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

Congressional research reportOct 29, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Child Welfare: Funding for Child and Family

Services Authorized Under Title IV-B of the

Social Security Act

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

October 29, 2014

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R41860

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

Summary

Children depend on adults—usually their parents—to protect, support, and nurture them in their

homes. The broadest mission of public child welfare agencies is to strengthen all families in ways

that ensure children can depend on their parents to protect their safety, ensure they have a stable

and permanent home, and enhance their well-being. More specifically, public child welfare

agencies are expected to identify families where children are at risk of abuse or neglect and to

provide services to prevent maltreatment. Public child welfare agencies are also expected to

identify children who have been abused and neglected and to provide services and supports

necessary to ensure no further maltreatment occurs. These services may be provided while the

child remains living in his/her parent’s home or, if an out-of-home placement is necessary to

ensure the child’s safety, while the child is living in foster care.

Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, the federal government provides funds to states,

tribes, and territories to help ensure children’s safety, permanence, and well-being through the

provision of child welfare-related services to children and their families. These services may be

made available to any child, and his or her family, and without regard to whether the child is

living in his or her own home, living in foster care, or was previously living in foster care. Title

IV-B funds are primarily distributed to states via two formula grant programs. Combined FY2014

federal funding for these two programs—the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services

(CWS or Subpart 1) and the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF or Subpart 2) program—

was $649 million ($269 million for CWS and $380 million for PSSF). Funding for these two

programs, which represented 94% of the total $689 million in federal FY2014 funding provided

for all programs and activities under Title IV-B, has been declining in recent years.

The CWS and PSSF programs have overlapping purposes and are used to fund some of the same

services. At the same time, the programs have distinct federal requirements and spending patterns.

Many requirements under the CWS program are specific to protecting and otherwise ensuring the

safety and permanency of children in foster care. By contrast, requirements under the PSSF

program primarily focus on state planning for the delivery of child and family services for a

broader population, including setting goals and regularly reviewing progress toward those goals.

Under the CWS program states must ensure provision of case review and permanency planning

for each child in foster care, including those children who do not meet the federal eligibility

criteria to receive those services under the Title IV-E foster care program. Spending for

“protective services”—including child abuse and neglect investigations; caseworker visits to, and

permanency planning for, children in foster care; and other activities—represents the largest share

of federal funds expended under the CWS program. Combined, states anticipated spending close

to 41% of their federal FY2013 CWS funding on that purpose. At the same time, they expected to

spend close to that same share of CWS funding (more than 38%) on the four categories of child

and family services for which they are required to use their PSSF funding (i.e., family support,

family preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support).

States are required to spend no less than 90% of their PSSF child and family services funds on

four categories of services. Family support services are considered “upfront” spending in that

these dollars are spent to strengthen families so that children’s developmental needs are met and

neither abuse nor neglect occurs. The three remaining categories for which states must spend their

PSSF funds target some, or all, services on children in foster care and their families: Family

preservation services may be used to prevent a child’s placement in foster care, or to help

Congressional Research Service

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

children in care reunite with their parents. Time-limited family reunification services and

adoption promotion and support services target children in foster care—either to permit their

expeditious return home or, when this is not possible, to find them a new adoptive home.

Adoption support services may also be used to provide post-adoption services to children living

in new permanent families.

In November 2011 (P.L. 112-34), Congress extended funding authorization for the CWS and

PSSF programs through the last day of FY2016.

Congressional Research Service

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

Contents

Federal Title IV-B Programs and Activities ..................................................................................... 2

Federal-State Framework ................................................................................................................. 4

What is Expected of Public Child Welfare Agencies? ............................................................... 5

Children and Families Who May Be Served Under Title IV-B ................................................. 5

Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program (CWS) .................................................... 8

States Planned Use of CWS Funds ............................................................................................ 8

Limitations on the Use of CWS Funds .................................................................................... 11

Foster Care Maintenance and Adoption Assistance Payments, Child Care ...................... 11

Program Administration .................................................................................................... 12

CWS State Plan Requirements ................................................................................................ 12

Protections and Services for Children in Foster Care ....................................................... 12

Services, Protections, and Reporting for Certain Other Children ..................................... 14

Reporting Child Maltreatment Fatalities ........................................................................... 14

Program Development, Description, and Staff Training Plan ........................................... 14

Court Collaboration and Tribal Consultation .................................................................... 15

Agency Administration and Coordination with Other Programs ...................................... 15

CWS Program Funding, Authorization and Distribution ........................................................ 15

Distribution of Funds to States .......................................................................................... 16

Nonfederal Share of Spending .......................................................................................... 17

Tribal Receipt of CWS Funding ........................................................................................ 17

Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program ............................................................................... 18

PSSF Funding Authorization and Appropriations ................................................................... 18

Reservation of Funds for Additional Program Activities .................................................. 19

Use of PSSF Funds for Child and Family Services ....................................................................... 21

PSSF State Plan Requirements ................................................................................................ 23

Target Services .................................................................................................................. 23

Planning for Child and Family Services and Reporting on Services and Spending.......... 23

Coordination and Administration ...................................................................................... 24

Majority of Funds to Be Spent for Services and Other Fiscal Requirements.................... 24

Allocation of PSSF Child and Family Services Funds ............................................................ 25

Tribal Receipt of PSSF Funding........................................................................................ 25

Other Activities for Which PSSF Funds Must Be Reserved .......................................................... 26

Court Improvement Program (CIP) ............................................................................................... 26

Eligibility for CIP Grants......................................................................................................... 27

Program and Application Requirements of State Highest Courts............................................ 27

Distribution to State Highest Courts and Required Nonfederal Share .................................... 29

Federal Funding for CIP .......................................................................................................... 29

Tribal Court Improvement Program ........................................................................................ 30

Targeted Purposes Funded with PSSF Dollars .............................................................................. 30

Grants to Regional Partnerships to Improve Outcomes for Children Affected by

Parental/Caretaker Substance Abuse .................................................................................... 30

Awards Made..................................................................................................................... 32

Reports on Regional Partnership Grants ........................................................................... 32

Children and Families Served by Regional Partnerships and Services Offered................ 33

Congressional Research Service

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

Performance Indicators and Findings as of Year Four ...................................................... 33

Lessons on Successful Collaborative Efforts and Program Operations ............................ 34

Grants to Improve Monthly Case Worker Visits of Children in Foster Care ........................... 35

Use of PSSF Funding to Improve Case Worker Visits ...................................................... 36

CWS Requirements Related to Caseworker Visits .................................................................. 36

Determining a State’s Monthly Case Worker Visit Percentage ......................................... 37

Children Visited Monthly .................................................................................................. 37

Children Visited Where They Live .................................................................................... 37

Reduced Federal Financial Participation in CWS ............................................................. 38

Content of Caseworker Visits ............................................................................................ 38

Research, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance Funding ............................................................. 39

Use of Funds ..................................................................................................................... 40

Report to Congress ............................................................................................................ 41

Figures

Figure 1. States Planned Use of Federal Title IV-B Funding for FY2013, by Purpose ................... 1

Figure 2. Funding for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) and

Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Programs, FY1990-FY2014................................... 2

Figure 3. Children Brought to the Attention of the Public Child Welfare Agency .......................... 6

Figure 4. Planned Use of FY2013 Federal CWS Funds by Kind of Service or Activity ................. 9

Figure 5. Trend in Funding for the CWS Program, Nominal and Constant Dollars,

FY1990-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 6. Trend in Funding for the PSSF Program, Nominal and Constant Dollars,

FY1994-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 7. Amount of PSSF Funding by Activity, Selected Fiscal Years ........................................ 20

Figure 8. Planned Use of FY2013 Federal PSSF Funds for Child and Family Services by

Kind of Service or Activity ......................................................................................................... 22

Tables

Table 1. Programs and Activities Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act ............ 3

Table 2. Description of Purpose and Activities by Selected Service Category .............................. 10

Table A-1. Funding for the CWS and PSSF Programs, FY1990-FY2014 ..................................... 42

Table B-1. Description of Selected Categories of Services Used for Reporting

Expenditures Under Title IV-B ................................................................................................... 43

Table C-1. Title IV-B Funding by State, FY2014 .......................................................................... 48

Table C-2. Title IV-B Funding by State, FY2013 .......................................................................... 50

Table D-1. PSSF Funding by Kind of Authority and Purpose, FY1994-FY2014.......................... 52

Table D-2. PSSF Annual Funding Authorization and Distribution, FY2012-FY2016 .................. 53

Table E-1. Funding Authority and Appropriations for the Court Improvement Program,

FY1995-FY2014 ......................................................................................................................... 54

Congressional Research Service

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

Table E-2. Funding Awarded by CIP Purpose and State, FY2014 ................................................. 55

Table E-3. Funding Awarded by CIP Purpose and State, FY2013 ................................................. 56

Table F-1. Performance Indicators for Regional Partnership Grants. ............................................ 58

Table G-1. State Monthly Caseworker Visits Percentage and Visits in Home of Child

Percentage, FY2012 and FY2013 ............................................................................................... 63

Appendixes

Appendix A. Title IV-B Funding ................................................................................................... 42

Appendix B. Services or Activities that May Be Supported Under Title IV-B .............................. 43

Appendix C. Title IV-B Funding by State...................................................................................... 48

Appendix D. Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Funding History and

Reservations................................................................................................................................ 52

Appendix E. Court Improvement Program (CIP): Funding History and Funding by Grant

Type and State............................................................................................................................. 54

Appendix F. Regional Partnership Grants...................................................................................... 58

Appendix G. Monthly Caseworker Visits: Performance by State .................................................. 63

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 65

Congressional Research Service

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

he broadest mission of public child welfare agencies is to strengthen all families in ways

that ensure children can depend on their parents to keep them safe, give them a stable and

permanent home, and, overall, enhance their well-being. Under Title IV-B of the Social

Security Act, the federal government provides funds to states, tribes, and territories for the

provision of services to children and their families, whether those children are living in their own

homes (biological, adoptive, or extended); have been removed from their homes and placed in

temporary foster care settings; or have left foster care for any reason.

Title IV-B funds are provided primarily through two formula grant programs. States may use

funding provided under the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) program (Title

IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act) to support a broad range of services designed to

protect children and strengthen their families. They are required to use funding received under the

Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program, (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social

Security Act) for four categories of services: family support, family preservation, time-limited

family reunification, and adoption promotion and support. (Hereinafter, any mention of a section,

part, or title of the law is made with reference to the Social Security Act.) Figure 1 shows the

purposes for which states planned to spend federal Title IV-B funding in FY2013.

Figure 1. States Planned Use of Federal Title IV-B Funding for FY2013, by Purpose

Based on estimated FY2013 Title IV-B services funding of $589 million in 50 states, DC, and Puerto Rico

Adoption or

Guardianship

Subsidies

Foster Care

Maintenance

Payments

Administration

Other Services,

Activities, or Planning

Child Protective

Services

19%

Adoption Promotion

and Support

13%

Time-Limited Family

Reunification

14%

Preventive and Family

Support

19%

Family Preservation

21%

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data included in U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF),

Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child

Welfare Expenditures 2013.

Note: Funding level differs from the actual federal funding provided for CWS and PSSF in FY2013 both because

the plans were required to be submitted before final funding levels were determined and because, as described in

Congressional Research Service

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

the report, most but not all of the funding appropriated for these programs is distributed to state child welfare

agencies.

In FY2014, these two programs received combined federal funding of $649 million, of which

$269 million was for CWS and $380 million was for the PSSF program. As shown in Figure 2,

nominal dollar funding for CWS has been relatively flat for roughly two decades. Across that

same time period, the nominal dollar funding for the PSSF program grew from its initial year of

authorization in FY1994 through the middle 2000s, but has generally been in decline since

FY2007. The dotted trend line shown in Figure 2 represents funding for the two programs

combined as shown in inflation-adjusted (constant) dollars. This trend line shows that purchasing

power of federal CWS and PSSF dollars, combined, peaked in FY2003 and has since declined.

Consequently, viewed in constant FY2013 dollars, current funding is roughly equivalent to

funding provided for these programs in FY1995. (For a table showing data used to make this

chart, see Appendix A.)

Figure 2. Funding for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) and

Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) Programs, FY1990-FY2014

Nominal dollars are shown in columns. Trend line shows inflation-adjusted (constant FY2013) dollars.

$1,000

$900

Total CWS and PSSF Funding - Constant FY2013

$800

$700

PSSF - Nominal Dollars

$380

$408

$281

$269

$428

$281

$387

$408

$263

$408

$282

$434

$287

$282

$434

$287

$408

$404

$290

$282

$404

$289

$305

$292

$404

$295

$292

$375

$275

$292

$255

$292

$290

$240

$300

$225

CWS - Nominal Dollars

$150

$400

$292

$500

$60

Dollars in Millions

$600

$277

$292

$295

$274

$100

$253

$200

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fiscal Year

Child Welfare Services (CWS) - nominal dollars

Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) - nominal dollars

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). For data used to create this chart, see Appendix A.

Notes: Funding levels reflect final appropriations and after any rescission or sequestration. Funding for CWS was first

authorized for FY1936. Funding for the PSSF program was first authorized for FY1994.

Federal Title IV-B Programs and Activities

The primary focus of this report is on the CWS and PSSF programs, under which the large

majority of Title IV-B funds are appropriated. Both the CWS and PSSF provide formula grants to

states, territories, and tribes for provision of child welfare-related services to children and their

families. Those grant programs are discussed in this report. In addition, funds appropriated for the

PSSF program support (1) grants to state or tribal highest courts under the Court Improvement

Program; (2) grants to regional partnerships to improve the outcomes of children affected by their

Congressional Research Service

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

parents’ substance abuse; (3) grants to states and territories for monthly caseworker visits of

children in foster care; and (4) program-related research, evaluation, training, or technical

assistance. Each of those PSSF-funded activities is also discussed in this report.

