Child Welfare: Funding for Child and Family
Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the
Social Security Act
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
October 24, 2012
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown, for inclusion in its 2012 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
R41860
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared 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 FY2012
funding for these two programs was $689 million ($281 million for CWS and $408 million for
PSSF). This represented close to 94% of the total $730 million provided in that year 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 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.
In November 2011 (P.L. 112-34), Congress extended funding authorization for the CWS and
PSSF programs through the last day of FY2016. 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 parental substance abuse,
Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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

link to page 8 link to page 8 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 FY2012, these two
programs received combined federal funding of $689 million, of which $281 million was for
CWS and $408 million was for the PSSF program.
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 or tribal highest courts under the Court Improvement
Program; (2) grants to regional partnerships to improve the outcomes of children affected by their
parents’ substance abuse; (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 includes several additional programs or activities for which separate funds are, or have
been, authorized. 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. Most Title IV-B programs are administered by the
Children’s Bureau within the Administration on Children Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). 2
Funding authorization for the CWS and PSSF programs was most recently extended (through the
last day of FY2016) by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (2011,
P.L. 112-34). Funding expiration dates for all Title IV-B programs and activities are shown in
Table 1.

1 Hereinafter, any mention of a section, part, or title of the law is made with reference to the Social Security Act.
2 The National Random Sample Study of Child Welfare, last funded in FY2011, has been administered by the Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE) within HHS, ACF. The Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, last
funded in FY2010, was administered by the Family and Youth Services Bureau within HHS, ACF, ACYF.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 8 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 FY2012 funding provided for Title IV-B programs and activities = $730 million
Program
Program Purpose as Authorized
FY2012
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 FY2016.
(Secs. 420-425, 428)
families.
Child Welfare Training, Research
Competitive grants to public agencies, nonprofits,
$26 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 nationally
$0
Expired (last
Child Welfare (a.k.a., the National
representative, longitudinal study of children at risk
funded in FY2011
Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-
of, or exposed to, child abuse or neglect (including
at $6 million).
Being, NSCAW) (Sec. 429)
their caregivers).
SUBPART 2
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)
$408 million (all purposes)
PSSF—Child and Family Services
Formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for
$328 million Expires with the
(Secs. 430-437)
four categories of services: family preservation,
last day of FY2016.
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 Visits
quality, monthly caseworker visits with children in
set-aside expires
(Sec. 436(b)(4). (See also Sec.
foster care.
with the last day of
422(b)(17) and Sec. 424(f)).
FY2016.
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
Substance Abuse (Secs. 436(b)(5) and
abusing families to increase children’s well-being
with the last day of
437(f))
and improve their permanency outcomes.
FY2016.
PSSF—Court Improvement Program
Formula grants to state highest courts and
$32 million
PSSF funding
(CIP) (Sec. 436(b)(2); Sec. 437(b)(2)
competitive grants to tribal courts to improve 1)
(of which $1 set-aside
and (Sec. 438)
handling of child welfare proceedings,
million must permanently
2) data col ection and analysis to achieve better
be provided
authorized.a
and more timely outcomes for children, and
for tribal
3) training related to child welfare proceedings.
court grants)
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
Expired (last
(Sec. 439)
private entities to provide mentoring services.
funded in FY2010 -
$49 million)
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. Funding for the CIP is permanently set aside from the PSSF program. However, the provision that entitles
state highest courts to a share of these funds (Section 438(c)(1) expires as of the last day of FY2016.
Congressional Research Service
8

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

This report begins by outlining the federal-state framework with regard to child welfare, and then
discusses the activities public child welfare agencies are expected to perform, as well as the
children and families who may be served via the CWS and PSSF programs. This is followed by
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.3 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
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

3 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
9

link to page 12 link to page 12 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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 reuniting with their parents or placement in a new
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.4 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 allegations of abuse or neglect involving 5.9 million children were referred
to child welfare agencies in FY2010 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.5 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

4 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.
5 If a child is the subject of more than one abuse and neglect referral, investigation, or post-investigation service, he or
she is included each time in the counts described here. This “duplicate” count has been used by HHS, since it began
publishing child maltreatment data in the early 1990s. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
Administration of Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF), Children’s
Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2010 (December 2011), p. 19
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 12 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

provide other services to children in foster care and their families (e.g., parenting skills training or
substance abuse treatment to promote reunification).6
Finally, although these children are not shown in Figure 1, more than 250,000 children 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.7

6 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
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.
7 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
11

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 FY2010

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Child Maltreatment 2010 (December 2011); FY2010 data reported by states via the
Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) as of July 2011; and Title IV-E expenditure claims
data as compiled by HHS, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, May 2011.
Note: As shown in this figure, a child is counted each time he or she was involved in an abuse or neglect referral or
investigation, or was found to be a victim or received a post-investigation service. For FY2010, there were an
estimated 3 mil ion “unique” children who were the subject of an investigation or assessment and 695,000 “unique”
victims. Data on the “unique” number of children included in a referral or receiving a post-investigation service are
not available.
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
Congressional Research Service
12

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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.
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.8
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 and Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 112-34).9 Funding for this program is authorized on
a discretionary basis and that authorization is set to expire with the last day of FY2016. Congress
provided $281 million for the CWS program for FY2012.
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

8 These purposes apply to all programs authorized in Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act, including the
separate funding authorized in Section 426 (Child Welfare Research, Demonstration and Training), Section 427
(Family Connection Grants), and Section 429 (National Random Sample Study of Child Welfare).
9 For more information see, CRS Report R42027, Child Welfare: The Child and Family Services Improvement and
Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34). In 2006, P.L. 109-288 changed the funding authority for the CWS program from
permanent (meaning no funding reauthorization was necessary) to time-limited (meaning it is authorized until a
specified date). That law also made other significant changes to the CWS program. For more information see CRS
Report RL33354, Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288).
Congressional Research Service
13

link to page 14 link to page 15

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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
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.
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 on statutory definitions, as well as guidance provided to states
regarding reporting their planned child and family services spending.10

10 See 2012 guidance, HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-12-05 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1205.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14

link to page 40 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 skil s 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 skil s 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.11 They include individual, group, and family counseling; peer-to-peer mentoring
and support groups for parents and primary caregivers; services or activities designed to facilitate visits
and other connections between children in foster care and their parents and siblings; 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 (typical y 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 il ustrative rather than exclusive. For a table giving more
detailed descriptions, as wel as target populations, for these and additional service categories, see Appendix A.

11 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
15

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. 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 FY2005.12 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 FY2005.13
Further, states are not permitted to count state or any other nonfederal dollars used to provide
foster care maintenance payments for the purpose of providing the required nonfederal share of
funding 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 nonfederal state spending for foster care maintenance
payments under the CWS. However, it may only include an annual amount of this kind of
nonfederal spending for foster care maintenance payments that is equal to or less than the amount
it counted for this purpose in FY2005.14
Program Administration
States are prohibited from spending more than 10% of their CWS funds (both federal dollars and
the required nonfederal dollars share of program spending) for CWS program administration.15
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.16

12 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.
13 Before 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).
14 This requirement was added in 2006 by P.L. 109-288, which made it effective with FY2008.
15 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)).
16 Administrative costs for purposes of the CWS program are defined in the law at Section 422(c)(1).
Congressional Research Service
16

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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.17
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 have specific procedures in place to ensure
continuity of program operation and services in the event of a disaster (for children under state
care or supervision); and (4) 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, including children’s physical and mental health.18
The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, (2011, P.L. 112-34) amended
the health oversight requirement to stipulate that states must plan how “emotional trauma”
resulting from a child’s experience of maltreatment and/or removal from the home will be
identified and treated. Further it requires states to include “protocols for the appropriate use and
monitoring of psychotropic medications” in the health oversight plan.
HHS cited both of these requirements in a recent Information Memorandum discussing the need
for state agencies to focus on the social and emotional well-being of children in foster care as part
of ensuring their overall well-being.19 It emphasizes the importance of doing trauma-screening for

