Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program in the 107th Congress

Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program in the 107th Congress

Order Code RL30894
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program
in the 107th Congress
Updated January 24, 2002
name redacted
Analyst in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
name redacted
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families Program in the 107th Congress
Summary
President Bush signed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of
2001 (H.R. 2873) into law on January 17, 2002 (P.L. 107-133). The new law
reauthorizes the program for 5 years (FY2002-FY2006), sets its annual mandatory
funding level at $305 million, and authorizes additional discretionary funds up to
$200 million annually. Separately it grants new program authority for the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to fund programs that mentor
children of prisoners and it expands the Foster Care Independence Program by
authorizing new discretionary funds for education and training vouchers. The
FY2002 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-116) provides $375
million for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program ($305 million
mandatory, $70 million discretionary) but does not fund the newly authorized
mentoring services for children of prisoners nor the education and training vouchers.
First created in 1993 (under a different name), the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act) provides grants
to states for four kinds of child welfare services: family preservation, family support,
time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. Funds are
reserved from Safe and Stable’s annual appropriation to allow national evaluations
of program activities and for state court grants (to improve child welfare
proceedings). P.L. 107-133 expands the definition of family preservation services
under the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program to include infant safe haven
programs; clarifies the meaning of family support to include services that “strengthen
parental relationships and promote healthy marriages”; provides for reallocation of
unused program funds; and stipulates that, out of any discretionary funds
appropriated for the program, 3.3% will be added to the existing $10 million set-
aside for Court Improvement Grants; 3.3% will be added to the existing $6 million
reservation for evaluation, technical assistance, research and training; and 2% will
be added to the existing set-aside for Indian tribes (1% of mandatory funds).
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program is administered by HHS and
the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees have jurisdiction. Like
Safe and Stable Families, grants to states for child welfare services (Title IV-B,
Subpart 1) and Adoption Incentive payments (part of Title IV-E), are under the Social
Security Act, have related purposes, and share committee jurisdictions. The Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (expired with FY2001, but received FY2002
funding) authorized programs that share goals with Safe and Stable Families, but is
under House Education and Workforce and Senate Health, Education, Labor and
Pensions jurisdiction. Finally, the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act,
under Senate and House Judiciary committees jurisdiction, authorizes grants to
improve handling of child welfare cases. They are to be administered, primarily, by
the Department of Justice and received initial funding of $2 million in FY2002.
This report reflects legislative action through the first session of the 107th
Congress and will not be updated.

Contents
Final Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Legislative History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Program Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Family Preservation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Family Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Time-Limited Family Reunification Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Adoption Promotion and Support Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Use of Funds by States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Allocation Among Service Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Other Sources of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Court Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Related Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Child Welfare Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Adoption Incentive Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Community-Based Family Resource and Support Program . . . . . . . . 12
Adoption Opportunities Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
FY2002 Funding and Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Changes approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Administration proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Subcommittee markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Full committee mark-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Senate action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Differences between final legislation and earlier proposals . . . . . . . . 19
Funding history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Major Differences Between Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Amendments Enacted and Earlier Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Table 2. Final and Proposed Appropriations for the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families and Selected Related Programs, FY2000-FY2002 . . . . . . . 22

Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program in the 107th Congress
Final Developments
On January 17, 2002, President Bush signed the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Amendments of 2001 (H.R. 2873) into law. The bill passed the House on
November 13, 2001 (H.Rept. 107-281) and the Senate on December 13, 2001. The
Senate-passed legislation was identical to the House bill. The new law (P.L. 107-133)
reauthorizes the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program for 5 years (FY2002-
FY2006), maintains the FY2001 mandatory funding level of $305 million in each of
those years, authorizes additional discretionary funding of $200 million annually, and
grants new program authority to provide mentoring services for children of prisoners
(discretionary authorization of $67 million in FY2002 and FY2003, such sums as
necessary in FY2004-FY2006). In addition, the enacted legislation allows states to
use Promoting Safe and Stable Families funds for infant “safe haven” programs,
provides for reallocation of unused program funds, clarifies language defining family
support programs, and gives more explicit instructions to the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) regarding use of funds set aside for research, evaluation
and technical assistance. Finally, the new law amends the Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program to add new funds (discretionary authorization of $60 million
in each of FY2002-FY2006) for education and training vouchers to assist older foster
care youths and those who have recently aged out of the foster care system.
The FY2002 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act (H.R. 3061) was signed
into law on January 10, 2002, and provides $375 million for the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families Program ($305 million mandatory funds; $70 million discretionary
appropriation). As enacted, the appropriation law does not include FY2002 funding
for mentoring children of prisoners grants or the foster-care related education and
training vouchers. Although money for these initiatives had been requested by
President Bush in his FY2002 budget, they were not authorized at the time final
FY2002 appropriation levels were negotiated and neither the House, Senate nor
Conference bill included funding for them. (See H.R. 3061, S. 1536, and H.Rept.
107-342). At the January signing of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Amendments, President Bush announced that his FY2003 budget will call for $505
million in Safe and Stable funds, along with $25 million in “start-up” funds for the
mentoring children of prisoners initiative and $60 million for education and training
to older or former foster care youths.

CRS-2
Introduction
Authorization of funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program
(first created in 1993 under a different name) had expired at the end of FY2001; thus,
the 107th Congress acted to reauthorize this program and make some program
changes (H.R. 2873, P.L. 107-133). As previously authorized the program (Subpart
2 of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act) used mandatory funds to provides grants
to states for use in four categories of services:
! family preservation;
! community-based family support;
! time-limited family reunification; and
! adoption promotion and support.
In addition, funds are reserved from the Safe and Stable Families appropriation each
year for national evaluations of activities supported by this program and grants to
state courts to help them improve their child welfare proceedings. The Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program, including the grants to courts, is administered by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its legislation is under the
jurisdiction of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees.
P.L. 107-133 continues to fund these four broad categories of child welfare
services, along with state court improvement grants and evaluations; however, it
changes the program’s funding authorization. The new law sets an annual mandatory
funding base of $305 million and separately allows for discretionary appropriations
(up to $200 million annually). The law also provides that out of any discretionary
funds appropriated a certain amount must be added to the previously established set-
asides for program evaluation and court improvement grants.
Legislative History
Congress first created a “family preservation and family support” program in
1993, in response to the widespread perception of a crisis in the nation’s child
welfare system. The crack cocaine epidemic was generally blamed for precipitating
the dramatic growth in foster care that occurred during the mid-to-late 1980s, which
highlighted and exacerbated ongoing concerns about the impact on children of other
forms of substance and alcohol abuse, poverty, homelessness, AIDS, and mental
illness. As the foster care caseload grew, the child welfare system faced high staff
turnover and low morale, a shrinking supply of foster parents and foster homes, and
a shortage of related support services such as drug and alcohol treatment and mental
health care.
To address these issues, child welfare agencies in some states and localities
developed innovative services, including intensive family preservation services to
help families in crisis avoid losing their children to foster care. However, federal
funds were generally available only after children were placed in foster care, rather
than to help provide services for families to prevent placement in foster care. Thus,
these early family preservation activities depended largely on nonfederal and private
resources. At the same time, growth in the foster care population resulted in large