Title IV-B includes several additional programs or activities for which separate funds are, or have

been, authorized. These include Family Connection grants, Child Welfare Training, Research and

Demonstration projects, the National Random Sample Study of Child Welfare, and the Mentoring

Children of Prisoners program. All of these programs or activities are listed in Table 1; however,

not all received funding in FY2014 and none are discussed further in this report. Currently funded

Title IV-B programs are administered by the Children’s Bureau within the Administration on

Children Youth and Families (ACYF), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), at the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Funding authorization for the CWS and

PSSF programs was most recently extended (through the last day of FY2016) by the Child and

Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 112-34). Funding expiration dates

for all Title IV-B programs and activities are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Programs and Activities Authorized Under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

Total FY2014 funding provided for Title IV-B programs and activities = $689 million

Program

(Section)

Program Purpose as Authorized

in the Law

FY2014

Funding

Funding Authorization

SUBPART 1

Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child

Welfare Services Program (CWS)

(Secs. 420-425, 428)

Formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for

child welfare-related services to children and their

families.

$269

million

Expires with the

last day of

FY2016.

Child Welfare Training,

Research and Demonstration

(Sec. 426)

Competitive grants to public agencies, nonprofits,

or universities for child welfare-related research or

demonstrations and for workforce training.

$25

million

Permanent: “such

sums as

Congress

determines.”

Family Connection Grants

(Sec. 427)

Competitive grants to eligible public or nonprofit

entities to support kinship navigator programs,

family group decision-making meetings, intensive

family finding efforts, and/or residential family

treatment programs.

$15

million

$15 million

appropriated

annually through

FY2014.a

National Random Sample Study

of Child Welfare (a.k.a., National

Survey of Child and Adolescent

Well-Being, NSCAW) (Sec. 429)

Competitive grant to support a nationally

representative, longitudinal study of children at risk

of, or exposed to, child abuse or neglect (including

their caregivers).

Expired (last

funded in FY2011

at $6 million).

SUBPART 2

Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)

$380 million (all activities)

PSSF—Child and Family Services

(Secs. 430-437)

Formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for

four categories of services: family preservation,

family support, time-limited family reunification, and

adoption promotion and support.

$305

million

Expires with the

last day of

FY2016.

PSSF—Court Improvement

Program (CIP) (Sec. 438) (with

PSSF funding set-aside at Sec.

436(b)(2); and Sec. 437(b)(2))

Formula grants to state highest courts and

competitive grants to tribal courts to improve (1)

handling of child welfare proceedings, (2) data

collection and analysis to achieve better and more

timely outcomes for children, and (3) training

related to child welfare proceedings.

$30

million

PSSF funding

set-aside

permanently

authorized.b

Congressional Research Service

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

Program

(Section)

Program Purpose as Authorized

in the Law

FY2014

Funding

Funding Authorization

PSSF—Research, Evaluation,

Training and Technical Assistance

(Sec. 435) (with PSSF funding setaside at 436(b)(1); Sec 437(b)(1))

Funds reserved to HHS for support of programrelated evaluation, training, research, and technical

assistance.

million

PSSF funding

set-aside

permanently

authorized.

PSSF—Targeted Purpose: Improve

Monthly Caseworker Visits

(Sec. 436(b)(4)); (see also Sec.

422(b)(17) and Sec. 424(f)).

Formula grants to states and territories to support

quality, monthly caseworker visits with children in

foster care.

$19

million

PSSF funding

set-aside expires

with the last day

of FY2016.

PSSF—Targeted Purpose: Improve

Outcomes for Children Affected by

Parental Substance Abuse (Sec.

437(f))(with PSSF funding set aside

at. 436(b)(5))

Competitive grants to regional partnerships to

improve services available to children in substanceabusing families to increase children’s well-being and

improve their permanency outcomes.

$19

million

PSSF funding

set-aside expires

with the last day

of FY2016.

Mentoring Children of Prisoners

(Sec. 439)

Competitive grants to community-based, public, or

private entities to provide mentoring services.

$0 Expired (last

funded in

FY2010—$49

million)

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). All funding amounts are rounded to the nearest

million. Parts may not sum to total due to rounding.

FY2014 funding was appropriated via P.L. 113-183. FY2009-FY2013 funding was appropriated via P.L. 110351. Funding for FY2013 was originally appropriated at $15 million but was reduced to $14.235 million due

to sequestration.

Funding for CIP must be set aside from the PSSF program in every year (“permanent” reservation of funds).

However, the provision that entitles state highest courts to a share of these funds (Section 438(c)(1)

expires as of the last day of FY2016.

This report begins by outlining the federal-state framework with regard to child welfare, and then

discusses the activities public child welfare agencies are expected to perform, as well as the

children and families who may be served via the CWS and PSSF programs. This is followed by

separate descriptions of those formula grant programs and additional activities supported with

PSSF funds.

Federal-State Framework

Under the U.S. Constitution, states are believed to have the primary obligation to ensure the

welfare—sometimes referred to as the health and well-being of children and their families. At the

same time, the federal government has demonstrated longstanding interest in working with states

to strengthen their child welfare services and supports. Further, through the provision of funding

to states, the federal government is able to require certain standards for those services and

supports.

Federal child welfare funding is largely distributed to state-level child welfare agencies and most

federal child welfare program requirements apply to those same agencies.1 At the state level, the

Some states provide for local (e.g., county) administration of federal child welfare funds. However, even in these

states, federal funds are provided to the state agency, and the state agency is required to supervise the local provision of

services to ensure they are provided in a manner consistent with all federal requirements.

Congressional Research Service

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

child welfare “system” consists of workers at state and county child welfare agencies who

together with private-agency child welfare workers, state and local judges, attorneys, prosecutors,

law enforcement personnel, and workers at a wide variety of public and private social services

agencies carry out child welfare duties.

What is Expected of Public Child Welfare Agencies?

Children depend on adults—usually their parents—to protect, support, and nurture them in their

homes. The broadest mission of public child welfare agencies is to strengthen all families in ways

that ensure children can depend on their parents to protect their safety, provide them with a stable

and permanent home, and ensure their well-being. More specifically, public child welfare

agencies are expected to identify families where children are at risk of abuse or neglect and to

provide services to prevent maltreatment. These typically are services provided to children and

families while the children remain in their own homes. Public child welfare agencies are also

expected to identify children who have been abused and neglected and to provide services and

supports necessary to ensure no further maltreatment occurs. Again, these services might be

provided while the child remains living in his/her parent’s home or might mean moving the child

to foster care.

Foster care is understood—in federal policy and in child welfare practice—to be a temporary

living situation. Public child welfare agencies must work to establish, or re-establish, permanent

and stable living arrangements, as quickly as possible, for any child entering foster care.

Whenever provision of services and other assistance can permit children to return safely to their

parents, they are expected to be reunited with them. However, if returning home is not possible or

appropriate, the child welfare agency is charged with both quickly and competently identifying

another permanent home for these children—preferably via adoption or guardianship, or through

placement with another relative on a less formal basis. Re-establishing or achieving safety and

permanence are critical and immediate needs of children who enter foster care. Child welfare

agencies act as de facto parents for these children and must also ensure their well-being, including

facilitating their access to a stable education and appropriate health care.

When children leave foster care for a permanent home—whether via reunification, adoption, or

legal guardianship—child welfare agencies may also be called on to provide services to ensure

the ongoing stability and continued safety of the family home. And, finally, for those youth who

leave foster care due to their age—rather than reuniting with their parents or placement in a new

permanent home—child welfare agencies are called on to continue to support and enable their

successful transition to adulthood.

Children and Families Who May Be Served Under Title IV-B

There are an estimated 75 million children (individuals under the age of 18) living in the United

States. Title IV-B funds may generally be used to serve any of these children and their families if

that service is related to child welfare.2 Most children and families who receive child welfarerelated services come into contact with a public child welfare agency following an allegation of

child abuse or neglect.

There is no age eligibility limit applicable to the Title IV-B programs and states may provide child welfare services as

needed to individuals who are age 18 or older, including those who are young adults and/or parents.

Congressional Research Service

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

Figure 3. Children Brought to the Attention of the Public Child Welfare Agency

Reflects national estimates or counts based on data reported by states for FY2012

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services (HHS), Child Maltreatment 2012 (December 2013); FY2012 data reported by states via the

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS) as of July 2014; and Title IV-E expenditure

claims data as compiled by HHS, Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, as of May 2012.

Notes: Each whole stick figure represents approximately 200,000 children. An asterisk (*) indicates the number

is a “duplicate count. This means a child was counted each time he or she was involved in an abuse or neglect

referral or investigation, or received a post-investigation service. For FY2012, there were an estimated 3.2

million “unique” children who were the subject of an investigation or assessment. Data on the “unique” number

of children included in a referral or receiving a post-investigation service are not available.

Figure 3 shows that allegations of abuse or neglect involving 6.3 million children were referred

to child welfare agencies in FY2012 and that these agencies conducted investigations or

assessments related to allegations of child abuse or neglect involving as many as 3.8 million

children. More than a million of these children receive some kind of child welfare service after

that investigation or assessment is completed.3 The large majority of those services are provided

If a child is the subject of more than one abuse and neglect referral, investigation, or post-investigation service, he or

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

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

in the child’s own home rather than in a foster care setting. CWS funds may be used to support

investigations of abuse or neglect and both CWS and PSSF funds may be used to provide other

services to strengthen or support families to ensure children can safely remain in their own

homes.

Some children must be placed in foster care to ensure their safety. As suggested in Figure 3,

nationwide, fewer than half of all children in foster care on a given day meet the eligibility

criteria to receive federal (Title IV-E) foster care assistance. Nonetheless, under the CWS

program, federal law requires states to provide all children in foster care (including those eligible

for Title IV-E assistance and those who are not) with the same protections related to case planning

and regular case review, including permanency planning. Further, it stipulates that state child

welfare agencies must provide the services necessary to ensure a child’s safe and expeditious

return to his or her family, or, if this is not possible, to work as quickly as possible to find a new

safe, appropriate, and permanent home for the child. CWS funds may be used to provide case

planning and review services to children in foster care (without regard to their federal foster care

(Title IV-E) eligibility status) and both CWS and PSSF funds may be used to provide other

services to children in foster care and their families (e.g., parenting skills training or substance

abuse treatment to promote reunification).4

Finally, although these children are not shown in Figure 3, some 250,000 children leave foster

care each year. Most of these children return to their parents, others go to live with relatives, some

go to new permanent homes via adoption or legal guardianship and others reach the age of

majority and leave care without placement in a family. CWS and PSSF funds may be used to

provide post-reunification, adoption, or guardianship services to strengthen or otherwise assist the

families children go to live with when they leave foster care. Funds may also be used to assist

youth who leave care without a permanent home.5

The CWS and PSSF programs under Title IV-B have overlapping purposes and may be used to

fund some, but not all, of the same services. At the same time, they have distinct program

requirements, funding, and funding distribution methods. The following sections of the report

describe the two programs separately, including each of their purposes, federal requirements for

receipt of funds, state use of funds, federal funding level, and distribution of those funds.

(...continued)

she is included each time in the counts described here. This is called a “duplicate” count. See U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration of Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children,

Youth, and Families (ACYF), Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2012 (December 2013).

States are permitted to use Title IV-E funds to provide case planning and case review-related services to children in

foster care who meet the Title IV-E eligibility criteria. However, they are not permitted to use Title IV-E funds to

provide those services to children in foster care who are not Title IV-E eligible. Further, in general, states are not

permitted to use Title IV-E funds to provide other services to children or their families (e.g., family or individual

counseling, parent training). This restriction applies to all children who are in foster care, and without regard to their

Title IV-E eligibility status.

The Chafee Foster Care Independence Program provides funding to state child welfare agencies that is wholly

dedicated to provision of services to youth who are expected to leave care without placement in a permanent family or

those who have left care in that manner (and are under the age of 21). For more information, see CRS Report RL34499,

Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services

Program (CWS)

Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act (Sections 420-425, 428)

The CWS program provides funds to states, territories, and tribes and is intended to “promote

state flexibility” to develop and expand a program of services to children and families that uses

community-based agencies and works to 6

•

protect and promote the welfare of all children;

•

prevent abuse, neglect or exploitation of children;

•

permit children to remain in their own homes, or to return to those homes

whenever it is safe and appropriate;

•

promote safety, permanency, and well-being for children in foster care or those in

adoptive families; and

•

provide training, professional development, and support to ensure a wellqualified child welfare workforce.

The CWS program was first authorized in 1935 as part of the original Social Security Act and has

been amended many times since then, including most recently by the Child and Family Services

Improvement and Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 112-34).7 Funding for this program is authorized on

a discretionary basis and that authorization is set to expire with the last day of FY2016. Congress

provided $269 million for the CWS program for FY2014.

States Planned Use of CWS Funds

States are generally permitted to spend CWS funds on any service or activity (and on behalf of

any child or family) that is intended to meet the program’s broad purposes. Examples of services

or activities that may be supported include investigations of child abuse or neglect, homemaker

services, respite care, family or individual counseling, caseworker visits to children whether in

their own homes or in foster care, case planning and case review services for children in foster

care, pre- and post- adoption support services, and emergency assistance. As discussed further

below, states, however, are not permitted to spend CWS money to meet regular education costs or

medical care needs of a child or his/her family and the statute limits the amount of CWS funds

that may be used for program administration and for foster care maintenance payments, adoption

assistance payments, or child care.

These purposes apply to all programs authorized in Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act, including the

separate funding authorized in Section 426 (Child Welfare Research, Demonstration and Training), Section 427

(Family Connection Grants), and Section 429 (National Random Sample Study of Child Welfare).