17 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. However, as part of the Social Security
Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-432), Congress made extension of these protections to all children in foster care a part
of the CWS state plan (effective April 1, 1996). Thus, they became mandatory for any state seeking to receive any
amount of CWS funding.
18 Section 422(b)(7), (15), (16), and (17).
19 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau IM-12-04, “Promoting Social and Emotional Well-Being of Children and
Youth Receiving Child Welfare Services,” issued April 17, 2012. pp. 1, 6-7. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

children who enter foster care to allow for development of an appropriate treatment plan. It
further notes that ongoing assessment of the child can ensure the treatment plan is effective (or
point out when changes need to be made). HHS also cautions that use of psychotropic
medications with children has not been as extensively tested as their use with adults, and notes
that these medications can have complicated side effects. Accordingly it notes that they should be
“prescribed with care” and justified by documented “clinical evidence.” HHS also encourages
identification of effective therapies that can improve the mental and behavioral health outcomes
of children apart from drugs (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy or parent-child interaction
therapy).20
The law that most recently reauthorized the CWS program (P.L. 112-34) also newly requires
states to describe how they work to shorten the amount of time children who are under five years
of age spend in temporary foster care homes. States must also describe what they do to ensure the
developmental needs of these young children are met.21 HHS has informed states that this
description must include the number of children of this age who are in care and information on
how the state will track that number, as well as the distinct services the state offers based on the
different developmental needs of infants, toddlers, and children.22
Services, Protections, and Reporting for Certain 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).
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
Finally, as added by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-
34), states are required to describe the sources of information they use to report on child
maltreatment-related fatalities.25 This provision responds to the concern that states do not
consistently use all relevant data sources when reporting these data to HHS and that, therefore,
information that is critical to assessing children’s safety is incomplete. The new requirement also

(...continued)
default/files/cb/im1204.pdf
20 Ibid, p. 7. See also HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau IM-12-03, “Promoting the Safe, Appropriate and Effective
Use of Psychotropic Medication for Children in Foster Care, ,” issued April 11, 2012. Available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1203.pdf
21 Section 422(b)(18).
22 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI- 12-05, “June 30 Submission of the APSR Required Under Title IV-B ... ”,
issued April 11,2012, p. 16. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1205.pdf.
23 Section 422(b)(8)(A)(iv).
24 Section 422(b)(8)(B), (11), and (12).
25 Section 422(b)(19).
Congressional Research Service
18

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

provides that if the data the state reports to HHS on child maltreatment-related deaths does not
include information from state vital statistics, child death review teams, law enforcement
agencies, or offices of medical examiners or coroners, the state must describe why this is the case
and how the information will be included. Information relevant to this new requirement was to be
reported by each state as part of its Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR) (due to HHS on
June 30, 2012). 26
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.27
Court Collaboration and Tribal Consultation
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.28 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.29
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.30

26 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI- 12-05, issued April 11,2012, p.p. 16-17. Available at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1205.pdf. Information submitted by the states was not yet publicly
available in October 2012, however, HHS plans to post each state’s APSR online.
27 Section 422(b)(3) through (6).
28 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.
29 Section 422(b) (9) and (13).
30 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
19

link to page 47 link to page 45 link to page 45 link to page 45 link to page 35 link to page 35 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 FY2016. For FY2012, it received an appropriation of $281 million.
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 that is under the age of 21 in the given state. In FY2012, states and territories received
$274 million in CWS funding, and the remaining $6 million was distributed to tribes or tribal
organizations. (For FY2012 allotments of Title IV-B funds by state see Table B-1 in Appendix
B.)
Nonfederal Share of Spending
To receive its full CWS allotment, a state must comply with rules related to the use of program
funds and must provide $1 in nonfederal 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 FY2011, at least 19
jurisdictions 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.”)
Congressional Research Service
20

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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 FY2012, 180 tribes or tribal organizations, serving children in as many as 31 states, were
allotted $6.4 million in CWS tribal funding.32

31 Section 428.
32 For CWS allotment amounts by tribe see Attachment A1 of HHS, ACF, ACYF-Children’s Bureau-PI-12-06,
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1206.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

link to page 48 link to page 48 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), by the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288),
and most recently by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (2011, P.L.
112-34).33
PSSF Funding Authorization and Appropriations
Total PSSF program funding is authorized at $545 million annually. Of this amount, $345 million
is authorized on a mandatory basis (capped entitlement to states) and $200 million is
discretionary. Both mandatory and discretionary PSSF funding authorization are set to expire on
the last day of FY2016. Actual PSSF appropriations peaked at $434 million in each of FY2006
and FY2007. Congress appropriated $408 million for the PSSF program in FY2012 (P.L. 112-74).
(Table D-1 in Appendix D shows the complete funding history of the PSSF program.)
Reservation of Funds for Additional Purposes
Eighty percent or $328 million (out of the total FY2012 PSSF appropriation of $408 million) was
provided to states, territories, and tribes for support of four specific categories of child welfare-

33 For more information on this program’s establishment and early legislative history, see CRS Report RL33354, Child
Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) , by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
22

link to page 49 link to page 48 link to page 15 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

related child and family services. The remaining FY2012 funds were distributed for additional
purposes as follows – 1) grants to state and tribal highest courts under the Court Improvement
Program ($32 million, 8%); grants to regional partnerships to improve outcomes of children
affected by parental substance abuse ($20 million, 5%); grants to improve monthly caseworker
visits ($20 million, 5%); and support for research, evaluation, training and technical assistance
($8 million, 2%).
Use of PSSF funds for purposes other than state administered child and family services has been a
feature of the PSSF program since its inception and Congress has added additional set-asides to
those originally included. Table D-2 in Appendix D lists requirements for reservations of funds
that are included in the statute. The use and allocation of PSSF funds for child and family services
is discussed immediately below and is followed by a discussion of how funds are used and
allocated for the additional PSSF purposes.
Use of PSSF Funds for Child and Family Services
For FY2012, states, territories and tribes received $328 million in federal funds to support four
categories of services: 1) Family support services are meant to strengthen families and enable
children to safely remain in their own homes; 2) Family preservation services target the same
kinds of services on families where a child is at high risk of being removed from the home, or
where the child has been removed and the goal is to reunite the child and his/her parents. 3) Time-
limited reunification services are also available to enable a parent and child to be reunited, but
only during the first 15-17 months during which the child is placed in foster care. 4) Finally,
adoption promotion and support services, are intended to encourage more adoptions from foster
care when this is in the best interest of children and to support pre- and post-adoptive services to
families.34 (For a description of the activities that may be funded under each of the service
categories, see Table 2.)
States are required to spend a “significant portion” of program funding on each of those four
categories of child and family services and, their combined spending on all four categories must
be no less than 90% of the federal PSSF child and family services funding they receive. 35 HHS
has interpreted “significant portion” to mean that states must generally spend no less than about
20% on each service category.36

34 Each of these service categories is defined in Section 431. The Child and Family Services Improvement and
Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 112-34) amended the statutory definition of “family support services” to specifically
incorporate mentoring for children. That law also amended the statutory definition of “time-limited family reunification
services” to include services or activities to enable visits between children in foster care and their siblings and parents,
and to include other activities to help parents (i.e., peer-to-peer mentoring and support groups for parents and
caregivers).
35 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).
36 Section 432(a)(4). For recent guidance on this matter see HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-12-05 (issued April 11, 2012), p.
24, 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/sites/default/files/cb/pi1205.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
23

link to page 15 link to page 15 link to page 14 link to page 24

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Consistent with past practice, states planned to spend at least half of the PSSF services funding on
family support (26%) and family preservation (24%) services (in FY2010). As described in Table
2, services that may be funded in these categories are wide ranging. Further, they may be offered
to the broadest populations. Spending for time-limited reunification and adoption promotion
support services, which are designed to serve more narrow populations and/or more narrow
purposes, were expected to receive 21% and 20%. States planned to spend the remaining funds
for program administration (7%) and “other” service-related costs (3%).
Figure 3. 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).
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 (compare Figure 2 to Figure 3). Further, as
discussed below, PSSF plan requirements are considerably less focused on children in foster care
than those included in the CWS plan. At the same time, three of the four categories of 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.37 (Only family
support services does not target this population.)
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.38 Apart from this
broad child-protection-related assurance, the PSSF state plan requirements focus in large part on
planning to provide child and family services. States must target services, establish goals and
measure progress toward those goals, coordinate services across the state, and report on services
provided. Additional PSSF state plan requirements stipulate fiscal and program administration-
related rules.