CRS-3
increases in federal spending to help support these children, and Congress became
interested in family preservation services as a means of slowing down this growth.1
While proposed by the Clinton Administration, the program enacted in 1993
built upon provisions developed and passed by the 102nd Congress (as a component
of urban aid and tax legislation). Former President Bush vetoed this earlier legislation
(H.R. 11) for reasons unrelated to child welfare. Ultimately, legislation establishing
this program was included in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L.
103-66), which made a number of changes in federal child welfare law.
The 1993 law authorized capped entitlement grants to states for family
preservation and family support services under Subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social
Security Act. States already had flexibility to spend child welfare services funds
available under Subpart 1 of Title IV-B2 for family support and preservation
activities, but few states appeared to use a significant share of such dollars for these
kinds of services. Entitlement funding was granted for 5 years at the following
ceilings:
! $60 million in FY1994;
! $150 million in FY1995;
! $225 million in FY1996;
! $240 million in FY1997; and
! either $255 million in FY1998 or the FY1997 level adjusted for
inflation, whichever was greater.
Separate from this legislation, debate was ongoing in the child welfare
community about the challenge of achieving an appropriate balance between family
preservation and child protection. By 1997, some policy makers were concerned that
efforts to promote family preservation had gone too far. Some argued that child
safety was jeopardized by premature decisions to return children home, and that
extended efforts to rehabilitate parents caused children to linger indefinitely in foster
care. In response, Congress enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)
(P.L. 105-89) in November 1997 with two primary goals: to make child safety
paramount in child welfare decisions; and to ensure that necessary legal procedures
occur quickly, so children who cannot return home can be placed for adoption or
another permanent arrangement without unnecessary delay. To achieve these goals,
ASFA made significant amendments to the foster care provisions authorized under
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.3
1 Under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, the federal government reimburses states for
a part of their eligible foster care costs on an open-ended entitlement basis. Thus, as the
number of children in the foster care population increases, federal spending also increases.
There is no cap on federal foster care expenditures. Between 1985 and 1990, the number
of children in foster care nationwide increased from 276,000 to 400,000, while federal
spending grew from $794 million to $1.9 billion.
2 For information about this program, see discussion of related programs in this report.
3 See CRS Report RL30759, Child Welfare: Implementation of the Adoption and Safe
Families Act.

CRS-4
Because ASFA increased pressure on parents to resolve their problems quickly
or potentially face termination of their rights to their children, lawmakers felt
additional services should be made available for these parents. Moreover, the law
promotes adoption for children who cannot be reunified with their families, and a
need for adoption-related services also was identified. Thus, although the Family
Preservation and Family Support Program was not yet due to expire, Congress
responded to these concerns by including an extension of the program in the 1997
ASFA legislation, along with amendments responding to these concerns.
ASFA changed the program’s name to Promoting Safe and Stable Families and
reauthorized it through FY2001 at the following entitlement ceiling levels:
! $275 million for FY1999;
! $295 million for FY2000; and
! $305 million for FY2001.
In addition, ASFA added two more categories of services that states are now required
to provide under this program: time-limited family reunification; and adoption
promotion and support.
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 (H.R. 2873)
were introduced on September 10, 2001, by Representatives Wally Herger and
Benjamin Cardin. As introduced (and drafted earlier by the Bush Administration),
the bill sought mandatory funding for the program of $505 million in each of
FY2002-FY2006. The President’s FY2002 budget request also asked for this
mandatory funding level. However, at the August 2001 mid-session budget review,
the Office of Management and Budget changed the Administration’s budget request
for additional Promoting Safe and Stable Families program from mandatory to
discretionary funds. Subsequently, the September 11 terrorist attacks and related
national security and other spending prompted concern among some Congress
members about new program costs. Although support for the full $505 million in
mandatory funds remained in the Senate (see bi-partisan support for S. 1503
introduced October 4, 2001) and among House Democrats, Congress ultimately
passed a five-year program reauthorization (FY2002-FY2006) that maintained a $305
million base in mandatory funding and allowing annual discretionary appropriations
up to $200 million.
Program Elements
From the entitlement ceiling amounts for Safe and Stable Families (now set at
$305 million through FY2006), $6 million in each fiscal year is reserved for use by
the Secretary of HHS to fund research, training, technical assistance and evaluation4
and $10 million in each fiscal year is reserved for grants to state courts (program
described below).5 Finally, 1% of the entitlement dollars are reserved for allotment
to Indian tribes each year. In addition to these amounts, P.L. 107-133 provides that
4 This set-aside was $2 million in FY1994.
5 This set-aside was $5 million in FY1994.