For more information see, CRS Report R42027, Child Welfare: The Child and Family Services Improvement and

Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34), by (name redacted). In 2006, P.L. 109-288 changed the funding authority for the CWS

program from permanent (meaning no funding reauthorization was necessary) to time-limited (meaning it is authorized

until a specified date). That law also made other significant changes to the CWS program. For more information see

CRS Report RL33354, Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109288) , by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

Combined, states planned to spend the largest single share (41%) of their FY2013 CWS funds for

child protective services. Among other things, those services may include child abuse and neglect

investigations, and caseworker activities on behalf of families and their children, whether those

children are in foster care or living in their own homes. States also planned to spend more than

38% of their FY2013 CWS funds on the four categories of services (family support, family

preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support) for which

they are required to spend the majority of funds they received under the PSSF program (the

program is described later in this report).

Figure 4 depicts total state planned spending of FY2013 CWS funds by category and includes the

overall number of states that planned to spend CWS dollars in a given category, as well as the

combined planned spending for each category. The “All Other” category includes spending on

“other” services and activities, including planning, and, to a lesser extent, independent living

services.

Figure 4. Planned Use of FY2013 Federal CWS Funds by Kind of Service or Activity

Total estimated spending ($273 million) for 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state planned spending as reported on

CFS101, Part II and submitted as part of FY2013 funding request. Parts may not sum to total due to rounding.

Notes: An * indicates that spending category is one of the four categories under which states are required to spend 90% of

their funds under the separate, PSSF program, discussed below. The total estimated spending for FY2013 exceeds the actual

federal funding provided because these plans were required to be submitted before final program funding was determined.

Table 2 below provides descriptions of the purpose and kinds of activities that may be supported

in selected service categories. These descriptions are meant to be illustrative rather than

Congressional Research Service

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

exclusive. They are based on statutory definitions, as well as guidance provided to states

regarding reporting their planned child and family services spending.

Table 2. Description of Purpose and Activities by Selected Service Category

Protective Services. These services are intended to prevent or remedy the abuse, neglect, or

exploitation of children. They may include investigations of child abuse and neglect; caseworker activities

on behalf of children and their families (both those in foster care and those at home); counseling;

arranging for alternative living arrangements; and emergency assistance.

Family Preservation (or Crisis Intervention) Services. These are services offered to prevent

removal of a child from the home (whether biological, adoptive, or extended) or to permit a child to

return to a family from which he/she was removed. They may include homemaker services, respite care,

parenting skills training and knowledge development, day care, case management, post-adoption support

services, family or individual counseling, any service identified by states as necessary to permit

reunification, and post-reunification services.

Family Support (or Prevention and Support) Services. These are community-based services that

may be provided to any child or family and are intended to promote the safety and well-being of children

and the stability of their families, increase parents’ competence and confidence in parenting, and enhance

child development. They may include parenting skills training; early developmental screening of children

and assistance in obtaining services to meet any identified needs; counseling or home visiting; parent

support groups and other center-based activities (e.g., informal drop-in centers for families/parents);

mentoring, tutoring, and health education for youth; and respite care for parents and other caregivers.

Time-Limited Family Reunification Services. These are services designed to permit expeditious

reunification of a child with his/her family and may only be offered where a child has been in foster care

for no more than 15-17 months. They include individual, group, and family counseling; peer-to-peer

mentoring and support groups for parents and primary caregivers; services or activities designed to

facilitate visits and other connections between children in foster care and their parents and siblings;

substance abuse treatment (including inpatient, outpatient, or residential); mental health services;

assistance to address domestic violence; temporary or crisis child care; and transportation to and from

any of these services or activities.

Foster Care Maintenance Payments. These are regular “room and board” payments made to foster

parents, group homes, or other institutions that provide daily care, support, and living space for children

in foster care. A state’s expenditure of CWS funds for this purpose may not exceed its FY2005

expenditures for foster care maintenance payments under the CWS program.

Adoption Promotion and Support Services. These services are available to encourage adoptions

out of foster care when that is in the child’s best interest. Services may include activities to expedite the

adoption process, and activities to support prospective adoptive families and adoptive families.

Adoption Subsidies. These are regular payments made to adoptive parents on behalf of their adoptive

children (typically these are children adopted out of foster care). They may be used by those parents in

any manner they choose. A state’s expenditure of CWS funds for this purpose may not exceed its FY2005

expenditures for adoption subsidies under the CWS program.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Based on statute and HHS program

instructions (ACF-ACYF-CB-PI-12-05) http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pi1205 ).

Note: Descriptions provided are intended to be illustrative rather than exclusive. For a table giving more detailed

descriptions, as well as target populations, for these and additional service categories, see Appendix B.

Congressional Research Service

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

Limitations on the Use of CWS Funds

In policy guidance, HHS has stipulated that CWS funds may not be spent to pay education costs

or to meet medical expenses. The statute also includes specific limitations on the use of CWS

funds for child care, monthly assistance for children in foster care settings or adoptive homes, and

program administration.

Foster Care Maintenance and Adoption Assistance Payments, Child Care

Current law prohibits states from spending any federal CWS funds for foster care maintenance

payments, adoption assistance payments, or child care unless the state can show that it spent some

of its federal CWS dollars for those purposes in FY2005.8 If a state can show this, then it may

continue to spend CWS money for those purposes, but only in an annual amount no greater than

what it spent under the program for those purposes in FY2005.

With regard to FY2013, no state reported that it planned to spend any federal CWS dollars on

work- or training-related child care. 9 However, 16 states reported plans to spend federal CWS

dollars to pay foster care maintenance payments to children living in foster family homes, group

homes, or institutions. 10 Of those states, six planned to spend more than 50% of their federal

FY2013 CWS funding for this purpose. Finally, five states reported plans to spend some FY2013

federal CWS dollars on adoption assistance payments, although the share of their federal CWS

dollars they expected to use for this purpose was generally more modest.11

In addition to the restriction on use of federal CWS funds for foster care maintenance payments,

states are generally not permitted to count state or any other nonfederal dollars used to provide

foster care maintenance payments for the purpose of providing the required nonfederal share of

funding under the CWS program. However, if the state can show that it counted non-federal CWS

dollars for foster care maintenance payments in FY2005, it is permitted to continue to do so each

year, but only up to the amount it counted for this purpose in that fiscal year. 12 (This restriction

does not apply to non-federal CWS spending for adoption assistance payments or child care).

This requirement was made effective, beginning with FY2008, by the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of

2006 (P.L. 109-288). However, states have faced some restriction on the amount of federal CWS funds they could

spend for foster care maintenance payments (as well as adoption assistance payments and child care related to work or

training purposes) beginning with FY1980.

Before FY2008, the limit on spending related to child care was specifically restricted to child care spending that was

necessary because of a parent’s work or employment-related training. That qualification was removed from statute in

changes made in 2006 by P.L. 109-288. However, because child care that is offered outside the context of work or

employment training may be defined as a family support service, or a family preservation service, there may be no real

practical effect to this change (i.e., restriction may still essentially apply only to work or training-related child care).

Alabama (24%), Colorado (84%), Connecticut (57%), Georgia (14%), Idaho (17%), Iowa (95%), Kentucky (23%),

Louisiana (30%), Michigan (23%), Mississippi (90%), Nebraska (55%), New Hampshire (31%), New Mexico (28%),

Oklahoma (24%), Pennsylvania (63%), South Carolina (20%).

Alabama (35%), Kansas (20%), New Jersey (3%), North Carolina (17%), Oklahoma (29%). Figure 1 shows that six

states reported plans to spend federal FY2013 funds for adoption or guardianship subsidies. Of those states, only one

(North Dakota) reported this planned spending with regarding to guardianship subsidies.

This requirement was added in 2006 by P.L. 109-288, which made it effective with FY2008.

Congressional Research Service

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

Program Administration

States are prohibited from spending more than 10% of their CWS funds (both federal dollars and

the required nonfederal dollars share of program spending) for CWS program administration.13

For FY2013, half of all states (n=26) reported plans to spend the maximum 10% of their federal

CWS for program administration, while 16 planned to spend none of these federal funds for

program administration. The remaining 10 states fell between these two ends of the spectrum.

For purposes of the CWS program, administration costs do not include the cost of salaries for

caseworkers providing services (e.g., case planning or case review-related services for children in

foster care). They also do not include the cost of salaries of case managers for direct supervision

of caseworkers providing those services, or travel expenses related to provision of services by

caseworkers or program oversight.14

CWS State Plan Requirements

Federal law stipulates a series of plan requirements that states must meet in order to receive CWS

funds. These requirements primarily address protections and services to be provided to children in

foster care. They also list some protections for other children served and deal with program

development and description, as well as agency administration of the CWS plan, including its

coordination with other programs.

Protections and Services for Children in Foster Care

As part of its CWS plan, each state is required to assure HHS that it has a statewide information

system that enables the state to “readily” determine the status, demographic characteristics,

location, and goals of every child who is in foster care (or who was in foster care in the past 12

months). A state must also assure under its CWS plan that each child in foster care has a written

case plan that is regularly reviewed, outlines the child’s permanency goals, and provides other

protections for children in foster care. In addition, the state must assure that it has a service

program designed to either reunite children in foster care with their parents, or, when this is not

safe or appropriate, to find them new permanent homes or living arrangements.15

As initially required by P.L. 109-288, states must assure they will meet this requirement as part of their CWS plan

(Section 422(b)(14)). Additionally, HHS is prohibited from making payments under the CWS program to states that

exceed the 10% cap (Section 424(e)).

Administrative costs for purposes of the CWS program are defined in the law at Section 422(c)(1). This definition of

administrative costs is far more limited than the definition of administrative costs applicable under the federal Title IVE program (see 45 C.F.R. 1356.60(c)). Therefore the total share of Title IV-E spending on “administrative costs” and

total CWS (Title IV-B, Subpart 1) administrative costs are not comparable measures.

Section 422(b)(8)(A)(i)(ii) and (iii). These requirements ensure that children who are in foster care and who do not

meet the Title IV-E eligibility criteria receive the same case plan and case review (including permanency planning)

services provided to children in foster care who are Title IV-E eligible. The bulk of these child protection requirements

were added to the statute in 1980 by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272). At the time,

compliance (that is, extending these protections to children not eligible for Title IV-E foster care assistance) was

considered voluntary. States that didn’t meet the requirement could still access CWS funds, although those that met the

requirement were potentially able to access greater funding under the program. However, as part of the Social Security

Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-432), Congress made extension of these protections to all children in foster care a part

of the CWS state plan (effective April 1, 1996).

Congressional Research Service

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

Each state is further required under the CWS plan to

•

have standards related to the frequency and quality of caseworker visits of

children in foster care;

ensure “diligent recruitment” of potential foster and adoptive homes that reflect

the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in the state needing foster family

homes;

have specific procedures in place to ensure continuity of program operation and

services in the event of a disaster (for children under state care or supervision);

and

to work with the state agency that administers the Medicaid program to develop

(in consultation with other experts and stakeholders) a specific health oversight

plan for children in foster care, including children’s physical and mental health.16

The Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, (2011, P.L. 112-34) amended

the health oversight requirement to stipulate that states must plan how “emotional trauma”

resulting from a child’s experience of maltreatment and/or removal from the home will be

identified and treated. Further it requires states to include “protocols for the appropriate use and

monitoring of psychotropic medications” in the health oversight plan.17

HHS cited both of these requirements in a 2012 Information Memorandum discussing the need

for state agencies to focus on the social and emotional well-being of children in foster care as part

of ensuring their overall well-being.18 It emphasizes the importance of doing trauma-screening for

children who enter foster care to allow for development of an appropriate treatment plan. It

further notes that ongoing assessment of the child can ensure the treatment plan is effective (or

point out when changes need to be made). HHS also cautions that use of psychotropic

medications with children has not been as extensively tested, and notes that these medications can

have complicated side effects. Accordingly, the guidance provides that such drugs should be

“prescribed with care” and justified by documented “clinical evidence.” Further, HHS has

encouraged identification of effective therapies that can improve the mental and behavioral health

outcomes of children apart from drugs (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy or parent-child

interaction therapy).19

The law that most recently reauthorized the CWS program (P.L. 112-34) also newly requires

states to describe how they work to shorten the amount of time children who are under five years

of age spend in temporary foster care homes. States must also describe what they do to ensure the

Section 422(b)(7), (15), (16), and (17).

For more information see CRS Report R43466, Child Welfare: Oversight of Psychotropic Medication for Children in

Foster Care, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau IM-12-04, “Promoting Social and Emotional Well-Being of Children and

Youth Receiving Child Welfare Services,” issued April 17, 2012. pp. 1, 6-7. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/

default/files/cb/im1204.pdf

Ibid, p. 7. As part of its FY2015 budget request, the Administration seeks funding for a joint ACF and CMS (Centers

for Medicare and Medicaid) initiative to build alternative services and incentivize state Medicaid programs to support

such services. HHS, ACF, Justifications for Appropriations Committee, FY2015, (March 2014) p.p. 310-311. See also

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau IM-12-03, “Promoting the Safe, Appropriate and Effective Use of Psychotropic

Medication for Children in Foster Care,” issued April 11, 2012. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/

cb/im1203.pdf

Congressional Research Service

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

developmental needs of these young children are met.20 HHS has informed states that this

description must include the number of children of this age who are in care and information on

how the state will track that number, as well as the distinct services the state offers based on the

different developmental needs of infants, toddlers, and children.21

Services, Protections, and Reporting for Certain Other Children

The CWS plan must also incorporate specific descriptions or reports concerning other child

populations. Most broadly, each state must assure in its CWS plan that it has a service program in

place to help children who are at risk of placement in foster care to remain safely in their own

homes.22 For children who are abandoned at or shortly after birth, the state must have judicial and

administrative procedures in place to provide these infants with legal representation (to enable

expeditious decisions on their permanent placement).