37 Each of the service categories are defined in Section 431.
38 Section 432(a)(9).
Congressional Research Service
24

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Target Services
As newly required by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (2011, P.L.
112-34), as part of their PSSF plan states must describe how children at greatest risk for child
maltreatment will be identified and how the state targets its child and family services to reach
those children and their families.39
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).40
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.41 As part of this reporting, states must provide to
HHS a description of child and family services (by service category) they plan to provide, as well
as planned and actual expenditures for child and family services under the Title IV-B programs
(CWS and PSSF).42 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).43 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.44 The final regulations
have in some aspects been superseded by changes in the law, not all of which have been reflected

39 Section 432(a)(10).
40 Section 432(a)(2) and (5).
41 The final review of progress on the five-year plan must be made available to the public as well. Section
432(a)(2)(C)(ii).
42 Separately, the statute, as amended by P.L. 112-34, requires HHS to compile these reports on annual planned and
final spending, develop national totals for each reported element, and provide this information to the House Committee
on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance. The agency must also post this information on its website.
43 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.
44 The additional child welfare programs for which plan requirements or assurances, or other information 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)).
Congressional Research Service
25

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

in changes to the regulation. However, HHS annually issues guidance to states (via a “program
instruction”) on complying with the planning and reporting requirements.45
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.46
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 nonfederal) 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,
family preservation services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion
and support services.47 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.48
Finally, a state must include in its PSSF plan assurances that funds provided under the program
will not be used to supplant federal or nonfederal funds for services that existed prior to
establishment of the program (i.e., those that existed in state FY1992) and states are required to
document compliance with this rule.49 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.
Allocation of PSSF Child and Family Services Funds
After reservation of funds for other purposes—including $11 million for tribal child and family
services—there were $317 million in FY2012 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

45 The most recent request for a new five-year plan was issued in June 2009 (for plans covering FY2010-FY2014),
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi0906.pdf; and the most recent guidance on an annual update
to the plan was issued April 11, 2012, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1205.pdf.
46 Section 432(a)(1) and (3).
47 Section 432(b)(4),(6) and (7); and Section 434(d).
48 45 CFR 1357.32(h).
49 45 CFR 1357.32(f) specifies that for purposes of meeting this non-supplant requirement, the applicable “base” year is
state FY1992.
Congressional Research Service
26

link to page 45 link to page 45 link to page 45 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

federal funds provided and they may not spend more than 10% of total program funds (federal
and nonfederal) for program administration. (For FY2012 PSSF allotments by state, see Table
B-1 in Appendix B.)
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 FY2012, the tribal set-aside was $11
million. 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 FY2012, HHS allotted
PSSF funds to 130 tribal entities in 29 states.54
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’ substance abuse
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.

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 For PSSF allotment amounts by tribe see Attachment A2 of HHS, ACF, ACYF-Children’s Bureau-PI-12-06,
available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1206.pdf. Some of these tribes may serve children in more
than one state.
Congressional Research Service
27

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Court Improvement Program (CIP)
Under the Court Improvement Program (CIP, Section 438 of the Social Security Act) the highest
court in any state operating a Title IV-E program is entitled to an allotment of formula grant
funding to make improvements in their handling of child welfare-related proceedings. As
provided by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 112-34),
$1 million of the annual CIP funding must be reserved for competitive grants to eligible tribal
highest courts. Under current law, all of CIP funding is provided by a set-aside of PSSF program
funds and for FY2012 $32 million in PSSF funds were reserved for the program ($31 million for
state highest courts and $1 million for tribal courts)55
CIP grants are provided for three kinds of court improvement purposes. States highest courts
seeking to spend money on each of the purposes must ensure their single application for CIP
funds indicates this and that they receive separate funding for each kind of grant. Tribal grantees
receive a single sum of CIP funds that may be spent on any of these purposes:
• Basic: Grants to assess and improve handling of child abuse and neglect
proceedings;
• Training: Grants to train judges and legal personnel and attorneys in handling of
child welfare cases; and
• Data: Grants to improve the timeliness of court decisions regarding the safety,
permanence, and well-being of children (through collection and analysis of
relevant data).
As stipulated by the 2011 amendments to CIP (P.L. 112-34), both basic and training grants may
support activities that increase and improve engagement of families in court proceedings related
to child welfare generally, including proceedings concerning family preservation, reunification, or
adoption.
Eligibility for CIP Grants
To be eligible for any CIP formula grant, a highest court must be located in a state (or other
jurisdiction) that operates a Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and guardianship 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.56 The highest courts in each of the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico participate in the CIP.
To be eligible for competitive tribal CIP grants, a court must be the highest court of a tribe that is
(1) operating, or seeking to operate, a Title IV-E program (as evidenced by receipt of a Tribal
Title IV-E implementation grant), or (2) has a court responsible for proceedings related to
adoption and foster care.

55 For early legislative history and discussion of other court-related child welfare programs, see CRS Report RL33350,
Child Welfare: The Court Improvement Program, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
56 Section 438(b)(1) as amended by the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-239).
Congressional Research Service
28

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Program and Application Requirements of State Highest Courts
Before FY2012, state highest courts were required to submit separate applications to receive each
grant. That requirement was changed by the Child and Family Services Improvement and
Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34). State highest courts are now required to submit a single application
but they must indicate in that application whether they are applying to receive CIP funding for all
three purposes or less than that. Most states have applied for and receive funds for all three CIP
grant purposes.57
All state highest courts (including the highest courts in Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia)
successfully applied for and received CIP funding in FY2012 and are therefore expected to
receive this funding in each year through FY2016. Although a state highest court does not need to
reapply for CIP funds in each of these years, a court’s continued receipt of CIP funds in each of
FY2013-FY2016 is contingent on its successful progress toward identified outcomes. Courts
must demonstrate this via updated strategic plans, year-end assessment reports and participation
in periodic review calls hosted by HHS. Courts must also continue to provide annual letters (from
the court and the child welfare agency) assuring continued compliance with and satisfaction of
CIP requirements.58
Application
In its CIP application a state highest court is required to identify why it is applying for CIP funds
and what is intends to achieve with the funding. Further it must demonstrate “meaningful and
ongoing collaboration” between the courts, the state child welfare agency, and Indian tribes
(where applicable); discuss how data collection and sharing will occur between the courts and the
state and local child welfare agencies; demonstrate that at least some of any CIP training funds it
receives will be used for cross-training initiatives jointly planned and carried out with the state
child welfare agency; and provide additional information as requested by HHS.
As part of demonstrating meaningful collaboration, HHS requires state highest courts to establish
a statewide multidisciplinary taskforce to guide CIP efforts. Further the state highest court must
include, as part of its application, a letter of support from the state child welfare agency that
assures ongoing collaboration, consultation, and engagement with regard to program planning
and implementation, federal compliance reviews for the state child welfare agency and any court-
related aspects of required child welfare program improvements. The letter must also ensure that
the state child welfare agency will share administrative data with the court on an ongoing basis.59

57 According to HHS, South Carolina’s highest court did not apply for a basic grant for each of FY2008 through
FY2011 but it did so for FY2012. Additionally a number of states including the District of Columbia, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Maryland, and Wisconsin did not apply for CIP data grant funding in at least one or more years (from
FY2008 through FY2012). However, all state highest courts have received CIP data-related funding in at least one or
more years.
58 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-12-02 “Instructions for State Courts Applying for the Court Improvement
Program Funds for Fiscal Years 2012-2016,” issued January 1, 2012.
59 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
29

link to page 50 link to page 51 link to page 52 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Program Requirements
HHS now requires all state highest courts that receive CIP funding to implement continuous
quality improvement (CQI) procedures. These procedures must be used to regularly, and on an
ongoing basis, ensure that the court’s child abuse and neglect proceedings promote: due process
of law; timely and thorough court hearings; high quality legal representation to parents, children
and child welfare agencies (both in court and out of court); and engagement of the entire family
in court processes.60
Beginning with FY2013, state highest courts are also required to annually collect and report data
on five timeliness measures: 1) median time from original petition to child’s first permanency
hearing; 2) median time (in days) between every subsequent permanency hearing while the child
remains in care; 3) median time from original child abuse and neglect petition to legal
permanency (i.e., reunification, adoption, legal guardianship or placement with a fit and willing
relative); 4) median time from original child abuse and neglect petition to the date a petition for
termination of parental rights is filed (for children who are not reunited); and 5) median time from
original child abuse and neglect petition to completed termination of parental rights proceedings
(for children who are not reunited).61
Distribution to State Highest Courts and Required
Nonfederal Share
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 grant purposes. Thus, if a state
highest court successfully applies and seeks funding for all three CIP grant purposes, it receives
three minimum allotments of $85,000 (a total of $255,000) and a share of the remaining funds for
each CIP grant purpose 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. (Appendix E shows funding by kind of CIP grant and by state highest courts for
FY2011, Table E-2 and FY2012, Table E-3).
Federal Funding for CIP
The CIP was established in FY1995 with funds set aside from the program now known as PSSF.
The original legislation (P.L. 103-66, 1993) required state highest courts to use the grant funding
to assess their handling of child welfare proceedings.62 Funding provided for the CIP totaled $5
million in its initial year (FY1995), was at $10 million for each of FY1996-FY2001, and reached
a little more than $13 million in FY2005. As part of the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171),

