Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal
Programs and Their Current Funding
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
July 16, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43458
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Summary
Child welfare services are intended to prevent the abuse or neglect of children; ensure that
children have safe, permanent homes; and promote the well-being of children and their families.
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states bear the primary responsibility for ensuring
the welfare of children and their families. In recent years, Congress has appropriated just above or
below $8 billion in federal support dedicated to child welfare purposes. Most of those dollars
(97%-98%) were provided to state, tribal, or territorial child welfare agencies (via formula grants
or as federal reimbursement for a part of all eligible program costs). Federal involvement in state
administration of child welfare activities is primarily tied to this financial assistance. The
remaining federal dollars dedicated to child welfare purposes are provided, primarily on a
competitive basis, to a variety of eligible entities to support research, evaluation, technical
assistance, and demonstration projects to expand knowledge and improve child welfare practice
and policy. At the federal level, child welfare programs are primarily administered by the
Children’s Bureau, which is an agency within the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, three competitive
grant programs (authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act) are administered by the Office of
Justice Programs (OJP) within the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Final FY2014 child welfare funding was appropriated as part of the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76). Because that act maintained discretionary funding at the statutory limit
provided for in the recent Bipartisan Budget Agreement of 2013 (P.L. 113-67), FY2014 funding
for child welfare programs that receive discretionary funding was not affected by sequestration.
While most federal child welfare programs receive discretionary funding, the largest amount of
federal funding is provided to child welfare programs through mandatory funding authorized
under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Nearly all of that funding (related to foster care,
adoption assistance, kinship guardianship assistance, and services to youth aging out of foster
care) is statutorily exempted from sequestration in every year. Finally, a few child welfare
programs receive mandatory funding and may be subject to sequestration; principally this
includes the mandatory funding provided for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.
For FY2014, the final funding level for these nonexempt mandatory child welfare programs was
reduced from their otherwise appropriated level by 7.2%.
Child welfare support is provided via multiple federal programs. Title IV-B of the Social Security
Act authorizes funding to states, territories, and tribes for a broad range of child welfare-related
services to children and their families. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act entitles states to
federal reimbursement for a part of the cost of providing foster care, adoption assistance, and (in
states electing to provide this kind of support) kinship guardianship assistance on behalf of each
child who meets federal eligibility criteria. Title IV-E also authorizes capped entitlement funding
to states (and some discretionary funds as well) for provision of services to youth who “age out”
of foster care, or are expected to age out without placement in a permanent family. Legislation
concerning programs authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E, which represents the very large
majority of federal child welfare dollars, is handled in Congress by the House Committee on
Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee.
Additional federal support for child welfare purposes is authorized or otherwise supported in the
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the Adoption Opportunities program, and
the Abandoned Infants Assistance Act. Legislation concerning these programs is handled in the
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
House Education and the Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Finally, the Victims of Child Abuse Act authorizes competitive grant funding to support
Children’s Advocacy Centers, Court Appointed Special Advocates, and Child Abuse Training for
Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. Authorizing legislation for these programs originated
primarily with the House and Senate Judiciary committees.
.
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
FY2014 Appropriations for Child Welfare ...................................................................................... 2
Effect of Sequestration on FY2014 Child Welfare Funding ...................................................... 2
Federal Child Welfare Programs ...................................................................................................... 3
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act ............................................................................................... 4
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services ......................................................................... 4
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF) .............................................................. 5
Reservation of PSSF Funds for Related Grants and Activities ........................................... 7
Family Connection Grants ......................................................................................................... 7
Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects .................................................. 9
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act ............................................................................................... 9
Foster Care............................................................................................................................... 10
Adoption Assistance ................................................................................................................ 11
Kinship Guardianship Assistance ............................................................................................ 12
Final Budget Authority by Title IV-E Program Component .............................................. 13
Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance ............................................... 13
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program ............................................................................ 14
Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers ............................................................................. 15
Final Funding for the CFCIP Program, Including ETVs ................................................... 15
Adoption Incentives ................................................................................................................. 16
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) ...................................................................... 17
CAPTA State Grants ................................................................................................................ 17
CAPTA Discretionary Activities ............................................................................................. 18
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect ............................................. 19
Children’s Justice Act Grants .................................................................................................. 20
Victims of Child Abuse Act ........................................................................................................... 21
Improving Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse Cases ............................................ 22
Court-Appointed Special Advocates ....................................................................................... 23
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners ............................................... 24
Other Programs .............................................................................................................................. 25
Adoption Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 25
Abandoned Infants Assistance ................................................................................................. 28
Tables
Table 1. Final Funding for Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program ...................... 5
Table 2. Final Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program .......................... 6
Table 3. Final Discretionary and Mandatory PSSF Funding, by Program/Activity ........................ 7
Table 4. Final Funding for Family Connection Grants .................................................................... 8
Table 5. Final Funding for Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects ................... 9
Table 6. Budget Authority Provided Under the Title IV-E Program .............................................. 13
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 7. Final Funding for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance (TA) ............... 14
Table 8. Final Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) ................... 16
Table 9. Final Funding for Adoption Incentive Payments ............................................................. 16
Table 10. Final Funding for Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) ..................... 20
Table 11. Final Funding for Children’s Justice Act Grants ............................................................ 21
Table 12. Final Funding for Programs Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCAA) ................. 25
Table 13. Final Funding for Adoption Opportunities ..................................................................... 27
Table 14. Final Funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance .......................................................... 30
Table A-1. Funding Authority and Sequestration Status of Child Welfare Programs .................... 32
Appendixes
Appendix. Child Welfare Programs by Type of Funding Authority and Sequestration
Status .......................................................................................................................................... 31
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 33
Congressional Research Service
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Introduction
Child welfare services are intended to prevent the abuse or neglect of children; ensure that
children have safe, permanent homes; and promote the well-being of children and their families.
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states have the primary obligation to ensure the
welfare of children and their families. At the state level, the child welfare “system” consists of
public child protection and child welfare workers, private child welfare and social service
workers, state and local judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement personnel. These
representatives of various state and local entities assume interrelated roles while carrying out
child welfare activities, including investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect, providing
services to families to ensure children’s safety in the home, removing children from their homes
when that is necessary for their safety, supervising and administering payments for children
placed in foster care, and ensuring permanency planning and regular case review for children in
foster care.
Most federal dollars dedicated to child welfare purposes are provided to state child welfare
agencies, and federal involvement in child welfare is primarily tied to this financial assistance. In
recent years, Congress has appropriated just above or below $8 billion in federal support
dedicated to child welfare purposes. As a condition of receiving these foster care and other child
welfare program funds, states must typically provide nonfederal funds of between 20% and 50%
of the program costs and they are required to abide by a series of federal child welfare policies.
Those policies focus on ensuring the safety and well-being of all children served.1 However, the
most specific and extensive federal requirements are designed for the protection of children in
foster care, especially to ensure them a safe and permanent home.
Apart from the federal funding provided for programs described in this report, state child welfare
agencies tap significant program resources—as much as $5.6 billion—from other federal funding
streams, including the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG), and Medicaid.2 These federal funding streams have federal statutory
goals, or support activities, that overlap with child welfare purposes. However, they are not solely
dedicated to child welfare purposes and states are not necessarily required to use them for those
specific purposes. Neither do states need to meet federal requirements specific to the conduct of
their child welfare programs as a condition of receiving this “nondedicated” funding.3
This report begins with a review of federal appropriations activity in FY2014 as it relates to child
welfare programs, including the effect of the automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration.
1 See CRS Report R42794, Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements under the Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program , by Emilie Stoltzfus
2 Kerry DeVooght, et. al., Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and Neglect in SFYs 2008 and
2010, Child Trends, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and Casey Family Programs, 2012. Medicaid spending counted in this
survey excludes spending on basic health care for children (which is typically a state Medicaid agency expenditure).
Instead it includes spending on Medicaid services or activities for which the state child welfare agency was responsible
for providing the nonfederal share of the program costs (e.g., targeted case management, rehabilitative services,
Medicaid-funded therapeutic foster care, and associated administrative costs).
3 For more information on TANF see CRS Report R40946, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant:
An Introduction, by Gene Falk; for more information on SSBG see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant:
Background and Funding , by Karen E. Lynch; and for more information on Medicaid see CRS Report R43357,
Medicaid: An Overview, coordinated by Alison Mitchell.
Congressional Research Service
1
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
The bulk of the report provides a short description of each federal child welfare program,
including its purpose and recent (FY2012-FY2014) funding levels.
FY2014 Appropriations for Child Welfare
Federal child welfare funding is largely administered at the federal level by the Children’s
Bureau, at the Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for
Children and Families (ACF), within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Funding for ACF programs is primarily provided as part of the annual appropriations bill for the
Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. Several child welfare programs authorized by the
Victims of Child Abuse Act are administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) within the
Department of Justice (DOJ). Their funding is provided in the annual appropriations bill for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 3547 as enacted) provides final FY2014
funding levels for federal child welfare programs and activities administered by HHS (Division
H) and DOJ (Division B). The act passed the House (359 to 67) on January 15 and the Senate (72
to 26) on January 16. It was signed into law by the President on January 17, 2014 (P.L. 113-76).
During the spring and summer of 2013, Congress considered some earlier measures to provide
federal funding for child welfare programs administered by HHS (S. 1284, S.Rept. 113-71) and
DOJ (H.R. 2787, H.Rept. 113-171; and S. 1329, S.Rept. 113-78). While these measures
contributed to the final agreement, and certain parts of their accompanying reports are approved
by the final agreement, none of these bills were enacted.
The failure of Congress to enact either final or temporary funding measures before the start of
FY2014 led to a shutdown of the federal government beginning on the first day of the fiscal year,
October 1, 2013. The shutdown ended on October 17, 2013, after Congress agreed to a temporary
FY2014 spending measure that provided funding for federal programs through January 15, 2014
(P.L. 113-46). For the child welfare programs discussed in this report, this ensured interim funding
at the post-sequestration level provided to each program in FY2013 or (for annually appropriated
programs with a mandatory funding authorization) the level of funding authorized under current
law. Because final action on the FY2014 funding agreement was not completed prior to the end of
that temporary extension, Congress passed a second continuing funding measure (enacted as P.L.
113-73), to enable continued federal operations prior to the January 17, 2014, enactment of the final
funding measure.
