Child Welfare and Child Support: The Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Congressional research reportApr 7, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Child Welfare and Child Support: The
Supporting America’s Children and Families
Act (P.L. 118-258)
April 7, 2025
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R48503
SUMMARY
Child Welfare and Child Support: The
Supporting America’s Children and Families
Act (P.L. 118-258)
R48503
April 7, 2025
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Policy
The Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (H.R. 9076, 118th Congress) was signed
Jessica Tollestrup
into law on January 4, 2025 (P.L. 118-258). Title I extends funding authorizations for and makes
Specialist in Social Policy
other amendments to child welfare programs in Title IV-B of the Social Security Act (SSA). Title
II principally amends the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to expand access to federal tax
information (FTI) for child support purposes (Title IV-D of the SSA). The measure passed the
House (405-10) on September 18, 2024, and the Senate (unanimous consent) on December 21,
2024. When taken together the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates of the two titles anticipate a net direct spending
reduction of $167 million over the FY2025-FY2034 period.
Title IV-B of the SSA includes the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS) program (Subpart 1) and the
MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program (Subpart 2). Under the CWS and PSSF programs, states,
territories, and tribes receive funding to support a broad range of services, including to protect children from abuse, neglect,
or exploitation (CWS); strengthen families (CWS and PSSF); help children to remain safely with their families (CWS and
PSSF); ensure the well-being of children in foster care and enable them to be safely reunited with their families (CWS and
PSSF); or, if necessary, find children new permanent families (CWS and PSSF). Additionally, some PSSF funding must be
reserved each year for the Court Improvement Program (CIP), Monthly Caseworker Visit (MCV) grants, and Regional
Partnership Grants (RPGs) to improve outcomes for children affected by parent/caretaker substance use disorder, and for
child and family services-related research, evaluation, and technical assistance.
Title I of P.L. 118-258 extends funding authorities for the CWS and PSSF programs through FY2029 and increases (as of
FY2026) mandatory support for the PSSF program to $420 million (compared to $345 million in current law). Most of the
$75 million in additional PSSF funds will increase formula grant funding to states, territories, and tribes for child and family
services, but a part of it is directed (as of FY2026) to increase annual mandatory funds reserved for the CIP, RPGs, and MCV
grants. The new law reorganizes PSSF support for evaluation and technical assistance and directs new set-asides of
discretionary PSSF funds for competitive grants to support kinship navigator programs and to develop evidence-based
services to prevent foster care. Other amendments to the PSSF program focus on boosting resources to strengthen families in
their own communities, developing policies to prevent family separations due to poverty alone, offering short-term benefits
to address a family crisis, serving kinship families and older youth, and incorporating lived experience in service planning.
Changes to the CWS program address offering information on available independent legal representation, developing
standards for virtual caseworker visits of older youth in care, and addressing the mental health needs of children in care.
A number of changes in the new law are designed to increase support for and improve access to funding for tribes, including
by directing a full 3% of all CWS and PSSF funding to formula grants for tribal child and family services and doubling
funding for tribal court improvement (+$1 million). As part of its focus on strengthening compliance with the Indian Child
Welfare Act (ICWA), P.L. 118-258 requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to produce guidance
for states on improved ICWA compliance, and to provide a biennial report to Congress on this work. In addition, Title I
newly authorizes $35 million in annual discretionary appropriations (FY2026-FY2029) for collaborative projects to promote
meaningful relationships between incarcerated parents and their children in foster care. All the child welfare provisions in
Title I of P.L. 118-258 are generally effective as of FY2026.
Title II of P.L. 118-258 expands access to FTI for child support programs operated by the states and 63 tribal nations
pursuant to Title IV-D of the SSA. Certain services (e.g., the Federal Tax Refund Offset Program) are supported via the
exchange of FTI, which is governed by the IRC. Prior to the enactment of Title II, state and local Title IV-D programs could
access FTI for child support purposes, while tribal IV-D programs could not. In addition, the contractors of these programs
only could access FTI on a limited basis. Title II amended the IRC to provide tribal IV-D programs the authority to access
FTI on a comparable basis as state and local IV-D programs. In addition, it amended the law to allow contractors of state,
local, and tribal IV-D agencies access to federal tax data on a comparable basis as IV-D agency employees. These changes
were generally effective upon the enactment of P.L. 118-258.
Congressional Research Service
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Contents
The Protecting America’s Children by Strengthening Families Act (Title I) .................................. 1
Reauthorizing CWS and PSSF; Increasing Mandatory Funding .............................................. 2
New Activities to Support and Strengthen Families; Increased Flexibility in Spending
PSSF Funds ............................................................................................................................ 2
Services to Strengthen and Maintain Families .................................................................... 3
Flexibility in Counting Spending for New Activities and Services .................................... 4
Serving Youth and Kin Care Families................................................................................. 4
Revised or New Program Plan Requirements ........................................................................... 5
Efforts to Prevent Family Separation Solely Due to Poverty.............................................. 5
Including Voices of Youth and Parents with Lived Experience in Planning ....................... 6
Informing Parents and Children About Independent Legal Representation ....................... 6
Focus on Mental Health in Health Oversight Plan for Children in Foster Care ................. 7
Video Visits for Youth in Care at Age 18 or Older.............................................................. 7
Effective Date of Revised State Plan Requirements ........................................................... 8
Eliminating the Cost Sharing Penalty Under the CWS Program for Failure to Meet
Required Caseworker Visit Standards .................................................................................... 8
Addressing Administrative Burden and Ensuring Public Access to Plan Information ............. 9
Required Efforts to Reduce Administrative Burden ........................................................... 9
Access to State Plan Information ...................................................................................... 10
Tribal Support and Access to Funds Under Title IV-B ............................................................ 10
Other Provisions Related to Tribal Access to Title IV-B Funding .....................................11
Increase in Tribal Court Improvement Program Funds .....................................................11
State Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) ................................................ 12
CWS State Plan Requirement on ICWA ........................................................................... 12
Technical Assistance on ICWA Compliance ..................................................................... 12
Biennial Report to Congress on How States Are Carrying Out ICWA ............................. 13
Guidance on Court Compliance with ICWA..................................................................... 13
Funding and Policy Changes in Other Title IV-B Programs and Activities ............................ 13
Increase in Court Improvement Funding; New Purposes, Use of Funds .......................... 14
Increase in Funding for RPGs; Focus on Expanding Evidence-Based Programs
and Services ................................................................................................................... 15
Increased Funding for Monthly Caseworker Visit Grants and Other Revisions ............... 17
Competitive Grants for Kinship Navigator Programs ....................................................... 18