CRS-5
out of any discretionary funds appropriated for the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program ($70 million in FY2002), 2% be added to the existing set-aside for
Indian Tribes; 3.3% be added to the set-aside for grants to state courts; and an
additional 3.3% be added to the set aside for research, training, technical assistance
and evaluation. After these set-asides are made, remaining program funds are
allocated among states according to their relative shares of children receiving food
stamps, subject to a 25% nonfederal match.
States must submit a plan to HHS that provides a detailed account of how
money will be used under the Safe and Stable Families program. Prior to enactment
of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89), at least 90% of each state’s
allotment had to be used for the original two categories of services: family
preservation, and community-based family support services. As described above,
P.L. 105-89 added two new categories: time-limited family reunification services,
and adoption promotion and support services. States now must use at least 90% for
these four categories. No more than 10% of funds can be used for administration.
The federal statute does not specify a percentage or minimum amount of funds
that must be spent on any particular category of service, but says that states must
devote “significant portions” of their expenditures to each of the four. In annual
program instructions, HHS has said that states must have a “strong rationale” for
spending less than 20% of their allotments on each of the four categories of services.
(See below, Use of Funds by States, for more information.) No income eligibility
criteria apply to families served in any component of this program.
Family Preservation Services. Family preservation services may be
defined broadly to encompass a range of activities and service delivery models
designed to keep at-risk families together and avoid the need to place children in
foster care. The target population is children and families, including extended and
adoptive families, that are at risk or in crisis. The statute authorizes the following:
programs to help reunite children with their biological families, if safe and
appropriate, or to place them for adoption or another permanent arrangement;
programs to prevent placement of children in foster care, including intensive family
preservation services that can enable children to remain at home safely; programs to
provide followup services to families after a child has been returned from foster care;
respite care to provide temporary relief for parents and other caregivers (including
foster parents); services to improve parenting skills; and (newly authorized by P.L.
107-133) infant safe haven programs “to provide a way for a parent to safely
relinquish a newborn infant” at a location designated pursuant to state law.
Among this array of activities, intensive family preservation services have
received the greatest attention, especially in the program’s early years, as a potentially
cost-effective way to prevent children from entering foster care. These services are
known by various names at the state and local level but generally share some basic
features: round-the-clock availability of the caseworker to the family; very small
caseloads to allow services to be intensive; an average of 8 to 10 hours per week
spent with the family, primarily with direct face-to-face contact; and a time limit on
intensive service delivery, generally ranging from 4 to 12 weeks. One of the earliest
and best known family preservation programs is Homebuilders, which began in 1974
in Tacoma, Washington, and has served as a model for other programs around the

CRS-6
country. However, recent evaluations of this model have not produced significant
positive impacts on reducing the placement of children into foster care. (See
evaluation discussion, below.)
Family Support Services. Family support services are intended to reach
families that are not yet in crisis and to prevent child abuse or neglect from occurring.
As described in the statute, family support services are community-based activities
designed to promote the safety and well-being of children and families, to increase
the strength and stability of families (including adoptive, foster, and extended
families), to increase parents’ confidence and competence, to provide children with
a safe, stable and supportive family environment, and to enhance child development.
P.L. 107-133 clarified this definition of family support services by adding “to
strengthen parental relationships and promote healthy marriages” to the kinds of
activities they provide.
Examples of services from the conference agreement on the 1993 law include
parenting skills training, respite care to relieve parents and other caregivers,
structured activities involving parents and children to strengthen their relationships,
drop-in centers for families, information and referral services, and early
developmental screening for children.
During hearings on the original 1993 legislation, HHS cited the following
examples of family support activities: home visiting programs for first-time parents
of newborns to connect them with appropriate services if needed; programs to train
mothers in the community to visit participating parents and share activities to
enhance the development of preschoolers; and state or regional networks of family
support centers that provide services to young mothers.
Time-Limited Family Reunification Services. As added by the Adoption
and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89), time-limited reunification services are intended
to facilitate the timely reunification of children who have been removed from home
and placed in foster care. These services are intended to return children to their
families within 15 months of their having entered foster care, if safe and appropriate.
Reunification services for children and their families include counseling, substance
abuse treatment services, mental health services, assistance to address domestic
violence, temporary child care and therapeutic services such as crisis nurseries, and
transportation to and from these activities. Lawmakers placed a 15-month limit on
these services to be consistent with another provision in the Adoption and Safe
Families Act of 1997, which requires states to initiate proceedings to terminate
parental rights in the case of children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most
recent 22 months.
Adoption Promotion and Support Services. Adoption promotion and
support services, also added to the law by P.L. 105-89, are activities designed to
encourage more adoptions out of the foster care system. Services include pre- and
post-adoptive services and activities designed to expedite adoptions and support
adoptive families.

CRS-7
Use of Funds by States
HHS contracted for a study of the implementation of this program, as part of a
larger contract to evaluate the program’s impact (discussed below). Reports on the
program’s implementation provide some information on decisions made by states in
the use of these funds.
Allocation Among Service Categories. In 1999, James Bell Associates
released an interim report on the family preservation and family support services
implementation study, describing state and local planning efforts, the relationship of
planning to service delivery, and the design of programs.6 This report looked at state
activities prior to the enactment of the 1997 amendments, when only two categories
of services were authorized. The contractor found that services did not fall neatly
into the categories of family preservation and family support as defined in the
legislation, although the majority of services were in general more characteristic of
family support programs. This was consistent with findings of the General
Accounting Office (GAO), which also studied the issue before enactment of the 1997
amendments, and reported that states were using more than half of their funds for
family support services.7 Family support services are designed for a broader
population than family preservation activities.
In March 2001, James Bell released another implementation report on the
intended use of funds by states in 1999. This was the first year that states were
required to spend a portion of their allotments on the two new categories of services:
time-limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support.8 The report
shows that four states did not plan to spend the required minimum of 20% of their
allotments on family preservation services, and one state did not plan to use 20% of
funds for family support. However, 19 states intended to spend less than 20% on
time-limited family reunification in 1999, while 18 states planned to spend less than
20% on adoption promotion and support. Nationwide, projected allocations for
FY1999 were: 29% for family preservation; 40% for family support; 16% for time-
limited family reunification; and 15% for adoption promotion and support.
HHS requires states to submit a rationale for spending less than 20% on each
category, and some states indicated they were phasing in the new categories to avoid
disruption of existing family preservation and family support activities. Other states
said they deferred the decision-making process to local entities, and some states
failed to provide a rationale.
6 James Bell Associates, Family Preservation and Family Support Implementation Study:
Interim Report, March 1999, Executive summary at the Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation web site:
[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/exsum.htm]
7 U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: States’ Progress in Implementing Family
Preservation and Support Services. HEHS-97-34, Washington, D.C., 1997.
8 James Bell Associates, Analysis of States’ 1998 Annual Progress and Services Reports:
The Family Preservation and Family Support Services (FP/FS) Implementation Study.
Arlington, Va., March 23, 2001.