Effect of Sequestration on FY2014 Child Welfare Funding
The Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25, as amended) included a combination of measures
affecting discretionary and mandatory spending that are designed to reduce the federal deficit by
a certain amount. With regard to discretionary spending, it established certain spending caps for
FY2013-FY2021. The caps provide limits on the total dollar amount of federal spending
Congress may appropriate on a discretionary funding basis. The 2011 act also provided that if
Congress did not achieve federal spending reductions through other means, automatic spending
Congressional Research Service
2
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
cuts, called “sequestration,” would be used to achieve the deficit reduction targets and ensure that
federal spending does not exceed the discretionary spending caps written into the law.4
The Bipartisan Budget Agreement, included in H.J.Res. 59 and enacted December 26, 2013, as
Division A of P.L. 113-67, amended the level of discretionary spending permitted for both
FY2014 and FY2015. For FY2014, the discretionary funding provided in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) has been determined by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to meet the FY2014 spending cap established by the Bipartisan Budget
Agreement.5 This means that child welfare programs with discretionary funding, all of which
were subject to sequestration in FY2013, did not face cuts to their FY2014 funding. Instead, the
level of funding included in P.L. 113-76 for each of those programs is the final amount available
for the program (barring any transfers or reprogramming done by the administering agency, as
permitted by the law).
At the same time, the December budget deal did not reverse the sequestration of mandatory
spending programs required under the BCA to occur in each of FY2013-FY2021 (in the absence
of Congress reducing this spending in another way). Instead, it extended the time period of
required mandatory sequestration for two years (through FY2023). The President issued the
required sequestration order for FY2014 mandatory spending programs on April 10, 2013. This
order took effect on October 1, 2013. For FY2014, OMB specified that nonexempt, nondefense
mandatory program funding would be reduced by 7.2%.6 The largest share of mandatory child
welfare funding (authorized under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) is specified in statute as
exempt from sequestration. This means its appropriated funding is not subject to the 7.2%
automatic reduction. However, some smaller authorizations of mandatory funding (principally
mandatory funding provided for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF)) are
subject to the 7.2% sequestration of their FY2014 funding. (A table showing child welfare
programs by their type of funding authority and status as “exempt” or “nonexempt” is included in
the Appendix.)
Federal Child Welfare Programs
Descriptions of federal child welfare programs, including their purposes; final funding levels in
each of FY2012-FY2014; and the type and status of their funding authorities are discussed below.
Use of the Terms “States” and “Territories”
Unless otherwise specified, when used in this report the term “states” refers to the 50 states and the District of
Columbia and the term “territories” refers to Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands.
4 CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules, coordinated by
Karen Spar.
5 OMB Final Sequestration Report to the President and Congress for Fiscal Year 2014, (February 2014).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/sequestration/
sequestration_final_feb2014.pdf
6 OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2014, (May 2013), Appendix.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
fy14_preview_and_joint_committee_reductions_reports_05202013.pdf
Congressional Research Service
3
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Final Funding Levels for FY2012-FY2014
Final funding amounts for each of FY2012-FY2014 shown in this report are based on the relevant appropriations laws
for each fiscal year (P.L. 112-74, P.L. 113-6, and P.L. 113-76), including any official accompanying explanatory text or
tables. In addition, for FY2013 many of the programs were affected by sequestration and their final funding levels are
given as provided in agency (ACF and OJP) operating plans. Final y, for FY2014 CRS based final funding for the limited
number of child welfare programs affected by sequestration ( i.e., “nonexempt” programs with mandatory funding) on
their level of funding provided in P.L. 113-76 reduced by the 7.2% sequestration percentage announced earlier
by OMB.
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act principally authorizes formula grant funds to states,
territories, and tribes for the provision of child welfare-related services to children and their
families. It also authorizes competitively awarded funding for related research and other projects.7
Legislation authorizing these Title IV-B programs and activities is handled by the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services
Known as “Child Welfare Services,” this program authorizes formula grant funding to states,
territories, and tribes to support services and activities intended to protect and promote the
welfare of all children; prevent child abuse, neglect, or exploitation; permit children to remain in
their own homes or return to them whenever it is safe and appropriate; promote safety,
permanency, and well-being for children in foster care and adoptive families; and provide training
to ensure a well-qualified child welfare workforce. There are no federal eligibility criteria for
recipients. Instead, states may elect to fund services and activities to meet these goals on behalf of
any child or family that it determines to be in need of them. To receive these funds, states must
meet federal requirements, many of which are designed to ensure all children in foster care
(regardless of whether they are eligible for federal Title IV-E assistance) receive certain
protections.8
Funding for Child Welfare Services was first authorized in 1935 as part of the original Social
Security Act and is currently included at Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of that act. Annual discretionary
funding of $325 million is authorized for the program through FY2016 (i.e., until September 30,
7 Title IV-B contains two program/activity authorities which are not currently funded and are not discussed in the body
of this report. They are the national random sample study of child welfare (Section 429) and the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program (Section 439). Authority for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program was established by the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Reauthorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-133). Congress last provided support for
the program ($49 million) for FY2010 (P.L. 111-117). The Section 429 authority originated with the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and was used to field two
iterations of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW). Congress last provided specific
funding for this purpose as part of an FY2011 continuing appropriations act (P.L. 111-242); the Administration
continues to seek funding for NSCAW, including a request of $6 million in discretionary funding (under a separate
program authority) for FY2015.
8 For a more comprehensive discussion of this program see CRS Report R41860, Child Welfare: Funding for Child and
Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
4
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
2016). Actual funding appropriated for this program has always been lower than the program’s
authorization level. Table 1 shows final funding for the program in each of FY2012-FY2014.
Table 1. Final Funding for Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
Dol ar amounts are rounded to nearest 1,000
Child Welfare Services
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Formula grants to states,
territories, and tribes
$280,650,000 $262,622,000 $268,735,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final
operating level after application of sequestration.
All states receive a base allotment of $70,000 in Child Welfare Services funding. The remaining
program appropriations are distributed to states based on their relative share of the population of
children, with a higher per child federal funding level provided to states with lower per capita
income. To receive its full federal allotment of Child Welfare Services funding, each state must
provide nonfederal resources equaling no less than 25% of all funds spent under this program.
(Tribal allotments are reserved by HHS out of a state’s Child Welfare Services allotment based in
large part on a tribe’s share of the state’s child population.)
While state spending patterns vary, for FY2013 they collectively planned to spend close to one-
half (46%) of this federal funding on child protective services, which 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, emergency assistance, and arranging
alternative living arrangements.9 Additionally, states planned to spend about 19% of this funding
on family preservation services (intended to enable children to remain safely in their own homes
or return to that home) and time-limited family reunification services (intended to enable children
who have been in foster care for no more than 17 months to return safely to their homes). The
remaining funds were slated to be used as follows: 11% for family support or prevention services
(intended to strengthen intact families to promote child and family well-being); 11% for foster
care maintenance payments (to pay room and board cost of a child’s stay in foster care); 6% to
promote and support adoption, including through provision of adoption subsidies; 6% for
program administration; and 6% for other activities, services, or planning, including training and
foster and adoptive parent recruitment.
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF)
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program authorizes formula grant funding to
states, tribes, and territories for services to prevent maltreatment in at-risk families; 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 (to
enable timely reunification); and support adoptive families by providing them supportive services
necessary for them to make a lifetime commitment to their children. To receive these funds, states
9 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF), Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child
Welfare Expenditures, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
5
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
must meet certain federal requirements, which are primarily related to state planning for
comprehensive services to children in families.
Apart from funding child and family services, the statute requires specified amounts of PSSF
funding to be reserved each year for related programs and activities. These include the Court
Improvement Program, Regional Partnership Grants (to improve outcomes for children affected
by parental substance abuse), Monthly Caseworker Grants, and program-related evaluation and
research.10
The PSSF program was added to the Social Security Act (Title IV-B, Subpart 2) in 1993 (P.L. 103-66).
Total PSSF funding is authorized at $545 million annually through FY2016 (i.e., until September 30,
2016). Of that total, $345 million is authorized to be provided on a mandatory basis and $200 million
is authorized on a discretionary basis. See Table 2 for actual FY2012-FY2014 funding.
Table 2. Final Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program
Dol ar amounts are rounded to nearest 1,000
PSSF Funding
FY2012 FY2013
FY2014
Mandatory funding (subtotal)
$345,000,000
$327,405,000
$320,160,000
Discretionary funding (subtotal)
$63,065,000
$59,672,000
$59,675,000
TOTAL
$408,065,000
$387,077,000 $379,835,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The funding levels shown reflect any
required sequestration, which in FY2013 applied to both mandatory and discretionary PSSF funding provided,
and for FY2014 applied to the mandatory portion of PSSF funding only.
PSSF funds for child and family services are distributed to states based on their relative share of
the national population of children receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
benefits. To receive its full federal allotment of this PSSF funding, each state must provide
nonfederal resources equaling no less than 25% of funds spent under this program. Further, states
must spend “significant” sums of federal funding received under this program for services that
address each of the program’s four purposes. In program guidance, HHS has interpreted this to
mean a state must spend no less than 20% of its federal PSSF services funding on each of the
purpose areas (unless it can provide a written rationale for not doing this). For FY2013, states
collectively planned to spend one-quarter (25%) of their federal PSSF funding for family
preservation services, an equal share (25%) for family support services, 21% for time-limited
family reunification services (i.e., intended to enable children who have been in foster care for no
more than 17 months to return safely to their homes), and 20% for adoption promotion and
support services. Remaining funds were to be spent for program administration (5%) or other
program costs (4%).11
10 For a more comprehensive discussion of this program see CRS Report R41860, Child Welfare: Funding for Child
and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
11 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures, 2013. States are
also required to report actual expenditures for PSSF program. Although collectively states report spending above 20%
in each of the four service categories, there is variation across states. According to HHS, states that spend less than
20% on a given category report doing so because other resources are available to provide those services.
Congressional Research Service
6
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Reservation of PSSF Funds for Related Grants and Activities
Before funds are distributed to states and territories for provision of child and family services,
certain PSSF funds must be set aside (reserved) for specific programs, grants, or activities. The
law provides specific dollar or percentage amounts that must be set aside for each of these
programs or activities. Table 3 shows PSSF funding (both mandatory and discretionary) divided
by purpose or activity for each of FY2012-FY2014. (The amount shown as funding for services
to children and families is what remains after required reservations were made.)
Table 3. Final Discretionary and Mandatory PSSF Funding, by Program/Activity
Dol ars amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000; parts may not sum to total due to rounding
PSSF Program or Activity
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
TOTAL
$408,065,000
$387,077,000 $379,835,000
Services to children and families—
$316,860,000 $301,042,000 $296,707,000
Formula grants to states and territories
Tribal services to children and families—
$11,042,000 $9,973,000 $9,590,000
Formula grants to tribes
Court Improvement Program—
$31,081,000 $29,490,000 $28,881,000
Formula grants to state highest courts
Tribal Court Improvement—
$1,000,000 $949,000 $928,000
Competitive grants to tribal courts
Monthly Caseworker Visits—
$20,000,000 $18,980,000 $18,560,000
Formula grants to states and territories
Regional Partnership Grants—
Competitive grants to regional partnerships
$20,000,000 $18,980,000 $18,560,000
to improve outcomes for children
affected by parental substance abuse
Evaluation, research, training, and
technical assistance—
$8,081,000 7,663,000
$7,537,000
Competitive grants, contracts, or agreements
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. For FY2013, both mandatory and discretionary
PSSF funding was affected by sequestration. For FY2014, only the program’s mandatory funding was subject to
sequestration. Sequestration applied to each program sub-purpose, which means that the effect of sequestration
(i.e., the percentage reduction) was spread evenly across each of the PSSF programs and activities.