Grants to Accelerate Development of the Evidence Base for Prevention Services .......... 19
PSSF and Related Evaluation, Research, and Technical Assistance ................................. 20
Limit on Use of CWS Funds for Grants Related to Dual-Status Youth .................................. 21
Demonstration Grants to Support Relationships Between Incarcerated Parents and
Their Children in Foster Care .............................................................................................. 22
Eligible Partnerships and Applications ............................................................................. 22
Required Activities of Partnerships .................................................................................. 23
Cost Sharing, Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Reports .......................................... 23
Other Required Work by HHS ................................................................................................ 23
Guidelines for Improved Data Collection and Reporting on Youth in Residential
Treatment Programs ....................................................................................................... 23
Post-Adoption/Guardianship Study .................................................................................. 24
Effective Date.......................................................................................................................... 24
The Strengthening State and Tribal Child Support Enforcement Act (Title II) ............................. 25
Congressional Research Service
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Title IV-D Access to and Use of Federal Tax Data ................................................................. 25
Tribal IV-D Program Access ............................................................................................. 26
Title IV-D Agency Contractor Access ............................................................................... 27
CBO Cost Estimates of the Supporting America’s Children and Families Act ............................. 27
Title I Child Welfare Provisions .............................................................................................. 28
Title II Child Support Provisions ............................................................................................ 28
The Origins and Enactment of the Supporting America’s Children and Families Act .................. 28
Title I—Introduction, Related Bills, and Committee Action in the 118th Congress ................ 29
Title II—Introduction, Related Bills, and Committee Action in the 118th Congress............... 30
Tables
Table B-1. FY2024 Title IV-B Funding: Distribution by Program, State, Other
Jurisdictions, or Activity ............................................................................................................ 36
Table C-1. Authorizations of Appropriations for FY2024 and FY2026 ........................................ 39
Table C-2. Title IV-B Funds Reserved for Specific Programs or Activities .................................. 40
Appendixes
Appendix A. Program Background ............................................................................................... 32
Appendix B. Recent Title IV-B Funding and Distribution of FY2024 Funds ............................... 35
Appendix C. Funding Authorized, Funding Set-Asides, and Formula Distribution Rules ........... 39
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 42
Congressional Research Service
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
T
he Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (H.R. 9076, 118th Congress) was
signed into law on January 4, 2025 (P.L. 118-258). The bill passed the House (405-10) on
September 18, 2024, and was approved in the Senate (unanimous consent) on December
21, 2024.
Title I of the law extends funding authorities for child and family services programs under Title
IV-B of the Social Security Act (SSA), including the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare
Services (CWS) program (Subpart 1) and the MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable Families
(PSSF) program (Subpart 2), and makes funding, distribution, and program requirement changes
to those programs. The enacted provisions are largely identical to the Protecting America’s
Children by Strengthening Families Act (also numbered H.R. 9076), which was unanimously
approved and ordered reported by the House Ways and Means Committee in July 2024. The Title
I provisions of P.L. 118-258 will generally be effective on October 1, 2025 (i.e., the first day of
FY2026).
Title II of the law expands access to federal tax information (FTI) for specified child support
programs (under Title IV-D of the SSA) and their contractors. It is substantively identical to the
Strengthening State and Tribal Child Support Enforcement Act (H.R. 7906, 118th Congress),
which was also approved unanimously and ordered reported by the House Ways and Means
Committee on July 24, 2024. The Title II provisions of P.L. 118-258 are effective as of the
enactment date of the law.
This report begins with separate descriptions of Title I (the Protecting America’s Children by
Strengthening Families Act) and Title II (the Strengthening Tribal Child Support Enforcement
Act) of P.L. 118-258. This is followed by sections reviewing the Congressional Budget Office
(CBO) cost estimates of provisions in the enacted bill, and describing legislative origins of the
bill. Appendix A provides brief background on the programs amended, or principally impacted,
by the enactment of the law. Appendix B shows the distribution of FY2024 funding for the
various programs and activities authorized under Title IV-B of the SSA, including by state.
Appendix C compares overall distribution of Title IV-B funding as authorized for FY2024 to the
distribution authorized by P.L. 118-258 as of FY2026.
The Protecting America’s Children by
Strengthening Families Act (Title I)
Title I of P.L. 118-258 extends funding authorizations for, and makes certain amendments to,
child welfare programs included in Title IV-B of the SSA. Principally, these are the CWS
program (Subpart 1) and the PSSF program (Subpart 2).
Under the CWS and PSSF programs, all 50 states and the District of Columbia (DC), five
territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands), and numerous federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal organizations
(hereinafter, “states and tribes”) receive formula grant funding to provide a broad range of child
welfare services to children and their families. In addition, a portion of funding provided for the
PSSF program must be reserved to support related programs and activities, including for the
Court Improvement Program (CIP), Regional Partnership Grants (RPGs) to improve outcomes for
children affected by parental/caretaker substance use disorder, and Monthly Caseworker Visit
(MCV) grants. In each of FY2018-FY2024, final appropriations acts have also directed that a
portion of PSSF funding be used for support of kinship navigator programs and certain other
work, including, in some of those years, the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse. (For
FY2024 distribution of funds, including by state, see Appendix B.)
Congressional Research Service
1
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Title IV-B programs are administered at the federal level by the Children’s Bureau, an agency
within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children
and Families (ACF), Administration on Children Youth, and Families (ACYF). At the state level,
child and family services agencies that administer Title IV-B formula grant funding are often
located in larger state social services or human services agencies, although in a few states they are
independent state agencies. Although receipt of federal Title IV-B funds and accountability for
compliance with federal Title IV-B program requirements is always at the state level, in some
states the administration of the programs is carried out by an agency at the local/county level
under supervision of the state-level agency.
Reauthorizing CWS and PSSF; Increasing Mandatory Funding
P.L. 118-258 extends the authorization of appropriations for the CWS and PSSF programs
through FY2029. It makes no change to the annual level of discretionary funding authorized to be
appropriated for these programs: $325 million (CWS) and $200 million (PSSF); however,
beginning with FY2026 it increases annual mandatory funding for the PSSF program to $420
million instead of the $345 million in current law.1
The $75 million annual increase in mandatory PSSF funding is the first such permanent increase
in this PSSF funding authority in nearly two decades.2 Unlike the most recent permanent
increase,3 which reserved all of the new funding for related grant activities, P.L. 118-258 directs
the bulk of those new dollars ($55 million annually) to increase support for PSSF formula grant
funding to states, territories, and tribes. A smaller portion of the new funding is directed to
increase (as of FY2026) annual mandatory PSSF funding reserved for the CIP, RPGs, and MCV
grants.