CRS-8
Looking at 30 states for which comparable data are available for each of the
three fiscal years from 1997 to 1999, James Bell noted that states had been devoting
more of their resources to family support in the early years than to family
preservation. However, when states had to reallocate resources in order to
accommodate the two new categories, they shifted program funding away from
family support to a greater extent than from family preservation. Specifically, states
used 59% of their Safe and Stable Families allotments for family support services in
FY1997, which dropped to 39% in FY1999. At the same time, states used 41% of
their allotments for family preservation in FY1997, which was reduced to 32% in
FY1999.
Other Sources of Funds. James Bell also reported that the Safe and Stable
Families program contributes only a small part of total spending for the four services
it supports. The single largest source of support for family preservation services has
been state and local resources, accounting for 48% of total spending in 1997 and an
estimated 67% in 1999. Likewise, state and local resources are the single largest
source of support for family support services, accounting for 43% of total spending
for that category in 1997 and 58% in 1999. The increase in the proportion of state
and local spending for these two categories between 1997 and 1999 may reflect
efforts to maintain overall service levels, while federal funds have been reallocated
to accommodate the two newest categories of services.
The second largest source of funding for family preservation has been the Social
Services Block Grant (SSBG), which accounted for 14% of spending in 1997 and
12% in 1999. Meanwhile, Safe and Stable Families accounted for 9% of total
spending on family preservation in 1997 and 5% in 1999. SSBG provided 15% of
the resources for family support in both 1997 and 1999 (although 21% in 1998),
while Safe and Stable Families contributed 12% of total spending in 1997 and 6%
in 1999. (Other sources of support for both categories included child welfare
services under Subpart 1 of Title IV-B, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF), other federal funds, and, in the case of family support services,
Title II of the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) and the
independent living program for older foster youth in the case of family support
services.)
In 1999 – the first year that states were required to devote Safe and Stable
Families funds to time-limited family reunification – the program accounted for 9%
of total spending in this area, compared to 64% from state and local funds, 18% from
Medicaid, 4% from SSBG, 3% from TANF, and 2% from child welfare services.
The Safe and Stable Families program was most significant for adoption promotion
and support in 1999, providing 37% of total spending in that category. Nonetheless,
the largest source of support was state and local resources, which accounted for 56%
of total spending. Other sources of support were TANF (4%), child welfare services
(2%), and other federal funds (1%).
Evaluations
The Secretary of HHS is required to evaluate activities funded under this
program, and in September 1994, funded three evaluation projects: a study of the
implementation of family preservation and family support (discussed above); a

CRS-9
national evaluation of family preservation and reunification programs; and a national
evaluation of family support programs. These projects are still underway and no final
reports on the national evaluations have yet been published. However, several
interim reports are available and more reports are expected to be released this year.
In May 1995, the contractors submitted two products, including a literature
review of existing research on family preservation and family reunification and a
description of the range of program models then in existence.9 Although numerous
studies had been conducted of individual programs, leading to initial enthusiasm for
the family preservation approach, the 1995 literature review found “little solid
evidence” demonstrating that programs designed to prevent foster care placement or
to reunify families had achieved their intended goals. Nonexperimental studies had
produced misleading results, and the few controlled studies that had been conducted
yielded mixed findings. The research suggested that family preservation programs
had only modest effects on family and child functioning, although the contractors
suggested that it would be unrealistic to expect dramatic results in this area, given the
scope of problems facing child welfare clients and the short-term nature of family
preservation services. Regarding family reunification, the contractors noted that
evaluations of such programs were still very preliminary but that a few studies had
reported encouraging results.
In 1998, the contractors submitted a final report on one specific family
reunification project, known as HomeRebuilders in New York City.10 This project
began in 1993 and tested an alternative payment method for foster care in which six
local agencies received a flat rate for serving an identified group of children in foster
care for a 3-year period. These funds could be used for foster care or any service the
agencies believed would achieve permanency. Funding was “front-loaded” in the
first year to encourage early discharge, and agencies could retain any savings they
realized if the children left foster care before the end of the 3 years. The impact of
HomeRebuilders varied across the six participating agencies. Earlier discharge from
foster care and fewer days in care was achieved in one of the three agencies using
random assignment, with a 13% difference between the experimental and control
groups. This outcome did not occur at the other two random assignment sites,
however, although one of the nonrandom assignment agencies did show fewer days
in foster care. The contractors concluded that changes in fiscal incentives alone are
not likely to result in major child welfare reform, but that other factors are needed for
reform to occur, such as clear decisionmaking protocols, triage strategies, and data
systems that can be used for case and program management.
9 Westat, Inc., James Bell Associates, and Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University
of Chicago, A Review of Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs, and A
Synthesis of Research on Family Preservation and Family Reunification Programs, both
May 1995, Available at the Assistant Secretary of HHS for Planning and Evaluation web
site: [http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/hspyoung.htm].
10 Westat Inc., Chapin Hall Center for Children, and James Bell Associates, Evaluation of
the New York City Home ReBuilders Demonstration, September 1998. Available at the
Assistant Secretary of HHS for Planning and Evaluation web site:
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/hspyoung.htm]

CRS-10
Most recently, in January 2001, HHS released an interim report on the national
evaluation of family preservation and reunification programs, which studied the
impact of the Homebuilders model on outcomes in several sites in three states
(Kentucky, New Jersey, and Tennessee).11 This research found no statistical
difference between control and experimental groups in any of the states with regard
to rates of placement in foster care or case closings. Likewise, no differences were
found with regard to subsequent child maltreatment. Improvements in some family
functioning outcomes were seen at the point when services ended, but these findings
were not consistent across sites nor maintained over time. Interestingly, however, a
significant portion of program participants in two states reported great improvement
in their lives at the end of treatment.
In their conclusion, the researchers suggested that these findings should be used
to re-evaluate the objectives of family preservation programs. They suggest focusing
on improving child and family functioning among families with substantiated
maltreatment reports, but where the children are able to remain home, rather than
attempting to prevent placement of children who are at imminent risk of foster care.
The researchers suggested that tighter targeting of family preservation services might
produce more positive impacts. Finally, they noted that the short-term nature of
intensive family preservation services might be inconsistent with the real lives of
program clients, who are likely to experience chronic or recurring problems, and may
need access to longer term services in addition to short-term crisis intervention.
Court Improvement Program
A portion of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families entitlement funds is
reserved for a grant program to the highest court in each state to assess and improve
certain child welfare proceedings. The court set-aside equaled $5 million in FY1995
and $10 million in each of FY1996 through FY2001. Based on the $375 million
funding level for FY2002, including the increased set aside out of appropriated
discretionary funds, FY2002 funding for this program is expected to be $12.3
million. A 25% nonfederal match is required. Each state with an approved
application receives $85,000, with the balance of funds allocated among eligible
states according to the relative size of their population of individuals under age 21.
Courts use these grant funds to assess their procedures and effectiveness in
determinations regarding foster care placement, termination of parental rights (TPR),
and recognition of adoptions. Courts also can use these grant funds to implement
changes found necessary as a result of the assessments. The rules for spending these
funds were originally set out in Section 13712 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1993 but, with the enactment of P.L. 107-133, have been moved to Section
438 of the Social Security Act. According to HHS, 49 states and the District of
11 Westat Inc., Chapin Hall Center for Children, and James Bell Associates, Evaluation of
Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report, January 2001. Available
at the Assistant Secretary of HHS for Planning and Evaluation web site:
[http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/hspyoung.htm].