Family Connection Grants
Section 427 of the Social Security Act authorizes Family Connection Grants to support four kinds
of services, each intended to enable children in foster care, or at risk of entering care, to stay
connected with their families. These services are
• kinship navigator programs, which assist kin caregivers in finding and using
services to meet their own needs and the needs of the children they are serving;
• family finding, which uses intensive search methods to locate biological family
members who may serve as a child’s permanent family;
• family group decision-making, which involves holding meetings to enable family
members to develop a plan for the care and protection of children who have come
to the attention of the child welfare agency; and
Congressional Research Service
7
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
• residential family treatment, which enables parents to address substance abuse
and mental health issues in a comprehensive treatment program that allows them
to continue to live with their children and can enable children’s safe and
appropriate development.
Out of the annual $15 million in funding, HHS is required to spend no less than $5 million
annually to support kinship navigator programs. In addition, it must reserve 3% of program funds
($450,000) annually for evaluation and may reserve up to 2% ($300,000) annually for technical
assistance. Remaining funds may support any of the services described above.
Family Connection Grants were established as part of the Fostering Connections to Success and
Improving Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351), which appropriated $15 million for them for
each of five years (FY2009-FY2013). However, because of sequestration the FY2013 funding
level for these grants was reduced to $14.2 million. While there is currently no FY2014 funding
authorized or provided for these grants, legislation pending in Congress (H.R. 4980, introduced in
June 2014 and representing a compromise between earlier legislation approved in the House
(H.R. 3205) and the Senate Finance Committee (S. 1870)) would appropriate $15 million for this
program for FY2014.12 (See Table 4.)
Through FY2013, Family Connection grants had been awarded to 48 grantees, including 10
public child welfare agencies (state, local, and tribal) and 38 private nonprofit agencies (located
in 23 states).13 (An evaluation contract was awarded separately.) Projects have typically been
funded for three years and grantees must provide nonfederal matching funds (between 25% and
50% depending on the year of the grant) and must participate in coordinated evaluation activities.
Table 4. Final Funding for Family Connection Grants
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000
Family Connection Grants
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Competitive grants to eligible
$15,000,000 $14,235,000
$0a
entities and to support evaluation
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
Note: Because funding for this program was first authorized and appropriated via the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351), its program funding has never been included in annual
appropriations acts.
a. Legislation pending in Congress (H.R. 4980) as of mid-July 2014 would appropriate $15 million in FY2014
funding for this program.
12 The proposed one-year extension of Family Connection grants is part of Title II of 4980, which would also extend
discretionary funding authority for Adoption Incentive payments. For more information on Title II of H.R. 4980, see
CRS Report R43025, Child Welfare: The Adoption Incentive Program and Its Reauthorization, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
13 For more information on the grantees and their projects, see http://www.nrcpfc.org/grantees.html. The one-year
extension of program funding may be used to provide a third year of funding for grantees who were initially awarded
three-year grants (subject to available appropriations) in late FY2012.
Congressional Research Service
8
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects
Section 426 of the Social Security Act authorizes HHS to make grants, or to enter into contracts or
cooperative agreements, to support child welfare research or demonstration projects that have regional
or national significance, advance the practice of child welfare, encourage the use of research-based
experimental or special types of child welfare services, and advance training for child welfare workers
(including through traineeships). Entities eligible to conduct this work include public or nonprofit
institutions of higher education, public or nonprofit agencies that conduct research or child welfare-
related activities, and state or local (public) child welfare agencies.
HHS is granted broad authority to design and administer these grants, contracts, or cooperative
agreements. With regard to training, funding under this authority is currently aimed at improving
leadership of the child welfare workforce and supporting recruitment and retention of qualified
workers.14 With regard to other child welfare research and demonstrations, the Administration is
currently supporting a five-year project (begun in FY2010 and dubbed the Permanency
Innovations Initiative) that is aimed at demonstrating and evaluating methods to reduce the
number of children with long stays in foster care (i.e., three years or more).15
Annual funding for these purposes is authorized on a permanent (no year limit) basis at “such
sums as Congress may determine necessary.” Final funding provided for this authority in
FY2012-FY2014 is shown in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Final Funding for Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000
Child Welfare Research and Training
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
TOTAL Funding
$26,092,000
$24,416,000
$24,984,000
Competitive grants for research (FY2010-FY2014
$19,594,000 $18,000,000 $18,240,000
funds support Permanency Innovation Initiative)
Competitive awards to improve
child welfare training
$6,498,000 $6,416,000 $6,744,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act principally entitles states, tribes, and most territories with an
approved Title IV-E plan16 to reimbursement of part of their costs of providing foster care,
adoption assistance, or kinship guardianship assistance on behalf of eligible children. All states
have approved IV-E plans. As of the middle of 2014, five tribes have an approved Title IV-E
14 HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2014, April 2013, p. 137.
15 Ibid. For more information about this “Permanency Innovations Initiative,” including the six grantees, their projects,
and the related evaluation see information at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pii-project-resources.
16 For information on Title IV-E plan requirements, see CRS Report R42794, Child Welfare: State Plan Requirements
under the Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Kinship Guardianship Assistance Program , by Emilie
Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
9
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
plan17 and Puerto Rico is the only territory with such a plan.18 Additionally, Title IV-E authorizes
funds to any state, territory, or tribe with an approved Title IV-E plan for support of services to
children who leave foster care because they “age out” of care rather than because they are
returned home or placed in a new permanent family.19 Finally, it also authorizes bonus payments
to states and territories (with an approved Title IV-E plan) that increase adoptions of children
from foster care.20 Legislation authorizing these programs and activities is handled by the House
Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Finance Committee.
Foster Care
When a child is found to be abused, neglected, or otherwise unsafe in his or her own home, the
state may act to remove the child from that home and to place him or her in foster care. Foster
care is a temporary living arrangement intended to ensure a child’s safety and well-being until a
permanent home can be re-established or newly established for the child. Under the Title IV-E
program, the public child welfare agency must work to ensure that each child who enters foster
care is safely returned to his/her parents, or—if this is determined not possible or appropriate (by
a court)—to find a new permanent home for the child via adoption, legal guardianship, or
placement with a fit and willing relative.
Each state, tribe, or territory with an approved Title IV-E plan is entitled to partial federal
reimbursement for every eligible cost related to providing foster care to children who meet
federal Title IV-E eligibility criteria.21,22 Nationally, there are about 400,000 children in foster care
on a given day, and during FY2013 there were fewer than 159,000 children receiving Title IV-E
foster care maintenance payments in an average month. This suggests that less than half of all
children in foster care met federal Title IV-E foster care eligibility criteria. In general, those
criteria stipulate that the child must be removed from a home with very low income; require
certain state, local, or tribal judicial determinations about the child’s need to be in care; provide
that a child must be living in a licensed foster family home or in a “child care institution”; and
require the child to be under age 18, or if the state, tribe, or territory has included assistance to
older youth in its IV-E plan, under the age of 19, 20, or 21 (as elected by the state).
17 In June 2014, the Navajo Nation (Window Rock, AZ) was approved to operate a Title IV-E program, effective
October 1, 2014. Other tribes with earlier approved Title IV-E plans are Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe (Kingston, WA),
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (Pablo, MT), South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency (Shelton, WA) and
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (Baraga, MI). See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/tribes-with-
approved-title-iv-e-plans. Tribes became eligible for direct Title IV-E program participation as of FY2010. As was true
before FY2010, numerous tribes receive indirect Title IV-E funds, which are passed through by states under a
cooperative Title IV-E agreement between the state and tribe.
18 The Northern Mariana Islands is not eligible to participate in Title IV-E. While the other four territories are eligible
to participate in Title IV-E provided they have an approved plan, only Puerto Rico has such a plan.
19 Tribes without a IV-E plan may also receive direct federal funding for services to youth aging out of foster care
(Chafee program), if they have a Title IV-E agreement with a state.
20 Tribes are not eligible to receive bonus payments for increased adoptions.
21 For additional information see discussion of “Title IV-E Foster Care,” in CRS Report R42792, Child Welfare: A
Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship
Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
22 Unlike funding to states, all Title IV-E funding to territories is subject to a “social services” funding cap specified in
Section 1108(a) and (c) of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
10
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Eligible Title IV-E costs include payments for foster care maintenance payments (for the child’s
“room and board”); caseworker time to perform required activities on behalf of eligible children
in foster care (e.g., finding a foster care placement for a child and planning services needed to
ensure a child is reunited with his or her parents, has a new permanent home, or is otherwise
prepared to leave foster care); and program-related data collection, training, or other
administrative costs. For the most part, the share of Title IV-E program costs that are reimbursed
by the federal government is between 50%-83% of eligible foster care maintenance payment
costs (the percentage is re-determined annually and varies by state, with higher federal support
going to states with lower per capita income); 75% of program training costs; and 50% of all
other eligible program costs.23
Some states have an approved child welfare “waiver” project under which they are allowed to use
Title IV-E foster care funds to provide services or assistance on behalf of children (and families)
that would not ordinarily be eligible for Title IV-E funding. Before granting this waiver authority,
HHS, together with OMB, must determine a method to ensure that the state will not receive more
funding under the approved waiver than it would have received in the absence of the waiver.24
Title IV-E entitlement (or mandatory) funding for foster care is authorized on a permanent basis
(no year limit) and is provided in annual appropriations acts. Congress typically provides the
amount of Title IV-E foster care funding (or “budget authority”) that the Administration estimates
will be necessary for it to provide state or other Title IV-E agencies with the promised level of
federal reimbursement for all of their eligible Title IV-E foster care costs. (For budget authority
provided in FY2012-FY2014, see Table 6 below.)
Adoption Assistance
Under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, states, territories, or tribes with an approved Title IV-
E plan are required to enter into an adoption assistance agreement with the adoptive parents of
any child who is determined by the Title IV-E agency to have “special needs.” To determine that a
child has “special needs,” that public agency must find that (1) the child cannot or should not be
returned to his/her parents; (2) reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to place the child for adoption
without assistance have been made (unless those efforts would not be in the child’s best interest);
and (3) the child has a specific condition or factor making it unlikely that he/she would be
adopted without provision of adoption assistance or medical assistance. (Each state, territory, or
tribe may establish their own “special needs” condition or factors and, as suggested in federal
law, they frequently reference the child’s age; membership in a sibling group; physical, mental, or
emotional disability/disorder; and/or membership in a racial/ethnic minority.) Nearly all special
needs adoptees were previously in foster care.25
The adoption assistance agreement must specify the nature and amount of any payments,
services, and assistance to be provided. For any child with special needs, federal reimbursement
is available for a part of the cost of nonrecurring adoption expenses (i.e., one-time costs related to
23 Tribes have a uniquely determined reimbursement rate for assistance payments. That rate may not be less than the
rate for any state the tribe is located in, and may not be more than 83%.