With regard to children who are adopted from other countries, the state must describe any

activities undertaken on behalf of these children, including provision of adoption or post-adoption

services. Further, it must collect and report certain data to HHS, including numbers of such

children who enter state custody following disruption or dissolution of the adoption.23

Reporting Child Maltreatment Fatalities

As added by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34), states

are required to describe the sources of information they use to report on child maltreatmentrelated fatalities.24 This provision responds to the concern that states do not consistently use all

relevant data sources when reporting these data to HHS and that, therefore, information that is

critical to assessing children’s safety is incomplete. The law also provides that if the data the state

reports to HHS on child maltreatment-related deaths do not include information from state vital

statistics, child death review teams, law enforcement agencies, or offices of medical examiners or

coroners, the state must describe why this is the case and how the information will be included.

Information relevant to this new requirement was to be reported by each state as part of its

Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR) (due to HHS on June 30, 2012). 25

Program Development, Description, and Staff Training Plan

In their CWS plans, states must describe their efforts to provide child welfare services on a

statewide basis, to expand and strengthen the range of services available, and to develop and

Section 422(b)(18).

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI- 12-05, “June 30 Submission of the APSR Required Under Title IV-B ... ”,

issued April 11,2012, p. 16. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1205.pdf.

Section 422(b)(8)(A)(iv).

Section 422(b)(8)(B), (11), and (12).

Section 422(b)(19). States typically report this information via the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System

(NCANDS). That data reporting system was established by HHS pursuant to the 1988 amendments (P.L. 100-294) to

the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in 1988 (via P.L. 100-294). Under CAPTA states are required

“to the maximum extent practicable” to report the annual number of child abuse and neglect fatalities.

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI- 12-05, issued April 11,2012, p.p. 16-17. Available at

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/pi1205.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

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

implement services that improve child outcomes. The services provided to children must utilize

the facilities and experience of voluntary (private) agencies as authorized by the state. Further, the

state must also describe its staff development and training program for child welfare workers and

it must provide reports or other information to HHS, as requested.26

Court Collaboration and Tribal Consultation

A state must also demonstrate “meaningful and ongoing collaboration” with state courts in the

development of its CWS plan, as well as in the development of other child welfare-related

plans.27 Additionally, a state must describe in its CWS plan the specific measures it undertakes to

remain in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act, and these measures must be developed

after consulting with Indian tribal organizations.28

Agency Administration and Coordination with Other Programs

CWS state plan requirements stipulate that the program must be administered by the same state

agency that administers the state’s Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Finally, delivery of

services under the CWS plan must be coordinated with those provided for children via SSBG, the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the PSSF program, the Title IV-E

Foster Care and Permanency program, and any other state programs that have purposes related to

promoting the welfare of children and their families.29

CWS Program Funding, Authorization and Distribution

Federal funding for the CWS program has been flat or in decline for close to two decades. The

program is authorized to receive discretionary appropriations of $325 million each fiscal year,

through FY2016. For FY2014, it received an appropriation of $269 million.30

The current CWS funding authorization level was initially set for FY1990, but Congress has

never appropriated the full authorized level. Instead, funding for the CWS program peaked in

FY1994 at $295 million, drifted down to the $263 million for FY2013 and was at $269 million

for FY2014. Because these funding amounts are not adjusted for inflation, the actual decline in

purchasing power to states is greater than the slide in nominal dollars suggest. Figure 5 shows the

trend in CWS funding in nominal and constant dollars for FY1990-FY2014.

Section 422(b)(3) through (6).

As part of its CWS plan, a state must also demonstrate meaningful and ongoing collaboration with state courts in the

development of its PSSF state plan, Title IV-E state plan, and any Program Improvement Plan (PIP) in the state.

Section 422(b) (9) and (13).

Section 422(b)(1) and (2). Section 106 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) authorizes grants to

states to improve their child protective services. It requires states, to the “maximum extent practicable,” to coordinate those

services with the state plans required under Title IV-B. There is no comparably specific reference in Title IV-B.

The program’s FY2013 funding, which was subject to sequestration, was $262 million. For additional information on

sequestration and its effect on child welfare program funding see, CRS Report R43458, Child Welfare: An Overview of

Federal Programs and Their Current Funding, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

Figure 5.Trend in Funding for the CWS Program, Nominal and Constant Dollars,

FY1990-FY2014

$600

$500

Constant (FY2013) Dollars

D o ll a r s in Mi l li o n s

$400

Nominal Dollars

$300

$200

$100

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

F is c a l Yea r

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). For data used to create this chart, see

Appendix A.

Notes: Funding levels reflect final appropriations and after any rescission or sequestration. Federal support for “Child

Welfare Services” was authorized in the original Social Security Act of 1935. The program was renamed the Stephanie

Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program in 2008 (P.L. 110-351).

Distribution of Funds to States

Under the CWS funding formula, each state (the 50 states and the District of Columbia) and

territory (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands) receives a base allotment of $70,000. The remaining CWS funds are allocated based on a

formula that takes into account both the number of individuals in a state under the age of 21 and

the state’s average per capita income. The formula is intended to ensure that states with lower

relative per capita income receive greater federal support per individual under age 21. HHS

allocates funds to tribes out of a state’s initial allotment from this formula. The amount of a state’s

initial allotment that is directed to a particular tribe is based on a tribe (or tribes’) share of the

population that is under the age of 21 in the given state. In FY2014, states and territories received

$262.4 million in CWS funding, and the remaining $6.3 million was distributed to tribes or tribal

organizations. For FY2014, the median CWS allotment to a state child welfare agency (50 states

and DC) was just above $3.7 million, while the largest single allotment was $30.8 million

(California) and the smallest was just above $194,000 (Alaska). (For allotments of CWS funds by

state child welfare agencies, see Appendix C.)

Congressional Research Service

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

Nonfederal Share of Spending

To receive its full CWS allotment, a state must comply with rules related to the use of program

funds and must provide $1 in nonfederal program funding for every $3 in federal program funds

it receives (i.e., 75% federal financial participation rate). States failing to meet the national

established goals concerning the percentage of all caseworker visits of children in foster care that

occur on a monthly basis (90% ) and the percentage of such visits that occur in the place where

the child lives (50%) are subject to reduced federal financial participation in the CWS program.

For FY2014, at least 12 states saw their federal financial participation rate in this program

lowered from 75% to either 74%, 72%, or 70%, commensurate with the degree to which they

failed to meet their established targets.31 All states, however, met the target regarding visits to

children in their place of residence. (These provisions related to reduced federal financial

participation is discussed in greater detail later in this report under the heading “Grants to

Improve Monthly Case Worker Visits of Children in Foster Care” and state performance with

regard to these requirements is shown in Appendix G.)

Tribal Receipt of CWS Funding

Tribes and tribal organizations that wish to receive CWS funding must submit a plan to HHS for

approval and may receive funds directly from the federal government. The law gives HHS the

authority to provide CWS funds to tribes “in such manner and in such amounts” as HHS

“determines to be appropriate.” However, it stipulates that amounts provided to tribes must be

considered as a part of the allotment made to the state in which the tribe or tribal organization is

located.32 As noted above, HHS provides funds to tribes based on the tribe’s share of a state’s

“children” (specifically its under-age-21 population). Further, these funds are weighted by HHS

in a manner that ensures greater resources to tribes per tribal person under the age of 21.

For FY2014, 189 tribal entities were allotted $6.3 million in CWS tribal funding. The median

tribal allotment was a little more than $12,200 while the largest CWS tribal allotment amount

totaled close to $906,400 (to the Navajo Nation serving children living in Arizona, New Mexico,

and Utah) the smallest was less than $1,100 (to Pueblo of Picuris serving children living in New

Mexico). 33

Nationally, this CWS funding for services to tribal children represented 2.4% of overall federal

CWS support for FY2014. However, the portion of the overall allotment of CWS funds that is

directed to tribal child welfare agencies (rather than state child welfare agency) varies

considerably based on the proportion of tribal children in a state. Twenty states (including DC and

Puerto Rico) received the full initial allotment of CWS funds (no tribal allotment). Among the 32

states with some CWS funding allotted to tribes, the portion of overall funding directed to tribal

entities to serve tribal children was roughly 3% or less in 24 states, while in the remaining 8 it

ranged from 14% (Arizona) to 70% (Alaska) of that funding.34

Based on information received by CRS from HHS, ACF, Office of Legislative Affairs (OLAB) in September 2014.

The effect on FY2014 federal financial participation is based on a state’s performance during FY2013.

Section 428.

Based on CRS analysis of CWS tribal allotments received from HHS, ACF, OLAB in September 2014. See also

HHS, ACF, ACYF-PI-14-04 (available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pi1404).

Ibid. Tribal allotment amounts are shown in a single line in Appendix C and are not included in amount shown as

provided to a given state for CWS.

Congressional Research Service

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

Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program

Title IV-B, Subpart 2, Sections 430-438

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program provides funds to states, territories, and

tribes to enable them to develop, establish, expand, or operate a coordinated set of communitybased family support services, family preservation services, time-limited family reunification

services, and adoption promotion and support services. The objectives of these coordinated

service programs are to

•

prevent maltreatment among at-risk families through provision of support

services;

•

assure children’s safety within the home and preserve intact families in which

children have been maltreated;

•

address problems of families whose children have been placed in foster care—in

a timely manner—so reunification can occur; and

•

support adoptive families by providing support services necessary for them to

make a lifetime commitment to children.

This program was enacted in 1993 (P.L. 103-66) to provide support to states for the provision of

“family preservation and support services.” Congress renamed these grants to states as the

Promoting Safe and Stable Families program in 1997 (P.L. 105-89) and, at the same time,

required states to use these funds to additionally support “time-limited family reunification” and

“adoption promotion and support” services. The program’s funding authorization was again

extended, and other program changes were made by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families

Amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133), by the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

(P.L. 109-288), Section 133 of the Continuing Appropriations Act, FY2011 (enacted 2010, P.L.

111-242) and, most recently, by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act

(enacted 2011, P.L. 112-34).35

PSSF Funding Authorization and Appropriations

Total PSSF program funding is authorized at $545 million annually. Of this amount, $345 million

is authorized on a mandatory basis (capped entitlement to states) and $200 million is

discretionary. Both the mandatory and discretionary PSSF funding authorizations are set to expire

on the last day of FY2016. Actual PSSF appropriations peaked at $434 million in each of FY2006

and FY2007. In FY2013 all PSSF funding (mandatory and discretionary) was subject to

sequestration. Total program funding in that year was $387 million. For FY2014, only the

mandatory portion of the funding was affected, but program funding dipped again to $380

million.36

For more information on this program’s establishment and early legislative history, see CRS Report RL33354, Child

Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) , by (name redacted).

For additional information on sequestration and its effect on child welfare program funding see, CRS Report

R43458, Child Welfare: An Overview of Federal Programs and Their Current Funding, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

After showing increases across most of the first 12 years of the program, overall funding for the

PSSF program was relatively flat before declining in recent years. Figure 6 shows the nominal

and constant (inflation-adjusted) funding level for PSSF for each of FY1994 (first year funds

were authorized) through FY2014. (Table D-1 in Appendix D shows the complete funding

history of the PSSF program.)

Figure 6.Trend in Funding for the PSSF Program, Nominal and Constant Dollars,

FY1994-FY2014

$600

$500

Constant (FY2013) Dollars

D ol l a r s i n M i ll i o n s

$400

$300

Nominal Dollars

$200

$100

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

F i sc a l Ye a r

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). For data used to prepare this chart, see

Appendix A.

Notes: Funding for this program was initially provided in FY1994 for “family preservation and support services.” The

program was expanded and renamed Promoting Safe and Stable Families in 1997.

Reservation of Funds for Additional Program Activities

For FY2014, 80% or $305 million (out of the total PSSF appropriation of $380 million for that

year) was provided to states, territories, and tribes for support of four specific categories of child

welfare-related child and family services. The remaining FY2014 funds were distributed for the

following additional program activities:

•

grants to state and tribal highest courts under the Court Improvement Program (8%

or $30 million);

support for research, evaluation, training and technical assistance related to the

PSSF program or its purposes (2% or $8 million); and

support for two targeted purposes (10%), including grants to regional partnerships

to improve outcomes of children affected by parental substance abuse ($19 million)

and grants to improve caseworker visits with children in foster care ($19 million).

Congressional Research Service

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

Use of PSSF funds for activities other than state administered child and family services has been

a feature of the PSSF program since its inception and Congress has added additional set-asides to

those originally included. (Table D-2 in Appendix D lists requirements for reservations of funds

that are included in the statute.)

Figure 7 shows funding under the PSSF program by activities, including the combined share of

overall funding provided by formula to states, territories, and tribes for provisions of PSSF child

and family services by selected fiscal years.

Figure 7. Amount of PSSF Funding by Activity, Selected Fiscal Years

Amounts shown in nominal dollars.

$450

$40

$400

$13

$12

$350

$40

$12

$37

$30

Dollars in Millions

$300

$250

$10

$200

$354

(95%)

$372

(86%)

$348

(85%)

$150

$239

(94%)

$100

$50

$306

(80%)

$58

(97%)

FY1994

FY1998

Child and Family Services (States, Territories and Tribes)

FY2002

FY2006

Research and Evaluation

FY2010

Court Improvement

FY2014

Targeted Purposes

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Data used to prepare this chart are shown in

Table D-1in Appendix D.

Note: The FY2006 and FY2010 bars do not include $20 million in funding for the Court Improvement Program,

which, for those years, was appropriated outside of the overall PSSF funding authority. Beginning with FY2011, the

Court Improvement Program has, again, been wholly funded via a statutory reservation of funds from the overall PSSF

program.

The use of PSSF funds for child and family services, along with the formula allocation of those

funds to states, tribes, and territories, is discussed immediately below. This is followed by a

discussion of how funds are used and allocated for the additional PSSF activities.

