Further, beginning with FY2011 states
have the option to extend (until age 21) federal adoption assistance to otherwise eligible youth who were adopted after
their 16th birthday. Under current law, this federal assistance generally ends at age 18.
Congressional Research Service
15
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Foster Care
HHS anticipates it will need FY2012 funding of $4.288 billion for the Title IV-E foster care
program under current law. In addition to that sum, it seeks an additional $250 million in FY2012
(for a total of $4.538 billion) for support of its legislative proposal to (1) provide incentives to
states that improve certain child welfare outcomes; (2) streamline administrative procedures
under the IV-E foster care program; and (3) support greater use of proven strategies to improve
child welfare outcomes and to develop more of such strategies. This funding request is less than
the $4.681 billion in Title IV-E foster care funding included in the FY2010 appropriations bill
(P.L. 111-117) but is greater than the $3.967 billion the Administration projects it will need for
this program in FY2011.39 The primary reason cited by HHS for the increase in requested foster
care funding (apart from its legislative proposal) is increased costs related to continued
implementation of changes enacted as part of the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351). Many of these changes affect what are called
“administrative” costs under the Title IV-E foster care program, including, for example,
requirements related to diligent searches for relatives of children in care, or development of
education stability plans for children in foster care.40
Additionally, although not cited by HHS as a specific factor in its estimate of increased FY2012
federal foster care costs, P.L. 110-351 permits states, effective with the first day of FY2011
(October 1, 2010), to offer Title IV-E foster care assistance to youth who remain in foster care
past their 18th birthday (up to age 21).41 As of the beginning of October 2011, 14 jurisdictions had
submitted Title IV-E plan amendments indicating that they intend to exercise the option to
provide foster care to some or all of the older youth in foster care who meet federal eligibility
requirements. Nine of these states have had their plan amendments approved (Alabama,
Arkansas, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, and New
York) and the remaining five have plan amendments under review or revision (Massachusetts,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia).42
Unlike the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance caseload, the number of children receiving Title IV-E
Foster Care support continues to decline. For FY2012, HHS estimates that an average monthly
number of 166,800 children will receive federal foster care assistance. By comparison, an
estimated 181,500 children received Title IV-E foster care assistance on an average monthly basis
39 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 330.
40 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 331.
41 For more information, see CRS Report R40218, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Issues for Congress, by
Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
42 CRS communication with HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau staff, October 7, 2011. Information on the content
of Washington state’s plan amendment was not available at that time. However, among the remaining 13 states, all
states except Tennessee and Nebraska indicated their intent to extend assistance to otherwise eligible youth who
remained in care until their 21st birthday. Tennessee proposes to provide this assistance until a youth reaches his/her
20th birthday and Nebraska until age 19. All states except Tennessee and West Virginia indicated that they intended to
provide this assistance to otherwise eligible older youth in care who met any of the employment, education, or other
related criteria that establish federal eligibility. West Virginia seeks to provide this assistance only to those otherwise
eligible youth who remain in school (either secondary or post-secondary) or are enrolled in a program to reduce barriers
to employment. Tennessee would offer this extension only to youth who remain in school (secondary or post-
secondary).
Congressional Research Service
16
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
in FY2010, while the comparable number in FY2000 was 287,800.43 This represented a decline of
37% from the FY2000 Title IV-E foster care caseload.
This decline is driven in some part by a decrease in the total number of children who are in foster
care (those who are eligible for Title IV-E and those who are not). On the last day of FY2000,
there were an estimated 552,000 children in foster care, while on the last day of FY2010, the most
recent year for which national data are available, some 408,000 children were in care. This
represents a total foster care caseload decline of 26% from the last day of FY2000 to the last day
of FY2010.
