.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal
Programs and Their Current Funding
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
February 12, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43458
c11173008
.
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. Nearly all 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 child welfare dollars are provided to a variety of eligible public or private
entities, primarily on a competitive basis, and support research, evaluation, technical assistance,
and demonstration projects to expand knowledge of, 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 FY2015 child welfare funding ($8.279 billion) was appropriated as part of the Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235). 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
House Education and the Workforce Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions (HELP) Committee. Further, 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 with the House and Senate Judiciary committees.
Beginning with FY2013, some discretionary and mandatory funding amounts appropriated for
child welfare programs have been reduced under the sequestration measures provided for in the
Budget Control Act (P.L. 112-25, as amended). The effect of these sequestration measures varies
by fiscal year and type of funding authority. For FY2015, funding provided on a discretionary
basis in P.L. 113-235 has been determined to be within the established spending caps. This means
the discretionary FY2015 funding provided for child welfare programs in that law is not expected
to be affected by sequestration. However, a final determination on this point cannot be made until
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Congress completes full-year appropriations for all agencies. (As of the date of this report, final
FY2015 funding has not been provided for the Department of Homeland Security.) 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 mandatory 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. However, a few
child welfare programs that receive mandatory funding may be subject to sequestration;
principally this includes the mandatory funding provided for the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program. For nonexempt mandatory child welfare funding, the final FY2015 funding
level must be reduced from the otherwise appropriated levels by 7.3%.
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
FY2015 Appropriations for Child Welfare ...................................................................................... 2
Effect of Sequestration on FY2015 Child Welfare Funding ...................................................... 3
Federal Child Welfare Programs ...................................................................................................... 4
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act ............................................................................................... 4
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services ......................................................................... 4
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF) .............................................................. 6
Reservation of PSSF Funds for Related Grants and Activities ........................................... 7
Family Connection Grants ......................................................................................................... 8
Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects .................................................. 9
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) .................................... 11
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act ............................................................................................. 12
Foster Care............................................................................................................................... 13
Adoption Assistance ................................................................................................................ 14
Kinship Guardianship Assistance ............................................................................................ 15
Obligations of Funds by Title IV-E Program Component ................................................. 16
Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance ............................................... 16
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program ............................................................................ 17
Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers ............................................................................. 18
Final Funding for the CFCIP Program, Including ETVs ................................................... 18
Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments .......................................................... 19
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) ...................................................................... 20
CAPTA State Grants ................................................................................................................ 20
CAPTA Discretionary Activities ............................................................................................. 21
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect ............................................. 23
Children’s Justice Act Grants .................................................................................................. 24
Victims of Child Abuse Act ........................................................................................................... 25
Improving Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse Cases ............................................ 25
Court-Appointed Special Advocates ....................................................................................... 27
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners ............................................... 28
Other Programs .............................................................................................................................. 29
Adoption Opportunities ........................................................................................................... 29
Abandoned Infants Assistance ................................................................................................. 32
Tables
Table 1. Final Funding for Child Welfare Programs ........................................................................ 1
Table 2. Final Funding for Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program ...................... 5
Table 3. Final Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program .......................... 6
Table 4. Final Discretionary and Mandatory PSSF Funding, by Program/Activity ........................ 7
Table 5. Final Funding for Family Connection Grants .................................................................... 9
Table 6. Final Funding for Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects ................. 10
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 7. Funding Obligated Under the Title IV-E Program ........................................................... 16
Table 8. Final Funding for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development and Technical Assistance (TA) ............... 17
Table 9. Final Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) ................... 19
Table 10. Final Funding for Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments .................... 20
Table 11. Final Funding for Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) ...................... 24
Table 12. Final Funding for Children’s Justice Act Grants ............................................................ 25
Table 13. Final Funding for Programs Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCAA) ................. 29
Table 14. Final Funding for Adoption Opportunities ..................................................................... 31
Table 15. Final Funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance .......................................................... 34
Table A-1. Funding Authority and Sequestration Status of Child Welfare Programs .................... 36
Appendixes
Appendix. Child Welfare Programs by Type of Funding Authority and Sequestration
Status .......................................................................................................................................... 35
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 37
Congressional Research Service
c11173008
.
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; ensuring regular case review and permanency planning for children in foster
care; helping children leave foster care to permanent families via reunification with parents or,
when that is not possible, via adoption or legal guardianship; offering post-permanency services
and supports; and helping older children in foster care, and youth who leave care without
placement in a permanent family, to transition successfully to adulthood.
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, just above or below $8 billion in federal support dedicated to child welfare purposes
has been made available (see Table 1). 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.
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.1
Table 1. Final Funding for Child Welfare Programs
Nominal dol ars rounded to nearest $1,000
Child
Welfare
Programs
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
TOTAL—dedicated funding
$7,762,482,000
$7,578,085,000
$8,390,492,000 $8,278,823,000
Title IV-B—all programs
$729,807,000
$688,350,000
$688,644,000
$664,299,000
Title IV-E—all programs
$6,844,240,000
$6,709,859,000
$7,509,845,000
$7,424,043,000
All other programs
$188,435,000
$179,876,000
$192,003,000
$190,481,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Final funding amounts reflect sequestration.
Notes: Title IV-B and Title IV-E are parts of the Social Security Act. Funding amounts for Title IV-E are based on
federal obligations made/expected (for FY2015). In earlier versions of this table, “definite budget authority” was
used to show Title IV-E funding. Therefore, the Title IV-E amount shown (as well as the totals), differ from those
included in earlier versions of this table.
Apart from the child welfare-specific (dedicated) federal funding provided for programs described
in this report, state child welfare agencies tap significant program resources—as much as $5.3
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
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
billion—from other federal funding streams. Often these include 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 “non-dedicated” funding.3
This report begins with a review of federal appropriations activity in FY2015 as it relates to child
welfare programs, including the effect of the automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration.
The bulk of the report provides a short description of each federal child welfare program,
including its purpose and recent (FY2012-FY2015) funding levels.
FY2015 Appropriations for Child Welfare
Federal child welfare funding is primarily provided as part of the annual appropriations bill for
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education and is included in
the HHS, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) account. These funds are administered
by the federal Children’s Bureau, which is a part of the HHS, ACF, Administration on Children,
Youth and Families (ACYF). Separately, funding for several child welfare programs authorized
by the Victims of Child Abuse Act is provided in the annual appropriations bill for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice. Those program funds are administered at the federal level
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) within its Office of Justice Programs (OJP).