New Activities to Support and Strengthen Families; Increased
Flexibility in Spending PSSF Funds
Under the PSSF program, states must spend at least 90% of their federal program funds on four
defined categories of services: “family support,” “family preservation,” “family reunification,”
and “adoption promotion and support.” Further, they must spend a significant portion of those
PSSF funds in each of those service categories.4 In guidance, HHS has generally interpreted
“significant” as 20%.5
1 Section 103 in Title I of P.L. 118-258 adds language to the SSA to extend funding authorizations for the CWS and
PSSF programs for fiscal years “2025 through 2029.” At the same time, Section 117 of P.L. 118-258 provides that none
of the provisions in Title I are effective before October 1, 2025 (i.e., the first day of FY2026). Accordingly, while the
SSA is to be amended to authorize funding for FY2025, this authorization will become effective with FY2026.
2 In this case, “permanent” means that the increase is expected to stay in the CBO baseline even beyond FY2029, which
is the last authorization year given by P.L. 118-258. See CBO, H.R. 9076, Protecting America’s Children by
Strengthening Families Act, October 23, 2024, p. 3, which notes that it makes this assumption under the rules of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA).
3 For more information, see CRS Report RL33354, Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services
Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288).
4 Section 432(a)(4) of the SSA. This requirement is not applicable to tribes receiving PSSF funding, see Section
432(b)(2)(A) of the SSA.
5 For example, see HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-24-02, February 15, 2024, p. 57, which notes that in
reporting its planned PSSF spending, a state that does not show 20% spending for each category of service must
provide a written “rationale for the disproportion” (https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/PI-24-02.pdf). States
that reported spending less than 20% in a given service category typically indicated “other funds were available to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Effective with FY2026 (beginning October 1, 2025), P.L. 118-258 revises the definitions of most
PSSF service categories and adds several new definitions to the program. Together, these changes
(1) describe or define new PSSF activities and forms of services to strengthen and support
families; (2) permit PSSF spending on some activities to count toward meeting the “significant”
spending requirement in any one of the four PSSF service categories (under certain
circumstances); and (3) clarify which individuals or families may be served.
Services to Strengthen and Maintain Families
P.L. 118-258 makes several changes to service definitions included in the PSSF program that
highlight and clarify services and supports to strengthen families in the community, prevent
children from experiencing abuse or neglect, and/or allow children to return to or remain living
safely at home.
Short-Term Benefits
The new law amends the definition of “family preservation services” to explicitly authorize use of
PSSF funds for nonrecurring “short-term benefits” that address a specific crisis or family event
that threatens the ability of a child to remain living in the home. It adds that these short-term
benefits may be used to address housing instability, utility payments, transportation needs, food
assistance, or other basic needs; however, they must not be intended to meet an ongoing need.6
The use of flexible funds to address specific, concrete needs of families has been shown to reduce
re-reports for child maltreatment (within one year of the support) and to improve parental
engagement and satisfaction with services received.7
Peer-to-Peer Mentoring
The new law also adds a reference to “peer-to-peer mentoring and support programs” to the PSSF
definition of “family preservation services.”8 These programs are designed to help children and
families learn from others with direct child welfare system experience and have been shown in
some studies to improve outcomes for families, including by increasing the likelihood of
reunification.9
support the purpose.” See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Report to Congress on State Child Welfare
Expenditures, 2023, p. 5, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/system/files/documents/cb/2023-report-to-congress-cfs101.pdf.
6 Section 111(a)(3)(i) of P.L. 118-258.
7 Whitney L. Rostad, Tia McGill Rogers, and Mark J. Chaffin, “The Influence of Concrete Support on Child Welfare
Program Engagement, Progress, and Recurrence,” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 72, 2017, pp. 26-33. For
related information, see Clare Anderson et al., “Family and Child Well-being System: Economic and Concrete
Supports as a Core Component” (PowerPoint slides), Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, March 2023, p. 113,
https://www.chapinhall.org/wp-content/uploads/Economic-Supports-deck.pdf.
8 Family preservation services may be used to prevent a child’s removal from the home or to aid reunification of
families. Separately, the PSSF definition of “family reunification services” (formerly, “time-limited family
reunification services”) has included a reference to “peer-to-peer mentoring and support groups for parents and primary
caregivers” beginning with FY2012 (see Sections 102(c)(2) and 107 of the Child and Family Services Improvement
and Innovation Act [P.L. 112-34]).
9 Parents who participated in peer parent programs were more likely to reunite with their children than those who did
not, according to a systemic review of four such programs. That review found more-mixed outcomes with regard to
length of time in care and re-entries to care post-reunification. However, citing them as a “promising intervention,” the
researchers concluded that child welfare agencies should consider using these programs to “support parents and
increase positive child welfare outcomes.” Emily Rian Saeteurn et al., “Peer Parent Programs in Child Welfare: A
Systemic Review,” Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 129, 2022.
Congressional Research Service
3
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Family Resource Centers and Digital Portals
P.L. 118-258 adds a focus on two forms of service provision that are community-based: “family
resource centers” and “digital portals.”10
The new law adds a specific mention of “family resource centers” in the PSSF definition of
community-based “family support” services. For the purposes of the PSSF program, it also
defines those resource centers as community- or school-based hubs of support services for
families that (1) use a multi-generational, strengths-based, and family-centered approach; (2)
reflect, and are responsive to, community interests and needs; (3) provide support at no cost or
low cost for participants; and (4) build communities of peer support for families to develop social
connections.11
Separately, the law allows use of PSSF service funds to support access to, and use of, electronic
or digital portals. Caseworkers may use such portals to link specific community resources (e.g., a
bed, toddler clothing) with the specific needs of families they are working with.12 The law
stipulates, however, that such a digital portal must not be permitted to retain or share any
personally identifiable information about a beneficiary without consent or for any purpose other
than a referral.
Flexibility in Counting Spending for New Activities and Services
For the purpose of meeting the Title IV-B requirement for significant spending of PSSF federal
funds in each of the four defined service categories (“family support,” “family preservation,”
“family reunification,” and “adoption promotion and support”), P.L. 118-258 permits states to
consider spending related to a “digital portal” as spending in any one of the four PSSF service
categories.13
Further, states will be permitted to count provision of short-term benefits to address a specific
crisis or event, peer-to-peer mentoring and support programs, or support for family resource
centers as spending in any one or more of the PSSF service categories. As of FY2026, this will be
permissible, however, only to the extent that the spending was related to serving children and
families in the category for which it was to be counted and consistent with the purposes of the
service category.14 For example, even though peer-to-peer mentoring and support programs are
not specifically mentioned in the PSSF definition of “adoption promotion and support services,” a
state that offered such mentoring and support services specifically targeted to prospective
adoptive or adoptive families could count spending on services for those families toward its
required share of PSSF spending on adoption and promotion and support services.