24 See more information on waivers at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs/child-welfare-waivers.
25 For additional information see discussion of “Title IV-E Adoption Assistance,” in CRS Report R42792, Child
Welfare: A Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship
Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Congressional Research Service
11
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
legally finalizing the adoptions). For children with special needs who meet additional federal
requirements, federal reimbursement is also available for a part of the cost of providing ongoing
(monthly) subsidies on behalf of adopted children. Under current law, the income and other
characteristics of the home from which a child was removed (prior to the adoption) must be
considered before some children determined to have special needs may be found eligible for Title
IV-E adoption assistance. However, those income and related requirements are being phased out,
and as of October 1, 2017, will no longer need to be applied to determine eligibility of any child
for federal Title IV-E adoption assistance.
States, territories, or tribes with a Title IV-E plan approved by HHS may seek federal reimbursement
for a part of the cost of making payments agreed to under Title IV-E adoption assistance agreements
and for related program administration costs, including training. During FY2013, about 432,000
children received Title IV-E adoption assistance on an average monthly basis. As with Title IV-E foster
care funding, Title IV-E adoption assistance funding is authorized on a permanent (no year limit) basis
and Congress typically provides the amount of annual funding for this open-ended entitlement that
HHS estimates will be necessary to reimburse states for all eligible program costs. (For budget
authority provided in FY2012-FY2014, see Table 6 below.)
Kinship Guardianship Assistance
Beginning in FY2009, states, territories, or tribes with an approved Title IV-E plan were allowed
to include provision of kinship guardianship assistance in those plans, although this is not
mandatory. As of May 2014, 32 states and several tribes had incorporated this kind of assistance
in their Title IV-E plan. These states and tribes may seek federal reimbursement for a part of the
cost of providing ongoing kinship guardianship assistance payments as provided for in kinship
guardianship agreements entered into by the state with the legal relative guardian of an eligible
child.26 To be eligible for Title IV-E kinship guardianship, a child must have previously been in
foster care and must have been eligible to receive Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments
(while living in the home of the prospective legal relative guardian).27
As with other Title IV-E program components, funding is authorized on a permanent (no year
limit) and states with an approved Title IV-E plan that includes the kinship guardianship
assistance option are entitled to reimbursement for a part of the program costs, including
assistance payments, and related program administration, including training costs.28 During
FY2013, states received federal support under Title IV-E for a part of the cost of providing
kinship guardianship assistance to more than 17,000 children on an average monthly basis. (For
budget authority provided in FY2012-FY2014, see Table 6 below.)
26 See http://www.nrcpfc.org/fostering_connections/state_gap.html.
27 For additional information see “Kinship Guardianship Assistance,” in in CRS Report R42792, Child Welfare: A
Detailed Overview of Program Eligibility and Funding for Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and Kinship
Guardianship Assistance under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
28 Additionally states may seek Title IV-E kinship guardianship assistance support for children who were in a
subsidized guardianship under an approved Title IV-E waiver (demonstration project) as of December 30, 2008.
Effective in early October 2008, Congress, as part of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351), authorized any state to seek federal Title IV-E support to provide kinship guardianship
assistance. All of the states that had operated a guardianship assistance waiver project have since ended that project.
Congressional Research Service
12
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Final Budget Authority by Title IV-E Program Component
Table 6 shows the final budget authority provided in FY2012-FY2014 annual appropriations acts for
Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance. There is no upper or
lower dollar limit for these Title IV-E components. If Congress provides more budget authority than
HHS needs to reimburse states for their eligible Title IV-E costs, those extra funds will eventually be
returned to the federal Treasury. If the funding provided is not enough to pay all eligible costs, the
annual appropriations acts typically also include an “indefinite budget authority,” allowing HHS to
access additional funds to make necessary reimbursements to states.29
Table 6. Budget Authority Provided Under the Title IV-E Program
Dol ar amounts rounded to nearest 1,000; amount shown is definite budget authority
Title IV-E Program
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Foster Care
$4,288,000,000
$4,285,540,000
$4,279,000,000
Adoption Assistance
$2,495,000,000
$2,368,680,000
$2,463,000,000
Kinship Guardianship Assistance
$80,000,000
$123,000,000
$124,000,000
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). The mandatory funding provided in this program is exempt from
sequestration.
Notes: Each appropriations act provides advance appropriations for the first quarter of the subsequent fiscal year.
All of the funding authority provided in a given appropriations cycle is shown in that fiscal year column. Additionally,
Congress provided additional (“indefinite”) budget authority, which al ows HHS to request additional funds from the
Treasury if they are needed to reimburse states for eligible Title IV-E costs.
Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance
Section 476(c) of the Social Security Act authorizes HHS to make grants to tribes, valued at up to
$300,000, to assist them with costs related to preparing a Title IV-E plan for HHS approval.
Among other things, the grant may cover costs related to the development of a tribal data
collection system, a cost allocation methodology (which is needed to seek federal reimbursement
for any Title IV-E cost that is not an assistance payment), and agency and tribal court procedures
necessary to meet the case review system requirements under the Title IV-E program. The grants
are to be provided only to tribes that intend to submit a Title IV-E plan for HHS approval within
24 months. HHS awards these grants annually, on a competitive basis. Through the middle of
2014, 22 tribes (or tribal consortia) had received a plan development grant and five tribes (or
consortia) had approved Title IV-E plans.30
Additionally, Section 476(c) requires HHS to provide “information, advice, educational materials,
and technical assistance” to tribes regarding providing services and assistance to tribal children
under the child welfare programs authorized in Title IV-B and Title IV-E of the Social Security
Act. This technical assistance must also be available for states regarding working with tribes to
develop cooperative agreements (under which some IV-E funding received by the state is
provided to the tribe) as well as consulting with tribes on the state’s plan to comply with the
29 The additional “indefinite budget authority” is usually limited to the latter part of the fiscal year and has been
included in the annual Title IV-E program appropriations beginning with appropriations of FY2003.
30 See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/tribes-with-approved-title-iv-e-plans.
Congressional Research Service
13
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). As part of responding to this requirement, HHS funds the
National Resource Center for Tribes (NRC4tribes).
The authorization for tribal technical assistance and IV-E plan development grants was added to the
Social Security Act by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
(P.L. 110-351). The law provides a permanent (no year limit) annual appropriation of $3 million.
Table 7. Final Funding for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance (TA)
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000
Tribal IV-E Plan Development and TA
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Competitive grant funding for tribal IV-E plan
$3,000,000 $2,975,000
$2,784,000
development and technical assistance
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). FY2013 and FY2014 funding is less than
the previously appropriated $3 million due to the effect of sequestration in both FY2013 and FY2014.
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
The John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) (Section 477 of the Social
Security Act) authorizes funding for states, territories, and tribes to provide services to youth to
help those youth make a successful transition from foster care to adulthood.31 Under the program,
states are expected to identify children or youth likely to remain in foster care until their 18th
birthday and to help prepare them for self-sufficiency; provide financial, housing, counseling,
education, employment, and other appropriate supports to former foster youth ages 18 to 21
years; and promote and support mentoring or other connections with dedicated adults for youth
served by the program. CFCIP services may also be made available to youth who, after reaching
their 16th birthday, leave foster care for adoption or legal guardianship. The CFCIP requires states
to assure that the youth served are actively involved in decisions about the services they receive.
States (including Puerto Rico) have recently begun to report to HHS on “independent living
services” that were paid for by the agency that administers the CFCIP program. During FY2012,
close to 101,800 youth received at least one such service and many of those youth (58%) received
three or more. About 46% of the served youth were between the ages of 14 and 17, 53% were 18
or older, and more than two-thirds (69%) of the served youth were in foster care at the time they
received the independent living service. For FY2012, 70% of the youth served received services
that were related to life skills or supports (including, among other services, budgeting and
financial management; housing education and home management; independent living needs
assessment; or supervised independent living). More than half (56%) received educational
support (both secondary and post-secondary), a little less than half (46%) received career
preparation or employment training, and less than one in five (about 19%) received mentoring
support.32
31 For more information on this program see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
32 HHS, ACF.ACYF, Children’s Bureau, NYTD (National Youth in Transition) Data Brief #2, FY2012 (August 2013).
Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/nytd_data_brief_2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Funding for this program is authorized on a permanent basis (no year limit) as a capped
entitlement to states and territories, provided they have an approved Title IV-E plan. (Tribes may
also receive direct federal support under this program, with or without an approved Title IV-E
plan.)33 The authorized amount of funds, $140 million, is provided in annual appropriations bills.
(These mandatory funds are considered a part of the Title IV-E program and are not subject to
sequestration.) (See Table 8 below.)
Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers
An additional purpose of the CFCIP is to provide Educational and Training Vouchers (ETVs)
(Section 477(i) of the Social Security Act) to defray the cost of postsecondary education or
training for any youth who is eligible for CFCIP general services.34 ETVs may be valued at up to
$5,000 a year and may be used for the “cost of attendance” (including tuition, fees, books, room
and board, supplies, and other items) at an “institution of higher education” (including public or
private, nonprofit two- and four-year colleges and universities, as well as proprietary or for-profit
schools offering technical training programs, among others).35 Youth are eligible to receive ETVs
until age 21, except that youth receiving a voucher at age 21 may continue to participate in the
voucher program until age 23 if they are enrolled in a postsecondary education or training
program and are making satisfactory progress toward completion of that program.
Discretionary funding for ETVs is authorized on a permanent (no year limit) basis and program
appropriations are distributed based on a state’s relative share of children in foster care. Final
funding provided for FY2012-FY2014 is shown in Table 8 below.
Final Funding for the CFCIP Program, Including ETVs
HHS is required to reserve 1.5% of the funding appropriated for CFCIP, including ETV funding,
to support evaluations, technical assistance, performance measurement, and data collection
related to the program. The remaining general program funds are distributed to states and
territories with an approved Title IV-E plan based on their relative share of the national
population of children in foster care. However, no state or territory may receive an allotment of
less than $500,000 or the amount it received under CFCIP’s predecessor program (in FY1998)—
whichever is greater. Chafee ETV funds are distributed based solely on the state’s relative share
of the national population of children in foster care. Additionally, to receive any CFCIP or ETV
funding, states must give certain assurances to HHS related to their operation of the program.
Finally, a state must provide nonfederal resources of no less than 20% of total spending under the
program to receive its full CFCIP and ETV allotments.
33 Tribes may be eligible to receive direct federal CFCIP funding, provided they have an approved Title IV-E plan or
have a cooperative agreement in place with a state to provide Title IV-E foster care to tribal children in foster care
(under supervision of the state).