The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83, as enacted)
provides final FY2015 funding levels for most federal agencies and activities, including the child
welfare programs and activities administered by HHS (Division G) and DOJ (Division B). The
act passed the House (219 to 206) on December 11, 2014, and the Senate (56 to 40) on December
13, 2014. It was signed into law by the President on December 16, 2014 (P.L. 113-235).
To allow uninterrupted funding for federal programs and activities from October 1, 2014—the
first day of FY2015—through December 16, 2014, when P.L. 113-235 was signed, Congress
passed a series of temporary measures (enacted as P.L. 113-164, P.L. 113-202, and P.L. 113-203)
that provided interim funding. For the child welfare programs discussed in this report that receive
discretionary funding, the interim funding level provided by those measures was equivalent to the
funding levels provided in the final FY2014 appropriations measure (P.L. 113-76) minus a 0.0554%
across-the-board reduction. For those child welfare programs that receive annually appropriated
2 Kerry DeVooght, Megan Fletcher, and Hope Cooper, Federal, State, and Local Spending to Address Child Abuse and
Neglect in SFY 2012, Child Trends, Annie E. Casey Foundation, and Casey Family Programs, September 2014.
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 Overview, 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
2
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
mandatory funding, those measures ensured continued funding at the level of funding authorized
under current law, minus any required sequestration.
Effect of Sequestration on FY2015 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 basis. The 2011 act also provided that if Congress
did not achieve federal spending reductions through other means, automatic spending 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 FY2015, the discretionary funding provided in the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) has been determined by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) as consistent with the FY2015 spending cap established by the
2013 agreement.5 However, because final FY2015 appropriations have not yet been provided for
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a final evaluation of discretionary spending vis a
vis the discretionary spending cap for FY2015 will need to be made after final FY2015 funding is
provided for DHS.6 Assuming that the final amount of spending remains within the discretionary
cap, as is expected, the level of funding included in P.L. 113-235 for each child welfare program
that receives discretionary funding 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 2013 budget agreement did not reverse the sequestration of
mandatory spending required under the BCA to occur in each of FY2013-FY2021 (in the absence
of Congress reducing this spending in another way). Instead, the 2013 deal extended the time
period of required mandatory sequestration for two years (through FY2023); P.L. 113-83
subsequently extended this period by an additional year (through FY2024). The President issued
the required sequestration order for FY2015 mandatory spending programs on March 10, 2014.
This order took effect on October 1, 2014. For FY2015, OMB specified that nonexempt,
nondefense mandatory program funding would be reduced by 7.3%.7 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 funding is generally not subject
to the 7.3% automatic reduction. However, some smaller authorizations of mandatory funding
4 CRS Report R42050, Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules, coordinated by
Karen Spar.
5 Office of Management and Budget, Report for the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,
December 29, 2014, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/7_day_after/hr83_7-
Day%20After.pdf
6 P.L. 113-235 provided continuing FY2014 funding for the Department of Homeland Security through February 27,
2015 only.
7 OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2015, (March 2014), Appendix,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/
sequestration_order_report_march2014.pdf
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
(principally mandatory funding provided for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
(PSSF)) are subject to the 7.3% 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-FY2015; 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.
Final Funding Levels for FY2012-FY2015
Final funding amounts for each of FY2012-FY2015 shown in this report are based first on the relevant appropriations
laws for each fiscal year (P.L. 112-74, P.L. 113-6, P.L. 113-76, and P.L. 113-235), including any official accompanying
explanatory text or tables. Funding for Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance
is authorized on an open-ended basis. Funding amounts shown here are based on federal obligations made (or for
FY2015, expected) for the year. In addition, for FY2013 many child welfare programs were affected by sequestration
and the final funding levels are generally given as provided in agency (ACF and OJP) operating plans. For FY2014 and
FY2015, final funding level reflects application of sequestration to a limited number of child welfare programs affected
by sequestration (i.e., “nonexempt” programs with mandatory funding) as shown in the most recent Administration
budget justification that gives obligations for the fiscal year.
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, training, and other
projects.8 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,
8 Title IV-B contains funding authority for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program (Section 439), which was last
funded by Congress for FY2010 ($49 million) and is not discussed further in the body of this report. The program was
first authorized in FY2002 (P.L. 107-133) and received initial funding for FY2003.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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.9
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,
2016). Actual funding appropriated for this program has never reached that funding authorization
level. Table 2 shows final funding for the program in each of FY2012-FY2015.
Table 2. Final Funding for Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program
Nominal dol ar amounts are rounded to nearest $1,000
Child Welfare Services
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Formula grants to states,
territories, and tribes
$280,650,000 $262,622,000 $268,735,000 $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. Generally, 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.10 (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 FY2014 they collectively planned to spend 40% 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. Additionally, states planned to spend, combined, about 24% 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: 10% for family support or prevention services
(intended to strengthen intact families to promote child and family well-being); 10% for foster
9 For a more comprehensive discussion of this program, including funding by state see CRS Report R41860, Child
Welfare: Funding for Child and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act.
10 States are required to provide a greater share of program costs to receive this funding if they complete less than 90%
(95% as of FY2015) of the expected monthly caseworker visits, and/or less than 50% of the visits occur where the child
lives. For more information see CRS Report R41860, Child Welfare: Funding for Child and Family Services
Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
care maintenance payments (to pay room and board cost of a child’s stay in foster care); 7% to
promote and support adoption, including through provision of adoption subsidies; 6% for
program administration; and 4% for other activities, services, or planning, including training and
foster and adoptive parent recruitment.11
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
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.12
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 3 for actual FY2012-FY2015 funding.
Table 3. Final Funding for Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Program
Nominal dol ar amounts are rounded to nearest $1,000
PSSF Funding
FY2012 FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Mandatory funding (subtotal)
$345,000,000
$327,405,000
$320,160,000
$319,815,000
Discretionary funding (subtotal)
$63,065,000
$59,672,000
$59,765,000
$59,765,000
TOTAL
$408,065,000
$387,077,000 $379,925,000 $379,580,000
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 and FY2015 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
11 Based on CRS review of state CFS-101, Part II included in Appendix A of HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau,
Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures, 2014. Percentages sum to more than 100% due to rounding.