Serving Youth and Kin Care Families
P.L. 118-258 further clarifies that some or all PSSF family support and family preservation
services may be made available to youth (in addition to children and families as noted in current
law) and it defines a “youth” as “an individual who has not attained 26 years of age.” (This
10 Section 106(a) and (b) of P.L. 118-258.
11 The National Family Support Network describes “family resource centers” in a similar manner. (See “What is a
Family Resource Center,” https://www.nationalfamilysupportnetwork.org/family-support-programs).
12 CarePortal (https://www.careportal.org/) is one example of such a digital portal.
13 See amendment to PSSF in Section 106(a) of P.L. 118-258, effective October 1, 2025.
14 See amendments to PSSF definitions section, included in Section 110(a), Section 106(b) and Section 111(a) of P.L.
118-258 and effective as of October 1, 2025.
Congressional Research Service
4
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
definition applies, effective October 1, 2025, to any use of the term in Subpart 2, Title IV-B of the
SSA, which principally includes the PSSF program.)15
Separately, the new law adds an explicit reference to “kinship families” or “kinship caregivers” in
the PSSF definitions of “family support” and “family preservation” services (in place of current
law references to “extended families” and “other caregivers”). Additionally, it provides that
family reunification services may include services to children placed with a kinship caregiver.16
Revised or New Program Plan Requirements17
Under the CWS and PSSF programs, states and tribes must develop program plans that meet
specific requirements included in Title IV-B law. HHS approval of these plans is generally a
condition for receipt of funding under the programs.18 P.L. 118-258 makes several changes to the
PSSF and CWS plan requirements.19
Efforts to Prevent Family Separation Solely Due to Poverty
Families experiencing poverty are more likely to be reported to the child welfare system for child
neglect than are nonpoor families20 and as many as 19 states and Puerto Rico do not provide an
explicit exemption in their “child abuse and neglect” definition for “financial inability to provide
for a child.”21 In its report on the Title IV-B legislation, the House Ways and Means Committee
wrote that it “aims to clarify that a family experiencing material hardship should not be the sole
grounds for considering a child neglected or for their removal.” The committee also asserted that
child welfare agencies “should prioritize keeping children in their homes whenever it is safe and
feasible, using available resources to address immediate material needs.”22
P.L. 118-258 newly requires states to describe in their PSSF plans the policies they have in place
to prevent separation of a parent and child solely due to poverty. More specifically, the policies
will need to describe how the state addresses child welfare reports that concern living
15 See Section 110(a) of P.L. 118-258, effective as of October 1, 2025. There has not been a definition of “children”
included in Title IV-B of the SSA; however, in regulations applicable to Title IV-B (CWS and PSSF) the term is
defined as “individuals from birth to the age of 21 (or such age of majority as provided under State law) including
infants, children, youth, adolescents and young adults” (45 C.F.R. §1357.10(c)).
16 Section 110(a) of P.L. 118-258.
17 This section of the report discusses provisions included in Section 106(d) and (e), Section 109, and Section 110(b) of
P.L. 118-258.
18 Under federal regulations given at 45 C.F.R. §97, certain territories, including American Samoa (AS), Guam (GU),
the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), are able to receive CWS and PSSF funding
under a consolidated social services funding stream. These territories may opt to receive the funds under different
program rules and thus may not be required to have an approved CWS or PSSF plan. Currently AS, GU, and the NMI
receive Title IV-B funds as part of a consolidated grant subject to rules of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG, Title
XX-A of the SSA). However, since receiving approval of its Title IV-E plan (effective with FY2017), the USVI has
submitted required Title IV-B plan documents.
19 Although not otherwise discussed in this report, as of FY2026 the new law also removes a CWS plan requirement
that generally required the agency that administers the SSBG in a given state to also administer the CWS plan. Section
106(c) removes this provision while maintaining the requirement that the CWS plan be administered by a single agency
in the state.
20 See Child Welfare Information Gateway, Separating Poverty from Neglect in Child Welfare, February 2023,
(https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/separating-poverty-neglect-child-welfare/). HHS released new policy
guidance alerting states that they may define child “neglect” to exclude poverty or income-related concerns. HHS,
ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 2.3, Q&A 5.
21 State Child Abuse & Neglect (SCAN) Policies Database, Codebook 2023, January 2025, p. 32.
22 House Ways and Means Committee, H.Rept. 118-679, September 17, 2024, p. 28.
Congressional Research Service
5
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
arrangements or subsistence needs of a child. Further, the policies must address caseworker
training on them and ensure access to short-term benefits for families. As discussed previously,
these benefits are intended to meet a specific and immediate need or event affecting the ability of
a child to remain at home and are defined in the PSSF program to include concerns related to
utilities, housing instability, transportation, food assistance, and other basic needs.23
Including Voices of Youth and Parents with Lived Experience in Planning
Under the PSSF program, states and tribes must develop a five-year plan outlining the full
continuum of child and family services they intend to provide, the goals they seek to achieve, and
how the state/tribe will measure its success in meeting its goals. Among other things, the PSSF
plan must also indicate how the state/tribe will identify populations at greatest risk of
maltreatment and how it will target services to those families. Under current law, HHS must
approve a PSSF plan—enabling the state/tribe to receive federal PSSF funding—only if the
state/tribe jointly develops it in consultation with appropriate public and private nonprofit
agencies, community-based organizations with experience in serving children and families, and
HHS.24
P.L. 118-258 requires that this consultation on plan development also include young people with
experience in the child welfare system (including those on state boards or councils with lived
experience) as well as parents with child welfare experience, foster parents, adoptive parents, and
kinship caregivers. Further, HHS may only approve a PSSF plan if a state/tribe also prepared a
report outlining how it has implemented suggestions from the children and youth consulted in the
planning process and made the report publicly available (via an agency website).25
Informing Parents and Children About Independent Legal Representation
A variety of research has found that high quality independent legal representation for children and
for parents is associated with more timely permanency for children and can improve parental
engagement and effective case planning.26
P.L. 118-258 requires a state/tribe, as part of its CWS plan, to describe the steps it will take to
ensure a child (as appropriate)—as well as the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child—is
informed about available independent legal representation whenever the child is involved in a
child abuse or neglect-related judicial proceeding. As described in the law, these include
proceedings related to dependency, adoption, guardianship, or termination of parental rights.27
23 This kind of aid is not explicitly provided for in current law. However, “protective services” offered under the CWS
program and crisis prevention/family preservation services offered under the PSSF program are described in guidance
as permitting some related supports and limited assistance. See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-24-02,
February 15, 2024, Attachment B, CFS Instructions (Part II),
https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/Attachment%20B%20FY%202025%20CFS-101%20Instructions.pdf.
24 Section 432(a) and (b)(1) of the SSA.
25 In regulations, HHS has for some years required a state/tribe in developing its five-year plan for Child and Family
Services (developed as part of responding to Title IV-B plan requirements) to consult with a variety of groups and
individuals. Although not mentioning “lived experience,” it lists “parents, including birth and adoptive parents, foster
parents, families with a member with a disability, children both in and outside the child welfare system, and consumers
of services from diverse groups” (see 45 C.F.R. §1357.15(l)(3)(iv)).