34 For more information see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
35 For purposes of the ETV program, the terms “cost of attendance” and “institution of higher learning” are defined in
Section 472 and Section 102, respectively, of the Higher Education Act.
Congressional Research Service
15
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 8. Final Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP)
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000
CFCIP FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
General Program
$140,000,000
$140,000,000
$140,000,000
Educational and Training Vouchers (ETV)
$45,174,000
$42,273,000
$43,257,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CFCIP general program funding is
mandatory and exempt from sequestration. ETV funding is discretionary and nonexempt. The FY2013 funding
shown for the ETV program reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration.
Adoption Incentives
Under the Adoption Incentives program (Section 473A of the Social Security Act), any state or
territory with an approved Title IV-E plan may receive federal incentive payments for increasing
the number of children who are adopted from foster care overall, as well as the number of older
children (age 9 or more) and those with “special needs” who are under the age of nine. States
(including Puerto Rico) that improve the rate (or percentage) of children who are adopted may
also be eligible.36 For adoptions completed in FY2012 (the most recent awards provided), 25
states received combined incentive payments of $43.9 million.
The Adoption Incentives program was established in 1997, as part of a package of reforms
(included in the Adoption and Safe Families Act, P.L. 105-89) that were intended to ensure
children’s safe and expeditious exit from foster care to a permanent home, including through
adoption whenever appropriate. Congress extended and reauthorized the program in 2003 (P.L.
105-145) and 2008 (P.L. 110-351). Although the funding authority (and the authority of states to
earn incentives) had expired, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) provides
authority for states to earn the incentives for an additional year and also provided FY2014
funding of $37.9 million. (See Table 9 for final funding in each of FY2012-FY2014.)
Further, legislation pending as of mid-July would extend a state’s ability to earn the incentives,
and provide renewed discretionary funding authority for three years.37 Under the current proposal,
discretionary funding for Adoption Incentives would be authorized at the prior law level of $43
million annually for each of FY2014-FY2016.
Table 9. Final Funding for Adoption Incentive Payments
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000
Adoption Incentives
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Funds to make incentive payments
$39,346,000
$37,230,000
$37,943,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
36 For more information see CRS Report R43025, Child Welfare: The Adoption Incentive Program and Its
Reauthorization, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
37 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
16
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
CAPTA was enacted in 1974 (P.L. 93-247) at a time of growing awareness and concern about
abuse of children in their own homes. It has been reauthorized many times since then, most
recently by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320). CAPTA authorizes formula
grant funding to states to improve their child protective services, competitively awarded funds to
support research, technical assistance and demonstration projects related to prevention,
assessment and treatment of child abuse and neglect; and funding to all states for support of
community-based activities to prevent child abuse and neglect.38 Further, it incorporates program
authority for what are known as “Children’s Justice Act grants.” Legislation authorizing these
programs and activities in CAPTA is handled by the House Education and the Workforce
Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
CAPTA State Grants
The focus of CAPTA is on providing a primarily social service response to abuse or neglect of
children by their parents or other caretakers. Under CAPTA State Grants (Section 106 of
CAPTA), each state and territory may receive funds to make improvements to its child protective
services (CPS). To receive these funds each state, including Puerto Rico, must assure HHS that it
has—a statewide system in place to receive and screen reports of child abuse or neglect and to
provide appropriate responses that ensure children’s safety; state laws that mandate specific
individuals to make reports of known or suspected child abuse or neglect and provide immunity
from prosecution for individuals who make these reports in good faith; a technology system that
allows the state to track reports of child abuse and neglect (from intake to final disposition); and
statewide procedures that, among other things, maintain the confidentiality of child abuse and
neglect records, offer training to CPS workers, provide an appropriately trained guardian ad litem
or advocate for each child abuse or neglect victim involved in judicial proceedings; and provide
for cooperation between state law enforcement agencies, appropriate state human services
agencies, and courts in the investigation, assessment, prosecution and treatment of child abuse
and neglect. In addition, states, including Puerto Rico, must establish and support Citizen Review
Panels to evaluate the effectiveness of their CPS policies and practices and they must “to the
maximum extent practicable,” submit annual data to HHS regarding child abuse and neglect in
their state.39
In FY2012, state and local CPS agencies received 3.4 million calls or other referrals alleging
abuse or neglect involving an estimated 6.3 million children. After screening those referrals they
determined a CPS response (investigation or assessment) was warranted for 2.1 million of the
referrals, involving an estimated 3.4 million children. The bulk of the cost to receive and respond
to these child abuse or neglect allegations is assumed to be borne by states and localities.40
CAPTA state grant money, which on a national basis supplies roughly $12 per each CPS
investigation, is available for states to make improvements to these systems.
38 To see CAPTA as it is included in current law, see the HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau website
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/capta2010.pdf.
39 HHS provides an annual report based on these data, which are reported via the National Child Abuse and Neglect
Data System (NCANDS). To link to the FY2012 report (released in December 2013), or earlier reports, go to
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
40 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2012, (December 2013).
Congressional Research Service
17
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
There are 14 potential areas of CPS program improvement listed in the law. The large majority of
states (85%) reported their intention to use their CAPTA grant funds to improve the intake,
assessment, screening, and investigation of reports of child abuse or neglect. Close to three-
fourths (73%) intended to use the funds to develop, improve and implement risk and safety
assessment tools and protocols, including use of differential response, and about two thirds (65%)
intended to use the funds to improve case management, ongoing case monitoring, and delivery of
services and treatment provided to families.41
The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) extended annual discretionary funding
for these grants through FY2015 (i.e., until September 30, 2015). States and territories do not
need to provide nonfederal matching funds to receive this grant money. Each state and territory
receives a base allotment of $50,000 and the remaining funds are distributed among the states and
territories based on their relative share of the child (under age 18) population.42 Final funding for
CAPTA state grants in each of FY2012-FY2014 is shown in Table 10 below.
CAPTA Discretionary Activities
With the enactment of CAPTA, Congress sought to ensure a federal focal point regarding efforts
to prevent, identify, and treat child abuse and neglect. Under current law HHS is required to
maintain a national clearinghouse for child abuse and neglect information to include, among other
things, information on best practices and effective programs that prevent and/or respond to child
abuse and neglect. Further, it must collect and annually publish data on child maltreatment;
provide technical assistance to state and local public and private agencies related to preventing
and responding to child abuse and neglect; fund field-initiated and inter-disciplinary research on
protecting children from abuse and neglect and improving their well-being; and support the study
of the national incidence of child abuse and neglect. In addition, current law permits HHS to
establish an office on child abuse and neglect for the purpose of carrying out CAPTA and to
ensure inter- and intra-departmental coordination of activities related to child abuse and neglect;
create an advisory board on child abuse and neglect; and fund demonstration projects or grants on
a range of suggested topics.
The Office of Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN), within the Children’s Bureau at HHS carries out
CAPTA and works to coordinate child abuse prevention and treatment activities within HHS and
across federal agencies, including through its leadership of the Federal Interagency Work Group
on Child Abuse and Neglect.43 The OCAN uses CAPTA discretionary funds to support inclusion
of child abuse and neglect-related information on the online portal, Child Welfare Information
Gateway (www.childwelfare.gov), collection of state data via the National Child Abuse and
41 See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of CAPTA State Programs and
Technical Assistance,” (August 2013) available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/
capta_effectiveness_rptcongress.pdf.
42 The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) provides that in any year that annual funding for state
grants exceeds the FY2009 appropriation ($26,535,000) a minimum allotment (for each state and Puerto Rico) must
take effect. Specifically, if funding is greater than the FY2009 appropriation by at least $1 million but less than $2
million, then that minimum allotment equals $100,000; if it exceeds that appropriation by at least $2 million, but less
than $3 million, then the minimum allotment equals $125,000; if it exceeds that appropriation by $3 million or more,
then the minimum allotment equals $150,000.
43 See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Report on Efforts to Coordinate Programs and Activities Related to
Child Abuse and Neglect,” January 31, 2014. In addition, for more on the Federal Interagency Workgroup on Child
Abuse and Neglect see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/fediawg.
Congressional Research Service
18
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and publication of annual reports (Child Maltreatment) based
on those data.44 These CAPTA dollars are also currently funding efforts to build the capacity of
public child welfare agency workers (and the public or private agencies they work with) to carry
out their work using continuous quality improvement techniques; planning grants for developing
a model intervention for youth with child welfare involvement who are at-risk of homelessness;
and partnerships to demonstrate the effectiveness of supportive housing for families in the child
welfare system. Additionally, the funds support three separate national resource centers providing
technical assistance (related to Child Protective Services, In-Home Services, and Child Welfare
and Legal Judicial Issues). Further, in recent years they were used to field the fourth National
Incidence Survey on child abuse and neglect (NIS-4),45 and to establish two national quality
improvement centers (to improve knowledge and practice related to preventing child abuse and
neglect among infants and toddlers and improving use of differential response by child protective
services).
The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) extended annual discretionary funding
for CAPTA’s discretionary activities through FY2015 (i.e., until September 30, 2015). Funding is
used directly by HHS or awarded competitively to carry out the required or authorized CAPTA
activities. For FY2014, Congress provided $28.7 million for this account. Out of this funding, the
Explanatory Statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (enacted as P.L.
113-76) provides that $3 million is to be used to support “implementation of research-based court
team models that include the court system, child welfare agency, and community organizations in
order to better meet the needs of infants and toddlers in foster care.”46 Final funding for CAPTA
discretionary activities for each of FY2012-FY2014 is shown in Table 10 below.
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect
Title II of CAPTA supports the efforts of community-based organizations to prevent child abuse
and neglect. These prevention grants—referred to by HHS as Community Based Child Abuse
Prevention grants (CBCAP)—are distributed by formula to a lead entity in each state and
territory. The lead entity is required to distribute the funds to community-based organizations in
their state that work to prevent child abuse and neglect, including through support of parent
education, mutual support, and self- help activities; provision of community and social service
referrals, outreach services, voluntary home visiting, respite care; and support for public
information campaigns to prevent child abuse or neglect. The lead entity is often the state child
welfare agency but may also be another statewide (public or private) entity (e.g., a state
Children’s Trust Fund).
Out of funds provided for these grants, the law provides that 1% of funds must be set aside for
tribal and migrant programs. In addition, it permits HHS to allocate whatever sums are necessary
to support the work of state lead entities by creating, operating and maintaining a peer review
process, information clearinghouse, and computerized communication system between state lead
44 The most recent Child Maltreatment report (including data for FY2012) and reports from earlier years, are available
online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
45 For more information see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/national-incidence-study-of-child-
abuse-and-neglect-nis-4-2004-2009.
46 Explanatory Statement, Division H, as included in Congressional Record, Book II, January 15, 2014, p. H1041.
Section 4 of P.L. 113-76 provides that this explanatory statement is to have the same effect on allocation of funds and
implementation of Divisions A-L of the act as would a joint explanatory agreement of a conference committee.