12 For a more comprehensive discussion of this program, including funding by state see CRS Report R41860, Child
Welfare: Funding for Child and Family Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
mean a state must spend no less than 20% of its federal PSSF services funding on each of the
program’s four services categories that correspond to those purpose areas (i.e., family support,
family preservation, time-limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support
services). However, a state may be permitted to spend less than 20% in a given services category if
it can provide to HHS an “especially strong rationale” for doing this.13
For FY2014, states collectively planned to spend 25% of their federal PSSF funding for family
support services, roughly the same amount (25%) for family preservation services, 21% for
adoption promotion and support services, and 20% for time-limited family reunification services
(i.e., services intended to enable children who have been in foster care for no more than 17 months
to return safely to their homes). Remaining funds were to be spent for program administration (6%)
or other program costs (2%).14
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 4 shows PSSF funding (both mandatory and discretionary) divided
by purpose or activity for each of FY2012-FY2015. The amount shown as funding for services to
children and families is what remains after required reservations were made.
Table 4. Final Discretionary and Mandatory PSSF Funding, by Program/Activity
Nominal 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
FY2015
TOTAL (mandatory and discretionary)
$408,065,000
$387,077,000 $379,925,000 $379,580,000
Services to children and families—
$316,860,000 $300,541,000 $295,168,000 $294,909,000
Formula grants to states and territories
Tribal services to children and
$11,042,000 $10,474,000 $10,284,000 $10,275,000
families—Formula grants to tribes
Court Improvement Program—
$31,081,000 $29,490,000 $28,884,000 $28,855,000
Formula grants to state highest courts
Tribal Court Improvement—
$1,000,000 $949,000 $928,000 $927,000
Competitive grants to tribal courts
Monthly Caseworker Visits—
$20,000,000 $18,980,000 $18,560,000 $18,540,000
Formula grants to states and territories
Regional Partnership Grants—
Competitive grants to regional
$20,000,000 $18,980,000 $18,560,000 $18,540,000
partnerships to improve outcomes for
children
13 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Program Instructions to states for submitting Child and Family Services Plan
(CFSP)/Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR), PI-14-03, March 5, 2014, p. 18, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/cb/pi1403.pdf.
14 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures, 2014, pp. 5-7.
Percentages sum to less than 100% due to rounding. Collectively states report spending more than 20% in each of the
four service categories but 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
7
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
PSSF Program or Activity
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Evaluation, research, training, and
technical assistance—
$8,081,000 7,663,000 $7,540,000 $7,534,000
Competitive grants, contracts, or
agreements
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service. Some numbers have been revised from earlier
versions of this report. For FY2013, both mandatory and discretionary PSSF funding was affected by
sequestration. For FY2014 and FY2015, 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 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
• 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 annual program funding, HHS is required to reserve 3% of program funds ($450,000)
annually for evaluation and may reserve up to 2% ($300,000) annually for technical assistance.15
Family Connection Grants were established as part of the Fostering Connections to Success and
Improving Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351) and have never been funded via annual
appropriations acts. Instead P.L. 110-351 appropriated $15 million to support their initial five
years of operation (FY2009-FY2013) and the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening
Families Act (P.L. 113-183) appropriated $15 million in FY2014 funding for these grants. As of
early January 2015, Congress had not appropriated FY2015 funding for Family Connection
grants (see Table 5).
15 Section 427(g) of the Social Security Act. In each of FY2009-FY2013, the statute further required HHS to spend no
less than $5 million of the annual appropriation for these grants to support of kinship navigator programs.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 5. Final Funding for Family Connection Grants
Nominal dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest $1,000
Family Connection Grants
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Competitive grants to eligible
entities and to support evaluation
$15,000,000 $14,235,000 $15,000,000a $0
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the final
operating level after application of sequestration.
Note: Funding for this program was first authorized and appropriated via the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351) and has never been included in annual appropriations acts.
a.
FY2014 funding for this program was appropriated on September 29, 2014, by P.L. 113-183, which was after
the overall mandatory sequestration level had been determined by the Administration. Accordingly,
sequestration did not apply to the FY2014 funds provided for this program.
Family Connection grants have been awarded to 48 grantees, including 10 public child welfare
agencies (state, local, and tribal) and 38 private nonprofit agencies located in 23 states.16 The
FY2014 funding was awarded on September 30, 2014, and was used to provide a third year of
project funding for 17 of those grantees (each of which received initial support with FY2012
dollars, awarded on September 30, 2012). Projects supported with Family Connection Grant
dollars have typically been funded for three years (the statute prohibits grant projects of a longer
duration). Grantees must provide nonfederal matching funds (between 25% and 50% depending
on the year of the grant) and must participate in coordinated evaluation activities. HHS has also
awarded a separate evaluation contract related to these grants.
Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects
Section 426 of the Social Security Act, established in the early 1960s, 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. According to HHS, this funding “promotes effective child welfare
practice and supports leadership development and skill building to implement change.”17
Annual funding for these activities 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-FY2015 is shown in Table 6 below.
16 For more information on the grantees and their projects, see project descriptions and reports at
http://www.nrcpfc.org/grantees.html.
17 HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2015, March 2014, p. 134.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 6. Final Funding for Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration Projects
Nominal dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest $1,000
Child Welfare Research, Training and
Demonstration
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Competitive grants, contracts, and other arrangements
to support child welfare workforce training and to
advance practice of child welfare via research or
$26,092,000 $24,416,000 $24,984,000 $15,984,000
demonstration.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The FY2013 funding shown reflects the
final operating level after application of sequestration.
a. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the FY2015 appropriations bill (H.R. 83, enacted as P.L. 113-235)
provides that the final “agreement includes funding within this program to resume the National Survey of
Child and Adolescent Well-Being” (NSCAW). See Congressional Record, Book II, Dec. 11, 2014, p. H9838.
For more than 15 years, Congress provided between $6.0 million and $7.5 million under this
account for workforce training and technical assistance initiatives. In recent years, this funding
has supported curriculum development, leadership academies, and dissemination of best
practices. For much of this same time period, Congress did not provide funding under this
account for child welfare research or demonstration projects. Beginning with FY2010, however,
Congress provided funding to launch the Permanency Innovations Initiative. Funding for the
initiative, which 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) was requested by the
Administration as part of its FY2010 budget request.18 Most of the work on the Permanency
Innovations Initiative, which has supported six public and private grantees, is expected to be
completed during a five-year project window, September 2010-September 2015 (using FY2010-
FY2014 appropriations). During this period, the project has received annual support of between
$18 million and $20 million.19
The Administration expects to use some FY2015 funding under this account (roughly $2.0
million) to finish the cross-site evaluation for the Permanency Innovations Initiative.20 It also
plans to continue support for child welfare-related training initiatives using the FY2015 program
funding and anticipates using some of the funding in this account for technical assistance to state
agencies participating in the latest round of the federal conformity review, known as the Child
and Family Service Review (CFSR).21 Additionally, the Explanatory Statement accompanying the
FY2015 appropriations measure (H.R. 83, enacted as P.L. 113-235), notes that the final agreement
“includes funding within this program to resume the National Survey of Child and Adolescent
Well-Being” (NSCAW) and the Administration expects to use funding from this account to begin
a third NSCAW.22
18 HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2010, February 2009, pp. 137-138.
19 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.