26 See research cited in HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “High Quality Legal Representation,” Information
Memorandum (IM) 21-06, January 14, 2021, https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/im2106.pdf.
27 Ibid. Beginning in FY2019, the first Trump Administration clarified that under the Title IV-E foster care program,
states may claim federal support for 50% of the cost of providing independent legal representation to Title IV-E(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Focus on Mental Health in Health Oversight Plan for Children in Foster Care
Under the CWS program, states are required to develop a health oversight plan to ensure the
health care needs of each child in foster care are met. The plan must be developed via
collaboration of state child welfare and Medicaid agencies and in consultation with health care
providers and other stakeholders. P.L. 118-258 directs that the state mental health agency (as
applicable) and mental health service providers must also be a part of the collaboration and
consultation, respectively, in the development of the health oversight plan.
Among other things, this plan has been required to outline the state’s (1) schedule for initial and
follow up screening of the health care needs for each child in foster care, (2) process for
monitoring and treating identified health needs, (3) steps to ensure continuity of health care
services, (4) oversight of prescription medication (including protocols for use of psychotropic
medication), and (5) active consultation with appropriate medical and nonmedical professionals
to assess health and well-being of children in foster care and determine appropriate medical
treatment for them.28
P.L. 118-258 revises the list of items to be outlined in the state’s health oversight plan to require it
to further include
•
•
•
•
a list of services provided with regard to the “physical and emotional trauma
associated with a child’s maltreatment and removal from the home” (as part of
the process for monitoring and treating identified health care needs);
continuity in provision of “mental health” services (as part of the process for
ensuring continuity of health care services more generally);
informed consent of youth and compliance with professional practice guidelines
(as part of its oversight of the use of prescription medication for children in foster
care, including protocols for the use of psychotropic medication); and
consultation with “licensed mental health providers” in assessing the health and
well-being of children in foster care and determining appropriate medical
treatment for them.
Video Visits for Youth in Care at Age 18 or Older
Under the CWS plan, states are required to have standards related to caseworker visits with
children in foster care. The standards must ensure children are visited on at least a monthly basis
and that the visits are well-planned and focused on what is necessary to ensure the child’s safety,
permanency, and well-being.29
eligible children and their parents/guardians involved in child welfare-related proceedings. The Biden Administration
issued final regulations (effective July 9, 2024) to formalize the policy related to support for independent legal
representation under Title IV-E. The final rule added that this Title IV-E support was also available in certain civil legal
proceedings for children who are eligible, or potentially eligible, for Title IV-E foster care and their
parents/guardians/custodians. These civil proceedings must be related to addressing issues or service needs identified in
the case plan for the eligible child (and might, for example, address housing issues or domestic violence concerns). See
Federal Register, May 10, 2024, p. 40400-40417, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-10/pdf/202409663.pdf.
28 Section 422(b)(15) of the SSA.
29 Section 422(b)(17) of the SSA.
Congressional Research Service
7
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
P.L. 118-258 adds that these standards are also to describe how the state may offer virtual
caseworker visits to youth in care who are age 18 or older (and who have provided informed
consent regarding virtual visits).
Effective Date of Revised State Plan Requirements
Along with all other provisions in Title I of P.L. 118-258, the effective date for the revised and
new CWS and PSSF state plan requirements is the first day of FY2026 (October 1, 2025).
Generally, this means that a state’s/tribe’s CWS and PSSF plans must as of that day meet all of
the new requirements in order for the state/tribe to be approved to receive federal CWS and/or
PSSF funds. However, under limited circumstances, the law provides that some states may
effectively delay compliance to a specified later date without jeopardizing their ability to receive
federal Title IV-B funding. Separately, the law requires HHS to grant tribal entities whatever time
the agency determines is necessary in order for the tribal entity to be in compliance with the new
requirements.30
Eliminating the Cost Sharing Penalty Under the CWS Program for
Failure to Meet Required Caseworker Visit Standards31
Beginning with FY2007, states have been required to collect and report data on the frequency of
caseworker visits with children in foster care.32 Originally done via a separate reporting process,33
effective with FY2023, states must report information related to the frequency and location of
caseworker visits with children in foster care via the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS). This reporting requirement remains unchanged by P.L. 118-258.34
Beginning with FY2026, however, P.L. 118-258 removes a requirement that HHS determine and
make reductions in federal cost sharing under the CWS program for states that fail to carry out
95% of their required monthly caseworker visits with children in foster care and/or do not ensure
30 Section 117(b) of P.L. 118-258 provides that if HHS determines a state needs to enact legislation (other than
appropriations) to comply with any of the new plan requirements, that state may in certain circumstances have
additional time to be in compliance. Specifically, that state may have until the first day of the first calendar quarter that
begins after the end date of the first regular state legislative session (or annual start of a two-year session) that began
after the law’s enactment. P.L. 118-258 was enacted on January 4, 2025. This falls just days or weeks before the start of
a new legislative session (or annual session) in most states. Further, most of those legislative sessions end before
October 1, 2025. Therefore, other than a handful of states with legislative sessions that began in December 2024 or that
are scheduled to end their current session after October 1, 2025, this language is not expected to apply. See “Legislative
Session Dates,”
https://s3.amazonaws.com/multistate.us/production/resources/rUKcyVEiJZGb8lf1S/attachment/multistate-2025legislative-session-dates.pdf.
31 This section of the report discusses Section 112(d) of P.L. 118-258.
32 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Child Welfare Outcomes, 2015, Report to Congress, Appendix C. See also
“Monthly Caseworker Visit Standards” in CRS Report RL33354, Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family
Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288); and for a discussion of how the initial standards were revised, see
”Continued Attention to Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care” in CRS Report R42027, Child Welfare: The
Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act (P.L. 112-34).
33 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Data Requirements for States Related to Monthly Caseworker Visits under
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act,” PI-12-01, January 6, 2012,
https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/pi1201.pdf. These program instructions indicated state performance vis
a vis the caseworker standards was to be based on visits to children in care under age 18 only. Further, except in limited
circumstances (typically related to certain public health emergencies or individual health challenges), states have only
been permitted to count “face-to-face” visits (with children under age 18) toward meeting the monthly caseworker visit
standard. (See Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 7.3, Question 8, as revised in 2020).