60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 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
30

link to page 50 link to page 50 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Congress expanded the CIP program, authorizing two additional CIP grant purposes (related to
training and data collection) and annually appropriating an additional $20 million for the
program.
Funding for the CIP has been at between $32 and $33 million in each year beginning with
FY2006. For the first five years (FY2006-FY2010) part of the funding was appropriated
independent of the PSSF program (via P.L. 109-171). However, beginning with FY2011, all CIP
funding is again provided via a reservation of funds appropriated for the PSSF program. Under
current law, the annual set-aside for the CIP is $30 million in mandatory funding authorized for
the PSSF plus 3.3% of any discretionary appropriations provided for the PSSF. The PSSF
program is currently authorized through FY2016.
Beginning with FY2012 (and for each year after that one), $1 million of the $30 million in
mandatory CIP funding must be reserved for tribal court improvement grants; $10 million must
be used for the CIP grant purpose related to training, and $10 million for the CIP grant purpose
related to data collection. The remaining $9 million in mandatory funds, along with any
discretionary PSSF funds reserved for the CIP, must be used to support the basic CIP grant
purposes. (For a CIP funding history, FY995-FY2012, see Table E-1 in Appendix E.)
Initial Awards for Tribal Court Improvement
HHS awarded the first grants for tribal court improvement in September 2012. The awards valued
at up to $150,000 per year for each of three years were made to seven tribal entities: Navajo
Nation Judicial Branch, Window Rock, AZ; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT;
Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Dowagiac, MI; White Earth Band of Chippewa, White
Earth, MN; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Gardnerville, NV; The Pascua Yaqui Tribe,
Tucson, AZ; and Nooksack, Indian Tribe, Deming, WA.
Targeted Purposes Funded with PSSF Dollars
Beginning with FY2006, Congress has required that $40 million in mandatory PSSF funds be
reserved each year for: 1) competitive grants to regional partnerships to improve the outcomes of
children affected by parental substance abuse; and 2) formula grants to state child welfare
agencies to improve quality and frequency of caseworkers visits with children in foster care.
Targeting of PSSF funds for these purposes was first provided for by the Child and Family
Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288). At that time Congress responded to new
evidence about the significance of regular caseworker visits in achieving good outcomes for
children in foster care, and, separately, to longstanding concerns about the frequency with which
parental substance abuse brings children to the attention of the child welfare agency and the
difficulties those agencies face in ensuring positive outcomes for the affected children.
The 2006 law reserved a total of $145 million (across FY2007-FY2011) for the regional
partnership grants and $95 million (across FY2006-FY2011) for grants to states to improve
monthly caseworker visits. In 2011, as part of the Child and Family Services Improvement and
Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34), Congress maintained the annual $40 million reservation of funds
for these purposes for five years (FY2012-FY2016) and divided those funds equally ($100
million for each purposes) across the five years.
Congressional Research Service
31

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 32% of the primary caregivers from whom children were removed to
out-of-home care and active alcohol abuse among 14% of the primary caregivers from whom
children were removed.63 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.64 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 2006.65 Grants proposed in that legislation
ultimately became one of the targeted purposes for which PSSF funding was initially provided by
the Child and Family Services Improvement Act (P.L. 109-288).
The 2006 law reserved $145 million in 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. Regional partnerships were defined as collaborative arrangements between
two or more agencies in a defined area, one of which must be the state (county) or tribal child
welfare agency. Other agencies or individuals permitted, or encouraged, to be a part of, or lead,
regional partnerships including courts, judges, public or private social service agencies, private
child welfare agencies, substance abuse treatment or prevention agencies, juvenile justice
officials, school personnel and others. The 2006 law gave HHS authority to make regional
partnerships grants valued at no less than $500,000 and no more than $1,000,000 and for no more
than five years. Grantees were required to provide funding of 15% of the grant in years one and
two of a grant, 20% in years three and four; and 25% in year five.
The 2011 law removed the specific reference to methamphetamine abuse but otherwise reserved
$100 million in PSSF funding across five years (FY2012-FY2016) for the same kind of regional
partnership grants. The 2011 law also permitted HHS to award two-year extension grants to
previously funded grantees, allowed a single grantee to receive multiple grants (i.e., an extension
grant and a new two to five year grant), required grantees receiving extension funding to provide
additional matching amounts (30% in year six and 35% in year seven of the grant), stipulated that

63 Special tabulations of National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW) II data provided to CRS by
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of
Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE); based on national sample of children in families investigated for child
abuse and neglect, February 2008 through April 2009. For more information, see Cecilia Casanueva, et.al., NSCAW II
Baseline Report: Maltreatment, OPRE #2011-27c, Washington, DC: OPRE, ACF, HHS, August 2011, pp. 4-5.
64 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.) This report and other information about the regional partnership grants is available at
http://www.ncsacw.samhsa.gov/technical/ta-rpg.aspx.
65 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.
Congressional Research Service
32

link to page 54 link to page 54 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

no more than 5% of the funding provided could be used for administrative purposes by HHS, and
required further evaluation of the project by HHS.
FY2012-FY2016 Funding Awarded to 20 Regional Partnerships
Funding reserved for regional partnership grants in FY2012-FY2016 was awarded in September
2012. Twelve grantees received awards of up to $1 million per year for up to five years; four
previous grantees received an extension grant of $500,000 per year for up to two years; and four
grantees received a new five year grant and a two-year extension grant. (To see list of these
grantees look for Regional Partnership Grants and Two-Year Extension of Regional Partnership
Grants at this link http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/discretionary-grant-awards-
2012.)
FY2007-FY2011 Funding Awarded to 53 Regional Partnerships Operating in
29 States
HHS awarded an initial five years of funding for this purpose to 53 regional partnerships
operating in 29 states (including six tribal areas).66 (Table F-1 in Appendix F lists the grantees
by state, project type, and funding level.)
Implementation of Initial Grant Projects
As required by the statute, each of these regional partnerships initially funded 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 (state, county, or tribal) were involved in each of the partnerships67 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.68

66 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.
67 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.
68 HHS, Targeted Grants: First Annual Report, May 2010.
Congressional Research Service
33

link to page 34 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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 3, 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.69
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).70
Table 3. 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 col ection
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

69 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.
70 HHS, Targeted Grants: First Annual Report, May 2010.
Congressional Research Service
34

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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 ancil ary services
Parents and Families
(e.g., housing assistance, child care, transportation)
83% are providing parenting skil s 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 Wel -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.
Measuring Outcomes and Reporting
Grantees are required to submit semi-annual reports to HHS on their activities and program
performance.71 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);72 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.73
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.74