20 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, e-mail communications with CRS, January 8, 2015.
21 Ibid. For more information on the third CFSR, scheduled for FY2015-FY2018, see “CFSR Technical Bulletin, No.
7” http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cfsr_tb7.pdf and other resources available on the Children’s Bureau
website at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/monitoring/child-family-services-reviews.
22 Ibid. See Explanatory Statement at Congressional Record, Book II, Dec. 11, 2014, p. H9838
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW)
Section 429 of the Social Security Act requires HHS to conduct (directly or by contract) a
nationally representative study of children who are at risk of child abuse or neglect, or are
determined by the state to have been abused or neglected. The law requires the study to have a
longitudinal component and to permit reliable state-level data analysis to the extent determined
feasible by HHS.23 In response to this 1996 legislative directive, the National Survey of Child and
Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) was launched. Two surveys have been conducted gathering
initial (“baseline”) information on a national sample of approximately 6,000 children living in
families investigated for child abuse and neglect (in 1999 and again in 2008), along with follow
up information on these children and their families collected at intervals (up to five years)
following the initial surveys.24
The survey data collected via NSCAW are unique from child welfare administrative data reported
by state child welfare agencies.25 NSCAW looks at a nationally representative sample of children
in families investigated for child abuse and neglect—and without regard to whether child abuse or
neglect was determined by a child protective services investigator to have occurred or whether a
child entered foster care. Thus the survey provides a more complete portrait of the full spectrum
of children and families served by child welfare agencies. Further, NSCAW gathers information
from children, parents, and other caregivers, as well as teachers and caseworkers, to examine the
socio-behavioral, education, health status, and other conditions of children and families served by
child welfare agencies, and it uses a range of standardized questions (“instruments”) to do this.
The information gathered from a variety of firsthand sources also permits a deeper understanding
of child and family well-being. Additionally, the standardized instruments allow comparison of
outcomes for the child welfare population to the larger, non-child welfare population, as well as
to subpopulations of the child welfare group (e.g., in foster care, living informally with kin, living
in-home following a substantiated report of maltreatment). Multiple reports, research briefs, and
info-graphics have been produced for HHS from these survey data,26 and many researchers have
accessed the data for additional published analyses.27
23 Language requiring this study was added to the Social Security Act, as Section 429A, by the 1996 welfare reform
law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193). The survey
language was moved to Section 429 in 2006 by the Child and Family Services Improvement Act (P.L. 109-288).
24 The initial NSCAW survey involved some 5,500 children (ages 0-15) in families investigated for child abuse and
neglect between October 1999 and December 2000, as well as more than 700 children who had been in foster care for
12 months as of that timeframe. Subsequent data were collected on these same children (and their caregivers) at various
intervals for five years following the first (baseline) data collection. The second NSCAW (referred to as NSCAW II)
looked at a sample of close to 5,900 children (ages 0-17) in families investigated for child abuse and neglect between
February 2008 and April 2009. Additional data were collected on these children and their families at two subsequent
intervals for three years following the baseline data collected. Specific funding for NSCAW ended with FY2011;
consequently, no further data were collected in the NSCAW II.
25 Including annual data reported to HHS by states via the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System
(AFCARS) and, separately, the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, NCANDS.
26 These resources are available from the HHS, ACF, Office of Planning Research and Evaluation (OPRE) website at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/research/project/national-survey-of-child-and-adolescent-well-being-nscaw.
27 Several books derived from NSCAW data have been published, including Ron Haskins, Fred Wulczyn, and Mary
Bruce Webb, editors, Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice, Brookings Institution Press,
2007, and Mary Bruce Webb, Kathryn Dowd, Brenda Jones Harden, John Landsverk, and Mark F. Testa, editors, Child
Welfare & Child Well-Being: New Perspectives from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, Oxford
University Press, 2010. Many journal articles based on NSCAW findings are available at http://www.refworks.com/
refworks2/?site=010271135918800000%2fRWWS5A10943%2fNSCAW.
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Funding for NSCAW
As noted earlier, funding provided for NSCAW from the Child Welfare Research, Training and
Demonstration account (Section 426) is expected to be used to launch a third round of the
NSCAW study. Congress last provided funding ($6 million) for NSCAW in FY2011. That
funding was appropriated, on a mandatory basis, to carry out “activities authorized by section 429
of the Social Security Act.”28 Although Congress did not provide funding for NSCAW for any of
FY2012, FY2013, or FY2014, the Administration continued to request support for this research.
In its FY2015 budget request, the Administration called for an appropriation of discretionary
funding (authorized under Section 1110 of the Social Security Act) to continue NSCAW, and
noted that “continued funding will support enrollment of a new sample of children, so that the
study can examine changes in the population served and in the child welfare system over time.”29
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 plan30 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. Five tribes have an approved Title IV-E plan31 and Puerto Rico is the
only territory with such a plan.32 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.33 Finally, it also authorizes bonus payments to states and territories (with an
approved Title IV-E plan) that increase adoptions, and, beginning in FY2014, legal guardianships,
of children from foster care. Legislation authorizing these programs and activities is handled by
the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee.
28 Section 132 of P.L. 111-242. Six years of funding for this study ($6 million in each of FY1996-FY2002) was
appropriated as part of the same 1996 legislation that authorized this study (Section 503 of P.L. 104-193). However,
Congress rescinded this mandatory funding. Subsequently, it appropriated $6 million in discretionary funding for the
program for each of FY1997-FY2002, after which funding for Section 429 ($6 million annually through FY2011) was
provided on a mandatory basis as part of a series of acts that also extended funding for the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
29 HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for the Appropriations Committees, FY2015, March 2014, pp. 158-159.
30 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.
31 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). Tribes first became eligible for direct Title IV-E program
participation as of FY2010. As was true before FY2010, however, 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.
32 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.
33 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.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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.34,35 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 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 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). (As of February 2015, 22 states have
extended Title IV-E assistance for youth beyond their 18th birthday.)36
Eligible Title IV-E costs include spending on 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% and 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.37
34 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.
35 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.
36 These states are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia. States that choose to extend Title IV-E foster care assistance
beyond a youth’s 18th birthday must also provide this Title IV-E adoption assistance—and if the state provides it, Title
IV-E kinship guardianship assistance—to the older age. Indiana extends IV-E assistance to a youth’s 20th birthday; all
others listed states currently extend IV-E assistance to a youth’s 21st birthday.