Congressional Research Service
19
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
entities and to fund a yearly symposium and bi-annual conference related to implementing the
grants. As part of carrying out this requirement, HHS supports the National Resource Center for
Community Based Child Abuse Prevention (also known as FRIENDS) to provide training and
technical assistance for state lead entities.
The CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320) extended annual discretionary funding
for CBCAP through FY2015 (i.e., until September 30, 2015). There are no matching requirements
to receive CBCAP funds. However, each state’s allocation of CBCAP funds is based in part on
the amount of nonfederal money leveraged by the state for child abuse prevention activities.
Specifically 70% of the grant funding is distributed to each state and territory based on its relative
share of children (individuals under age 18) in the nation (except that by statute no state may
receive less than $175,000).47 The remaining 30% of the grant funding is distributed to each state
(including Puerto Rico) based on the relative share of all nonfederal (private, state, local) funds
that were directed through the state’s lead entity to fund community-based child abuse prevention
services and activities. Final funding for CBCAP grants, for each of FY2012-FY2014, is shown
in Table 10 below.
Table 10. Final Funding for Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
Dol ar amounts shown are rounded to the nearest 1,000
CAPTA FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
TOTAL appropriation
$93,703,000 $87,865,000
$93,818,000
CAPTA State Grants—Formula grants to states and territories
$26,432,000
$24,734,000
$25,310,000
CAPTA Discretionary Activities—Competitive grants, contracts or
agreements to eligible entities
$25,744,000
$24,091,000
$28,744,000a
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child Abuse and
Neglect—Formula grants to states and territories, includes support
for technical assistance and 1% set aside for tribal/migrant programs
$41,527,000
$38,860,000
$39,764,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration (which was applicable to each part of this CAPTA funding).
Notes: Section 107 of CAPTA includes program authority for Children’s Justice Act grants. However, no
funding is authorized to be provided for those grants under CAPTA. Instead, those funds, as discussed in the
body of the report below, are provided annual y out of the Crime Victims Fund.
a. Of this amount, the Explanatory Statement (accompanying the bill that became P.L. 113-76) provides that
$3 million is to be used to support “implementation of research-based court team models that include the
court system, child welfare agency, and community organizations in order to better meet the needs of
infants and toddlers in foster care.” See Congressional Record, Book II, January 15, 2014, p. H1041.
Children’s Justice Act Grants
Children’s Justice Act grants administered by HHS are provided to help states and territories
improve the assessment, investigation, and/or prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases—
particularly cases involving suspected sexual abuse and exploitation of children, child fatalities
suspected to be caused by abuse or neglect, and those involving children who are disabled and
47 The statute provides that no state may receive less than $175,000. Beginning with FY2005, HHS has ensured that
each state receives a minimum allotment of $200,000.
Congressional Research Service
20
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
children with serious health disorders. Among other things, the improvements must aim to limit
additional trauma to a child and/or child’s family. (Children’s Justice Act funding is made
available, separately, to tribes for related purposes. This funding is administered by DOJ.)
To be eligible to receive these funds a state or territory must meet the requirements necessary to
receive CAPTA state grants and it must establish and maintain a multi-disciplinary taskforce to
review how the state handles civil and criminal child abuse and neglect cases, including cases
involving more than one jurisdiction (e.g., state and tribe, or more than one state). The taskforce
must make recommendations for ways to improve handling of these cases through reform of state
law, regulations and procedures; training; and/or testing of innovative or experimental programs.
States are further required to receive recommendations from the taskforce every three years and
must implement the recommendations (or an alternative plan).
While the program authority for these is contained in CAPTA, that law does not authorize
funding for them. Instead, as provided in Section 1404A of the Victims of Crime Act, up to $20
million annually is set aside for Children’s Justice Act grants out of the Crime Victims Fund. The
Crime Victims Fund consists primarily of criminal fines and fees paid to the federal government
and is administered by the Office for Victims of Crime within the Department of Justice (DOJ).48
As provided for in the Victims of Crime Act, each year the DOJ sends up to $17 million in Crime
Victims Funds to HHS, which distributes these funds to each state and Puerto Rico.49 Up to $3
million in funding is retained by DOJ for competitive grants to tribal entities. FY2012-FY2014
funding for Children’s Justice Act Grants is shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Final Funding for Children’s Justice Act Grants
Funding for these grants is not appropriated but is provided annual y out of the Crime Victims Fund.
Children’s Justice Act Grants
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Formula grants to states and territories
$17,000,000
$17,000,000
$17,000,000
Competitive grants to tribes
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: For FY2013, certain funding provided from the Crime Victims Fund was subject to sequestration.
However, this did not affect the level of funding set aside for Children’s Justice Act grants. This table assumes the
same treatment of this funding for FY2014.
Victims of Child Abuse Act
Title II of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647) created the Victims of Child Abuse Act.
That act authorizes several child welfare programs that are administered by the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Programs (OJJDP), an agency within the Office of Justice Programs
48 For more information about this fund see CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for
Victims of Crime, by Lisa N. Sacco.
49 There is not a formula for distribution in the statute. HHS provides each state and Puerto Rico a base allotment of
$50,000 and distributes the remaining funds based on a jurisdiction’s relative share of the national population of
children (individuals under 18 years of age).
Congressional Research Service
21
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
(OJP) at the Department of Justice (DOJ).50 The legislation creating these programs was handled
by the Senate and House Judiciary committees.
Improving Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse Cases
Subtitle A (Sections 211-214B) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act51 supports the expansion and
improvement of Children’s Advocacy Centers. Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) are intended
to coordinate a multi-disciplinary response to child abuse (e.g., law enforcement, child
protection/social service, medical, mental health) in a manner that ensures child abuse victims
(and any non-offending family members) receive the support services they need and do not
experience the investigation of child abuse as an added trauma. CACs are widespread. Nationally
there are some 775 centers (575 that are accredited) located in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. In 15 states CACs serve all counties; however, nationally about 1/3 of the counties are
not served by CACs.52 About 295,000 children were served at CACs in 2013, close to three-
fourths (74%) of whom were 12 years of age or younger. Sexual abuse was the most commonly
reported abuse, involving 62% of the children served at CACs in 2013. Children served may have
experienced more than one type of abuse. Other abuses reported among children served were
physical abuse (17%), neglect (7%), child witnesses to violence (5%), child drug endangerment
(3%), or “other” (5%).53
The law authorizes funds to directly support establishment and operation of local children’s
advocacy centers as well as training and technical assistance. Annually, the DOJ awards the bulk
of the CAC funding to the National Children’s Alliance, which makes sub grants to support the
work of local children’s advocacy centers, establishes standards and provides accreditation to
local and state chapter CACs, and offers other training and technical assistance.54 Federal law also
requires the establishment and support of four regional children’s advocacy centers to increase the
number of communities with CACs, help improve their practice, and support development of
state chapter organizations for CACs, including by serving as resource and training centers for
those local CACs and state chapters. 55 Currently the four regional centers are located in
Huntsville, Alabama, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, St. Paul, Minnesota, and Colorado Springs,
50 In addition to the three programs discussed here, the VCAA includes provisions requiring specified professionals to
report suspected child abuse or neglect that they learn about while carrying out their profession on federal land or in
federally operated facilities and it provides criminal penalties for those failing to make reports as required (42 U.S.C.
§13031 and 18 U.S.C.§2258). Further, the VCAA includes provisions requiring federal agencies, and agencies operated
or contracted to operate by the federal government, to ensure criminal background checks are conducted for any
individual hired by the agency or facility to provide a wide range of care or services to children (42 U.S.C.§13041).
51 42 U.S.C. §13001, §13001a, §13001b, §13002, and §13003.
52 National Children’s Alliance, 2012 Annual Report, http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/NCAAnnualReport. See
also the “gap analysis” showing areas served and unserved, by state http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/
cacstatistics.
53 National Children’s Alliance, “2013 NCA National Statistics” http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/index.php?
s=300&cat=246.
54 For more information on the work of the National Children’s Alliance see http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/
index.php?s=5.
55 Support for community-based “multi-disciplinary” responses to child abuse and neglect cases was included in the
original 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act. However, the term “children’s advocacy centers” and the requirement for
regional children’s advocacy centers were not added to the act until 1992 (as part of legislation primarily designed to
reauthorize the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and enacted as P.L. 102-586).
Congressional Research Service
22
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Colorado.56 Finally, the law also seeks to improve the prosecution of child abuse cases by
authorizing additional funds specifically for training and technical assistance to attorneys and
others involved in criminal prosecution of child abuse. These funds are typically awarded
annually to the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse.57
In 2003 (P.L. 108-21), Congress extended annual discretionary funding authority of $15 million
to support regional and local CACs and an additional $5 million for training and technical
assistance to improve criminal prosecution of child abuse. That funding authority expired on the
last day of FY2005.58 However, Congress has continued to appropriate annual funding for the
program in each year. (See Table 12, below, for FY2012-FY2014 final funding.) Additionally,
separate legislation approved in the House (H.R. 3530) and Senate (S. 1799) would renew
discretionary funding authority specific to CACs ($15 million) and related training (at $5 million)
for each of five years and would add certain oversight and accountability provisions.59
Court-Appointed Special Advocates
Subtitle B (Sections 215 -219) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act60 provides funding to support
access to advocates for victims of child abuse or neglect. Court Appointed Special Advocates
(CASAs)—sometimes called guardians ad litem—are volunteers who are appointed by judges
and who work to ensure that a child’s best interest is presented to the judge in court proceedings
related to child abuse and neglect.
The first CASA pilot program began in Seattle and the National Court Appointed Special Advocate
Association (NCASAA) was founded in 1982 to help replicate and support CASA programs across
the nation. In 1984 when the association incorporated, there were 107 state and local CASA
programs in 26 states.61 As of 2012, some 933 state, local and tribal CASA programs located in 50
states, including the District of Columbia, were a part of the National CASA Association.62
56 See regional grantees and their service areas at this link http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/index.php?s=63.
57 For more information about NCPCA see http://www.ndaa.org/ncpca.html.
58 As part of its FY2013 and FY2014 budgets the Administration (as part of its DOJ/OJP budget) requested no specific
funding under this program authority. However, Congress continued to appropriate funds under this authority, and for
FY2015, DOJ/OJP seeks some funding for CACs ($11 million).
59 H.R. 3530, the Justice for Trafficking Victims Act, was passed by the House in May 2014. With regard to Subtitle A
of the Victims of Child Abuse Act (CAC provisions), it would extend authorization of discretionary funding for each of
FY2015-FY2019 and, in addition to requiring certain accountability and oversight measures, would amend the
definition of “child abuse” used in the CAC and related program to include human trafficking of a child, and
production of child pornography. Additionally, it would amend the CAC provisions to authorize new grants related to
services for victims of child pornography. S. 1799, the Victims of Child Abuse Act Reauthorization Act of 2013 was
passed by the Senate in June 2014. With regard to Subtitle A of the Victims of Child Abuse Act, it would extend
discretionary funding authorizations for each of FY2014-FY2018 and would require additional oversight and
accountability measures.