Congressional Research Service

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

Use of PSSF Funds for Child and Family Services

For FY2014, states, territories and tribes received $305 million in federal funds to support four

categories of services:

•

Family support services are meant to strengthen families and enable children to

safely remain in their own homes;

•

Family preservation services target the same kinds of services on families where

a child is at high risk of being removed from the home, or where the child has

been removed and the goal is to reunite the child and his/her parents.

•

Time-limited reunification services are also available to enable a parent and child

to be reunited, but only during the first 15-17 months during which the child is

placed in foster care.

•

Adoption promotion and support services are intended to encourage more

adoptions from foster care when this is in the best interest of children and to

support pre- and post-adoptive services to families.37

(For a description of the activities that may be funded under each of the service categories, see

Table 2.)

States are required to spend a “significant portion” of program funding on each of those four

categories of child and family services and, their combined spending on all four categories must

be no less than 90% of the federal PSSF child and family services funding they receive. 38 HHS

has interpreted “significant portion” to mean that states must generally spend no less than about

20% on each service category.39

Combined, states planned to spend roughly half of all federal FY2013 PSSF services funding on

family support (26%) and family preservation (25%) services. As described in Table 2, services

that may be funded in these categories are wide ranging. Further, they may be offered to the

broadest group of children and families. Spending for adoption promotion and support and timelimited family reunification services, which are designed to serve more narrow populations and/or

for more narrow purposes, was expected to make up 21% and 20%, respectively, of the federal

funding. States planned to spend the remaining funds for program administration (6%) and

Each of these service categories is defined in Section 431. The Child and Family Services Improvement and

Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 112-34) amended the statutory definition of “family support services” to specifically

incorporate mentoring for children. That law also amended the statutory definition of “time-limited family reunification

services” to include services or activities to enable visits between children in foster care and their siblings and parents,

and to include other activities to help parents (i.e., peer-to-peer mentoring and support groups for parents and

caregivers).

See Section 434(d) and Section 432(a)(4). The latter provides that a state may not spend more than 10% of program

funds for administrative costs, and, further, that all remaining program funds must be used to provide the specified

child and family services. In regulation, however, HHS has defined administrative costs to exclude certain “program

costs” that are incurred while developing and implementing the state’s plan to provide child and family services. For

example, the planning provision of child and family services, which is a requirement of the PSSF plan, is considered a

“service”-related activity rather than an administrative cost. See 45 C.F.R. 1357.32(h)(3).

Section 432(a)(4). For recent guidance, see HHS, ACF, ACYF-CB-PI-14-03 (issued March 5, 2014), p. 34, which

provides that if the state reports spending of less than approximately 20% for any of the four PSSF service categories it

must provide a written “rationale for the disproportion.” See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pi1403.

Congressional Research Service

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

“other” service-related costs (3%) (see Figure 8).40 This plan for spending federal FY2013 PSSF

dollars tracked closely with states’ actual spending of those dollars for FY2010.41

Viewed by individual state, the share of spending by purpose was more varied and there were

some states that reported they planned to spend (FY2013) or actually spent (FY2010) less than

20% in a given category. According to HHS, the rationale provided by most states for this lesser

spending was that money from another source was available, and being used, for the given

purpose.42

Figure 8. Planned Use of FY2013 Federal PSSF Funds for Child and Family Services

by Kind of Service or Activity

Total estimated spending ($317 million) for 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Family Support (52 states)

$82 million (26%)

Family Preservation (52 states)

$80 million (25%)

Adoption Promotion and Support (50 states)

$66 million (21%)

Time-limited Family Reunification (52 states)

$62 million (20%)

Adminstration (39 states)

$18 million (6%)

Other Service-Related (23 states)

$8 million (3%)

$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90

Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s

Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures: 2013, Appendix D. Parts may not sum to total due

to rounding.

Note: The total estimated spending for FY2013 exceeds the actual federal funding provided because these plans

were required to be submitted before final federal program funding was determined.

The PSSF program is available for states to spend on a somewhat more limited set of child

welfare purposes than is true of the CWS program (compare Figure 4 to Figure 8). Further, as

discussed below, PSSF plan requirements are considerably less focused on children in foster care

than those included in the CWS plan. At the same time, three of the four categories of services for

which states must spend the majority of their federal PSSF funds target services, in whole or in

part, on children in, or formerly in, foster care and the families of those children. (Only the

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare Expenditures: 2013, Appendix D.

Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/cfs-101-report-to-congress-2013. Percentages discussed in

the report match data provided in Appendix D of the report.

Ibid. States have two years to spend federal PSSF dollars for a given fiscal year and, afterward, must report actual

spending, by purpose, for the PSSF program.

Ibid, pp. 5-6.

Congressional Research Service

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

service category described as “family support” does not explicitly target at least some of its

services for children in, or formerly in, foster care and their families.)

PSSF State Plan Requirements

As is true with the CWS program, federal law stipulates a series of plan requirements under the

PSSF program. States are required to assure that the safety of children will be their “paramount

concern” in administering and conducting services under the PSSF program.43 Apart from this

broad child-protection-related assurance, the PSSF state plan requirements focus in large part on

planning to provide child and family services. States must target services, establish goals and

measure progress toward those goals, coordinate services across the state, and report on services

provided. Additional PSSF state plan requirements stipulate fiscal and program administrationrelated rules.

Target Services

As required by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 11234), as part of their PSSF plan states must describe how children at greatest risk for child

maltreatment will be identified and how the state targets its child and family services to reach

those children and their families.44

Planning for Child and Family Services and Reporting on Services and

Spending

The statute requires each state to establish a five-year plan for services provided under the PSSF

plan. This five-year plan must include goals to be achieved via provision of these services and the

measures that will be used to assess progress toward these goals. In the interim years, states must

annually provide an assessment of their progress toward the goals—making any necessary

adjustments. At the end of the five-year period, they must develop a final report assessing what

the plan achieved. Further, as part of that final report—and after consulting with appropriate

public and nonprofit private agencies and community-based organizations—states are to develop

a new set of goals (for a new five-year plan).45

Each state is required by statute to provide to HHS its five-year plan, annual updates of the plan,

and a final progress review of the five-year plan.46 As part of this reporting, states must provide to

HHS a description of child and family services (by service category) they plan to provide, as well

as planned and actual expenditures for child and family services under the Title IV-B programs

(CWS and PSSF).47 Each state must also provide in its PSSF state plan that it will participate in

Section 432(a)(9).

Section 432(a)(10).

Section 432(a)(2) and (5).

The final progress review must also be made available to the public. Section 432(a)(2)(C)(ii).

Separately, the statute requires HHS to compile certain information from these reports, provide this information to

the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance, and post this information on its

website. See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/annual-report-of-state-child-welfare-expenditures.

Congressional Research Service

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

any evaluations that HHS may require and that it will furnish such reports, containing such

information, as HHS may require.

HHS implemented the initial planning and reporting provisions under this part of the law via

regulations issued in November 1996. Those regulations established requirements related to the

five-year Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) and the Annual Progress and Services Review

(APSR).48 In implementing this provision, HHS sought to encourage states to plan across

programs and to reduce the number of required, discrete child welfare-related plan submissions.

Accordingly, the five-year CFSP and its annual update (the APSR) are to incorporate required

information and assurances for states seeking funds under the PSSF program, the CWS program

(discussed earlier in this report), and several other child welfare programs.49 The final regulations

have in some aspects been superseded by changes in the law, not all of which have been reflected

in changes to the regulation. However, HHS annually issues guidance to states (via a “program

instruction”) on complying with the planning and reporting requirements.50

Coordination and Administration

To the extent feasible and appropriate, states must provide for coordination of PSSF-funded

services with other services or benefits provided under any other federal (or federally assisted)

program that addresses the needs of the same populations. Additionally, the PSSF program must

be administered by the same state agency that administers the CWS program.51

Majority of Funds to Be Spent for Services and Other Fiscal Requirements

Each state must assure in its PSSF state plan that no more than 10% of program funds (federal

and nonfederal) will be spent for program administration and, as noted above, that “significant

portions” of the remaining funds will be spent on community-based family support services,

family preservation services, time-limited family reunification services, and adoption promotion

and support services.52 There is not a statutory definition of administrative costs for the PSSF

program. However, as implemented by HHS (via regulation) administrative costs do not include

planning for services, delivery of services, consultation, training, quality assurance measures, data

collection, evaluation, and supervision.53

Finally, a state must include in its PSSF plan assurances that funds provided under the program

will not be used to supplant federal or nonfederal funds for services that existed prior to

establishment of the program (i.e., those that existed in state FY1992) and states are required to

Final regulations at 45 C.F.R. 1357.10, 1357.15, and 1357.16. See Federal Register, November 18, 1996, p. 58655;

and amendments at Federal Register, November 23, 2001, p. 58677.

The additional child welfare programs for which plan requirements or assurances, or other information must be

incorporated are Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) State Grants under Section 106 of CAPTA; the

Chafee Foster Care Independence Program (CFCIP) (Section 477), including Chafee Education and Training Vouchers

(Section 477(i)).

The most recent request for a new five-year Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) was issued in March 2014 (for

plans covering FY2015-FY2019) and is available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pi1403.

Section 432(a)(1) and (3).

Section 432(b)(4),(6) and (7); and Section 434(d).

45 CFR 1357.32(h).

Congressional Research Service

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

document compliance with this rule.54 Finally, each state is required to provide for any methods

of program administration found necessary by HHS to allow proper and efficient administration

of the plan.

Allocation of PSSF Child and Family Services Funds

After reservation of funds for other purposes—including $10 million for child and family services

administered by tribes—there were $295 million in FY2014 PSSF funds available for formula

grants to states and territories for the provision of child and family services. As in every other

year, HHS must annually allocate those PSSF funds as follows: each state (plus the District of

Columbia) is entitled to an allotment of those funds based on its relative share of children

receiving benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); each territory

(American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) is

entitled to an allotment based on the formula that is used under the CWS program (described

above). To receive their full allotment amounts, states must provide $1 in program funding for

every $3 in federal funds provided and they may not spend more than 10% of total program funds

(federal and nonfederal) for program administration. For FY2014 the median PSSF allotment to a

state child welfare agency (50 states and DC) was just above $4.0 million while the largest single

allotment was $31.3 million (Texas) and the smallest was just above $239,000 (Wyoming). (For

PSSF allotments by state, see Appendix C.)

Tribal Receipt of PSSF Funding

Funding for tribal child and family services is reserved from the overall PSSF appropriation

before allocation of those funds to states and territories for child and family services. The statute

provides that 3% of most mandatory PSSF funding must be reserved for tribal grants in addition

to 3% of any discretionary funds provided for the program.55 For FY2014, the tribal set-aside was

just above $10 million. Tribes, tribal organizations, or tribal consortia that seek PSSF funding

must submit a plan to HHS for approval. In general, they must meet the same state plan

requirements under the PSSF program that states are required to meet. However, if—“taking into

account the resources, needs, and other circumstances of the Indian tribe or tribal consortium”—

HHS considers either inappropriate, a tribal entity may be exempted from the requirement that (1)

no less than 90% of the funds be spent on provision of services, and (2) that “significant” portions

of funding will be devoted to each of the four named service categories.56

HHS is required to make an allotment to each tribe or tribal consortium based on that tribal

entity’s relative share of children among all tribal entities with an approved PSSF plan.57

However, HHS may not approve a plan of a tribal entity if, based on this distribution formula, the

PSSF funds available to the tribal entity would be less than $10,000.58 For FY2014, HHS allotted

45 CFR 1357.32(f) specifies that for purposes of meeting this non-supplant requirement, the applicable “base” year is

state FY1992.

The 3% is applied to the mandatory funding total after reserving $40 million of those funds for targeted purposes, but

before any other set-asides are applied.

Section 432(b)(2)(A).

For purposes of distributing tribal PSSF funds, HHS has interpreted “children” to mean individuals under the age of

21. This allows it to use the same tribal population data for the PSSF program as is used in the CWS program.

Section 432(b)(2)(B).

Congressional Research Service

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

PSSF funds to 138 tribal entities serving children in 29 states. The median tribal PSSF allotment

was just above $30,000 while the largest such allotment exceeded $1.4 million (to Navajo Nation,

serving tribal children in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) and the smallest was just above the

minimum tribal allotment amount of $10,000 (to the Chitimacha in Louisiana). 59

Other Activities for Which PSSF Funds Must

Be Reserved

Support for child and family services provided, or funded, by states, tribes, and territories is the

primary purpose for which PSSF funds are appropriated and spent. However, federal law also

requires that certain PSSF funds be reserved and used for additional programs or activities. These

include grants to state and tribal highest courts under the Court Improvement Program; grants for

two targeted purposes (to improve outcomes for children affected by their parents’ substance

abuse and to support monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care); and research,

evaluation, and technical assistance related to programs and purposes supported by the PSSF

program. Each of these programs or activities is described below.

Court Improvement Program (CIP)

Under the Court Improvement Program (CIP, Section 438 of the Social Security Act) the highest

court in any state operating a Title IV-E program is entitled to an allotment of formula grant

funding to make improvements in their handling of child welfare-related proceedings. As

provided by the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (2011, P.L. 112-34),

$1 million of the annual CIP funding must be reserved for competitive grants for tribal courts.

Under current law, all of CIP funding is provided by a set-aside of PSSF program funds, and for

FY2014, $30 million in PSSF funds were reserved for the program ($29 million for state highest

courts and $1 million for tribal courts)60

CIP grants are provided for three kinds of court improvement purposes. States highest courts

seeking to spend money on each of the purposes must indicate this in their single application for

CIP funds and funds provided must be spent on the specific CIP purpose for which they are

granted. Tribal grantees receive a single sum of CIP funds that may be spent on any of these

purposes:

•

Basic: Grants to assess and improve handling of child abuse and neglect

proceedings;

•

Training: Grants to train judges and legal personnel and attorneys in handling of

child welfare cases; and

Based on CRS analysis of PSSF tribal allotments received from HHS, ACF, OLAB in September 2014. See also

HHS, ACF, ACYF-PI-14-04 (available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/pi1404).