CRS-11
Columbia participated in this program as of FY1999. South Carolina no longer
participated in the program.12
According to a review conducted for HHS on court improvement activities
during 1995-98, states conducted thorough assessments of their judicial systems and
came up with various recommendations.13 Categories where improvement was most
commonly recommended were: representation of parties, timeliness of decisions,
management information systems, quality of court hearings, judicial expertise,
multidisciplinary training for court participants, coordination between the courts and
child welfare agency or service providers, treatment and participation of parties, and
resources for courts and social services. The activities most commonly implemented
included: development of training and educational materials; pilot programs;
revision of legislation, court rules and judicial directives; development of automated
case tracking systems, public relations campaigns and local work groups;
supplemental assessments or studies; increased number of attorneys, judges and other
court personnel; hiring of court improvement coordinating staff; and improved
treatment of parties.
The report found that court improvement changes were still at an early stage,
partially because initial assessments took longer to complete than expected and also
because reforms requiring new legislation or staff require time to implement.
However, the report concluded that the Court Improvement Program had raised the
visibility of courts within the child welfare system and provided states with flexibility
and resources to address court-related challenges.
In September 2001 HHS awarded an 18-month contract to James Bell
Associates to design an evaluation model for the Court Improvement Program. The
Department currently plans to fund further evaluation of the program, based on this
evaluation design, following its completion.
Related Programs
Several programs exist – either as part of the Social Security Act or free-
standing legislation – that have related, or similar goals, to the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families program.14 The following provides brief information on these
programs.
12 For information on state Court Improvement Projects, see the web site of the American
Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law:
[http://www.abanet.org/child/courtimp.html].
13 James Bell Associates, Review and Analysis of State Program Reports Related to The
Court Improvement Program, Arlington, Va., June 1999.
14 In addition to the programs described in this section, which authorize funds for activities
similar or related to those funded under Promoting Safe and Stable Families, Title IV-E of
the Social Security Act authorizes open-ended entitlement funding to reimburse states for
part of the costs of supporting foster children and providing subsidies to parents who adopt
children with special needs. This is the largest source of federal funds for child welfare-
related activities, with estimated expenditures of $5 billion for foster care and $1.2 billion
for adoption assistance in FY2001.

CRS-12
Child Welfare Services. Matching grants to states for child welfare services,
defined broadly, are authorized under Subpart 1 of Title IV-B of the Social Security
Act. The law’s definition encompasses virtually everything authorized under
Promoting Safe and Stable Families: “public social services which are directed
toward the accomplishment of the following purposes: (A) protecting and promoting
the welfare of all children, including handicapped, homeless, dependent, or neglected
children; (B) preventing or remedying, or assisting in the solution of problems which
may result in, the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or delinquency of children; (C)
preventing the unnecessary separation of children from their families by identifying
family problems, assisting families in resolving their problems, and preventing
breakup of the family where the prevention of child removal is desirable and
possible; (D) restoring to their families children who have been removed, by the
provision of services to the child and the families; (E) placing children in suitable
adoptive homes, in cases where restoration to the biological family is not possible or
appropriate; and (F) assuring adequate care of children away from their homes, in
cases where the child cannot be returned home or cannot be placed for adoption.”
The law permanently authorizes annual funding of $325 million; however, the
amount actually provided is left to the discretion of the appropriations process. For
FY2002 program funding held level at $292 million. Funds are allocated among
states according to a formula based on the state’s population under age 21 and per
capita income, and federal grants require a 25% nonfederal match. States have broad
discretion in the use of these funds and no federal eligibility criteria apply to the
children or families served. To receive funds under Title IV-B, states must develop
a plan jointly with HHS that satisfies various requirements, many of which are
intended to assure safety and permanency for children who enter the state’s foster
care system. However, no information is collected to indicate how states actually use
their grants under this program.
Adoption Incentive Grants. As an incentive for states to increase their
numbers of foster children and special needs children who are adopted, Title IV-E
of the Social Security Act authorizes payments to the states for increased adoptions
over a baseline level. The payments can be used for any activity authorized under
Title IV-B or IV-E, which would include anything authorized under Promoting Safe
and Stable Families. The payments equal $4,000 for each foster child adoption, and
$6,000 for each special needs adoption, above the baseline for each. The law
authorizes annual appropriations for these incentive payments in FY1999-FY2003,
for adoptions finalized in FY1998-FY2002. To be eligible for the payments, which
are 100% federally funded, states must submit necessary data to HHS on the number
of their qualifying adoptions and, for FY2001-FY2002, must meet requirements
regarding health insurance for adopted children. The FY2002 appropriation for
adoption incentive grants is $43 million.
Community-Based Family Resource and Support Program. Title II
of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) authorizes grants to help
establish and operate statewide networks of community-based, prevention-focused,
family resource and support programs that coordinate a wide variety of resources
within each state. With regard to its overall purpose, this program is similar to the
community-based family support services component of Safe and Stable Families.