71 The statute requires grantees to make these reports at least annually but HHS requires them semi-annually.
72 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.
73 The report is available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/targeted_grants/targeted_grants.pdf.
74 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Report to Congress on Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
35

link to page 59 link to page 59 link to page 59 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) committed $95 million
in mandatory PSSF funding across six years (FY2006-FY2011) to help ensure frequent, quality
caseworker visits with children in foster care. In 2011, the Child and Family Services
Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34) extended this support, reserving $100 million in
PSSF mandatory funds across five years ($20 million in each of FY2012-FY2016). As described
in the 2011 law, states are to use these funds to improve the quality of monthly caseworker visits
with children in foster care, with an emphasis on better caseworker decision making regarding the
safety, permanency and well-being of those children and, on activities designed to increase the
retention, recruitment and training of caseworkers.75 (For allotment amounts by state, see Table
G-1 in Appendix G.)
States are required to annually report to HHS on the percentage of children in their foster care
caseload who are visited on a monthly basis (and the percentage of those visits that occurred
where the child lives). The 2006 law required each state, in consultation with HHS, to outline
specific steps (including target percentages to be reached) to ensure that no later than October 1,
2011, 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. The 2011 law revises this requirement to
provide that for each of FY2012-FY2014 no less than 90% of the required monthly caseworker
visits must be completed and increases that percentage to 95% for FY2015 and every succeeding
year.76 States that fail to meet these target percentages are subject to reduced federal financial
participation in the CWS program.77
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 FY2010 (the most recent
publicly 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 FY2010, seven

(...continued)
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.
75 Section 436(a)(4)(B). The 2006 law called for a “primary emphasis on activities designed to improve caseworker
retention, recruitment, training, and ability to access the benefits of technology.”
76 The manner in which a state’s monthly caseworker visit percentage is calculated was changed (effective with
FY2012) by P.L. 112-34. The initial method was child specific and required that in order for a state to count a child as
having been visited on a monthly basis such a visit must have occurred for the child in every month he/she was in care.
Any child visited less frequently could not be counted toward achieving the monthly caseworker visit goal. The revised
version (as provided in P.L. 112-34) aggregates all monthly caseworker visits (i.e., each child who is visited one or
more times during a given month he or she is in care) and compares that to the total number of caseworker visits that
should have occurred if every child in care had been visited in every month. This more recent method permits states to
receive some credit toward the monthly caseworker visit for a child even if that child was not visited in every month
he/she was in care. For instructions to states on calculating this percentage see HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau
PI-12-01, issued January 6, 2012. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1201.pdf.
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.
Congressional Research Service
36

link to page 37 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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 9 reported that less than half of the children in their care were
visited on a monthly basis. Across these years, most states did report that the majority of the
monthly visits that occurred took place where the child lived.
Table 4. Frequency of Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care
Data as reported by 50 states, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Percentage of Children in Foster Care
Who Received a Caseworker Visit on
at Least a Monthly Basis
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009 FY2010a
less than 25%
15 states
8 states
4 states
0 states
25% but less than 50%
16 states
21 states
11 states
9 states
50% but less than 75%
16 states
16 states
19 states
17 states
75% but less than 90%
4 states
4 states
13 states
18 states
90% or more
1 state
3 states
5 states
7 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 received from ACF in August 2011 for FY2010.
Notes: For state-by-state data on frequency of caseworker visits, see Child Welfare Outcomes database
http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/tables/caseworker_visits?
a. Excludes Tennessee, which as of August 2011 had not reported monthly caseworker data to HHS.
Penalties
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) and at least 19 failed to meet their targets in FY2011. These jurisdictions
were required to provide a greater portion of nonfederal 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
states that failed to meet their target percentage by less than 10 percentage points; 72% for the
states that failed to meet their target percentage by between 10 and 20 percentage points; and 70%
for jurisdictions that failed to meet their target percentage by 20 percentage points or more.
Beginning with FY2012, states are subject to an additional and separate potential penalty
calculation tied to the requirement that no fewer than 50% of the caseworker visits must occur
where the child lives.
Content of Caseworker Visits
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
Congressional Research Service
37

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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.78
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,
some states required that additional content areas be addressed with youth who are emancipating
from care, including transition plans, and permanent connections to adults.79
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.80
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.81
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

78 HHS Report on Monthly Caseworker Visits.
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
38

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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).82
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.
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.83
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.84
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. The most recent report was
submitted to Congress in April 2012 (and covered activities funded in FY2007 and FY2008).

82 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.
83 For an overview of this network and to read about their specific work, see Children's Bureau Training and Technical
Assistance Network (2012), http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/tta_network_directory_2012.pdf. To access
links to individual resource centers and other technical assistance see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/assistance
84 CRS communication with HHS, Office of Assistant Secretary of Legislation, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
39

link to page 43 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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 al categories are discrete, thus states may vary in
what category they choose to report a given service provided.
Target
Category
Aim
Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
PREVENTION
Promote the safety and
Any family with
Community-based services that include
AND SUPPORT
well-being of children and
children.
•
respite care for parents and other caregivers;
SERVICES*
families.
(Family Support)a
•
early developmental screening of children to
Increase the strength and
assess the needs of these children and assistance
stability of families
in obtaining specific services to meet their needs;
(including adoptive, foster,
and extended families).
•
mentoring, tutoring, and health education for
Increase parents’
youth;
competence and
•
a range of center-based activities (informal
confidence in their
interactions in drop-in centers, parent support
parenting abilities.
groups);
Afford children a safe,
•
services designed to increase parenting skil s; and
stable, and supportive
family environment.
•
counseling and home visiting.
Strengthen parental
relationships and promote
marriage.
Enhance child
development.
PROTECTIVE
Prevent or remedy the
Families for whom Services include
SERVICES
abuse, neglect, or
an investigation of
•
investigation and emergency medical services;
exploitation of children.
child abuse or
neglect is found
•
emergency shelter;
necessary.
•
legal action;
Children in foster
care and their
•
developing case plans;
families.
•
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.

Congressional Research Service
40

link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 link to page 43 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Target
Category
Aim
Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
CRISIS
Prevent the unnecessary
Biological,
Pre-placement prevention includes
INTERVENTION*
removal of children from
extended, and
•
intensive family preservation services;
(Family
their families.
adoptive families
Preservation)b
with children who
•
post-adoptive support services;
Help children in foster
are at risk of being
care—as appropriate—to
•
placed in foster

case management;
be reunited with families
care.
•
counseling;
from which they have
been removed or to be
Children in foster
•
day care;
placed for adoption or
care and their
•
legal guardianship.
families.

respite services;
•
homemaker services;
•
services designed to increase parenting skil s 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 Children in foster
Services include
FAMILY
of children removed from
care for no more
•
individual, group, and family counseling;
REUNIFICATION
their homes.
than 17 monthsc
SERVICES*
and their parents
•
inpatient, residential, or outpatient substance
or primary
abuse treatment services;
caregivers.
•
mental health services;
•
assistance to address domestic violence;
•
temporary child care and therapeutic services for
families, including crisis nurseries;
•
peer-to-peer mentoring and support groups for
parents and primary caregivers;d
•
activities designed to facilitate access to and
visitation of children by parents and siblingsd; and
•
transportation to or from any of these services
and activities.
Congressional Research Service
41

link to page 43 link to page 44 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Target
Category
Aim
Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
ADOPTION
Encourage more
Children in foster
Services include
PROMOTION
adoptions out of the
care; prospective
•
pre- and post-adoptive services;
AND SUPPORT*
foster care system, when
adoptive parents;
such adoptions promote
adoptive parents
•
activities to expedite the adoption process; and
the best interests of
and their adopted
children.
children.
•
activities to support adoptive families.
FOSTER CARE
Provide income for
Children in foster
Payments to cover cost of the fol owing items,
MAINTENANCE
support of children and
care.
including the cost of providing them
PAYMENTS
youth in foster care.
•
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 enrol ed 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 have One-time payment to adoptive parents to cover
SUBSIDY
children who have special
special needs
nonrecurring costs of finalizing an adoption.
PAYMENTS
needs.e
(primarily, children
who are adopted
Recurring payments to adoptive parents to assist in
(States are
from foster care).
the support of children with special needs.
restricted in the
amount of CWS
funds they may use
for this purpose.)
FOSTER or
Increase number and
Prospective foster
Cost of activities related to recruiting potential foster
ADOPTIVE
quality of foster and
and adoptive
or adoptive parents and costs of providing short-term
PARENTS
adoptive homes available.
parents and
training to increase ability of foster or adoptive
TRAINING and
individuals who are parents to provide assistance and support to foster
RECRUITMENTf
already foster or
and adoptive children.
adoptive parents.
STAFF and
Increase ability of staff and Public agency staff
Cost of short- and long-term training to increase the
EXTERNAL
external partners to
and other
ability of staff and external partner to provide
PARTNER
provide assistance to
individuals working assistance and support to children and families.
TRAINING
children and families.
with the public
agency.
Congressional Research Service
42

link to page 44 link to page 44 link to page 44 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Target
Category
Aim
Population(s)
Kinds of Services or Activities
OTHER SERVICE-
Improved planning,
Not applicable.
Activities include
RELATED
coordination, and delivery
•
planning;
ACTIVITIES*
of services to children and
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,
COSTS* g
payrol processing, personnel 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.g
Under PSSF, also includes indirect costs allocable in
accordance with the agency’s approved cost allocation
plan.g
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-12-05 issued April 11,
2012, Attachment B.
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 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)). Finally, 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.
d. This service or activity was added to the statute (Section 431(7)) by P.L. 112-34 (enacted 2011), although it
is not shown in the guidance.
e. “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 successful y placed for adoption without
Congressional Research Service
43

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

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).
f.
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.
g. 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).