37 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%.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
As of September 30, 2014, 30 states and one tribe 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. (However, not all states had implemented their projects as of that date.) 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. For nearly all states this “cost neutrality” determination was based on a
pre-negotiated capped allocation of a specific part of their federal Title IV-E foster care funding.38
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 federal Title IV-E
funds obligated by HHS in FY2012-FY2015, see Table 7 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.39
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
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
38 Under current law, HHS is not authorized to grant any additional child welfare waivers after September 30, 2014,
and no state may operate a waiver project after September 30, 2019. Jurisdictions with approved waiver projects as of
September 30, 2014, are Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska ,Nevada, New York,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Many waiver projects plan to operate only in certain counties or cities of a
state, while some are statewide (or intend to expand).
39 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
14
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
IV-E adoption assistance. However, those income and related requirements are being phased out,
primarily based on age (and for any child in foster care for at least 60 continuous months).
For FY2015, those additional income and related requirements do not apply to any child
determined to have special needs who is at least six years of age as of the date the state finalized
an adoption assistance agreement with his/her prospective adoptive parents. Eligibility for
children with special needs who are siblings of those meeting the age or length of time in care (60
continuous months) requirement must also be determined without use of any income or related
criteria, provided they are placed in the same adoptive family with the sibling. As of the first day
of FY2018 (October 1, 2017), the additional income and related requirements will no longer
apply to the eligibility determination of any special needs 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 federal Title
IV-E adoption assistance funds obligated in FY2012-FY2015, see Table 7 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. By the end of FY2014, 32 states and 5 tribes had incorporated this kind of assistance
in their Title IV-E plan.40 One additional state (Minnesota) had submitted a kinship guardianship
amendment to its Title IV-E plan that, as of early 2015, was under review by HHS/ACF. These
states and tribes may seek federal reimbursement for a part of the cost of providing ongoing
kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of every eligible child. 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).
As with other Title IV-E program components, funding is authorized on a permanent basis (no
year limit). 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
guardianship assistance payments and program administration, including training costs.41 During
FY2013, states received federal support under Title IV-E for a part of the cost of providing
40 The states are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, and
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The tribes are the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, the Confederated Salish
and Kootenai Tribe, the South Puget Intertribal Planning agency, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, and the
Navajo Nation.
41 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.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
kinship guardianship assistance to more than 17,000 children on an average monthly basis. (For
federal Title IV-E kinship guardianship funds obligated in FY2012-FY2015, see Table 7 below.)
Obligations of Funds by Title IV-E Program Component
Table 7 shows the amount of funding obligated by HHS in each of FY2012-FY2015 for Title IV-
E foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance. (The FY2015 figure is an
estimate of the full year obligation.) There is no upper or lower dollar limit for this Title IV-E
funding, which is described as “open-ended entitlement funding.” In each annual appropriations
act, Congress provides “definite budget authority” (a certain amount of funds) that enables HHS
to reimburse states, territories, and tribes for their eligible Title IV-E costs (within a certain time
frame). The amount needed for this purpose is estimated in the annual budget request of the
President and this is typically the amount of definite budget authority provided by Congress. In
any year that Congress authorizes more funding than needed to make these reimbursements, the
extra funding authority will eventually lapse (no longer be available). By contrast, if the definite
budget authority provided is not enough to provide the federal share (reimbursement) of the
eligible Title IV-E program costs submitted by states, territories, or tribes, the annual
appropriations acts typically also include an “indefinite budget authority.” This authority allows
HHS to access additional funds (within a specific time frame) to make necessary
reimbursements.42
Table 7. Funding Obligated Under the Title IV-E Program
Dol ar amounts rounded to nearest $1,000; amount shown are obligations
Title IV-E Program
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Foster
Care
$4,179,915,000 $4,132,147,000 $4,746,164,000 $4,580,794,000
Adoption
Assistance
$2,296,095,000 $2,278,135,000 $2,449,853,000 $2,510,422,000
Kinship Guardianship Assistance
$73,804,000
$77,099,000
$89,707,000
$108,708,000
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). The mandatory funding provided in this program is exempt from
sequestration. However, any funding in the account for federal “administrative expenses” is subject to sequestration.
Notes: The funding shown in this table is based on most current information on program “obligations” made by HHS
under each program component. This information is included in the President’s annual budget request. Previous
versions of this table showed definite budget authority for each Title IV-E program component and those amounts
varied from the obligation amounts shown here.
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 the cost of preparing a Title IV-E plan for HHS approval. Among
other things, this may include 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
42 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.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
awards these grants annually, on a competitive basis. Through the last day of FY2014 (September
30, 2014), 26 tribes (or tribal consortia) had received a plan development grant43 and 5 tribes (or
consortia) had approved Title IV-E plans.
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
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). As part of responding to this requirement, HHS initially
funded the National Resource Center for Tribes; as of September 30, 2014, it is instead funding
the National Child Welfare Capacity Building Center for Tribes.44
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 8. 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
FY2015
Competitive grant funding for tribal IV-E plan
$3,000,000 $2,975,000 $2,961,000 $2,959,000
development and technical assistance
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). This funding is included in the “exempt”
Title IV-E account. However, FY2013, FY2014, and FY2015 funding is less than the previously appropriated $3
million due to the effect of sequestration on a part of this funding used for federal administrative purposes.
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.45 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;46 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
43 See Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development grants awarded in each of FY2009-FY2014 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/resource/cb-discretionary-grant-awards.
44 Funding for this center (expected to be between $2.5 million and $3.4 million annually for five years) was awarded
to the Colorado Seminary, which owns and operates the University of Denver. See HHS-2014-ACF-ACYF-CZ-0815 at
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/cb-discretionary-grant-awards.
45 For more information on this program see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
46 Section 111(c) of the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183) amends Section 477
of the Social Security Act to provide (effective, generally, on September 29, 2015) an additional purpose for the
CFCIP: to “ensure children who are likely to remain in foster care until 18 years of age have regular, ongoing
opportunities to engage in age or developmentally-appropriate activities.”
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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 FY2013,
close to 100,000 youth (ages 14-26 years) received at least one such service and many of those
youth (58%) received three or more services. The most common services received were academic
support, career preparation, and education about housing and home management.47
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.)48 The authorized amount of funds, $140 million, is provided in annual appropriations
bills.49 (These mandatory funds are considered a part of the Title IV-E program and, apart from a
small portion used for federal program administration, are not subject to sequestration.) (See
Table 9.)