60 42 U.S. C. §§13011, 13012, 13013, 13013a, and 13014.
61 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, National Court-Appointed Special Advocate Program, Audit
Report 07-04 (December 2006), Executive Summary, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0704/exec.htm/.
62 According to the DOJ, OIG report cited above, North Dakota uses paid advocates and is the only state that does not
have a member CASA organization. NCASAA, 2012 National CASA Annual Report, (2013)
http://nc.casaforchildren.org/apps/annualreport2012/.
Congressional Research Service
23
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
As early as 1974, when Congress enacted CAPTA, it sought to ensure that every child who was a
part of court proceedings because of child abuse and neglect had a guardian ad litem to represent
their best interest. 63 However, 16 years later, when it authorized funds specifically for CASA (as
part of the 1990 Victims of Child Abuse Act), Congress found that only a small fraction of
children in child abuse and neglect proceedings received CASA representation. It stated then that
the purpose of the funding dedicated to CASA was to ensure that each of these children would
have a CASA made available to them.64 This remains an incomplete task. In 2012, 234,000
children were served by approximately 77,000 CASA volunteers. Children in foster care have
typically experienced abuse or neglect and most children served by CASAs are in foster care.
During FY2012, 641,000 children spent at least one day (24 hours) in foster care and on the last
day of that fiscal year (September 30, 2012) some 400,000 children remained in foster care.65
Each year funds appropriated for CASA authorization have been awarded to the National CASA
Association. NCASAA awards sub grants (on a competitive basis) to be used for new local
program development or expansion of existing programs and state CASA organizations. The
NCASAA also uses this federal funding to provide training and technical assistance to CASA
programs, child welfare professionals, attorneys, judges, social workers, and volunteer advocates.
Funding for CASA, which was more than $12 million in FY2011, fell steeply in FY2012.66 At the
same time, since the early 1990s Congress has annually appropriated funding for the program
(with or without current funding authorization) and, as part of the reauthorization of the Violence
Against Women Act (P.L. 113-4), Congress extended annual discretionary funding authority for
the CASA program at $12 million for each of FY2014-FY2018. Final federal funding
appropriated for the CASA program in each of FY2012-FY2014 is shown in Table 12.
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners
Sections 221-224 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 199067 required the Department of
Justice’s OJJDP to make grants to improve the judicial system’s handling of child abuse and
neglect cases. The statute authorizes grants to be made to national organizations to develop model
technical assistance and training programs.68 Beginning with FY1992, funding appropriated under
this authority has been awarded to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
(NCJFCJ). Drawing on the experience and reform initiatives it has funded in 36 “model courts”
63 Section 4(b)(2) of CAPTA (P.L. 93-247, 1974) required states receiving certain funds under the act to provide a
guardian ad litem in every case involving a victim of child abuse or neglect that resulted in judicial proceedings.
Current law requires states to assure they have a statewide program for appointment of an appropriately trained CASA
or guardian ad litem in each such case. (Section 106(b)(2)(B)(xiii) of CAPTA (42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii)).
64 See Findings as included in Subchapter B, Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II of P.L. 101-647).
65 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, FY2002-FY2012.”
66 FY2012 was the first of three budget years (FY2012-FY2014) in which the Administration requested no specific
funding for this program in its DOJ/OJP budget. However, Congress continued to appropriate funds and the
Administration does seek some program funding for CASA in its FY2015 budget.
67 42 U.S.C. §13021, 13022, 13023, and 13024.
68 The act also authorizes grants to be made to state courts for training and technical assistance of judges and attorneys
in juvenile and family courts. No funds have been appropriated for this purpose under this authority. However, in 1993
(P.L. 103-66) Congress established the Court Improvement Program (CIP) which is administered by HHS and provides
mandatory grants to the highest court in each state to improve its handling of child welfare proceedings (including child
abuse and neglect proceedings). The statutory authority for CIP is included at Section 438 of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
24
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
across the nation, NCJFCJ has developed resource guidelines and provides technical assistance
and training aimed at improving how courts handle child abuse and neglect cases.69
Since the early 1990s, Congress has provided annual funding dedicated to this training program
(with or without current funding authority) 70 and in early 2013, as part of reauthorization of the
Violence Against Women Act (P.L. 113-4), it extended annual discretionary funding authority for
the program at $2.3 million for each of FY2014-FY2018. Final federal funding appropriated for
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners in each of FY2012-FY2014 is
shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Final Funding for Programs Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCAA)
VOCAA Funding
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Children’s Advocacy Centers (and
related training and technical assistance)
$18,000,000 $17,739,000
$19,000,000
Court Appointed Special Advocates
$4,500,000 $5,579,000
$6,000,000
Child Abuse Training for Judicial
Personnel and Practitioners
$1,500,000 $1,400,000
$1,500,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
Other Programs
Additional child welfare programs are included in separate acts as described below. Legislation
authorizing these programs and activities is handled by the House Education and the Workforce
Committee and the Senate HELP Committee.
Adoption Opportunities
First enacted in 1978,71 the Adoption Opportunities program72requires HHS to have an
administrative structure that allows for centralized planning across all departmental programs and
activities affecting foster care and adoption. It requires HHS to support adoption recruitment
activities, including through a “national adoption information exchange” and to support a national
resource center on special needs adoptions. Additionally, it authorizes federal funds to support
projects or other activities that encourage and facilitate adoption of older children, children who
are members of minority groups, and others with “special needs;” aim to eliminate barriers to
cross-jurisdictional (including interstate) placement of children in need of adoption; and provide
post-adoption supports. Post-adoption supports are described by the law as including individual,
69 Most model court initiatives operate in a single court, but at least two operate on a statewide level. For more
information see http://www.ncjfcj.org/our-work/model-courts.
70 In its DOJ/OJP budget requests for each of FY2012-FY2014, the Administration requested no funding under this
program authority. However, for FY2015, the DOJ/OJP budget seeks $1.5 million for this training program.
71 Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-266). Title I of the
1978 law reauthorized funding for CAPTA, and funding for Adoption Opportunities is traditionally extended as part of
legislation that also extends funding authority for CAPTA.
72 42 U.S.C. §5111, §5113, §5114, and §5115.
Congressional Research Service
25
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
group, and family counseling; respite care; day treatment; case management; assistance to support
groups for adoptive parents, adopted children, and siblings of adopted children; assistance to
adoptive parent organizations; and training of public and private child welfare personnel, mental
health professionals, and others to provide post-adoption services.
Some of the Adoption Opportunities “major” program activities,” as cited by HHS,
Administration for Children and Families (ACF),73 include
• developing and implementing a national adoption information exchange system
(which includes an online web portal known as AdoptUSKids featuring a
national photo listing of children available for adoption as well as information
about prospective foster or adoptive parents);
• developing and implementing an adoption training and technical assistance
program (various resource centers, including the National Resource Center on
Adoption, some quality improvement centers and a part of Child Welfare
Information Gateway have been, or are now being funded);
• conducting ongoing, extensive recruitment efforts on a national level—to
encourage the adoption of older children, minority children, and special needs
children (including support for the National Resource Center for Diligent
Recruitment of Foster and Adoptive Parents);
• increasing states’ effective use of public and private agencies for the recruitment
of adoptive and foster families and assistance in placement of children;
• promoting programs to increase the number of older children adopted from foster
care; providing for programs aimed at increasing the number of minority children
(in foster care and with the goal of adoption) who are placed in adoptive families,
with a special emphasis on recruitment of minority families;
• providing for post-adoption services for families who have adopted children with
special needs, and promoting programs that effectively meet the mental health
needs of children in foster care, including addressing the effects of trauma.
Adoption Opportunities funds are used by HHS to achieve program purposes, either directly or by
competitive award of contract, grants, or other agreements. Depending on the activity authorized,
eligible entities include states, local government entities, public or private child welfare or
adoption agencies, other public or private agencies or organizations, adoptive family groups, and
adoption exchanges.
Beginning with FY2011, annual funding provided for the Infant Adoption Awareness and Special
Needs Adoption Awareness program (Sections 330F and 330G of the Public Health Service Act) was
transferred to the Adoption Opportunities account. Authority to appropriate Adoption Awareness
program funding expired with FY2005 but Congress had continued to appropriate roughly $13 million
annually for the program. 74 The Administration sought this consolidation of funding, noting that
73 HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2015 (March 2014), p. 137.
74 The Adoption Awareness provisions were added to the PHSA by the Children’s Health Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-310),
handled in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate HELP Committee. The 2000 Act authorized
funding for each of FY2001-FY2005 for (1)Infant Adoption Awareness grants (42 U.S.C. §254c-6) to adoption
organizations for training about adoption and adoption referrals for staff of public or private nonprofit health centers
serving pregnant women, development of best practice guidelines on adoption counseling, and evaluation; and (2)
Special Needs Adoption Awareness grants (42 U.S.C. §254c-7) to nonprofits for planning, developing and carrying out
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
26
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
where the Adoption Awareness program was “more narrowly targeted,” the Adoption
Opportunities program granted “broad authority” to support adoption projects, including projects
similar to those supported by Adoption Awareness. It further argued that “consolidating these
funds will provide a more efficient mechanism for financing on-going projects.”75
Annual discretionary funding for the Adoption Opportunities program was authorized at $40
million for FY2010 and “such sums as necessary” for each of FY2011 through FY2015 (i.e., until
September 30, 2015). For FY2011, the first year Adoption Awareness funding was transferred to
this account, funding for Adoption Opportunities grew to $39.3 million (from FY2010 funding of
$27.4 million). (See Table 13 for final Adoption Opportunities funding in FY2012-FY2014.)
Table 13. Final Funding for Adoption Opportunities
Adoption Opportunities
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Competitively awarded funds for national initiatives, state or local projects, $39,179,000 $36,662,000 $40,622,000a
and other activities to reduce barriers to special needs adoptions
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
a. Out of this funding, the Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill that became the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), states that $4 million must be for “discretionary grants to test
intensive and exhaustive child-focused adoptive parent recruitment strategies for children in foster care.”
The Explanatory Statement to the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) stipulated
that $4 million of the Adoption Opportunities funding must be used for “discretionary grants to
test intensive and exhaustive child-focused adoptive parent recruitment strategies for children in
foster care,” in accordance with the Senate Appropriations Committee report that accompanied an
earlier version of FY2014 appropriations for the program.76 That report called for support of
child-focused recruitment efforts of adoptive parents for “children that are hardest to place
because of age, disability, or sibling group membership.”77 Further, it “encourages HHS to
provide guidance to State child welfare agencies on the use of title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance training funds for the implementation of intensive child-focused recruitment strategies
and other evidence-based models that have been shown to increase the rate of placement of
children in foster care, particularly older children, into adoptive families.”78 Responding initially
to this, HHS notes that it has, and continues to support a variety of grants and activities that
support efforts to recruit and improvement recruitment of adoptive, foster and kinship caregiving
(...continued)
a national campaign to inform the public about adoption of children with special needs, including through public
service announcements, billboards and other methods.
