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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41860

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** October 29, 2014
- **Citation:** R41860

## 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

T

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
1%
Foster Care
Maintenance
Payments
5%

Administration
5%

Other Services,
Activities, or Planning
3%

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

1

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

$292

$255
$292

$290

$240

$300

$225

CWS - Nominal Dollars
$150

$400

$292

$500

$60

Dollars in Millions

$600

$277

$292

$295

$295

$274

$274

$100

$253

$200

$0
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

2

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).

$0

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

3

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.

$8
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.
a.

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.

b.

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
1
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

4

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.
2
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

5

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
3
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

6

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).
4
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.
5
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

7

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.

6

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).
7
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

8

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

9

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

10

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).

8

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.
9
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).
10
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%).
11
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.
12
This requirement was added in 2006 by P.L. 109-288, which made it effective with FY2008.

Congressional Research Service

11

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

13
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)).
14
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.
15
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

12

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

16

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).
18
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
19
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
17

Congressional Research Service

13

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
20

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.
22
Section 422(b)(8)(A)(iv).
23
Section 422(b)(8)(B), (11), and (12).
24
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.
25
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.
21

Congressional Research Service

14

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.

26

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.
28
Section 422(b) (9) and (13).
29
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.
30
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).
27

Congressional Research Service

15

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

$0
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

16

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
31

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.
32
Section 428.
33
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).
34
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

17

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

35

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).
36
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

18

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

$0
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

19

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
$9

$12
$8

$350

$40
$12
$8

$37
$30
$8

Dollars in Millions

$300

$250

$10
$6

$200
$354
(95%)

$372
(86%)

$348
(85%)

$150
$239
(94%)

$100

$50

$306
(80%)

$2
$58
(97%)

$0
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

20

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
37

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).
38
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).
39
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

21

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%)
$0

$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

40

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.
41
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.
42
Ibid, pp. 5-6.

Congressional Research Service

22

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

43

Section 432(a)(9).
Section 432(a)(10).
45
Section 432(a)(2) and (5).
46
The final progress review must also be made available to the public. Section 432(a)(2)(C)(ii).
47
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.
44

Congressional Research Service

23

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

48

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.
49
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)).
50
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.
51
Section 432(a)(1) and (3).
52
Section 432(b)(4),(6) and (7); and Section 434(d).
53
45 CFR 1357.32(h).

Congressional Research Service

24

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
54
45 CFR 1357.32(f) specifies that for purposes of meeting this non-supplant requirement, the applicable “base” year is
state FY1992.
55
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.
56
Section 432(b)(2)(A).
57
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.
58
Section 432(b)(2)(B).

Congressional Research Service

25

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

59

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).
60
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

26

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

61

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).
62

Congressional Research Service

27

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

63

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.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.

Congressional Research Service

28

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.)

67
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

29

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

68

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.
70
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...)
69

Congressional Research Service

30

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).
71
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

31

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
72

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.
73
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)).
74
Some grantees received different annual amounts up to $1 million. The law says no grantee may receive annual

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41860. Public record. Not legal advice.