CRS-13
All of CAPTA, including the Community-Based Family Resource and Support
Program under Title II, expired at the end of FY2001. However, both the House and
Senate have acted to provide funds for this program in FY2002.15 (Legislation
authorizing CAPTA is overseen by the House Education and the Workforce and
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committees, while Promoting
Safe and Stable Families is overseen by the House Ways and Means and Senate
Finance Committees).
To receive funds under CAPTA’s Community-Based Family Resource and
Support Program, states must designate a lead entity to oversee the statewide
network, which can be a public, quasi-public, or private nonprofit entity. States
submit an application to HHS that describes the lead entity, includes an inventory of
family resource and support programs in the state and a description of unmet needs,
and contains a budget of which at least 20% comes from nonfederal cash resources.
Funds are awarded to states according to a two-part formula: 70% based on
population under age 18; and 30% based on the amount of nonfederal funds raised
by the state for administration by the lead entity, as compared to all other states. Of
funds appropriated, 1% is reserved for grants to Indian tribes and tribal organizations
and migrant programs.
Local programs in the statewide network must provide certain “core” services
directly, such as parent education, outreach, referral and followup. Other core
services, including respite care, must be provided through contracts or arrangements
with other local agencies. Programs must provide access to “optional” services, such
as adoption counseling, child care, services for families with disabled children,
referral to job readiness and educational services, self-sufficiency and life
management training, community referral services, and peer counseling. Local
programs must involve parents in their operations, show leadership in mobilizing
other resources, and participate with other grantees of the statewide network.
Community-based family resource and support grants are a discretionary
program, with $66 million authorized for FY1997 and “such sums as necessary” for
each year thereafter through FY2001. Actual appropriations for this program were
$33.4 million in FY2002.
Adoption Opportunities Program. The Adoption Opportunities Program,
(authorized under Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Reform
Act) also expired at the end of FY2001 and is under the jurisdiction of the House
Education and the Workforce and Senate HELP Committees. The program provides
grants and contracts to promote and support adoption, particularly for children with
special needs. Thus, in its overall purpose, this program is similar to the adoption
promotion and support component of Safe and Stable Families; however, Adoption
Opportunities grants are competitively awarded to public and private nonprofit
organizations, while Safe and Stable Families is administered by the states.
Authorization levels for the Adoption Opportunities Program were $20 million in
15 For more information, see CRS Report RL30923, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act: Reauthorization in the 107th Congress.

CRS-14
FY1997 and “such sums as necessary” thereafter through FY2001. The actual
appropriation for FY2002 was $27.4 million.
Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act. This law was enacted
at the end of the 106th Congress, and authorizes three grant programs, two of which
can offer funds to state and local courts and are related to the purposes of the Court
Improvement set-aside within the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. A
total of $10 million for the period of FY2001-FY2005 is authorized for automation
grants to state and local courts, to be administered by the Justice Department and to
be used to automate records of child abuse and neglect cases. A total of $10 million
is also authorized for the period of FY2001-FY2002 for grants to state and local
courts for activities to reduce their backlogs of child abuse and neglect cases. This
program would be administered by the Justice Department, in collaboration with
HHS. Congress did not appropriate funding for these grant programs in FY2001. In
September the Senate passed an amendment to its FY2002 Commerce-Justice-State
Appropriations bill that would have provided $5 million for grant programs
authorized under the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Act. House and Senate
conferees removed mention of the Act from the text of the law but inserted a $2
million line item for Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Court Acts in the report
language. The Conference Report on H.R. 2500 (H.Rept. 107-278) was subsequently
approved by Congress and President Bush signed the legislation into law in
November 2001 (P.L. 107-77). (For more information, see CRS Report RS20806,
Child Welfare: Strengthening Child Abuse and Neglect Courts Act.)
FY2002 Funding and Legislation in the 107th Congress
On December 13, 2001, the Senate passed (under suspension) the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Amendments of 2001 as the legislation was approved by the
House on November 13, 2001 (H.R. 2873, H.Rept 107-281). As adopted by Congress
and subsequently signed into law by President Bush (P.L. 107-133), the bill
reauthorizes the FY2001 mandatory funding level of $305 million for each of the
next five fiscal years (FY2002-FY2006), allows additional discretionary funding of
$200 million in each of those years, and creates new program authority for a
mentoring children of prisoners initiative. The bill also includes a new initiative
under the Foster Care Independence Program to provide education and training
vouchers for older foster care youths and for those who recently aged out of the foster
care system.
The legislation (H.R. 2873) approved by the full Congress matched the bill as
it was reported to the floor of the House from the October 31, 2001 Ways and Means
Committee’s mark-up. It amends an original Administration-drafted version of the
bill that sought an annual mandatory $200 million increase in funds for Safe and
Stable Families as well as the new program authority for mentoring children of
prisoners. On October 4, 2001, Senator Rockefeller and 11 co-sponsors introduced
bipartisan Senate legislation that matched the Administration’s proposal. On
September 25, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources,
acting in light of fiscal uncertainties created by the September 11 terrorist attacks,
had initially scaled-back the Administration-backed bill to approve a two-year
funding reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families at $305 million

CRS-15
annually. The subcommittee also removed bill language authorizing the mentoring
children of prisoners initiative.
Although funding authorization for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program expired before the reauthorization legislation cleared Congress, both the
House and Senate passed FY2002 appropriations legislation to raise program funding
to $375 million (H.R. 3061, including S.Amdt. 2080) and this amount was included
in the final FY2002 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-116).
Changes approved. The final legislation (H.R. 2873, P.L. 107-133) makes
the following changes to current law (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security
Act):
! reauthorizes mandatory funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program for 5 years (FY2002-FY2006) at an annual level
of $305 million;
! authorizes additional discretionary funds of $200 million in each of
FY2002-FY2006 for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program;
! maintains the current annual reservations out of the mandatory
funds: $6 million for evaluation, research, training, and technical
assistance, $10 million for state court improvement grants, and 1%
for Indian tribes, but provides that out of any discretionary funds
appropriated, these additional set-asides be made: 3.3% for
evaluations, research, training and technical assistance, 3.3% for
state court improvement grants, and 2% for Indian tribes;
! adopts criteria for priority research and defines technical assistance
to be offered to states and tribes;
! provides that funds certified as unused by a state in a given year may
be reallocated;
! redefines family preservation services to allow states to use these
resources to support infant “safe haven” programs; and
! redefines family support services to explicitly include programs that
“strengthen parental relationships and promote healthy marriages.”
H.R. 2873 also includes program authority and discretionary funding for a new
initiative that would support mentoring services to children of prisoners. The new
program would be a separately defined and funded part of the Promoting Safe and
Stable Families Program located in Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act.
The final legislation:
! creates new program authority to provide mentoring services to
children of prisoners for FY2002-FY2006,