These data indicate the total foster care caseload decline (26%) has been somewhat less
precipitous than the Title IV-E foster care caseload decline (37%). Current administrative data
show erosion in the share of all children in foster care who were Title IV-E eligible—from
roughly 52% in FY2000 to between 42%-44% in FY2010.44 Although Title IV-E criteria are
multifaceted, the program’s static income test is sometimes blamed for this erosion in IV-E
eligibility status.45 Specifically, to meet the federal foster care income test a child must have been
removed (to foster care) from a home that met the income criteria for a “needy” family under
their state’s prior law cash welfare program (as the program existed in July 1996 and without
adjustment for inflation).46 States were able to establish their own need standards under that prior
law program and they vary significantly. However, the median state need standard (annualized for
a family of three) is just below $7,400, an amount that represents 42% of the federal poverty
guideline for a family of that size in 2011. (By comparison, in 1996 this same dollar amount
represented roughly 60% of the federal poverty guideline for a family of three.) In a large
majority of states (73%, or 37 states), eligibility for federal Title IV-E foster care assistance is
limited to children removed from homes with countable income that is 50% or less of the 2011
federal poverty guidelines.47
43 HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 333 and unpublished Title IV-E expenditure claim data provided to
CRS by HHS, ACF, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget.
44 There are additional reasons that children may not be eligible for Title IV-E assistance, including, for example, the
child’s placement in an unlicensed foster family home or care facility. Further, the share of children eligible for Title
IV-E foster care assistance varies greatly by state and it can be estimated in more than one way. For a discussion of
Title IV-E eligibility criteria and various estimates of the federal Title IV-E foster care coverage rate over time, see
Green Book 2008, Child Welfare, pp. 11-52 through 11-57, available on the website of the House Ways and Means
Committee at http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/s11cw.pdf.
45 See, for example, HHS, ACF, FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 333.
46 The prior law cash welfare program was known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). It was
repealed by Congress in 1996 (P.L. 104-193) and replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
block grant.
47 CRS calculations based on unpublished 1996 need standard data (for a family of three) received from HHS compared
to the federal poverty guidelines. “States” as discussed here include the District of Columbia (i.e., total of 51 states).
Many states paid monthly benefits (referred to as “payment standards”) that were less than a state’s need standard.
States determined their own need standard, as required by federal law, and this standard represented the maximum
amount of countable income a family could have and be eligible for AFDC. Federal law additionally established that no
family could be eligible for AFDC if it had gross income above 185% of the state’s need standard. The median
(annualized) gross income limitation for a family of three is just below $13,700, or 77% of the 2011 federal poverty
guidelines for a family of three.
Congressional Research Service
17
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Kinship Guardianship Assistance
HHS seeks $80 million as part of its FY2012 budget request to reimburse states for eligible
guardianship claims. This is more than double the $32 million states are expected to claim under
this Title IV-E component for FY2011.48 The request for increased funding for this Title IV-E
component reflects expected growth in the number of children who will be eligible for
guardianship assistance as more states (and some tribes) implement this relatively new Title IV-E
program option. An estimated 6,000 children will receive Title IV-E guardianship assistance, per
month, during FY2011 (which is the second full year that states could claim this Title IV-E
funding) and HHS expects this number to grow to 13,900 for FY2012.49
The kinship guardianship assistance component of the Title IV-E program was authorized by the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). States are
not required to provide this assistance but may choose to do so. As of October 2011, 29 states,
including the District of Columbia, had submitted Title IV-E plan amendments to enable them to
make claims for federal support of guardianship assistance provided on behalf of eligible
children. Of those jurisdictions, 24 had final approval of those amendments from HHS/ACF
(Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington) and the
remaining 5 (California, Connecticut, Oklahoma, Vermont, and Wisconsin) had plan amendments
that were under review by HHS/ACF or were being revised.50 In addition, HHS notes that several
tribes are expected to make Title IV-E guardianship assistance claims in FY2012.51
48 HHS earlier anticipated greater cost for this program component but states have made claims for kinship
guardianship assistance at a slower pace than had been assumed. For FY2010, the federal share of kinship guardianship
claims under Title IV-E was roughly $10 million. See HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 346.
49 HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 338.
50 Based on CRS communication with ACF.
51 HHS, ACF FY2012 Budget Justifications, p. 338.
Congressional Research Service
18
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Funding for Child Welfare by Program
Table 2 lists the federal funding streams dedicated to child welfare purposes that were included in
this analysis, briefly describes those purposes, and shows recent and proposed funding levels.
Table 2. Recent and Proposed Federal Funding Dedicated to Child Welfare
(dollars in millions; NA = not authorized; amounts shown in italics are funds that have been provided in
acts other than major appropriations bills)
Final Funding
Proposed FY2012
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011a President House
Senate
Table TOTAL
$8,257 $8,432
$7,662
$8,298 $8,018
$8,031
TITLE IV-B, SUBPART I of the Social Security Act
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services: Formula grants to
282
282
281 282
281 281
states, territories, and tribes to improve child welfare services.