Congressional Research Service
44

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Appendix B. Title IV-B Funding by State
Table B-1. Title IV-B Funding for Subpart 1 and Subpart 2, FY2012 Allotments
by State
Nominal Dollars in Thousands
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child
Promoting Safe and Stable
TOTAL
Welfare Services
Families Program
Title IV-B
State
Subpart1
Subpart 2
funding
Alabama
$4,905
$6,555
$11,460
Alaska
$224
$590
$815
Arizona
$5,919
$8,145
$14,063
Arkansas
$3,154
$3,742
$6,896
California
$31,134
$32,295
$63,429
Colorado
$4,183
$3,283
$7,466
Connecticut
$1,852
$1,987
$3,840
Delaware
$827
$913
$1,739
District of Columbia
$322
$780
$1,102
Florida
$14,943
$16,797
$31,740
Georgia
$10,281
$12,483
$22,764
Hawaii
$1,116
$921
$2,036
Idaho
$1,857
$1,416
$3,273
Illinois
$10,733
$13,319
$24,052
Indiana
$6,780
$6,552
$13,332
Iowa
$2,919
$2,517
$5,436
Kansas
$2,741
$2,011
$4,752
Kentucky
$4,534
$5,682
$10,216
Louisiana
$4,413
$6,831
$11,244
Maine
$1,157
$1,469
$2,626
Maryland
$4,013
$3,970
$7,982
Massachusetts
$4,012
$4,882
$8,893
Michigan
$9,626
$11,644
$21,270
Minnesota
$4,358
$3,250
$7,608
Mississippi
$3,448
$4,734
$8,182
Missouri
$5,773
$8,034
$13,808
Montana
$692
$798
$1,490
Nebraska
$1,709
$1,344
$3,053
Nevada
$2,478
$1,901
$4,379
New Hampshire
$1,050
$666
$1,715
New Jersey
$5,469
$4,752
$10,221
New Mexico
$1,639
$2,926
$4,566
New York
$13,107
$18,346
$31,452
North Carolina
$9,351
$10,514
$19,865
North Dakota
$471
$467
$938
Congressional Research Service
45

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child
Promoting Safe and Stable
TOTAL
Welfare Services
Families Program
Title IV-B
State
Subpart1
Subpart 2
funding
Ohio
$11,097
$12,081
$23,178
Oklahoma
$1,388
$4,421
$5,809
Oregon
$3,435
$4,450
$7,884
Pennsylvania
$10,466
$11,101
$21,568
Rhode Island
$901
$902
$1,804
South Carolina
$4,807
$6,122
$10,928
South Dakota
$458
$733
$1,191
Tennessee
$6,247
$8,892
$15,139
Texas
$25,572
$32,938
$58,509
Utah
$3,723
$1,948
$5,670
Vermont
$580
$508
$1,087
Virginia
$6,140
$5,790
$11,930
Washington
$5,253
$6,338
$11,592
West Virginia
$1,818
$2,334
$4,152
Wisconsin
$5,090
$5,197
$10,286
Wyoming
$407
$264
$671
Subtotal (50 states
$268,569
$310,533
$579,102
and DC)
Territories

American Samoa
$192
$208
$401
Guam
$337
$372
$710
Northern Marianas
$160
$171
$331
Puerto Rico
$4,711
$5,318
$10,029
Virgin Islands
$235
$257
$493
Subtotal
$5,636
$6,328
$11,964

Tribes
$6,427
$11,031
$17,458
TOTAL
$280,633
$327,891
$608,524
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Al otments amounts by state and
territory as indicated in HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-12-05, issued April 11, 2012, and Tribal amounts as provided in
HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-12-06, issued April 11, 2012.

Congressional Research Service
46

link to page 47 link to page 47 link to page 47 link to page 47 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 FY1990-FY2012
Nominal and Constant (FY2012) Dol ars in Mil ions; NA = Not Authorized
Nominal Dollars
Inflation-adjusted (Constant FY2012) Dollars
Promoting
Stephanie Tubbs
Promoting Safe
Stephanie Tubbs Safe and Stable
Jones Child
and Stable
Jones Child
Families
Welfare Services
Families
Welfare Services
Program,
Program,
Program,
Program,
Subpart 2
Fiscal
Subpart 1
Subpart 2
Subpart 1
(service funds
Year
(al funds)a
(service funds only)b TOTAL
(al funds)a
only)b
TOTAL
1990
$252.6
NA
$252.6
$448.6
NA
$448.6
1991
$273.9
NA
$273.9
$463.0
NA
$463.0
1992
$273.9
NA
$273.9
$449.5
NA
$449.5
1993
$294.6
NA
$294.6
$469.2
NA
$469.2
1994
$294.6
$58.0
$352.6
$457.2
$90.0
$547.2
1995
$292.0
$139.0
$431.0
$440.8
$209.8
$650.6
1996
$277.4
$209.0
$486.4
$407.3
$306.9
$714.2
1997
$292.0
$224.0
$516.0
$417.6
$320.4
$738.0
1998
$292.0
$239.0
$531.0
$410.9
$336.4
$747.3
1999
$291.9
$259.0
$550.9
$403.1
$357.6
$760.7
2000
$291.9
$279.0
$570.9
$390.7
$373.4
$764.1
2001
$292.0
$289.0
$581.0
$378.6
$374.7
$753.3
2002
$292.0
$354.4
$646.4
$373.0
$452.7
$825.6
2003
$290.1
$381.8
$671.9
$362.1
$476.5
$838.6
2004
$289.3
$381.8
$671.1
$352.9
$465.7
$818.6
2005
$289.7
$381.1
$670.7
$342.1
$450.0
$792.1
2006
$286.8
$372.2
$658.9
$326.6
$423.9
$750.5
2007
$286.8
$372.2
$659.0
$319.1
$414.3
$733.4
2008
$281.7
$348.1
$629.9
$300.2
$371.0
$671.2
2009
$281.7
$348.1
$629.9
$301.2
$372.2
$673.4
2010
$281.7
$348.1
$629.9
$296.2
$366.0
$662.2
2011
$281.2
$348.0
$629.2
$288.0
$356.4
$644.4
2012
$280.6
$327.9
$608.6
$280.6
$327.9
$608.6
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Dol ars were adjusted for inflation using the
CPI-U for FY1990-FY2012.
a. Funding shown for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program includes the program’s full
appropriation amount all of which is distributed by formula to states, territories, or tribes.
b. Funding shown for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program includes only the funds appropriated under
that program that were distributed by formula 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 and
reserved for (1) the Court Improvement Program; (2) 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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 50 link to page 50 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
Authorized and Reserved
Table D-1. Funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program,
FY1994-FY2012
Nominal dollars in millions; NA = Not Authorized
Funding Provided by Entity and Purposeb
Regional
Appropriation by Kind of
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
2012
408.1
345.0
63.1
32.1d
8.1
20.0
20.0
11.0
316.9
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 mil ion 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.
d. Beginning with FY2012, $1 mil ion of these funds are reserved for competitive grants to tribal highest courts.
Congressional Research Service
48

link to page 49 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Table D-2. PSSF Annual Funding Authorization and Distribution, FY2012-FY2016
Purpose
Entity
(Permanent set-aside
Mandatory
Discretionary
Receiving
authority or expiration
Funds
Funds
Total Funds
Funds
)
Reserved
Reserved
Authorized
HHS
Program-related training,
$6 million
3.3% of any
$13 million
technical assistance, and
discretionary
evaluation (permanent)
funds provided
State or tribal Court Improvement
$30 million
3.3% of any
$37 million
highest courts Program (CIP)
(of which $1
discretionary
(permanent)
million is reserved funds provided
for tribal courts)
States and
Grants to improve monthly $20 million
No discretionary
$20 million
territories
caseworker visits (FY2011)
funds reserved
Regional
Grants to improve the wel - $20 million
No discretionary
$20 million
Partnerships
being of children in, or at
funds reserved
risk of entering, foster care
because of parent /caretaker
methamphetamine abuse or
abuse of another substance
(FY2011)
Tribal entities Child and family services
3.0% of all
3.0% of any
$16 million
(permanent)
mandatory funds discretionary
except those for
funds provided
regional partner-
ships and monthly
caseworker visits.a
States and
Child and family services
Remaining funds
Remaining funds $460 million
territories