34 The reporting requirements as included in the AFCARS regulation are at 45 C.F.R. §1355.44(f)(5) and (6).
Congressional Research Service
8
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
that at least 50% of those visits occur where the child is living. The federal share of CWS
program costs is regularly 75% (up to a state’s maximum allotment). However, for states failing
to meet one or both of the caseworker standards, the federal share was reduced, to between 65%
and 74% of state CWS program spending (up to the state’s maximum allotment) depending on the
degree to which a state failed to meet one or both standards.35
While the new law removes this potential cost-sharing penalty, it leaves unchanged the CWS
program law that instructs each state to take steps to ensure that at least 95% of its required
monthly caseworker visits are completed.36 Further, it continues to require HHS to report annual
state-by-state data to Congress on the total number of monthly caseworker visits completed, and
the share of those visits that occur where the child is living.37 Separately, under the CWS state
plan (as described previously) each state continues to be required to have standards ensuring wellplanned, and at least monthly, caseworker visits with children in foster care (see Section
422(b)(17) of the SSA, discussed in the “Video Visits for Youth in Care at Age 18 or Older”
section of this report).
Addressing Administrative Burden and Ensuring Public Access to
Plan Information38
P.L. 118-258 seeks to reduce paperwork and other administrative burdens for agencies receiving
Title IV-B funding and to increase public access to and information about CWS and PSSF plans.
Required Efforts to Reduce Administrative Burden
The law requires HHS to
•
•
•
•
•
review, revise, and streamline data collection forms required under Title IV-B;
make changes to ensure consistency between Title IV-B fiscal and oversight
requirements and those in other federal programs (based on input from
recipients);
conduct an analysis of the number of hours recipients spend completing Title IVB paperwork requirements;
consult with the recipients on how to reduce those hours by at least 15%; and
respect the sovereignty of tribes while completing this work.
Within two years of the enactment of these provisions (i.e., as of January 4, 2027), and having
completed each of the tasks listed above, HHS must inform recipients of any resulting changes in
35 See Section 424(f) of the SSA as in effect through FY2025 (i.e., through September 30, 2025). A reduction in federal
cost sharing meant that to claim that full allotment, the state had to provide a higher level of nonfederal CWS program
support. The number of states meeting the 95% monthly caseworker visit standard varied (reaching a high of 37 in
FY2021 and declining to 31 in FY2022). However, in every year beginning with FY2013 all states have met the
requirement that at least 50% of these monthly caseworker visits occur where the child lives. See the Child Welfare
Outcomes data site (https://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/cwodatasite/caseworkerVisits/index) for performance from
FY2018-FY2022; performance from earlier years is based on information provided to CRS by HHS, ACF, Office of
Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB), various dates; see also the annual Child Welfare Outcome report for earlier
years (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/child-welfare-outcomes).
36 Under Section 479A(a)(6) of the SSA, HHS is required to include information in the annual Child Welfare Outcomes
report to Congress on monthly caseworker visits, including the percentage of those visits completed and the share done
where the child in foster care is living.
37 Section 479A(a)(6) of the SSA. HHS reports these data via the annual Child Welfare Outcomes Report to Congress.
38 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 106(f) of P.L. 118-258.
Congressional Research Service
9
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
actions they must take to receive Title IV-B funds. Further, within three years of enactment, (i.e.,
as of January 4, 2028), HHS must provide a report to the House Ways and Means and Senate
Finance committees on the work it has done to reduce administrative burden under Title IV-B.
Access to State Plan Information
Separately, P.L. 118-258 requires HHS to
•
•
•
•
develop a standardized format for CWS and PSSF state plans used for monitoring
compliance with federal plan requirements;
make the plans available on a public website;39
produce comparisons and analyses of trends in state plans (to inform technical
assistance and policy development); and
as it deems appropriate, include aggregated national summaries of state plan
information on the public website.
This requirement is effective as of October 1, 2025.
Tribal Support and Access to Funds Under Title IV-B40
Beginning with FY2026, P.L. 118-258 makes a number of changes designed to increase Title IVB funding directed to tribes. Among these, it requires that a full 3% of PSSF funding be reserved
for formula grants to tribes (compared to an effective rate of 2.6% in FY2024). That change,
combined with the increase in overall mandatory funding (also effective with FY2026), is
expected to boost PSSF mandatory funding for tribes by roughly $2.1 million (from $9.8 million
to $11.9 million, post-sequestration). P.L. 118-258 maintains a separate and additional 3%
reservation of PSSF discretionary funding for tribes. It also makes other changes to the PSSF
program that, combined with the funding increase, are expected to expand the number of
federally recognized tribes or tribal organizations that may be eligible to receive PSSF funding.
Separately, as of FY2026 the law establishes a 3% reservation of CWS funds for tribes (compared
to about 2.8% of total CWS funds in FY2024) and requires that this reservation be taken out of
total CWS funding and before allotment of any funds to states. (Under current law, tribal CWS
allotments must be taken out of amounts initially designated for the state or states in which the
tribal entity is located in an amount determined by HHS.) If CWS discretionary funding is
provided at no less than the level appropriated for FY2024, this too would boost funding available
to tribes overall (although the effect on individual tribes may vary).41
39 Current law requires states to make a final report on their planned child and family services available to the public
(SSA §432(a)(1)(C)(ii)) and annually to prepare, and make available to the public, a report describing the provision of
PSSF services (by service category). The law does not describe how these reports must be made available. Separately,
current law requires HHS annually to compile certain information reported by states (principally on their planned and
actual expenditure of Title IV-B funding) and make this report available on its website (SSA §432(c)). This report may
be accessed at the HHS, Children’s Bureau website under “Annual Report of State Child Welfare Expenditures,”
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/data-research/program-reports.
40 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 107(a)(1), (a)(3) and (b) of P.L. 118-258.