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.50 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).51 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-FY2015 is shown in Table 9.
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
47 For more information see CRS Report R43752, Child Welfare: Profiles of Current and Former Older Foster Youth
Based on the National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD), by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
48 Tribes may be eligible to receive direct federal CFCIP funding, provided they have an approved Title IV-E plan or
have an agreement with a state to provide Title IV-E foster care to tribal children in foster care.
49 Section 111(c) of the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183) raises this
mandatory funding authority to $143 million beginning with FY2020.
50 For more information see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal
Programs, by Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.
51 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
18
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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.
Table 9. Final Funding for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP)
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest $1,000
CFCIP FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
General Program
$140,000,000
$139,999,000
$139,960,000
$139,960,000
Educational and Training
Vouchers (ETV)
$45,174,000 $42,273,000
$43,257,000
$43,257,000
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CFCIP general program (mandatory) funding is
considered a part of the Title IV-E account and is therefore exempt from sequestration. However a small portion of
these funds are considered federal program administration dol ars and were subject to mandatory sequestration in each
of FY2013, FY2014 and FY2015. In addition, ETV funding under the program is discretionary and nonexempt. The
FY2013 funding shown for the ETV program reflects the final operating level after application of sequestration.
Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments
The Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act (P.L. 113-183) extended funding
authorization for Adoption Incentive Payments for three years (FY2014-FY2016), revised the
categories under which states may earn an incentive payment and, effective with October 1, 2014,
renamed them as Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments (Section 473A of the
Social Security Act). Under the prior law for Adoption Incentive Payments, any state or territory
with an approved Title IV-E plan was eligible to receive federal incentive payments for increasing
the number of children who are adopted from foster care overall, as well as the number of
adoptions of older children (age 9 or more) and of those with “special needs” who are under the
age of nine. Under the revised program, eligible states may earn an incentive for improving the
rate (or percentage) of children who (1) are adopted (any age); (2) leave foster care for legal
guardianship (any age); (3) are pre-adolescents (ages 9 through 13) and leave foster care for
adoption or legal guardianship; or (4) are older (14 years of age or older) and leave foster care for
adoption or legal guardianship.52Adoption Incentive Payments were 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. Funding is currently authorized on a
discretionary basis at $43 million annually through FY2016. (See Table 10 for final funding in
each of FY2012-FY2015.)
52 For more information see CRS Report R43025, Child Welfare: The Adoption Incentive Program and Its
Reauthorization, by Emilie Stoltzfus. For adoptions and legal guardianships completed in FY2014, states will earn
awards based in part on the prior incentive structure and in part on the new incentive structure. The new incentive
structure will be fully in place for adoptions and legal guardianship completed in FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 10. Final Funding for Adoption and Legal Guardianship Incentive Payments
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest $1,000
Incentives
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Funds to make incentive payments
$39,346,000
$37,230,000
$37,943,000
$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.
Note: The name of this program was changed to include “legal guardianship” effective with the first day of
FY2015, which is the first year in which states are able to receive these incentive payments for legal guardianships.
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.53 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, and 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.54
53 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.
54 HHS provides an annual report based on these data, which are reported via the National Child Abuse and Neglect
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
In FY2013, state and local CPS agencies received 3.5 million calls or other referrals alleging
abuse or neglect involving an estimated 6.4 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 3.2 million children.55 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.
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.
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.56
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.57 Final funding
for CAPTA state grants in each of FY2012-FY2015 is shown in Table 11 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;
(...continued)
Data System (NCANDS). To link to the FY2013 report (released in January 2015), or earlier reports, go to
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/child-maltreatment.
55 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2013, (January 2015), Exhibit S-1.
56 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.
57 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) by at least $1 million, 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.
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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.58 The OCAN uses CAPTA discretionary funds to support inclusion
of child abuse and neglect-related information on the online portal, Child Welfare Information
Gateway (http://www.childwelfare.gov), collection of state data via the National Child Abuse and
Neglect Data System (NCANDS), and publication of annual reports (Child Maltreatment) based
on those data.59 These CAPTA dollars also fund 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. Further, in recent years they were used to field the fourth National Incidence
Survey on child abuse and neglect (NIS-4),60 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. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the FY2014 final funding measure (P.L.
113-76) specified that out of the $28.7 million provided for the account, $3 million was to be used
for “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.”61 In response, HHS awarded $3 million to the ZERO to THREE
organization (working with several partners) to support the Quality Improvement Center for
Research-Based Infant-Toddler Court Teams.62 The overall funding for this account remains
unchanged for FY2015 and the Explanatory Statement accompanying the final FY2015 funding
measure (P.L. 113-235) notes that the “agreement includes funding to continue the Quality
Improvement Center for Research Based Infant and Toddler Court Teams”; it does not specify the
level of funding.63 See Table 11 below.
58 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.
59 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.
60 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.
61 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.
62 See http://www.zerotothree.org/maltreatment/safe-babies-court-team/12-16-14-slides-for-rfp-webinar-all-
combined.pdf..
63 Explanatory Statement, Division G, as included in Congressional Record, Book II, December 11, 2014, p. H9838.
Section 4 of P.L. 113-235 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
22
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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
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).64 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-FY2015,
is shown in Table 11 below.
64 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
23
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 11. 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 FY2015
TOTAL
appropriation
$93,703,000 $87,865,000 $93,818,000 $93,818,000
CAPTA State Grants—Formula grants to states and
$26,432,000 $24,734,000 $25,310,000 $25,310,000
territories
CAPTA Discretionary Activities—Competitive
$25,744,000 $24,091,000 $28,744,000a $28,744,000b
grants, contracts or agreements to eligible entities
Community-Based Grants to Prevent Child Abuse
and Neglect—Formula grants to states and
$41,527,000 $38,860,000 $39,764,000 $39,764,000
territories, includes support for technical assistance
and 1% set aside for tribal/migrant programs
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 of these CAPTA accounts).
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. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill that provided final FY2014 funding (enacted as P.L. 113-
76) provided that $3 million of this funding was 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.
b. The Explanatory Statement accompanying the bill providing final FY2015 funding (enacted as P.L. 113-235)
provides that this amount includes “funding to continue the Quality Improvement Center for Research
Based Infant-Toddler Court Teams program” and adds that these funds “support efforts that bring together
the court system, child welfare agencies, health professionals, and community leaders to improve current
practices in the child welfare system and make better informed decisions on behalf of children.” See
Congressional Record, Book II, December 11, 2014, p. H9838.
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
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).