For early legislative history and discussion of other court-related child welfare programs, see CRS Report RL33350,

Child Welfare: The Court Improvement Program, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

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

•

Data: Grants to improve the timeliness of court decisions regarding the safety,

permanence, and well-being of children (through collection and analysis of

relevant data).

As stipulated by the 2011 amendments to CIP (P.L. 112-34), both basic and training grants may

support activities that increase and improve engagement of families in court proceedings related

to child welfare generally, including proceedings concerning family preservation, reunification, or

adoption.

Eligibility for CIP Grants

To be eligible for any CIP formula grant, a highest court must be located in a state (or other

jurisdiction) that operates a Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and guardianship program

and it must have a rule in effect requiring courts in that state (or jurisdiction) to ensure that foster

parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative caregivers of a child in foster care are notified of any

proceedings to be held with respect to the child.61 The highest courts in each of the 50 states, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico participate in the CIP.

To be eligible for competitive tribal CIP grants, a court must be the highest court of a tribe that is

(1) operating, or seeking to operate, a Title IV-E program (as evidenced by receipt of a tribal Title

IV-E plan development grant), or (2) has a court responsible for proceedings related to adoption

and foster care.

Program and Application Requirements of State Highest Courts

Before FY2012, state highest courts were required to submit separate applications to receive each

grant. That requirement was changed by the Child and Family Services Improvement and

Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34). State highest courts are now required to submit a single application

but they must indicate in that application whether they are applying to receive CIP funding for all

three purposes or less than that. For FY2014 all states applied for, and received, grant funding for

each of the three CIP grant purposes. Most states have applied for and receive funds for all three

CIP grant purposes.62

All state highest courts (including the highest courts in Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia)

successfully applied for and received CIP funding in FY2012 and are therefore expected to

receive this funding in each year through FY2016. Although a state highest court does not need to

reapply for CIP funds in each of these years, a court’s continued receipt of CIP funds in each of

FY2013-FY2016 is contingent on its successful progress toward identified outcomes. Courts

must demonstrate this via updated strategic plans, year-end assessment reports and participation

in periodic review calls hosted by HHS. Courts must also continue to provide annual letters (from

Section 438(b)(1).

In previous years, most but not all states applied for and received funding for each CIP grant purpose. According to

HHS, South Carolina’s highest court did not apply for a basic grant for each of FY2008 through FY2011 but it has

done so for subsequent years. Additionally a number of states including the District of Columbia, Hawaii,

Massachusetts, Maryland, and Wisconsin did not apply for CIP data grant funding in at least one or more years (from

FY2008 through FY2013).

Congressional Research Service

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

the court and the child welfare agency) assuring continued compliance with and satisfaction of

CIP requirements.63

Application

In its CIP application a state highest court is required to identify why it is applying for CIP funds

and what it intends to achieve with the funding. Further it must demonstrate “meaningful and

ongoing collaboration” between the courts, the state child welfare agency, and Indian tribes

(where applicable); discuss how data collection and sharing will occur between the courts and the

state and local child welfare agencies; demonstrate that at least some of any CIP training funds it

receives will be used for cross-training initiatives jointly planned and carried out with the state

child welfare agency; and provide additional information as requested by HHS.

As part of demonstrating meaningful collaboration, HHS requires state highest courts to establish

a statewide multidisciplinary taskforce to guide CIP efforts. Further the state highest court must

include, as part of its application, a letter of support from the state child welfare agency that

assures ongoing collaboration, consultation, and engagement with regard to program planning

and implementation, federal compliance reviews for the state child welfare agency and any courtrelated aspects of required child welfare program improvements. The letter must also ensure that

the state child welfare agency will share administrative data with the court on an ongoing basis.64

Program Requirements

HHS now requires all state highest courts that receive CIP funding to implement continuous

quality improvement (CQI) procedures. These procedures must be used to regularly, and on an

ongoing basis, ensure that the court’s child abuse and neglect proceedings promote: due process

of law; timely and thorough court hearings; high quality legal representation to parents, children

and child welfare agencies (both in court and out of court); and engagement of the entire family

in court processes.65

Beginning with FY2013, state highest courts are also required to annually collect and report data

on five timeliness measures: 1) median time from original petition to child’s first permanency

hearing; 2) median time (in days) between every subsequent permanency hearing while the child

remains in care; 3) median time from original child abuse and neglect petition to legal

permanency (i.e., reunification, adoption, legal guardianship or placement with a fit and willing

relative); 4) median time from original child abuse and neglect petition to the date a petition for

termination of parental rights is filed (for children who are not reunited); and 5) median time from

original child abuse and neglect petition to completed termination of parental rights proceedings

(for children who are not reunited).66

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-12-02 “Instructions for State Courts Applying for the Court Improvement

Program Funds for Fiscal Years 2012-2016,” issued January 1, 2012.

Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

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

Distribution to State Highest Courts and Required

Nonfederal Share

Each state highest court with an approved CIP application is entitled to receive a minimum grant

of $85,000 and a portion of any of the remaining set-aside funds that is equal to the share of

individuals under 21 years of age in its state (compared to all states with an approved application

for the grant). This same formula applies to each of the three CIP grant purposes. Thus, if a state

highest court successfully applies and seeks funding for all three CIP grant purposes, it receives

three minimum allotments of $85,000 (a total of $255,000) and a share of the remaining funds for

each CIP grant purpose based on the size of its state’s population under 21 years of age.

State highest courts must provide $1 in program funding for every $3 in federal funding provided

under the CIP. (Appendix E, includes tables showing funding by CIP grant purpose and by state

highest courts for FY2013 and FY2014).

Federal Funding for CIP

The CIP was established in FY1995 with funds set aside from the program now known as PSSF.

The original legislation (P.L. 103-66, 1993) required state highest courts to use the grant funding

to assess their handling of child welfare proceedings.67 Funding provided for the CIP totaled $5

million in its initial year (FY1995), was at $10 million for each of FY1996-FY2001, and, after

Congress authorized additional discretionary PSSF funding to be reserved for the CIP as of

FY2002, reached a little more than $13 million in FY2005. As part of the Deficit Reduction Act

(P.L. 109-171), Congress expanded the CIP program, authorizing two additional purposes (related

to training and data collection) and annually appropriating an additional $20 million for the CIP.

Funding for the CIP has been between $30 and $33 million in each year beginning with FY2006.

For the first five years (FY2006-FY2010) part of the funding was appropriated independent of the

PSSF program (via P.L. 109-171). However, beginning with FY2011 (as provided in P.L. 111242, Section 133), all CIP funding is again provided via a reservation of funds appropriated for

the PSSF program. Under current law, the annual set-aside for the CIP is $30 million in

mandatory funding authorized for the PSSF plus 3.3% of any discretionary appropriations

provided for the PSSF. The PSSF program is currently authorized through FY2016.

Beginning with FY2012 (and for each year after that one), $1 million of the $30 million in

mandatory CIP funding must be reserved for tribal court improvement grants; $10 million must

be used for the CIP grant purpose related to training, and $10 million for the CIP grant purpose

related to data collection. The remaining $9 million in mandatory funds, along with any

discretionary PSSF funds reserved for the CIP, must be used to support the basic CIP grant

purposes. (For a CIP funding history, FY1995-FY2014, see Table E-1 in Appendix E.)

The original Court Improvement Program authorization was provided as an independent piece of law within the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66). The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments of

2001 (P.L. 107-133) moved its authorization into the Social Security Act (by creating a new Section 438).

Congressional Research Service

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

Tribal Court Improvement Program

HHS awarded the first grants for tribal court improvement in September 2012. The awards valued

at up to $150,000 per year for each of three years were made to seven tribal entities: Navajo

Nation Judicial Branch, Window Rock, AZ; Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Pablo, MT;

Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Dowagiac, MI; White Earth Band of Chippewa, White

Earth, MN; Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, Gardnerville, NV; The Pascua Yaqui Tribe,

Tucson, AZ; and Nooksack, Indian Tribe, Deming, WA. Each of these grantees received their

third year of tribal CIP funding in late FY2014.

HHS has announced its intention to fund a second round of Tribal Court Improvement grants

beginning with FY2015. Current grantees may again apply for this funding and up to 10 grants

may be awarded.68

Targeted Purposes Funded with PSSF Dollars

The statute requires that each year $40 million in mandatory PSSF program funds must be

reserved for two “targeted purposes”: (1) competitive grants to regional partnerships to improve

the outcomes of children affected by parental substance abuse; and (2) formula grants to state

child welfare agencies to improve the quality and frequency of caseworker visits with children in

foster care. Targeting of PSSF funds for these purposes was first included in the Child and Family

Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288). At that time Congress responded to new

evidence about the significance of regular caseworker visits in achieving good outcomes for

children in foster care, and, separately, to longstanding concerns about the frequency with which

parental substance abuse brings children to the attention of the child welfare agency and the

difficulties those agencies face in ensuring positive outcomes for the affected children. With the

2011 Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34), Congress

extended the provisions targeting PSSF funds for these purposes through FY2016.

Grants to Regional Partnerships to Improve Outcomes for Children

Affected by Parental/Caretaker Substance Abuse

For more than one-quarter (28%) of the children who entered foster care during FY2013, drug

abuse by the parent or caretaker was reported as a circumstance of the child’s removal to foster

care. Additionally, alcohol abuse by a parent or caretaker was cited as a circumstance of removal

for 6% of children entering care during that year.69 The percentage of children who remain in care

due to issues related to substance abuse is believed to be even larger because, among other

reasons, accessing and successfully completing treatment services is often time consuming and

children may not be able to safely return to their homes until treatment is successfully

completed.70

HHS Grants Forecast, Tribal Court Improvement, posted September 17, 2014.

States may report more than one “circumstance of removal.” FY2013 data on circumstances of removal to foster care

were provided to CRS by HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau based on state reporting via AFCARS.

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Targeted Grants to Increase the Well-Being of, and Improve the Permanency

Outcomes for, Children Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse: First Annual Report to Congress,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

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

In 2006 (P.L. 109-288), Congress authorized grants for services and activities designed to

improve the safety, permanence, and well-being of children who are in out-of-home placement, or

are at risk of such placement, because of a parent or caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine or

another substance. 71 The law required HHS to provide these grants on a competitive basis to

“regional partnerships” comprised of child welfare agencies, and other relevant partners, serving

a defined area. In awarding the grants HHS was instructed to give additional weight to a

partnership application that demonstrated greater need to respond to methamphetamine abuse in

its service region and proposed a response to methamphetamine abuse. Services and activities that

partnerships were authorized to provide included family-based, comprehensive, long-term

substance abuse treatment services (and replication of successful models for providing such

services); early intervention and preventative services; child and family counseling; mental health

services; and parenting skills training. The 2006 law also required HHS to establish performance

indicators to allow assessment of work done by grantees, required that grantees report on their

work in relation to those indicators, and, in turn, that HHS provide Congress with annual reports

on the work of the grantees.

Regional Partnerships Defined

The law defines “regional partnerships” as collaborative arrangements between two or more

agencies in a defined area or region, one of which must be the state (county) or tribal child

welfare agency. Other agencies or individuals permitted, or encouraged, to be a part of, or

lead, regional partnerships include judges and court personnel, public or private social service

agencies, private child welfare agencies, substance abuse treatment or prevention agencies,

juvenile justice officials, school personnel and others.

Section 437(f)(2) of the Social Security Act

In 2011 (P.L. 112-34) Congress extended the reservation of PSSF program funding for these

“regional partnership grants” for an additional five years (FY2012-FY2016) and made limited

changes to the program. It removed the specific reference to methamphetamine abuse (and related

weighting of grantee applications), permitted HHS to award two-year extension grants to

previously funded grantees, indicated prior grantees were also allowed to submit applications for

support of a new project or to receive extension and new project funding simultaneously, required

cross-site evaluations and reports, and limited federal administration spending to no more than

5% of program funding.

To make these “regional partnership grants” Congress initially reserved a total of $145 million in

mandatory PSSF program funding across five years (FY2007-FY2011). In 2011 (P.L. 112-34), it

continued the grant program for five additional years, reserving $100 million ($20 million

annually) in mandatory PSSF funding for the grants.

(...continued)

sent to Congress May 2010, pp. 1-2. (Hereinafter cited as HHS, First Annual Report (on regional partnership grants).

After holding an April 25, 2006 hearing focused on the particular strains on child welfare agencies brought about by

parental abuse of methamphetamine, the Senate Finance Committee reported legislation titled the “Improving

Outcomes for Children Affected by Meth Act of 2006” (S.Rept. 109-269 to accompany S. 3525). Grants proposed in

that bill ultimately became one of the targeted purposes for which PSSF funding was initially provided.

Congressional Research Service

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

Awards Made

Through September 30 of FY2014, HHS had awarded this targeted PSSF funding to 64 regional

partnerships located in 32 states (including six tribal areas).72 In most instances regional

partnership grantees have received (or are expected to receive) five years of federal funding for a

single project.73 Further, they have typically received the minimum annual statutory award

amount of $500,000 for each year of their project.74 To receive this federal support, the law states

that regional partnership grantees must provide matching funds rising from 15% to 25% of this

federal funding across a five-year grant project.75 This means the typical project—receiving

federal support of $500,000 across each of five years—should have a total annual budget (federal

award plus grantee match) of at least $588,000 in the initial years, rising to at least $667,000 in

year five.