41 Based on the statutory formula for distribution of CWS funds, states with higher per capita income relative to the
nation as a whole receive less funding per individual (under age 21) than do states with lower relative per capita income
(SSA §423). In accordance with Section 428 of the SSA (as in effect prior to October 1, 2025) and regulation (45
C.F.R. §1357.40(d)(6)), HHS distributes CWS funds to tribes in a manner that ensures each tribe receives support per
individual under age 21 that is a multiple of the amount paid to the state in which the tribe operates; across tribes, then,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Other Provisions Related to Tribal Access to Title IV-B Funding
Administrative Cap for Tribes on Certain Title IV-B Spending
Under current law, both states and tribes are required to limit their CWS administrative spending
to 10%. As of FY2026, P.L. 118-258 seeks to permit tribes to opt instead to use a separate
negotiated rate (i.e., the “indirect cost ratio”) that is applicable to the tribe in other federal
programs and as negotiated under a separate regulation. This provision appears intended to offer
tribes with negotiated indirect cost rates that are higher than 10% greater flexibility in the use of
CWS funds.42
HHS currently exempts tribes from the 10% administrative spending cap included for states under
the PSSF program. P.L. 118-258 retains the statutory authority currently used by HHS to exempt
tribes from the administrative spending cap.43
Reducing Certain Administrative Burden of Required Reporting
Tribal organizations that receive CWS and/or PSSF funding must submit various planning and
other documents to HHS as a condition of receiving Title IV-B funding.44 P.L. 118-258 seeks to
“reduce administrative burden” on certain tribes receiving smaller Title IV-B grants.45
Specifically, it requires HHS to consult with tribes that receive combined Title IV-B funding
(CWS and PSSF) of $50,000 or less and to modify any reporting requirement included in Title
IV-B in a manner that reduces the administrative burden on any tribe that receives a CWS
allotment that is $50,000 or less. In FY2024, about 82% (140 out of 171 total) of the tribal
entities allotted CWS funds had an allotment of $50,000 or less.46
Increase in Tribal Court Improvement Program Funds
As of FY2026, P.L. 118-258 doubles the amount of reserved CIP funding that must be used for
tribal court improvement grants, increasing this support to $2 million each year. Tribal court
improvement funding is awarded on a competitive basis and may be provided to the highest court
of any tribe that handles adoption and foster care proceedings.47
the per child rate of funding varies. Beginning with FY2026, the CWS funding for tribes will be distributed equally
among all tribes participating in the CWS program in proportion to the share of children (under age 21) in each
participating tribe/tribal entity. Accordingly, depending on the CWS funding level appropriated certain smaller
population tribes located in states with lower relative per capita income could see slight reductions in CWS grant
awards even with higher overall CWS support for tribes.
42 With regard to these negotiated rates, P.L. 118-258 adds a reference to 2 C.F.R. §220. That section of federal
regulations is currently reserved (i.e., it does not include any provisions). However, 2 C.F.R. §200 addresses this issue
and may be the reference intended to have been included in the law by P.L. 118-258.
43 Section 432(b)(2)(A) of the SSA permits HHS to exempt tribes from any requirement under Section 432(a)(4) that it
determines is inappropriate for the tribe. Under this authority HHS has, in regulation, exempted all tribes from the 10%
cap on administrative spending (45 C.F.R. §1357.50(f)(1)). The regulation references a tribe’s negotiated indirect cost
ratio; however, in more current program instructions, HHS simply notes that tribes are not required to limit their PSSF
administrative costs to 10%. See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-24-03, February 21, 2024.
44 See, for example, HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-24-03, February 21, 2024.
45 House Ways and Means Committee, H.Rept. 118-679, p. 24, https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/hrpt679/CRPT118hrpt679.pdf.
46 Based on FY2024 allotment amounts to tribes under the CWS program as provided to CRS by HHS, ACF, Office of
Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB), on February 10, 2025. These numbers may be different in FY2026 due to the
revised distribution formula for CWS funds given in P.L. 118-258.
47 Section 438(c)(3) of the SSA.
Congressional Research Service
11
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
State Compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)48
Under ICWA, state agencies, courts, and other nontribal actors are required to abide by certain
federal standards whenever they are involved in a child custody proceeding related to an “Indian
child.”49 Among other things, states must provide timely notice to tribes of any such custody
proceedings and tribes may intervene to assume jurisdiction or otherwise participate in the
proceeding. Relevant custody proceedings include those concerning removal of the child from an
Indian parent or custodian, placement of the child in foster care, termination of parental rights to
an Indian child, and adoption. ICWA regulations have been issued by the U.S. Department of the
Interior.50
CWS State Plan Requirement on ICWA
As part of the CWS program plan and beginning with FY1996, each state is required, after
consultation with federally recognized tribes in the state, to describe for HHS how it will comply
with ICWA.51 As of October 1, 2025, P.L. 118-258 requires that this description must specifically
address how the state “will ensure timely notice to Indian tribes of State custody proceedings
involving Indian children, foster care or adoptive placements of Indian children, and case
recordkeeping as such matters related to transfers of jurisdiction, termination of parental rights,
and active efforts.”52
Technical Assistance on ICWA Compliance
P.L. 118-258 further requires HHS, in consultation with tribes/tribal organizations and states, to
develop a plan and provide technical assistance to support the effective implementation of ICWA.
The technical assistance plan is expected to be based on data sufficient to assess states’ strengths
in complying with federal ICWA standards as well as areas in need of improvement and is
expected to be ready by October 1, 2025.53 At a minimum, it must address state work with regard
to
48 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 107(a)(2) of H.R. 9076.
49 P.L. 118-258 does not directly reference this definition; however, under the ICWA an “Indian child” is defined,
generally, as an unmarried individual under age 18 who is a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe or is eligible
for membership in a federally recognized tribe and is the biological child of such a tribal member. See 25 U.S.C.
§1903(4).
50 See 25 C.F.R. §23. For additional information and guidelines see https://www.bia.gov/bia/ois/dhs/icwa.
51 This requirement was added to CWS by Section 204 of the Social Security Amendments of 1994 (P.L. 103-432).
Contemporary report language noted that there was “currently no statutory link between the Indian Child Welfare Act
and the child welfare services programs under the Social Security Act” (p. 846 of H. Rept. 103-213). Although the state
plan provision was not included in the reconciliation bill described in that conference agreement (which became P.L.
103-66), it was adopted later in the 103rd Congress as part of P.L. 103-432 and made effective October 1, 1995.
52 The House Ways and Means Committee notes that it understands this revised CWS plan provision as continuing to
require a description of measures the state takes to comply with ICWA and “not [as a] specific measure of state ICWA
compliance,” H.Rept. 118-679, p. 24.
53 Data reporting requirements under the 2020 AFCARS rule, which was required to be implemented by states with
FY2023, collect only a limited number of ICWA-related items relevant to those listed in P.L. 118-258. At the same
time, in a recent revision to that AFCARS rule HHS requires states (as of FY2029) to collect and report information
relevant to each of the ICWA issues identified as part of the technical assistance plan required under P.L. 118-258
(Federal Register, December 5, 2024, pp. 96569-96588). See also technical correction at Federal Register, December
30, 2024, p. 106364 and HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Final Rule on AFCARS, IM-24-09, issued December
5, 2024. For further background on AFCARS and the ICWA related reporting requirements, see HHS, ACF, ACYF,
Overview of AFCARS NPRM, no date, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/2024-afcars-nprm.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
•
•
•
•
•
timely identification of Indian children;
timely notice of state child custody proceedings involving Indian children;
reports related to transfers of jurisdiction in custody proceedings subject to
ICWA, including transfers granted and those denied (and if denied, the reasons
given for the denial);
whether ICWA standards were met related to active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, testimony of a qualified expert witness, and evidentiary
standards as applicable in any case where the state court orders the foster care
placement of an Indian child or that involves termination of parental rights to an
Indian child; and
whether an Indian child was placed in accordance with the placement preferences
included in ICWA, or if not, the reason why the placement preference was not
followed.