CRS-16
! authorizes $67 million in discretionary funds for grants to provide
mentoring services in each of FY2002 and FY2003, and such sums
as necessary in succeeding years,
! assigns administration of these grants to the HHS secretary,
! limits an individual grant to no more than $5 million, and allows
them to be offered to state or local governments, community-based
and faith-based organizations, and tribes or tribal groups in areas
where there are significant numbers of children of prisoners,
! requires grantees to use non-federal resources to make a minimum
25% in-kind or cash match of federal funds for the first two years of
a grant award and a minimum 50% match in succeeding years, and
! reserves 2.5% of the funds appropriated for evaluation of the
mentoring program.
Finally, P.L. 107-133 amends Title IV-E of the Social Security Act to provide
education and training vouchers for youths who are aging out of foster care and those
who have recently aged out of the system. The enacted legislation amends the Chafee
Foster Care Independence Program to allow $60 million in annual discretionary
funding (FY2002-FY2006) for this voucher initiative. (For more information see
CRS Report RS20230 Child Welfare: The Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program.)
Administration proposal. President Bush made a $1 billion increase in child
welfare spending a 2000 election campaign pledge. In April 2001 the President
submitted his FY2002 budget requesting a $200 million increase in mandatory
funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program in each of 5 years
(FY2002-FY2006). The President’s budget proposal also called for $67 million in
discretionary FY2002 funding for grants to support mentoring services for children
of prisoners and $60 million in mandatory funds for each of FY2002- FY2006 for
education and training vouchers to youths aging out of foster care. In line with this
request, the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 83) anticipated a significant
increase in mandatory funding for these programs.16
In early August the Administration submitted the President’s funding requests
to the House as a part of a legislative proposal that sought to reauthorize the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program for 5 years (at an annual mandatory
appropriation of $505 million); strengthen and clarify the program purposes; allow
reallotment of program funds; redefine family support services to include promoting
and strengthening marriage; introduce specific criteria for approving research; define
technical assistance; delete a provision of current law that allows states to opt out of
criminal background checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents; and increase
16 See H.Rept. 107-26, p. 46 and explanation of House Resolution in Conference report on
the FY2002 budget resolution, H.Rept. 107-60, p. 62-63.

CRS-17
money reserved for Indian tribes, research, evaluation, training and technical
assistance, and state court improvement grants.
In addition, the Administration’s legislative proposal called for new program
authority and mandatory funds ($300 million over 5 years) to administer education
and training vouchers to youth aging out of foster care and to support a separate grant
program to provide mentoring services to children of prisoners. The Administration
sought this latter program authority to help children during the time their parents are
in prison, to enable them to maintain contact with their parents, and to increase the
likelihood of family reunification after the parent’s release. According to HHS budget
justifications for this proposal:
The arrest and incarceration of a parent often results in traumatic separations for
children, followed frequently by erratic shifts from one caregiver to another. As
a group, these children are less likely than their peers to succeed in school and
more likely to succumb to substance abuse, gangs, early childbearing, and
delinquency. Children of incarcerated mothers are particularly vulnerable, as
these children typically come from households where the mother was the sole
provider, making placement in foster care more likely when the mother is in
prison. The limited data available indicates that placements in foster care as a
result of a parent’s incarceration increased from 2.5% of the placements in 1997
to 5.9% (roughly 30,000 children) in 1999.

Subcommittee markup. On September 10, Representatives Herger and
Cardin introduced the Administration’s proposal as H.R. 2873 and on September 25,
the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources held a mark-up of
the legislation. Citing the September 11 terrorists attacks in the United States and a
subsequent desire for time to evaluate new fiscal priorities, Chairman Herger
introduced an amended bill at the mark-up that significantly scaled back proposals
in the Administration-drafted H.R. 2873. As subsequently adopted and reported by
the subcommittee, the Chairman’s mark reauthorized funding for the Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program for two years only (FY2002 and FY2003), maintained
the FY2001 mandatory funding level of $305 million, removed the program authority
and funding authorization for both the mentoring services to prisoners program and
the education and training vouchers initiative for youths aging out of foster care, and
deleted the provision denying states the ability to opt out of criminal background
checks for prospective foster and adoptive parents.
At the mark-up Representative Cardin introduced an amendment seeking to
restore the 5-year authorization with increased funding, as requested by the
Administration, but this amendment was defeated 8-to-5 along party lines. A second
Cardin amendment to restore increased funds for education and training vouchers to
youth who age out of foster care was ruled non-germane. Noting a lack of bipartisan
support, Cardin withdrew his third amendment, which would have restored the plan
for providing grants to support mentoring of children of prisoners.
The mid-session budget review, released by the Administration’s Office of
Management and Budget on August 22, 2001 changed the President’s FY2002
budget request for increased Promoting Safe and Stable Families from mandatory to
discretionary dollars, but this change was not discussed by the Administration’s
witness at the subcommittee hearing. Wade Horn, HHS Assistant Secretary for

CRS-18
Children and Families instead emphasized the Administration commitment to
obtaining all the resources requested. HHS continues to stand by the legislative
proposal it submitted to Congress in August.
Chairman Herger’s amendment, as approved by the subcommittee, did retain the
Administration’s smaller proposals, including, reallotment of any unused Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program funds, expanded guidance on the kinds of research,
evaluation, and technical assistance HHS should fund and provide, and clarification
of the family support services definition to include services that “strengthen parental
relationships and promote healthy marriages.” The subcommittee also adopted an
amendment brought by Representative English to allow program funds to be used for
infant safe haven programs.17 Since 1999, 35 states have adopted “safe haven”
programs intended to allow birthparents to safely relinquish their unharmed infants
without fear of prosecution. The English amendment redefines family preservation
services, one of the four key components of the Safe and Stable Families Program,
to include infant safe haven programs. (See CRS Report RS20901 “Safe Haven” for
Abandoned Infants: Background on the Issue and State Laws by (name redacted).)
Full committee mark-up. The full House Ways and Means Committee
considered H.R. 2873 at an October 31 mark-up session. At this mark-up Chairman
Bill Thomas, with Representative Herger, introduced a substitute to the
subcommittee-approved bill. The amendment restored the new program authority
sought by the Administration but changed the Administration-drafted H.R. 2873
request for new mandatory funding to discretionary funds.
Representative Cardin, arguing that Congress needed to do all it could to protect
the “most vulnerable” families, proposed restoring the mandatory funding for Safe
and Stable Families and the education and training vouchers. Members voted 14 to
20, along party lines, to reject this proposal. Members from both parties, however,
voiced approval for the policy aims of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Amendments, and Representative Herger noted that his concerns about increased
funding for the program had always been budget-related, rather than program-
related.18
Senate action. On December 13, 2001, the Senate, by unanimous consent,
approved H.R. 2873 as it had passed the House one month earlier. Sen. Rockefeller,
who along with a bipartisan group of colleagues had sponsored alternative
reauthorization legislation, supported the less generously funded House version “as
essential for the long-term security of this program.” (See Congressional Record,
December 13, 2001, S13225). As it was introduced on October 4 by Senator
Rockefeller and 11 co-sponsors, the Senate bill (S. 1503) closely matched the
Administration-drafted legislative proposal in calling for expanded program
authority and increased mandatory funds. S. 1503 sought 1) a 5-year reauthorization
of Safe and Stable Families with an annual funding ceiling of $505 million (including
17 For a separate report on the subcommittee mark-up, go to the National Journal website:
[http://nationaljournal.com/members/markups/2001/09/200126806.htm].
18 For a separate report on the full committee mark-up report, go to the National Journal
website: [http://nationaljournal.com/members/markups/2001/10/200130403.htm].