TOTAL
All purposes
$345 million
$200 million
$565 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 .
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 all other PSSF reservations of mandatory funds.
Congressional Research Service
49

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-FY2012
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
2012
$36.6 million
$32.1 million
NA
$32.1 million
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Congressional Research Service
50

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Table E-2. Funding Awarded by CIP Purpose and State, FY2011
A blank cell indicates the state did not seek funds for this purpose.
STATE
Basic
Data
Training
TOTAL
Alabama
$202,661
$172,925
$168,492
$544,078
Alaska
$104,089
$99,265
$98,546
$301,900
Arizona
$260,841
$216,401
$209,776
$687,018
Arkansas
$158,419
$139,864
$137,098
$435,381
California
$1,062,385
$815,374
$778,551
$2,656,310
Colorado
$211,835
$179,780
$175,002
$566,617
Connecticut
$170,477
$148,875
$145,654
$465,006
Delaware
$106,685
$101,205
$100,388
$308,278
District of Columbia
$97,976
$94,697
$94,208
$286,881
Florida
$506,384
$399,889
$384,013
$1,290,286
Georgia
$351,247
$283,959
$273,928
$909,134
Hawaii
$
11 5,047

$106,322
$221,369
Idaho
$128,233
$117,307
$115,678
$361,218
Illinois
$416,464
$332,694
$320,206
$1,069,364
Indiana
$250,938
$209,001
$202,749
$662,688
Iowa
$160,770
$141,621
$138,766
$441,157
Kansas
$158,856
$140,191
$137,408
$436,455
Kentucky
$190,313
$163,698
$159,730
$513,741
Louisiana
$202,032
$172,456
$168,046
$542,534
Maine
$113,765
$106,495
$105,411
$325,671
Maryland
$226,098
$190,439
$185,123
$601,660
Massachusetts
$238,788
$199,922
$194,128
$632,838
Michigan
$332,271
$269,778
$260,463
$862,512
Minnesota
$216,765
$183,464
$178,500
$578,729
Mississippi
$165,057
$144,824
$141,808
$451,689
Missouri
$234,111
$196,426
$190,809
$621,346
Montana
$108,277
$102,394
$101,517
$312,188
Nebraska
$132,460
$120,465
$118,677
$371,602
Nevada
$153,458
$136,156
$133,577
$423,191
New Hampshire
$115,940
$108,121
$106,955
$331,016
New Jersey
$295,215
$242,088
$234,168
$771,471
New Mexico
$137,817
$124,468
$122,479
$384,764
New York
$551,838
$433,855
$416,267
$1,401,960
North Carolina
$323,023
$262,868
$253,900
$839,791
North Dakota
$101,049
$96,993
$96,388
$294,430
Ohio
$368,152
$296,591
$285,924
$950,667
Oklahoma
$180,506
$156,369
$152,771
$489,646
Oregon
$175,855
$152,894
$149,471
$478,220
Pennsylvania
$380,349
$305,706
$294,579
$980,634
Congressional Research Service
51

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

STATE
Basic
Data
Training
TOTAL
Puerto Rico
$185,376
$160,008
$156,227
$501,611
Rhode Island
$109,906
$103,611
$102,673
$316,190
South Carolina

$169,835
$165,558
$335,393
South Dakota
$106,004
$100,695
$99,904
$306,603
Tennessee
$239,341
$200,334
$194,520
$634,195
Texas
$789,783
$611,665
$585,113
$1,986,561
Utah
$173,912
$151,441
$148,092
$473,445
Vermont
$99,042
$95,493
$94,964
$289,499
Virginia
$279,399
$230,269
$222,945
$732,613
Washington
$247,347
$206,318
$200,201
$653,866
West Virginia
$125,781
$115,474
$113,938
$355,193
Wisconsin
$223,912

$183,571
$407,483
Wyoming
$98,835
$95,339
$94,818
$288,992
TOTAL
$12,085,084
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$32,085,084
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on final award amounts,
by purpose and state, received from HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, September 2012.

Table E-3. Funding Awarded by CIP Purpose and State, FY2012
A blank cel indicates the state did not seek funds for this purpose.
STATE
Basic
Data
Training
TOTAL
Alabama
$186,094
$174,002
$169,685
$529,781
Alaska
$101,376
$99,418
$98,718
$299,512
Arizona
$228,428
$211,273
$205,149
$644,850
Arkansas
$147,869
$140,350
$137,665
$425,884
California
$911,485
$812,635
$777,345
$2,501,465
Colorado
$192,502
$179,644
$175,054
$547,200
Connecticut
$157,255
$148,613
$145,528
$451,396
Delaware
$103,578
$101,356
$100,563
$305,497
District of Columbia
$95,213

$93,555
$188,768
Florida
$442,636
$399,861
$384,590
$1,227,087
Georgia
$304,266
$278,040
$268,678
$850,984
Hawaii
$
11 1,745
$108,546
$107,404
$327,695
Idaho
$122,292
$117,831
$116,239
$356,362
Illinois
$360,563
$327,604
$315,838
$1,004,005
Indiana
$227,842
$210,757
$204,658
$643,257
Iowa
$150,045
$142,266
$139,488
$431,799
Kansas
$148,971
$141,320
$138,588
$428,879
Kentucky
$175,512
$164,686
$160,822
$501,020
Louisiana
$184,133
$172,277
$168,044
$524,454
Maine
$109,614
$106,670
$105,619
$321,903
Maryland
$204,759

$185,322
$390,081
Congressional Research Service
52

link to page 53 Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

STATE
Basic
Data
Training
TOTAL
Massachusetts
$214,111
$198,668
$193,155
$605,934
Michigan
$294,756
$269,668
$260,711
$825,135
Minnesota
$197,736
$184,252
$179,438
$561,426
Mississippi
$152,111
$144,084
$141,219
$437,414
Missouri
$211,528
$196,395
$190,992
$598,915
Montana
$104,851
$102,477
$101,629
$308,957
Nebraska
$125,429
$120,594
$118,868
$364,891
Nevada
$142,860
$135,940
$133,469
$412,269
New Hampshire
$110,816
$107,728
$106,626
$325,170
New Jersey
$264,901
$243,384
$235,703
$743,988
New Mexico
$130,709
$125,242
$123,290
$379,241
New York
$474,087
$427,550
$410,936
$1,312,573
North Carolina
$287,373
$263,169
$254,528
$805,070
North Dakota
$98,824
$97,171
$96,580
$292,575
Ohio
$327,204
$298,235
$287,893
$913,332
Oklahoma
$167,282
$157,441
$153,927
$478,650
Oregon
$161,808
$152,621
$149,341
$463,770
Pennsylvania
$337,715
$307,489
$296,698
$941,902
Puerto Rico
$165,642
$155,996
$152,553
$474,191
Rhode Island
$106,086
$103,564
$102,664
$312,314
South Carolina
$182,318
$170,679
$166,523
$519,520
South Dakota
$102,889
$100,749
$99,986
$303,624
Tennessee
$217,341
$201,513
$195,862
$614,716
Texas
$683,987
$612,345
$586,769
$1,883,101
Utah
$160,316
$151,307
$148,091
$459,714
Vermont
$97,045
$95,605
$95,090
$287,740
Virginia
$249,997
$230,262
$223,217
$703,476
Washington
$224,724
$208,012
$202,046
$634,782
West Virginia
$119,863
$115,693
$114,204
$349,760
Wisconsin
$203,658
$189,466
$184,400
$577,524
Wyoming
$96,986
$95,552
$95,040
$287,578
TOTAL
$11,081,131
$10,000,000
$10,000,000
$31,081,131a
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on final award amounts,
by purpose and state, received from HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, September 2012.
a. This TOTAL CIP funds awarded to states excludes the $1 mil ion in CIP funding reserved for tribal
court improvement. FY2012 is the first year for which funds for these competitive grants were
reserved under the CIP. In late September 2012, HHS announced it had awarded tribal CIP grants
worth up to $150,000 per year for each of three years to seven tribes: Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Dowagiac, MI; Navajo Nation
Judicial Branch, Window Rock, AZ; White Earth Band of Chippewa, White Earth, MN; Washoe
Tribe of Nevada and California, Gardnerville, NV; The Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Tucson, AZ; and
Nooksack, Indian Tribe, Deming, WA.