Child Welfare Training, Research, and Demonstration: Competitive
grants to public agencies, nonprofits or universities for child welfare
7
27
27 27
26 27
related research or demonstration and for workforce training.
Family Connection Grants: Competitive grants to eligible public or
nonprofit entities to support kinship navigator programs, special family
15
15
15 15
15 15
finding efforts, family group decision-making meetings, and/or residential
family treatment programs.b
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW):
Competitive grant to support longitudinal study of children at risk of, or
6
6
6
6 0
0
exposed to, child abuse or neglect.c
TITLE IV-B, SUBPART 2 of the Social Security Act
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) (subtotal): Formula
grants to states, tribes, and territories for family support, family
preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion
and support services. Some PSSF funds must also be reserved to
support (1) the Court Improvement Program; (2) competitive grants
408
408
428 428
428 428
related to meeting child welfare needs resulting from parental substance
abuse; (3) formula grants to states and territories for improved
caseworker visits; and (4) program-related research and technical
assistance.d
Mandatory funding
345
345
365 365
365 365
Discretionary funding
63
63
63 63
63 63
Court Improvement Program: Formula grants to states’ highest courts
to improve handling of child welfare proceedings. (For each of FY2009
and FY2010, funding includes $12 million set-aside from PSSF subtotal
plus separate $20 million in funds pre-appropriated by the Deficit
32
32
32 32
31 31
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171). For FY2011 and later, al funds
shown for the Court Improvement Program are provided out of total
for PSSF program and as stipulated in the program’s authorizing
language.)d
Congressional Research Service
19
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Final Funding
Proposed FY2012
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011a President House
Senate
TITLE IV-E of the Social Security Act
Foster Care: Open-ended reimbursement of eligible state claims for
children in foster care and for related data col ection, administrative,
4,660f
4,681
3,967g 4,538
4,288 4,288
and training costs.e
Adoption Assistance: Open-ended reimbursement of eligible state
claims for subsidies to special needs adoptees and related administrative
2,371f
2,462
2,480g 2,495
2,495 2,495
and training costs.e
Kinship Guardianship Assistance: Open-ended reimbursement of
eligible state claims for subsidies to eligible children who leave foster
14
49
32g 80
80 80
care for legal guardianship with a relative and for related administrative
and training costs.e
Technical Assistance and Tribal Implementation: Competitive grants
for technical assistance to tribes and states (to improve services to and
outcomes for the Indian children they serve) and for implementation
3
3
3 3
3 3
funds (to tribes preparing to submit a Title IV-E plan to claim direct
federal support).h
Adoption Incentives: Bonus funds to states that increase foster child
36.5
39.5
39.4 49.9
39.4 39.4
adoptions.
CHAFEE FOSTER CARE INDEPENDENCE PROGRAM
CFCIP (subtotal)
185
185
185
185
185
185
Basic Program: Formula grants to states for provision of independent
living services to foster youth who have, or are expected to, “age out”
140
140
140 140
140 140
of care.
Education and Training Vouchers: Formula grants to states to
provide vouchers for education and training to foster youth who age
45
45
45 45
45 45
out of care.
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT
CAPTA (subtotal)
110
97
94
97
85
94
Basic State Grants: Formula grants to states and territories to
27
27
26 27
26 26
improve their child protection services.
Discretionary Activities: Competitive grants for demonstration,
research, or other activities to prevent or treat child maltreatment.
42
29
26 29
17 26
(FY2008 and FY2009 includes funds for home visiting initiative.)
Community-Based Grants for Child Abuse Prevention: Formula
grants to lead entity in each state and territory to support community-
42
42
42 42
42 42
based programs to prevent child abuse and neglect.i
Congressional Research Service
20
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
Final Funding
Proposed FY2012
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011a President House
Senate
CHILDREN’S HEALTH ACT
Adoption Awareness (subtotal)
13.0
13.0
0j
j
j
j
Infant Adoption Awareness: Competitive grants to train staff in
10.1
10.1
0j
j
j
j
nonprofit health centers about adoption counseling.
Special Needs Adoption Awareness: Competitive grants for a public
2.9
2.9
0j
j
j
j
campaign about adoption of children with special needs.