Reports on Regional Partnership Grants

As of September 2014 HHS had submitted three annual reports detailing the work of the initial

round of grantees through the fourth year of the grant period (which ended September 30,

2011).76 The most recent report (submitted in March 2014) discusses performance indicators

across sites and is intended to meet the discussion of effectiveness for initial grantees (required by

P.L. 112-34).77 HHS also notes that it plans to issue a final report on the work of the first 53

grantees, covering the full five-year grant period.78 Finally, it notes that HHS has contracted for a

Initial awards were made on September 30, 2007, September 30, 2011, and September 30, 2014. For a list of the first

53 regional partnership grantees, including brief project descriptions, see HHS, First Annual Report (on regional

partnership grants)), Appendix B available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/targeted-grants-to-increasethe-well-being; For a list, with brief project descriptions of the second round of 25 grantees (including new projects and

two year extension grants) see HHS, ACF, ACYF, Integrating Safety, Permanency and Well-Being for Children and

Families in Child Welfare, Appendix B, pp. 15-18, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/acyffy2012-projects-summary. For the four partnership grants awarded on September 30, 2014 see “Regional Partnership

Grants ... ” included in list of FY2014 grants at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/discretionary-grantawards-2014.

A relatively small number of initial grantees sought and received three years of grant funding. Further, eight grantees

successfully sought a two-year extension. The law says no grant project period may be less than two years or more than

five years, except that a grantee may apply for a two-year extension of project funding (Section 436(f)(3)(B)).

Some grantees received different annual amounts up to $1 million. The law says no grantee may receive annual

funding of less than $500,000 or more than $1 million for a given project. (Section 436(f)(3)(A)).

A grantee must provide 15% of the project funding in years one and two, 20% in years three and four; and 25% in

year five. Additionally, extension grantees are required to provide 30% and 35% in matching funds for years five and

six of the grant, respectively (Section 436(f)(6)).

See HHS report requirements at Section 437(f)(9)). A link to each report is at http://www.cffutures.org/projects/rpg.

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Targeted Grants to Increase the Well-Being of and Improve the Permanency

Outcomes for, Children Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse: Third Annual Report to Congress,

submitted March 2014, p. 9. (Hereinafter HHS, Third Annual Report (on regional partnership grants)). The 2011 law

(Section 103(c)(1)(3) of P.L. 112-34) required HHS to conduct cross-site evaluations and provide a final report on

work of grantees receiving FY2007-FY2011 funding and, separately, grantees receiving FY2012-FY2016 funding.

HHS, Third Annual Report (on regional partnership grants) notes that the round of regional partnership grants receiving

FY2007-FY20011 funding were awarded before the cross-site evaluation requirement was added to the law and were

implemented in a manner that does not allow for a cross-site evaluation that can show statistically significant impacts.

However, HHS did develop a performance indicator system, which met the initial statutory requirement for program

study and permits review of grantees work and outcomes for families served.

Grant funding under this project is typically awarded on the last day of the fiscal year for which the funding was

appropriated. Therefore while funding for the initial awards began with FY2007 and ended with FY2011, the first year

of grant funding was issued on September 30, 2007 and the fifth year was issued on September 30, 2011. Generally

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

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

cross-site evaluation of the second round of grantees and expects to issue an evaluation report for

those grantees in December 2017.79

Children and Families Served by Regional Partnerships and Services Offered

Through the four years of the grant period, 12,238 families, including close to 14,462 adults and

20,276 children, had been served through one of the initial 53 regional partnership grants. Most of

these regional partnerships (72%) targeted their services to families with children at risk of

entering foster care or those already in care. However, some focused primarily on families with

children at-risk of entering care (15%) or those with children already in care (13%). The average

number of families served by a grantee ranged from a low of 24 to a high of 1,305 and averaged

231. Among those who had been served and discharged from the program by the end of year four,

the average length of service under the regional partnership grant program was 215 days, or 7.2

months.80 (For additional characteristics of children, and, separately, adults served, see Appendix

F.)

Grantees focused on a range of strategies to improve outcomes for children (and their families)

affected by parental abuse of methamphetamine and other substances. Among these were

enhancements to or creation of court-based drug treatment programs; increasing timely access to

treatment services, including residential treatment and home-based services; strengthening and

expanding available services to families with substance abuse concerns or establishing new

continuums of care for these families; and improving service integration and knowledge skills

and collaboration across practice areas.

By year four of the grant program many regional partnerships had refined their service models to

better meet needs of families served. Specifically, HHS reported that they had (1) added or

expanded services to identify and address effects of trauma on both the adults and children

served; (2) improved their ability to identify and meet children’s service needs, including through

direct provision of services or better links to other agencies providing needed services (e.g., early

childhood development and substance abuse education); (3) better integrated their services to

adults and children (serving family as whole); (4) strengthened their recovery services, especially

through implementing or enhancing peer/parent mentors, recovery coaches, or other substance

abuse specialists; and (5) continued to focus on provision of key supportive services, particularly

housing (lack of which grantees noted directly impacts ability of families to be reunited) as well

as medical and health care services.81

Performance Indicators and Findings as of Year Four

The 2006 law authorizing regional partnership grants required HHS to establish performance

indicators (in consultation with certain stakeholders) to assess the work carried out by grantees.

Twenty-three indicators were established to assess grantees work in the areas of safety and

permanency for children served; recovery for adults; well-being for children, families, and adults

(...continued)

then grantees used the FY2007-FY2011 funding to carry out their projects across FY2008-FY2012.

See HHS, Third Annual Report (on regional partnership grants), pp. i-ii.

Ibid, p. 85-86.

Ibid, pp. 16-34.

Congressional Research Service

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

served; and systems collaboration. HHS established a web-based program that grantees use to

regularly report data on these performance indicators. Not all of the indicators may necessarily be

deemed relevant to the design of a particular regional partnership grantee. Grantees must report

only on indicators relevant to their program. (See Appendix F for a complete list of performance

indicators, as well as some descriptive findings related to these performance indicators, through

four years of grant operation (i.e., for September 30, 2007, through September 30, 2011)).

Lessons on Successful Collaborative Efforts and Program Operations

When Congress established regional partnerships as the only entities eligible to receive this grant

funding, it signaled strong interest in a collaborative approach to addressing the child welfare

needs of children whose parents or caretakers abuse drugs or alcohol. By year four of the program

100% of the grantees reported both child welfare services and substance abuse treatment agencies

and organizations were a part of their regional partnership and close to three-fourths (74%) of the

partnerships involved courts or court-related organizations. These three groups might be

considered core constituencies in addressing needs of children with substance-abusing parents. As

of year four of the program, however, most regional partnerships included 10 or more partners.

Beyond the three already mentioned, these included (in descending order of frequency) mental

health agencies or providers, community-based providers of child and family services, criminal

justice and legal systems partners, education/early childhood education groups, adult health

services agencies or providers, state and local employment agencies, and housing agencies or

service providers.82

Grantees report that collaboration is critical to identifying families needing services and

appropriately assessing and responding to those needs, and further, that it is essential to sustaining

a project over time. They concede, however, that collaboration takes ongoing effort and planning

and note that it takes time to move beyond first steps (such as sharing data or information) to

implementing shared practices and policies at a system level and maintaining joint accountability

for outcomes achieved. To meet these ends, some important components of collaboration, as

discussed by grantees, include cross-system training, clearly defined roles and expectations for

each partner, regular and ongoing communication, and shared supervision or monitoring of

project outcomes.83

In terms of program operations, as of year four regional partnerships were increasing their efforts

to provide family-centered responses (as opposed to those solely focused on child welfare or,

alternatively, adult recovery). Grantees reported co-location of workers to be positive for partners

in the grant project as well as for families served, and also that it can facilitate shared treatment

planning. Providing supportive services to families was found to be critical to the success of a

regional partnership. Further ongoing review of the services and activities offered was noted as

important to respond to newly identified or changing needs of families served.84

Federal money was critical to development of the partnerships, with grantees reporting that

federal dollars alone funded close to two-thirds (64%) of their “system collaboration and

improvements” work (compared to 40% of project services and activities overall).85 Among the

Ibid, p.7

Ibid, pp 35-62

Ibid.

Ibid, p. 1

Congressional Research Service

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

43 grantees who received an initial five-year project grant, 17 regional partnerships were assessed

(at year four) as likely able to continue their project beyond the end of federal funding, 17 were

thought likely to be able to continue some part of the project or a scaled down version, and

sustainability of 9 of the projects was deemed not yet knowable. Integrating the work of the

regional partnership into larger community or state systems was considered important to enable

ongoing work, including the ability to establish third-party billing to pay for some work (e.g.,

billing Medicaid). The operation and longer-term sustainability of these regional partnerships,

which began operation shortly before the 2008-2009 recession, were affected by the difficult

fiscal climate, which outside the regional partnership, reduced substance abuse treatment

capacity, affected child welfare staffing, and reducing community supports available. Changes in

child welfare policy and practice also affected the work of the partnerships as more child welfare

agencies implemented policies (such as differential response) that reduced the number of children

entering foster care, providing more in-home services. The often voluntary nature of those

services (as opposed to court order) required greater family engagement efforts to bring families

to the services of the regional partnership.86

Grants to Improve Monthly Case Worker Visits of Children in

Foster Care

Beginning in the middle 2000s, federal reviews of state performance in providing child welfare

services demonstrated that frequent and adequate caseworker visits were associated with timely

achievement of permanence for children in care, placement stability for children in foster care, as

well as more positive outcomes related to ensuring children’s safety and meeting the educational,

physical, and mental health needs of children.87 Still, no federal standards for frequency or

content of caseworker visits were in place. Further, a 2003 survey of state agencies found that

while most states did have standards requiring at least one visit a month for children in foster care

(n=47), far fewer (n=20) had the ability to track the frequency of caseworker visits with children

in foster care, and that even among those states able to track caseworker visits, many children did

not necessarily receive a monthly visit.88

To address this issue, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)

committed $95 million in mandatory PSSF funding across six years (FY2006-FY2011) to help

ensure frequent, quality caseworker visits with children in foster care. In 2011, the Child and

Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34) extended this support, reserving

$100 million in PSSF mandatory funds across five years ($20 million in each of FY2012FY2016). Separately, the 2006 law (as amended in 2011) required states—under their CWS state

plan—to ensure that each child in foster care is visited at least once a month, and that the visit is

well-planned and focused on the child’s safety, permanency, and well-being. Further, states must

report data to HHS on the frequency of monthly caseworker visits and the share of those visits

that happen where the child was residing while in foster care. Finally, the law stipulates that states

Ibid, pp. 63-7.

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Report to Congress on Monthly Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster

Care,” received January 2011. (Hereinafter, “HHS Report on Monthly Caseworker Visits.”) See also, National

Conference of State Legislators, Child Welfare Caseworker Visits with Children and Parents, September 2006,

http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/documents/cyf/caseworkervisits.pdf.

HHS, Office of the Inspector General, State Standards and Capacity to Track Caseworker Visits with Children in

Foster Care, (OEI- 04-03-00350), December 2005

Congressional Research Service

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

failing to achieve national standards concerning frequency of monthly caseworker visits (90%,

rising to 95% in 2015) and in-home caseworker visits (50%) must provide additional non-federal

funds (matching dollars) to receive their full federal allotment of funding under the CWS

program.

Use of PSSF Funding to Improve Case Worker Visits

States are to use the caseworker grant funding to improve the quality of monthly caseworker

visits with children in foster care—including better caseworker decision making regarding the

safety, permanency and well-being of those children—and to support activities designed to

increase retention, recruitment and training of caseworkers.89 (For allotment amounts by state, see

Appendix C.) In a June 2012 survey, states reported spending monthly caseworker dollars to

support worker training on planning and carrying out quality caseworker visits that promote

placement stability and permanency for children (and for related quality assurance work); pay

overtime to staff to allow increased time for caseworker visits; cover travel expenses for

caseworker visits, including out of state visits; develop and support data systems and improved

reporting to better track caseworker visits; purchase equipment needed to make field and online

recording and reporting of caseworker visits easier; and buy items to recognize worker

achievements (e.g., certificates and lapel pins).90

CWS Requirements Related to Caseworker Visits

As part of its CWS plan, a state must describe its standards for the content and frequency of

caseworker visits with children in foster care. At a minimum, the law provides that those

standards must ensure children in foster care are visited on a monthly basis and that each

caseworker visit is well-planned and focused on ensuring the child’s safety, permanence, and

well-being.91 HHS has noted that these monthly caseworker visits must be held in person.92

Further, states must report data to HHS to enable it to determine the percentage of monthly

caseworker visits achieved by the state in each fiscal year, as well as the share of those visits that

occurred in the child’s foster care residence (e.g., family home or institution). States are subject to

reduced federal financial participation in the CWS program if they fail to achieve a 90% monthly

caseworker visit percentage (95% as of FY2015) and/or if they fail to show that at least half of

the monthly caseworker visits occur onsite where a child is residing while in foster care.93

Section 436(a)(4)(B). The 2011 law retained prior law focus on activities designed to improve caseworker retention,

recruitment, and training,” added reference to support for quality caseworker visits and decisionmaking and dropped the

2006 explicit language regarding giving caseworkers the “ability to access the benefits of technology.”

National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections, handout for webinar “Addressing the Use of

Caseworker Visit Funds,” July 26, 2012.

Section 422(b)(17).

HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 7.3, Q&A 8. This policy guidance

clarifies that “video-conferencing” may not be counted as a monthly caseworker visit because it does not constitute an

in-person visit.

Section 424(f). The national requirement was put in place by the 2011 program reauthorization (P.L. 112-34).

Initially, (as added by P.L. 109-288) the law required each state, in consultation with HHS, to outline specific steps

(including state-specific targets) to ensure that no later than October 1, 2011 at least 90% of the children in foster care

receive a monthly visit from their caseworker.