Congressional Research Service
53

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, FY2007-FY2011
FY2007-FY2011 funding to regional partnerships was awarded under four program options based
on statutory requirements for the amount and duration of funding provided in the 2006 law.85
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 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).86 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 nonfederal 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.
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

85 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).
86 CRS assumes this is the time frame of the final funding based on description of these program options provided by
HHS.
Congressional Research Service
54

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
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 Vil age 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
Island Grove Regional Treatment
Northeastern Colorado Child
Treatment focused
3 years
$1.675 million
Center, Inc.—Greeley
Welfare Project
FLORIDA
Hil sborough 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 y
ears

$3.7

42

millio

n

Welfare—Boise
Children Through Family Drug Court
ILLINOIS
Children’s Research Triangle—Chicago Moving Families Forward: A Regional System-wide
5 years
$
3.74
2 m
illion
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)
Congressional Research Service
55

link to page 58 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
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
$
3.74
2 m
illion
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

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
col aboration 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
Col aboration and a Specialized
Outpatient Treatment Program
NEW YORK
Congressional Research Service
56

link to page 58 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
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
Multnomah County—Portland
Family Involvement Team
Drug court
5 years
$3.742 million
Northeast Oregon Col aborative/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
Congressional Research Service
57

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Appendix G. Monthly Caseworker Visits:
Allotments by State
Table G-1. Allotments for Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care,
FY2006-FY2012
No FY2007 funds were provided for this purpose. States were permitted to spend FY2006 funds
during that year.
State
FY2006
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
Alabama
$840,806
$105,385
$211,030
$424,784
$424,165
$414,115
Alaska
$91,458
$10,646
$20,574
$39,650
$37,997
$37,283
Arizona
$939,577
$116,805
$228,112
$471,024
$494,916
$514,547
Arkansas
$552,829
$68,614
$137,873
$267,241
$254,976
$236,412
California
$4,306,545
$508,439
$1,006,364
$2,004,176
$2,005,524
$2,040,230
Colorado
$380,276
$49,871
$98,287
$195,003
$197,918
$207,376
Connecticut
$295,772
$33,463
$63,575
$125,199
$123,725
$125,557
Delaware
$89,393
$12,456
$25,471
$52,797
$55,194
$57,651
District of Columbia
$129,235
$15,482
$28,839
$54,554
$51,091
$49,293
Florida
$1,745,727
$218,437
$429,932
$866,876
$952,123
$1,061,140
Georgia
$1,374,242
$182,296
$369,550
$740,873
$758,248
$788,626
Hawaii
$156,974
$15,257
$28,694
$56,319
$57,152
$58,154
Idaho
$146,098
$18,717
$36,142
$72,388
$78,193
$89,469
Illinois
$1,707,839
$222,601
$451,032
$903,845
$880,090
$841,412
Indiana
$842,071
$105,369
$210,832
$428,370
$424,621
$413,933
Iowa
$267,284
$37,372
$78,673
$161,607
$164,238
$159,012
Kansas
$267,406
$33,284
$66,668
$129,351
$126,667
$127,037
Kentucky
$786,785
$95,225
$189,951
$378,317
$378,518
$358,944
Louisiana
$1,199,691
$136,018
$253,023
$473,137
$456,580
$431,581
Maine
$166,113
$21,753
$45,343
$93,486
$93,570
$92,810
Maryland
$432,768
$54,689
$110,960
$226,106
$238,840
$250,797
Massachusetts
$547,303
$70,359
$140,657
$292,688
$303,622
$308,401
Michigan
$1,512,784
$189,646
$391,136
$787,884
$765,946
$735,599
Minnesota
$405,513
$48,726
$100,326
$205,106
$204,446
$205,320
Mississippi
$665,160
$80,052
$158,018
$317,802
$311,008
$299,040
Missouri
$978,380
$142,385
$313,046
$649,675
$584,918
$507,572
Montana
$119,161
$14,405
$27,450
$52,996
$51,208
$50,436
Nebraska
$179,526
$23,409
$45,864
$90,017
$86,822
$84,910
Nevada
$199,971
$23,360
$45,508
$93,279
$105,562
$120,105
Congressional Research Service
59

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

State
FY2006
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
New Hampshire
$77,609
$9,388
$18,543
$37,885
$39,249
$42,049
New Jersey
$601,557
$75,577
$151,637
$303,901
$294,864
$300,189
New Mexico
$375,608
$49,389
$96,992
$187,968
$185,438
$184,882
New York
$2,307,345
$281,120
$566,657
$1,119,705
$1,119,944
$1,158,982
North Carolina
$1,194,760
$160,950
$325,715
$661,379
$674,399
$664,216
North Dakota
$68,385
$7,615
$15,347
$31,163
$30,743
$29,518
Ohio
$1,474,225
$189,676
$376,453
$759,063
$768,537
$763,233
Oklahoma
$641,887
$77,447
$155,739
$301,751
$286,725
$279,298
Oregon
$626,990
$72,322
$140,527
$277,171
$280,022
$281,098
Pennsylvania
$1,399,207
$183,376
$366,009
$733,297
$719,059
$701,330
Rhode Island
$142,498
$14,701
$27,734
$55,037
$55,553
$57,004
South Carolina
$809,185
$98,405
$193,853
$390,558
$394,729
$386,749
South Dakota
$95,326
$11,449
$22,459
$44,841
$45,166
$46,296
Tennessee
$1,137,165
$147,293
$295,464
$582,901
$576,014
$561,760
Texas
$3,987,472
$532,717
$1,067,996
$2,121,342
$2,094,943
$2,080,850
Utah
$210,202
$27,367
$52,596
$102,744
$108,544
$123,052
Vermont
$58,092
$6,934
$14,273
$29,484
$31,447
$32,069
Virginia
$688,603
$90,492
$181,418
$365,505
$365,424
$365,796
Washington
$629,604
$84,442
$171,715
$349,144
$372,769
$400,426
West Virginia
$364,134
$42,366
$81,472
$160,647
$156,532
$147,453
Wisconsin
$596,290
$71,426
$146,234
$301,408
$315,812
$328,305
Wyoming
$46,135
$5,142
$9,121
$16,931
$16,195
$16,653
50 States + DC
$38,858,966 $4,894,115
$9,790,884 $19,588,375 $19,599,986
$19,617,970
American Samoa
$86,317
$2,224
$4,473
$8,920
$8,828
$8,836
Guam
$105,698
$4,865
$9,785
$19,514
$19,313
$19,332
Northern Marianas
$81,960
$1,630
$3,278
$6,538
$6,471
$6,477
Puerto Rico
$774,972
$94,156
$185,526
$364,579
$353,453
$335,424
Virgin Islands
$92,087
$3,010
$6,054
$12,074
$11,949
$11,961
Territories
$1,141,034
$105,885
$209,116
$411,625
$400,014
$382,030
TOTAL
$40,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $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 and HHS
ACF, ACYF-CB-12-05 for FY2012.
Note: HHS, ACF, OLAB indicated that the allotment 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
60

Child Welfare: Funding for Services Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Congressional Research Service
61

Document Outline