75 HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2011 (2010), p. 150.
76 Explanatory Statement, Division H, as included in Congressional Record, Book II, January 15, 2014, p. H1041.
Section 4 of P.L. 113-76 provides that this explanatory statement is to have the same effect on allocation of funds and
implementation of Divisions A-L of the act as would a joint explanatory agreement of a conference committee.
77 S.Rept. 113-71 to accompany S. 1284, pp. 135-136.
78 Ibid. S.Rept. 113-71 noted this type of recruitment strategy had been shown to be more effective than “traditional”
efforts to find adoptive parents. One such method that has been evaluated is known as Wendy’s Wonderful Kids
Initiative. See Karim Malm, et. al. Evaluation Report Summary: The Wendy’s Wonderful Kids Initiative, Child Trends,
(2011). http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/WWKEvalRpt_Summary.pdf
Congressional Research Service
27
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
families. “Effective models,” it notes, are “multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and include general,
targeted, and child specific recruitment efforts.79
Separately, in this report, which is to guide HHS in its implementation of its FY2014 funding,80
the Senate Appropriations Committee noted that it “remains concerned about the availability of
post-adoption services for children and their adoptive families and strongly encourages ACF to
increase funding within this program explicitly available for such activities.” The Committee
directed ACF to submit a report by July 31, 2014, on “how ACF has used, and plans to use,
Adoption Opportunities funding to strengthen post-adoption services.”81 Responding initially to
this, HHS notes that in FY2013 it funded six cooperative agreements to meet needs of children with
plans for adoption, and those who have been adopted, including through screening and assessment
to identify mental and behavioral health issues and to match any needs with evidence-informed
interventions to promote permanency and prevent disruption of adoptions. Further, it notes plans to
use FY2014 Adoption Opportunities funding to support a National Quality Improvement Center for
Adoption/Guardianship Support and Preservation to develop evidence-based service models to
improve behavioral health of children and youth in adoptive/guardianship families. Additionally, it
plans to fund a National Adoption Competency Mental Health Training Initiative to improve ability
of child welfare staff and mental health practitioners to meet needs of children with a permanency
goal of adoption/guardianship, or who have already been placed for adoption or guardianship.82
Abandoned Infants Assistance
The Abandoned Infants Assistance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-505) responded to congressional
concerns about the number of infants who remained in hospital care beyond their medical need to
do so and who, often because of parental drug use, were born with exposure to drugs and/or
HIV.83 The act currently authorizes funding for local demonstration projects to prevent and
respond to the abandonment of infants and young children. When used in this act, the terms
“abandoned” and “abandonment” of infants or young children refer to infants or young children
who are “medically cleared for discharge from acute-care hospital settings, but remain
hospitalized because of a lack of appropriate out-of-hospital placement alternatives.” To address
the needs of these infants and young children it authorizes local demonstration projects to
• provide services to biological family members for any condition that increases
the probability of the abandonment of infants and young children;
• identify and address the needs of abandoned infants and children;
• assist abandoned infants and young children so they can live with biological
family members, or, if appropriate, in a foster family home, OR, if neither of
those are possible, by carrying out residential (group) care programs for them;
• recruit, train, and retain foster parents for abandoned infants and young children;
79 HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2015 (March 2014), pp. 384-385.
80 According to Division H of the explanatory text accompanying the bill that became the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76), when implementing that FY2014 funding, HHS must (unless specifically instructed otherwise) be
guided by the language of S.Rept. 113-71, to accompany S. 1284.
81 S.Rept. 113-71 to accompany S. 1284, p. 136.
82 HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2015 (March 2014), pp. 384-385.
83 42 U.S.C. §5117aa, §5117a-11, §5117aa-12, §5117aa-21, §5117aa-22.
Congressional Research Service
28
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
• provide respite care services to families and foster families of abandoned infants
and young children who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV), had perinatal exposure to HIV and/or a “dangerous drug,” or who have a
life-threatening illness or other special medical need;
• provide model programs offering health, educational, and social services for
abandoned infants and young children at a single site; and
• recruit and train health and social services personnel to work with families, foster
care providers, and residential care programs serving abandoned infants and
young children.
HHS awards funds to public and private nonprofits seeking to carry out these local projects.
Grantees must agree to give priority for services to abandoned infants or young children who are
infected with HIV, had perinatal exposure to HIV or a controlled substance, or who have a life-
threatening illness or other special medical need. Since 1991, HHS has funded the National
Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center, which disseminates findings from evaluations of
the project (as required by the act) and offers training and technical assistance to local project
grantees.
Survey data suggest that the number of infants who remain in hospital care beyond their date of
medical discharge, as well as the number of infants in hospitals who are not yet medically cleared
to leave the hospital but who are considered unlikely to do so with their biological parent(s), has
declined. In 2006, the combined national estimate of such infants was a little less than 12,900.
This was significantly fewer than the estimates of more than 30,600 such infants in 1998, and
21,600 in 1991.84 However, the 2006 survey found that while these infants used to be
concentrated in urban area hospitals, they were now more widely dispersed across the nation,
appearing in hospitals serving suburban and rural counties as well as those in urban areas. The
2006 survey concluded that positive trends it identified, including a decline in the number of
infants “boarded” in the hospital and reduced lengths of stay for those who did stay beyond their
medical need to do so, might be attributable to hospitals and child welfare agencies becoming
more responsive to needs of these infants, including through better inter-agency coordination.
Several legislative efforts were cited as possible contributors. These included an increased focus
on timely permanency planning (a major focus of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of
1997), required communication between health care providers and child protection agencies for
children born with substance exposure (added to CAPTA as part of its 2003 reauthorization, P.L.
108-36) and more than 20 years of federal support, provided under the Abandoned Infants
Assistance Act (P.L. 100-505, as amended) for local projects to serve abandoned infants and
children, and their families in communities across the nation.
Beginning with its extension in 1996, funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance has been a part
of legislation that reauthorizes CAPTA. Most recently the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010
(P.L. 111-320) extended discretionary funding authority for the program at $45 million for
FY2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for each of FY2011 through FY2015 (i.e., until
84 HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress: 2006 National Estimates of the Number of Boarder Babies, Abandoned Infants,
Discarded Infants, and Infant Homicides, James Bell Associates, transmitted to Congress May 31, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
29
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
September 30, 2015). Final annual funding in recent years has been around $11 million dollars.
(See Table 14.)
Table 14. Final Funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000
Abandoned Infants Assistance
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Competitive grants, contracts, or
agreements to eligible entities for services,
$11,533,000 $10,811,000
$11,063,000
technical assistance and training
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
Congressional Research Service
30
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Appendix. Child Welfare Programs by Type of
Funding Authority and Sequestration Status
Table A-1 lists each child welfare program described in this report by its type of funding
authority (mandatory or discretionary) and notes whether program funds may be subject to
sequestration. If the program is listed as one that may be subject to sequestration, it is referred to
as “nonexempt” and is subject to automatic spending cuts in any fiscal year for which the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) determines spending has exceeded the statutory limit. If a
program may not be subject to sequestration, it is referred to as “exempt” and automatic spending
cuts do not apply to that program in any year.
For FY2013, OMB determined that sequestration of appropriated funding was required for
discretionary and mandatory accounts. The sequestration percentage for nonexempt, nondefense
discretionary-funded program accounts was 5.0% and for nonexempt, nondefense mandatory-
funded program accounts was 5.1%.
For FY2014, OMB determined that discretionary appropriations did not exceed the discretionary
spending caps for nondefense programs. Therefore, sequestration was not required for these
discretionary programs, regardless of whether they are classified as exempt or nonexempt.
However, sequestration was required for nondefense, nonexempt mandatory programs, pursuant
to the Budget Control Act (BCA), as amended. The President issued a sequestration order for
FY2014 mandatory spending on April 10, 2013. The order took effect on October 1, 2013.
According to OMB, spending for each nonexempt, nondefense mandatory program account was
reduced by 7.2% in FY2014.
Congressional Research Service
31
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table A-1. Funding Authority and Sequestration Status of Child Welfare Programs
Sequestration
Determined
Program
Necessary for
Subject to
Nonexempt
Type of
Sequestration if
Programs (%)
Funding
Determined
Program
Authority
Necessary?
FY2013 FY2014
Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance
Mandatory
No (exempt)
Not applicable
and Kinship Guardianship Assistance
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Mandatory
No (exempt)
Not applicable
(general program)
Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers
Discretionary
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.0%)
No
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
Mandatory
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.1%)
Yes (7.2%)
(includes funding for state and tribal child and
family services, the Court Improvement
Program, research and evaluation, Regional
Partnership Grants and Monthly Caseworker
Visit Grants)
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
Discretionary
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.0%)
No
(includes funding for state and tribal child and
family services, the Court Improvement
Program, and research and evaluation)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services
Discretionary
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.0%)
No
Program
Family Connection Grants
Mandatory
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.1%)
a
Child Welfare Research, Demonstrations, and
Discretionary
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.0%)
No
Training
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
Discretionary
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.0%)
No
(CAPTA), including State Grants, Discretionary
Activities, and Community-Based Grants to
Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect
Adoption Incentives, Adoption Opportunities,
Discretionary
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.0%)
No
Abandoned Infants Assistance
Victims of Child Abuse Act Programs (Court
Discretionary
Yes (nonexempt)
Yes (5.0%)
No
Appointed Special Advocates, Children’s
Advocacy Centers, and Child Abuse Training
for Judicial Personnel
Children’s Justice Act Grants (Funded as a set
Mandatory Nob Nob
aside from the Crime Victims Fund.)
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). A program’s sequestration status is based on OMB Report to the
Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2014 (May 2013),
Note: Under the law certain federal administrative costs included in “exempt” accounts may be subject to sequestration.
a. Family Connection Grants were subject to sequestration in FY2013. However, as of the date of this report, they
had not received an FY2014 appropriation. Further, they were not a part of the expected mandatory funding in
FY2014 (used by OMB to determine whether the spending cap had been exceeded and by how much).
Therefore, if Congress does appropriate FY2014 funding for Family Connection Grants those funds appear
unlikely to be subjected to sequestration.
Congressional Research Service
32
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
b. Funding provided by the Crime Victims Fund is subject to sequestration. However, for FY2013, the statutory
set-aside from the fund that is used to support Children’s Justice Act Grants was not subject to sequestration.
This table assumes this same policy applied for FY2014.
Author Contact Information
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov, 7-2324
Congressional Research Service
33