Congressional Research Service

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

Determining a State’s Monthly Case Worker Visit Percentage

The manner in which a state’s monthly caseworker visit percentage is calculated was changed

(effective with FY2012) as part of the 2011 reauthorization of CWS and PSSF (P.L. 112-34). The

initial method (used for FY2007-FY2011) was child specific and required that in order for a state

to count a child as having been visited on a monthly basis, such a visit must have occurred for the

child in “each and every” month that the child was in care. A state’s monthly caseworker visit

percentage was determined by comparing that number of children to the total number of children

served by the state in foster care during the fiscal year. 94 The revised calculation, as provided in

P.L. 112-34, looks at the number of monthly caseworker visits to children in foster care during the

fiscal year and compares that to the total number of caseworker visits that would have occurred

during the fiscal year if every child in care for at least one month during that fiscal year had been

visited at least once in every month. (If a child is visited twice in the same month, only one of

those visits must count as a monthly caseworker visit.)95 This more recent method—which counts

visits completed as opposed to children—permits states to receive some credit every time they

complete a monthly caseworker visit.96

Children Visited Monthly

Under the initial child-specific standard, just 15 states were able to report that during FY2011

90% of the children in their foster care caseload received a caseworker visit for each and every

month in which the child was in foster care. However, that represented a sizeable increase from

FY2007, when just one state was able to meet the 90% target. Further, under the old childspecific standard, the average monthly caseworker visit percentage across all states rose from less

than 42% in FY2007 to 74% in FY2011.97 (Some of the change in reported frequency of

caseworker visits may have reflected improvements in states’ ability to track visits.)

Under the new monthly caseworker visit standard, which is specific to the number of monthly

caseworker visits a state completes, 37 states were able to achieve a 90% monthly caseworker

visit percentage in FY2012, and that number grew to 39 states in FY2012.98 (For state-level

monthly caseworker visit percentages, see Appendix G).

Children Visited Where They Live

The law further requires that no less than half of all caseworker visits occur where the child is

residing while in foster care (e.g., in the child’s foster family home, group care, or institutional

setting). Nearly all states were meeting this standard in the first year the data were collected

See HHS, ACF, ACYF, PI-07-08, issued May 30, 2007.

For purposes of this calculation, children in foster care who are placed out of state must be included. However, any

child in foster care at age 18 or older is to be excluded. See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau PI-12-01 and HHS,

ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 7.3, Q&A 7.

Under this child-specific method for determining a state’s monthly caseworker visit percentage, a state’s

performance was rated the same whether a child received a caseworker visit in each of 11 months during a 12-month

stay in foster care or whether the child received a caseworker visit in only 1 month during a 12-month stay in foster

care. In either case, the state’s effort would not count toward meeting the monthly caseworker percentage.

“States” here refers to 52 jurisdictions for which these requirements apply – the 50 states, District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico. Based on Children’s Bureau data received from HHS, ACF, OLAB in September 2014.

Based on Children’s Bureau data received from HHS, ACF, OLAB in September 2014.

Congressional Research Service

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

(FY2007). However, FY2013 is the first year in which all 52 states (includes DC and Puerto

Rico) were able to report meeting the 50% target for caseworker visits in the child’s home. The

average state percentage of in-home monthly caseworker visits was 69% in FY2007 and had risen

to 84% in FY2013.

Reduced Federal Financial Participation in CWS

States that fail to meet the national target percentages (90% or 95% as of FY2015) for monthly

caseworker visits and, separately, 50% for visits in the home of the foster child, are subject to

reduced federal financial participation in the CWS program. This means they have to supply more

non-federal dollars (e.g., state or local money) to get the same amount of federal CWS support.99

The amount of additional non-federal spending required varies by the degree to which a state

failed to meet the target percentage(s). A state that misses the target(s) by fewer than 10% must

provide no less than 26% of the overall CWS funding (instead of the regular 25%) to receive its

full federal CWS allotment; a state that misses the target(s) by between 10% and 20% must

provide no less than 28% of the program funding; and a state that misses the target(s) by 20% or

more must provide not less than 30% of the CWS program funding.

For FY2013, 13 states (including Puerto Rico) failed to meet the 90% national target for monthly

caseworker visit percentage, and for FY2012 this was true of 15 states. All states exceeded the

50% required in-home visits during FY2013 and Puerto Rico was the only jurisdiction that failed

to meet that standard in FY2012. (For performance information by state, see Appendix G)

Content of Caseworker Visits

In reviewing state standards for the content of caseworker visits that were in place prior to the

2006 enactment of federal requirements for such standards, HHS noted that all states require that

the majority of caseworker visits occur in the home of the child and that the majority of states

required that any child who is verbal have an opportunity to speak with a caseworker privately

during a visit. States also encouraged caseworkers to make impromptu visits to children in care,

particularly those in new placement settings and to increase the frequency of visits based on

specific needs of a child and family.100

Further, in describing the content of caseworker visits, the large majority of states mentioned

ensuring a child’s safety and well-being and discussing issues pertinent to case planning and

achieving permanency goals. HHS also notes that the majority of states mentioned addressing the

child’s educational needs as well as his or her physical, emotional, and behavioral health. Finally,

some states required that additional content areas be addressed with youth who are emancipating

from care, including transition plans, and permanent connections to adults.101

Although the funding for this grant program is provided as a set-aside of PSSF funds and its basic purpose is

explained in the PSSF statute, the requirements related to development of standards for frequency and quality of

caseworker visits, reporting related data, as well as penalties for failure to make the required level of change, were

included as amendments to the CWS program.

100

HHS Report on Monthly Caseworker Visits.

101

Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

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

Early Efforts to Improve Frequency and Content of Caseworker Visits

When states provided the initial data on the frequency of caseworker visits to children in foster

care, the “overwhelming majority” of states raised concerns about documentation of those visits.

As a result, states have worked to improve practice in this area. For most states, this meant

making changes to their child welfare information management systems to aid collection of these

data. Some states reported establishing remote and wireless connectivity to these information

systems and/or purchasing laptops to allow caseworkers to input data while in the field. Others

expanded data fields to allow workers to more accurately describe their visits with children in

foster care. Additionally, many states provided training to staff on proper data entry related to

caseworker visits.102

As part of working to align state policy with the new federal requirements, states also established

working groups to review challenges and address barriers to adequate visits. Among the strategies

employed by certain states were retention incentives for caseworkers; training on visitation

policies and State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) enhancements for

easier data collection and more accurate data reporting (Kansas); permitting caseworkers to

establish alternative work schedules and to use overtime to meet the caseworker visit

requirements (District of Columbia and West Virginia); developing a chart that specified required

frequency of contact and who was responsible for that contact (Delaware and Georgia); enhanced

supervisory training and supports (Mississippi); and implementing a one family/one worker

policy to improve continuity of service and foster trust and engagement between caseworker and

family.103

Research, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance

Funding

HHS is required to annually reserve some PSSF funds to support evaluation of family support,

family preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption promotion and support

services funded through the PSSF program or any other program designed to achieve the same

purposes as the PSSF program. Further, HHS is specifically instructed to support evaluation,

research, and technical assistance related to the targeted purposes under the PSSF program ( i.e.,

improved monthly caseworker visits with children in foster care and improved outcomes for

children affected by parental/caretaker substance abuse). 104 Finally, to the extent funds are

available for this purpose, HHS is specifically required to provide technical assistance to help

states and Indian tribes or tribal consortia to (1) better identify families where children are at risk

of child abuse and neglect; (2) develop treatment models to improve services to those families,

especially those where substance abuse is an issue; (3) implement well-designed treatment

models that clearly state how the services will result in desired changes for families served; (4)

establish mechanisms to ensure services delivered match the identified treatment models; and (5)

102

Ibid.

104

The law requires HHS to use not less than $2 million in each fiscal year to support this work ($1 million for each

targeted purpose). Section 435(c).

103

Congressional Research Service

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

establish mechanisms to ensure that post-adoption services meet the needs of individual families

and develop models to reduce the rate of disrupted adoptions.105

The total annual set-aside authorized for this purpose is $6 million in mandatory PSSF funds plus

3.3% of any discretionary funds appropriated for the program.106 In recent years, the research setaside has totaled between $7 million and $8 million annually.

Use of Funds

PSSF research and evaluation funding is awarded competitively (via contracts, grants, and

cooperative agreements). FY2009-FY2013 funding was used to fully or partially fund several

national child welfare resource centers that provided technical assistance and training to state and

tribal public child welfare agencies. Specifically, these included the national child welfare

resource centers concerned with Organizational Improvement, Youth Development, Permanency

and Family Connections, and Legal and Judicial Issues. During those same five years these PSSF

funds were also used to provide partial support to the Child Welfare Information Gateway, which

acts as a single web-based information clearinghouse on a full continuum of child welfare topics,

and to co-sponsor (with the HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA)) the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare.107 Additionally, in late

FY2011 HHS awarded four grants related to improving services delivery to youth in the child

welfare system. The grants are expected to be funded for five years and were made to public and

private agencies in four states. 108

HHS, through the Children’s Bureau, has recently announced a major re-organization of its

training and technical assistance network, which has included multiple national resource centers,

regional implementation centers, and an information clearinghouse known as the Child Welfare

Information Gateway. 109 Beginning with FY2015, the work of nine national resource centers

(including three of the five that had been funded with PSSF dollars), five regional implementation

centers and the training and technical assistance coordination center is transferred to a single

National Capacity Building Center for Public Child Welfare Agencies. However, the Child

Welfare Information Gateway and a number of national resource centers, including all those that

are statutorily mandated, will continue to be supported through separate competitively awarded

contracts or agreements.110

Accordingly, beginning September 30, 2014, PSSF funding is being used to support the National

Capacity Building Center for Public Child Welfare Agencies. It continues to provide funding for

105

Section 435

Section 436(b)(1) and Section 437(b)(1).

107

CRS communication with HHS, Office of Secretary for Legislative Affairs and HHS, Office of Legislative Affairs

and Budget, September 2014.

108

The Improving Services Delivery for Youth in the Child Welfare System grantees are listed (along with other

FY2011 grantees) in this document, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/discretionary-grant-awards-2011.

109

See Children’s Bureau Briefing, “Changes to the Delivery of Training and Technical Assistance,” JooYeun Chang,

Associate Commissioner, Children’s Bureau, April 23, 2014 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/changesto-tta-delivery.

110

For example, see the list of HHS, Children’s Bureau competitive awards made with FY2014 dollars on September

30, 2014, including multiple national resource centers: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/discretionarygrant-awards-2014.

106

Congressional Research Service

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

the separately operating National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues.

Additionally, partial support for the Child Welfare Information Gateway, co-sponsorship of the

National Center of Substance Abuse and Child Welfare, and previously awarded grants related to

improving services delivery for youth in the child welfare system will continue to be supported

with this PSSF funding.111

Report to Congress

HHS is required to report to Congress every two years on the effectiveness of the PSSF programs. The

report is to discuss any technical assistance provided and, with regard to program evaluations, include

funding level, status of any ongoing evaluations, and findings to date. The most recent report was

submitted to Congress in April 2012 (and covered activities funded in FY2007 and FY2008).

111

CRS communication with HHS, Office of Secretary for Legislative Affairs and HHS, Office of Legislative Affairs

and Budget, September 2014.

Congressional Research Service

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

Appendix A. Title IV-B Funding

Table A-1. Funding for the CWS and PSSF Programs, FY1990-FY2014

Nominal and constant dollars shown in millions

Fiscal

Year

1990

Child Welfare

Services

(CWS)

Promoting Safe

and Stable

Families (PSSF)

TOTAL

Nominal dollars

Child Welfare

Services

(CWS)

Promoting Safe

and Stable

Families (PSSF)

TOTAL

Inflation-adjusted (constant FY2013) dollars

$253

$456

PSSF funding was

not yet authorized.

1991

$274

$471

1992

$274

$457

1993

$295

$477

1994

$295

$60

$355

$465

$95

$559

1995

$292

$150

$442

$448

$230

$678

1996

$277

$225

$502

$414

$336

$750

1997

$292

$240

$532

$424

$349

$773

1998

$292

$255

$547

$418

$365

$783

1999

$292

$275

$567

$409

$386

$795

2000

$292

$295

$587

$397

$401

$799

2001

$292

$305

$597

$385

$402

$787

2002

$292

$375

$667

$379

$487

$866

2003

$290

$404

$694

$368

$513

$881

2004

$289

$404

$694

$359

$501

$860

2005

$290

$404

$693

$348

$484

$832

2006

$287

$434

$721

$332

$502

$834

2007

$287

$434

$721

$324

$491

$815

2008

$282

$408

$690

$305

$442

$748

2009

$282

$408

$690

$306

$444

$750

2010

$282

$408

$690

$301

$436

$737

2011

$281

$428

$709

$293

$446

$738

2012

$281

$408

$689

$285

$415

$700

2013

$263

$387

$650

$263

$387

$650

2014

$269

$380

$649

$263

$372

$636

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on final program funding. Dollars

were adjusted for inflation using the CPI-U for FY1990-FY2013.

Note: The Child Welfare Services program (CWS) was renamed as the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare

Services Program in 2008 (P.L. 110-351). The Promoting Safe and Stable Families program was initially authorized

in FY1994 as Family Preservation and Support Services (P.L. 103-66). It was renamed Promoting Safe and Stable

Families in 1997 (P.L. 105-89).

Congressional Research Service

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

Appendix B. Services or Activities that May Be

Supported Under Title IV-B

Table B-1. Description of Selected Categories of Services Used for Reporting

Expenditures Under Title IV-B

CWS funds may be spent in any of the categories shown in the table. Categories specific to the PSSF

programs are indicated with an * after their names. Not all categories are discrete, thus states may vary in

what category they choose to report a given service provided.