Congressional Research Service
24
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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.
It is administered by the Office for Victims of Crime within the Department of Justice (DOJ).65
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.66 Up to $3
million in funding is retained by DOJ for competitive grants to tribal entities. FY2012-FY2015
funding for Children’s Justice Act Grants is shown in Table 12.
Table 12. 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
FY2015
Formula grants to states and
territories
$17,000,000 $17,000,000 $17,000,000 $17,000,000
Competitive grants to tribes
$3,000,000
$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 and FY2015
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
(OJP) at the Department of Justice (DOJ).67 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 Act68 supports the expansion and
improvement of Children’s Advocacy Centers. Children’s Advocacy Centers (CACs) are intended
65 For more information about this fund see CRS Report R42672, The Crime Victims Fund: Federal Support for
Victims of Crime, by Lisa N. Sacco.
66 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).
67 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).
68 42 U.S.C. §13001, §13001a, §13001b, §13002, and §13003.
Congressional Research Service
25
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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 (606 that are accredited) located in all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. In 15 states CACs serve all counties; however, nationally about one-third of the
counties are not served by CACs.69 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%). The large majority of children served (90%) knew their
abuser.70
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.71 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.72 Currently the four regional centers are located in
Huntsville, AL; Philadelphia, PA; St. Paul, MN; and Colorado Springs, CO.73 Finally, the law
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. Funding to support this purpose has frequently been awarded to the National Center
for the Prosecution of Child Abuse.74
Legislation approved by Congress in the summer of 2014 (S. 1799, enacted as P.L. 113-163)
extends annual discretionary funding authority to support regional and local CACs ($15 million)
and training and technical assistance to improve criminal prosecution of child abuse ($5 million)
for each of five years (FY2014-FY2018). That funding authority had previously expired on the
last day of FY2005.75 However, Congress continued to appropriate annual funding for the
program in each year. (See Table 13, below, for FY2012-FY2015 final funding.)
69 National Children’s Alliance, 2013 Annual Report, 2014. For coverage by state see the CAC coverage maps at
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/cac-coverage-maps.
70 National Children’s Alliance, “2013 NCA National Statistics” http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/sites/default/
files/download-files/2013National.pdf.
71 For more information on the National Children’s Alliance support for local and state CACs see
http://www.nationalchildrensalliance.org/funding-cacs-chapters.
72 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).
73 For links to regional CAC websites see http://www.mrcac.org/about-mrcac/our-partners/.
74 For more information about NCPCA see http://www.ndaa.org/ncpca.html.
75 As part of the FY2015 DOJ/OJP budget, the Administration sought $11 million in funding for Children’s Advocacy
Centers ($8 million less than funding Congress provided for them in FY2014). As part of its FY2013 and FY2014
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
26
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Court-Appointed Special Advocates
Subtitle B (Sections 215-219) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act76 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.77 As of 2013, some 951 state, local, and tribal CASA programs located in 50
states, including the District of Columbia, were a part of the National CASA Association.78
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.79 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.80 In 2013, more than 238,500 children were served by
approximately 75,000 CASA volunteers. Children in foster care have typically experienced abuse
or neglect and most children served by CASAs are in foster care.81 During FY2013, 641,000
children spent at least one day (24 hours) in foster care and on the last day of that fiscal year
(September 30, 2013) some 402,000 children remained in foster care.82 Of those children, more
than half (210,000) had been in foster care for 12 months or more.83
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
(...continued)
budgets, the Administration requested no specific funding under this program authority. However, Congress continued
to appropriate funds under this authority.
76 42 U.S. C. §§13011, 13012, 13013, 13013a, and 13014.
77 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/.
78 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, 2013 National CASA Annual Report, (2014),
http://nc.casaforchildren.org/apps/annualreport2013/index.html#by-the-numbers/.
79 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)).
80 See Findings as included in Subchapter B, Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II of P.L. 101-647).
81 See NCASAA, 2013 National CASA Annual Report, (2014), http://nc.casaforchildren.org/apps/annualreport2013/
index.html#by-the-numbers.
82 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, FY2002-FY2013.”
83 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report, No. 21, preliminary FY2013 estimates based on data
reported by states as of July 2014.
Congressional Research Service
27
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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. At the
same time, since the early 1990s Congress has annually appropriated funding for the program
(with or without current funding authorization), despite several years in which the President’s
budget sought to eliminate specific funding for this program.84 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-FY2015 is shown in Table 13.
Child Abuse Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners
Sections 221-224 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 199085 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.86 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”
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.87
Since the early 1990s, Congress has provided annual funding dedicated to this training program
(with or without current funding authority)88 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-FY2015 is
shown in Table 13.
84 For three years (each of FY2012-FY2014), the Administration requested no specific funding for this program in its
DOJ/OJP budget. However, Congress continued to appropriate funds and the Administration requested $6 million in
funding for CASA in its FY2015 budget.
85 42 U.S.C. §§13021, 13022, 13023, and 13024.
86 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.
87 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.
88 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.
Congressional Research Service
28
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 13. Final Funding for Programs Under the Victims of Child Abuse Act (VOCAA)
VOCAA
Funding
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Children’s Advocacy Centers
(and related training and technical
$18,000,000 $17,739,000 $19,000,000 $19,000,000
assistance)
Court Appointed Special
$4,500,000 $5,579,000 $6,000,000 $6,000,000
Advocates
Child Abuse Training for
Judicial Personnel and
$1,500,000 $1,400,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000
Practitioners
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 1978,89 the Adoption Opportunities program90 requires 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,
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),91 include
• developing and implementing a national adoption information exchange system
(which includes an online web portal known as AdoptUSKids featuring a
89 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.
90 42 U.S.C. §5111, §5113, §5114, and §5115.
91 HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2015 (March 2014), p. 137.
Congressional Research Service
29
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
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 contracts, 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.92 The Administration sought this consolidation of funding, noting
that 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.”93
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
92 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
a national campaign to inform the public about adoption of children with special needs, including through public
service announcements, billboards and other methods.
93 HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2011 (2010), p. 150.
Congressional Research Service
30
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
this account, funding for Adoption Opportunities grew to $39.3 million (from FY2010 funding of
$27.4 million). (See Table 14 for final Adoption Opportunities funding in FY2012-FY2015.)
Table 14. Final Funding for Adoption Opportunities
Adoption
Opportunities
FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Competitively awarded funds for national initiatives, state
or local projects, and other activities to reduce barriers
$39,179,000
$36,662,000 $40,622,000a $39,100,000
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.94 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” and “encouraged 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.”95 Additionally, the
2014 Senate Appropriations Committee report96 noted the committee’s continued concern “about
the availability of post-adoption services for children and their adoptive families” and it “strongly”
encouraged increased use of the program funding for purposes related to such services.97
94 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.