CRS-19
increased set-asides for state court improvement grants, research and evaluation, and
Indian tribes); 2) new program authority to allow grants for provision of mentoring
services to children of prisoners (with discretionary funding authorization of $67
million for FY2002 and such sums as necessary for FY2003-FY2006); 3) elimination
of state ability to opt-out of criminal background checks for prospective foster and
adoptive parents; and 4) $60 million in each of FY2002-2006 to provide education
and training vouchers for youths who age out of the foster care system.
In both S. 1503 and the Administration proposal, grants for mentoring children
of prisoners would have been made to local governments who submitted an
application for funds describing how the services would be designed and provided
by a network of public and private entities (including faith-based groups). The federal
funds would have been administered by HHS and available for up to 80% of program
cost for the first fiscal year with the federal share of costs paid declining to 60% in
year 2, 40% in year 3 and 20% in each subsequent year. Two-thirds of the grants
were allowed in amounts up to $5 million and one-third in amounts up to $10 million
each. (The legislation did not specify whether these grants were single or multi-
year.)19
Differences between final legislation and earlier proposals. The full
House Ways and Means Committee approved the legislation as it was ultimately
passed by the House. Differences between this version, the bill reported by Ways
and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources and the Administration’s proposal/S.
1503 are described in Table 1 below.
Funding history. Funding levels, approved and proposed, for the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program (FY2000 through FY2002) are shown in Table 2
below.
19 On February 13, 2001 Senator Hatch introduced S. 304, which, among other things, would
establish a program of counseling, training and mentoring for children of prisoners.
However, this legislation differs from S.1503/ the Bush Administration mentoring proposal
in several ways. First, it would be administered by the Department of Justice, rather than
by HHS. Second, the Justice Department would competitively award grants directly to
community-based organizations to provide services, rather than through grants to local
governments. Funding would come from the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and
would equal $25 million in FY2002 and such sums as necessary in the subsequent 2 years.

CRS-20
Table 1. Major Differences Between Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Amendments Enacted and Earlier Proposals
Safe and Stable
Proposal Reported
Proposed by
Families Amendments
by subcommittee
Administration/
Enacted (P.L. 107-133)
(H.R. 2873)
S. 1503
Promoting
Annual mandatory
Annual mandatory
Annual mandatory
Safe and
funding: $305 million.
funding: $305 million
funding: $505 million
Stable
Annual discretionary
Families:
funding: $200 million
funding and
set-asides
Out of any discretionary
No provision.
Out of $505 million: $15
funds appropriated:
(Maintains current set
million for FY2002 and
reserves 3.3% for
asides out of $305
$20 million FY2003-
research and training;
million in mandatory
FY2006 for research and
3.3% for state court
funds.)
training; $20 million for
improvement grants and
state court improvement
2% for Indian tribes.
grants and 2% for Indian
(Maintains current set-
tribes
aside out of $305
million in mandatory
funds: $6 million for
research and training;
$10 million for state
court improvement
grants; 1% for Indian
tribes)
Infant Safe Haven
Infant safe haven
No provision
programs among list of
programs among list
defined family
of defined family
preservation services
preservation services
New
Grants may be made to
No provision
Grants may be made to
program
state or local
local governments
authority:
government groups,
(working with public and
Grants for
community- or faith-
private groups, including
Mentoring
based organizations, and
faith-based organizations)
Children of
Indian tribes or tribal
Prisoners
consortia
No grant to exceed $5
No provision
Up to one-third of grants
million
may equal $10 million
Federal share of
No provision
Federal share of program
program cost capped at
cost capped at 80% in
75% in first two years of
first year of grant; 60%
grant; 50% in
second year: 40% third
succeeding years
year; and 20% in
succeeding years.
Discretionary funds
No provision
Discretionary funds
authorized: $67 million
authorized: $67 million in
in each of FY2002-
FY2002 and such sums as
FY2003 and such sums
necessary for succeeding
as necessary for
years
succeeding years

CRS-21
Safe and Stable
Proposal Reported
Proposed by
Families Amendments
by subcommittee
Administration/
Enacted (P.L. 107-133)
(H.R. 2873)
S. 1503
Criminal
No provision (maintains
No provision
State’s may not opt out of
background
opt-out provision)
(maintains opt-out
criminal background
checks
provision)
checks for prospective
foster and adoptive
parents
New
Discretionary fund s
No provision
Mandatory funds
program
authorized: $60 million in
authorized: $60 million in
authority:
each of FY2002-FY2006
each of FY2002-FY2006
Education
and training
vouchers

CRS-22
Table 2. Final and Proposed Appropriations for the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families and Selected Related Programs,
FY2000-FY2002
($ in millions)
Final
FY2002 Appropriations,
Appropriation
proposed and final
President’s
Program
FY2000
FY2001
request
House Senate
Final
Promoting Safe and
$295
$305
$505
$375
$375
$375
Stable Families
Child Welfare Services
$292
$292
$292
$292
$292
$292
(Title IV-B, Subpart 1)
CAPTA: Community
Based Family Resource
$33
$33
$33
$34
$33
$33
and Support Programa
Adoption Incentive
$42
$43
$43
$43
$43
$43
Program
Adoption Opportunities
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27
$27
Program
Strengthening Abuse and
Neglect Courtsb
NA
$0
$0
$0
$5
$2
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS) from U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services Budget Justifications, Administration budget documents, H.R. 2500 and H.R.
3061 (as passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and enacted).
a This program is authorized under Title II of Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA)
and funds programs similar to many of those authorized under the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program. Title I of CAPTA provides additional funds for research and demonstration
and grants to states to improve their child protective services systems.
b As of November 16 both the Senate and House had approved Conference Report language on the
Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations bill (H.R. 2500). The language includes a line item
in the report requesting $2 million for these grants. The Conference Report bill, unlike the
Senate version, does not include direct reference to the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts
Act.

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.