OTHER PROGRAMS
Adoption Opportunities: Competitive grants to eliminate barriers to
26.4
26.4
39.3j 39.3j 39.3j 39.3j
adoptions—especially special needs adoptions.
Abandoned Infants Assistance: Competitive grants to prevent
abandonment of infants exposed to HIV/AIDS or drugs and for services
11.6
11.6
11.6 11.6
11.6 11.6
and programs to address needs of abandoned children.
Children’s Justice Act Grants: Formula grant to states and tribes to
20
20
20 20
20 20
improve the handling of child abuse and neglect cases.k
VICTIMS OF CHILD ABUSE ACT
Children’s Advocacy Centers: Competitive grants for services to child
victims of abuse (and non-offending family members), to coordinate
20.0
22.5
18.6 20.0
15.0 20.0
child abuse investigations in ways that reduce their trauma, and for
related training and technical assistance.
Court Appointed Special Advocates: Competitive grants to support
15.0
15.0
12.4 0
6.0 2.5
court advocates for child victims of abuse and neglect.
Training for Judicial Practitioners and Personnel: Competitive grant
2.5
2.5
2.0 0
0 1.5
to improve handling of child abuse and neglect cases.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Final funding levels are based on P.L. 111-8, P.L.
111-117, and P.L. 112-10. Proposed FY2012 funding levels are based on the President’s FY2012 budget request,
H.R. 3070 as introduced, H.R. 2596 as reported (in the House), S. 1599 as reported, and S. 1572 as reported (in
the Senate).
a. P.L. 112-10 provides final FY2011 funding levels. It is not accompanied by a conference report or
explanatory statement that indicates exact appropriation levels or budget authority provided by program.
FY2011 funding levels used to create this table are based on discretionary program operating levels
provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan_acf.pdf; the current law estimate
of necessary FY2011 budget authority for Title IV-E (as provided in the President’s FY2012 budget); and, for
Victims of Child Abuse Act programs, estimates by CRS based on certain provisions in P.L. 112-10,
b. Funds for these grants ($15 million for each of FY2009-FY2012) were appropriated as part of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). They are therefore assumed
in the President’s Budget, but do not show up in annual appropriations language.
c. Funds for this survey ($6 million) were appropriated as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
171) for each of FY2006 - FY2010 and (P.L. 111-142) for FY2011. The President seeks this same funding for
FY2012.
d. Total PSSF funding shown for each of FY2008-FY2010 does not include $20 million in funding for the Court
Improvement Program (CIP). That amount of CIP funding, however, was separately appropriated for each of
Congressional Research Service
21
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding
those years (as part P.L. 109-171) and is shown in the total amount given for the CIP program. Beginning
with FY2011 all Court Improvement Program funding is statutorily set-aside out of total PSSF funding.
e. Each year, the appropriation for this Title IV-E account includes an advance amount to permit HHS to make
payments for the first quarter of the next year. For purposes of annual comparison, the full amount
appropriated (including the advance) is shown as part of funding made available each year.
f.
The final FY2009 funding amount shown is different from previous versions of this report because HHS
used indefinite budget authority (included in the annual appropriations bills).
g. This funding level represents HHS’ estimates of funds necessary to pay state claims for FY2011 as included
in the Administration’s FY2012 budget request. P.L. 112-20 did not include a definite level of funding
authority for these Title IV-E programs. Instead, funding was made available at level necessary to meet
current law requirements.
h. Funds for these grants ($3 million for FY2009 and every succeeding fiscal year) were appropriated as part of
P.L. 110-351.
i.
This program also authorizes a 1% set-aside of appropriated funds for grants to tribes and migrant
programs.
j.
According to the HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) discretionary budget operating plans
(available at http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ob/docbudget/2011operatingplan.html), the funding previously
appropriated for Adoption Awareness programs has been transferred to the Adoption Opportunities
program. The President’s FY2011 budget first sought to make this change and both H.R. 3070 and S. 1599
would provide funding previously offered in separate accounts in single Adoption Opportunities account.
k. Program authority for these grants is included in CAPTA but annual funding is set aside from the Crime
Victims Fund (as provided by the Victims of Crime Act, P.L. 98-473, as amended). Therefore, funds are not
provided for them from the general treasury and are not shown in an individual appropriations account.
Congressional Research Service
22