95 S.Rept. 113-71 to accompany S. 1284, pp. 135-136. 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
96 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.
97 S.Rept. 113-71 to accompany S. 1284, p. 136. In an initial response, and as part of its FY2015 budget request
(released in Marcy 2014), HHS noted that it had used (and continued to use) Adoption Opportunities funds to support
varied efforts related to recruitment of adoptive, foster, and kinship caregiving families. “Effective models,” it noted,
are “multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and include general, targeted, and child specific recruitment efforts.”
Additionally, it noted that FY2013 program funding had been used to support cooperative agreements related to
meeting the needs of children with plans for adoption/or adopted—including through screening and assessment
intended to identify and respond to mental or behavioral health issues—to promote permanency and prevent adoption
disruption. HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2015 (March 2014), pp. 384-385.
Congressional Research Service
31
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
In late September 2014, HHS awarded up to $500,000 in FY2014 Adoption Opportunities
funding to each of eight public and private agencies for “intensive child-focused adoptive parent
recruitment.” This project funding is available to each grantee for up to 17-months.98 At the same
time, it announced additional FY2014 Adoption Opportunities funding for support of (1) a
National Adoption Competency Mental Health Training Initiative to improve the 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 (up to $1
million in first project year with expectation of up to $2 million in funding for each of following
four years) and for (2) the National Quality Improvement Center for Adoption/Guardianship
Support to develop, among other things, evidence-based service models to improve behavioral
health of children and youth in adoptive/guardianship families (up to $3.4 million in FY2014
funding with expectation of up to $5 million for each of the following four fiscal years).99
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.100 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;
• 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
98 See grantees for HHS-2014-ACYF-CO-0828 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/discretionary-grant-
awards-2014. See also HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2015 (March 2014),
pp. 384-385.
99 See grantees for HHS-2014-ACYF-CO-0797 and HHS-2014-ACYF-CO-0798 at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/resource/discretionary-grant-awards-2014.
100 42 U.S.C. §5117aa, §5117a-11, §5117aa-12, §5117aa-21, §5117aa-22.
Congressional Research Service
32
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
• 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 1991.101 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
September 30, 2015). Final annual funding in recent years has been around $11 million. (See
Table 15.)
101 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
33
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table 15. Final Funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance
Dol ar amounts are rounded to the nearest 1,000
Abandoned Infants Assistance
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
Competitive grants, contracts, or
agreements to eligible entities for services,
$11,533,000 $10,811,000 $11,063,000 $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
34
c11173008
.
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-funded 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% for FY2014.
For FY2015, OMB determined that discretionary appropriations included in P.L. 113-235, which
provides full FY2015 funding for most government agencies, did not exceed the discretionary
spending caps for nondefense programs. Therefore, no sequestration is expected to be required
for these discretionary programs, regardless of whether they are classified as exempt or
nonexempt. However, a final determination on discretionary spending can only be made once
full-year FY2015 funding has been appropriated for the Department of Homeland Security. (P.L.
113-235 provided funding for that department only through February 27, 2015). Further, for
FY2015 sequestration continued to be required for nondefense, nonexempt mandatory programs,
pursuant to the Budget Control Act (BCA), as amended. The President issued a sequestration
order for FY2015 mandatory spending on March 10, 2014. The order took effect on October 1,
2014. According to OMB, spending for each nonexempt, nondefense mandatory program account
was reduced by 7.3% for FY2015.
Congressional Research Service
35
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
Table A-1. Funding Authority and Sequestration Status of Child Welfare Programs
Program
Sequestration Determined
Subject to
Necessary for Nonexempt
Type of
Sequestration
Programs (%)
Funding
if Determined
Program
Authority
Necessary?
FY2013 FY2014 FY2015
Title IV-E Foster Care, Adoption Assistance and
Kinship Guardianship Assistance; Tribal Technical
Mandatory No
(exempt)a Not
applicable
Assistance and IV-E Plan Development Grants
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Mandatory No
(exempt)a Not
applicable
(general program)
Chafee Educational and Training Vouchers
Discretionary
Yes
Yes
No No
(nonexempt)
(5.0%)
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
(includes funding for state, territorial, and tribal
child and family services, the Court Improvement
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Program, research and evaluation, Regional
Mandatory
(nonexempt)
(5.1%)
(7.2%)
(7.3%)
Partnership Grants and Monthly Caseworker Visit
Grants)
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program
(includes funding for state, territorial, and tribal
Yes
Yes
child and family services, the Court Improvement
Discretionary
(nonexempt)
(5.0%)
No No
Program, and research and evaluation)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services
Yes
Yes
Program
Discretionary
(nonexempt)
(5.0%)
No No
Family Connection Grants
Yes
Yes
Mandatory
b
(nonexempt)
(5.1%)
b
Child Welfare Research, Demonstrations, and
Yes
Yes
Training
Discretionary
(nonexempt)
(5.0%)
No No
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA), including State Grants, Discretionary
Yes
Yes
Activities, and Community-Based Grants to
Discretionary
(nonexempt)
(5.0%)
No No
Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect
Adoption Incentives, Adoption Opportunities,
Discretionary
Yes
Yes
No No
Abandoned Infants Assistance
(nonexempt)
(5.0%)
Victims of Child Abuse Act Programs (Court
Appointed Special Advocates, Children’s
Discretionary
Yes
Yes
No No
Advocacy Centers, and Child Abuse Training for
(nonexempt)
(5.0%)
Judicial Personnel
Children’s Justice Act Grants (Funded as a set
Mandatory Noc Noc
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),
a.
Although the statute provides that mandatory Title IV-E funding is general y exempt (including al dol ars
authorized to be paid to states), a very small portion of this funding is considered as a cost of federal
program administration and is subject to sequestration.
b.
Family Connection Grants are not exempt and were subject to sequestration in FY2013. However, they
were not a part of the authorized mandatory funding in FY2014 (used by OMB in early 2014 to determine
whether the spending cap had been exceeded and by how much). Therefore, no sequestration applied to
Congressional Research Service
36
c11173008
.
Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding
their FY2014 funding, which was provided, via P.L. 113-183, on September 29, 2014. As of early January
2015, Congress had not provided FY2015 funding for this program.
c.
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 and FY2015.
Author Contact Information
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
estoltzfus@crs.loc.gov, 7-2324
Congressional Research Service
37
c11173008