At the request of HHS, the U.S. Department of the Interior must provide guidance and assistance
to HHS, as needed, to help inform states and public child welfare agencies on complying with
ICWA.
Biennial Report to Congress on How States Are Carrying Out ICWA
Every other year, HHS will need to submit a written report to the House Ways and Means and
Senate Finance committees discussing how states are complying with ICWA (including how HHS
is assisting states and tribes to improve implementation of the federal standards established by
ICWA in 1978). (The law does not give a date by which an initial report must be provided.)
Guidance on Court Compliance with ICWA
P.L. 118-258 separately directs HHS to consult with tribes on the development of appropriate
guidelines for state court proceedings that involve Indian children (i.e., proceedings subject to
ICWA standards), including how to maximize engagement of Indian tribes.54
Funding and Policy Changes in Other Title IV-B Programs and
Activities
As described previously, most PSSF and CWS funding is distributed by formula to states,
territories, and tribes for the provision of a broad range of child and family services. Under
program law, a portion of PSSF funding must be reserved each year for more specific programs
and activities that are targeted to more particular purposes.
Generally, P.L. 118-258 continues the currently supported activities with increases, in most
instances, in reserved PSSF funds for this work. It also establishes two new set-asides of PSSF
discretionary funding to support competitive grants related to evaluating and implementing
prevention services and for kinship navigator programs.
Separately, it establishes a limit on certain discretionary CWS funds that may be reserved for
grants related to improving services to “dual-status” youth (i.e., youth served by both the juvenile
justice and child welfare systems).
54 Section 438(e)(3) of the SSA, as added by Section 104(d) of P.L. 118-258, effective October 1, 2025.
Congressional Research Service
13
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Increase in Court Improvement Funding; New Purposes, Use of Funds55
CIP grants are distributed by formula to the highest court in each state or territory that is
operating a Title IV-E plan. The grants are made to help courts assess their role, responsibilities,
and effectiveness with regard to carrying out child abuse and neglect/child welfare proceedings
and to make improvements deemed necessary based on those assessments.
Increase in Funding; Cost Sharing Requirement Maintained
As of FY2026, P.L. 118-258 increases the amount of mandatory PSSF funding reserved annually
for the CIP to $40 million (from $30 million in current law). Separately, it maintains the current
law CIP reservation of 3.3% of any discretionary PSSF funding. Further, it maintains (through
FY2029) the existing requirement that each state’s highest court share in the cost of CIP work
(i.e., providing no less than 25% of total program spending or $1 in nonfederal CIP funding for
every $3 in federal CIP funding received).
Use of Remote Technology; Continuity of Operations
The COVID-19 public health emergency impacted the activities of many courts handling child
welfare proceedings. In response, including with the support of additional federal CIP funding
provided to respond to the COVID-19-pandemic disruptions, some states invested in new
technology to enable remote proceedings, trainings, or other activities.56 Some of these court
practices may be beneficial on a permanent basis.57
P.L. 118-258 adds appropriateness of court use of technology to carry out remote proceedings to
the list of activities courts may assess under the CIP. Courts are expected to assess best practices
to enable maximum participation of individuals involved in child welfare proceedings and to
allow courts to continue operations during public health or other emergencies. P.L. 118-258
explicitly permits use of CIP funds to ensure the courts optimal use of remote technology.
P.L. 118-258 adds a new purpose to the CIP concerned with ensuring continuity of needed court
operations in the event of all kinds of public health emergencies, natural disasters, or other crises,
including cyberattacks. Under this purpose, CIP grant funds may be used to support technology
for remote proceedings (with participant consent), develop guidance related to maintaining
continuity of operations, and ensure backup systems are in place.
55 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 104 of P.L. 118-258.
56 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, “Dear Child Welfare Legal and Judicial Leaders,” March 27, 2020, which
outlines court proceedings required under federal child welfare law and their importance in achieving good outcomes
for children and families served; see
https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/covid_19_childlegalandjudicial.pdf. The Supporting Foster Youth and
Families through the Pandemic Act (Division X of P.L. 116-260) appropriated $10 million in additional CIP funding to
assist courts in meeting the pandemic challenges, including through use of remote technology. See also the Capacity
Building Center for Courts, National Report on Court Improvement Projects and Initiatives FY2021, “COVID-19
Challenges and Efforts,” pp, 17-19.
57 See, for example, National Center for State Courts, Pandemic Era Procedural Improvements that Courts Should
Adopt Permanently, September 2022, https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/84873/PandemicImprovements-10.31.2022.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Regularly Updated Guidelines on Use of Remote Technology
P.L. 118-258 requires HHS to develop guidance for courts on optimal ways to share information
on best practices for the use of remote technology. Initial guidance is to be available as of October
1, 2025, and HHS is directed to issue updated guidance every five years.
Increase in Funding for RPGs; Focus on Expanding Evidence-Based Programs
and Services58
RPGs are provided to collaborating partnerships for provision of services to children who are in,
or are at risk of entering, foster care due to substance use by a parent or caregiver. The grant
program is designed to facilitate integration of child welfare, substance use treatment, other social
services, and court work to build systems that improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of
children and families served. Since the first RPG grants were announced in 2007, HHS has
awarded funding to more than 100 regional partnerships across 40 states, and these partnerships
have served 53,000 children, 42,000 adults, and 36,000 families. Evaluation findings indicate
higher treatment enrollment and completion of programs, as well as reduced severity in substance
abuse for adults served. Among children served, evaluations found fewer removals from home,
along with greater permanency/reunification for children that are removed. Findings also
indicated reduced child behavior issues, better socialization, and less experience of abuse and
neglect. RPGs are typically awarded for five years (but may be made for as few as two years).59
Funding Increase
Beginning with FY2026, P.L. 118-258 increases annual support reserved for these grants out of
mandatory PSSF funding to $30 million (from $20 million).60 Further, it requires HHS to award
grants under the RPG program in each year through FY2029 and continues to permit the
department to reserve up to 5% of the funding reserved for RPGs for program administration.
58 This section of the report discusses Section 105 of P.L. 118-258.
59 See information at the HHS-funded National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare (NCSACW),
https://ncsacw.acf.hhs.gov/technical/ (scroll down to find information on RPGs). There have been seven rounds
(cohorts) of RPG awards, with the most recent made in 2022. See also Angelo D’Angelo and Betsy Keating “Regional
Partnership Grants, National Cross-Site Evaluation,” submitted by Mathematica to HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s
Bureau, April 2023, Figure 11.1, p. 3, https://www.mathematica.org/publications/regional-partnership-grants-crosssite-evaluation-annual-report-for-oct-2021-through-sep-2022.
60 In the first five years of the RPG program (FY2007-FY2011), total PSSF mandatory funding reserved for the grants
was $145 million (§4(b) of P.L. 109-288). Annual PSSF mandatory funding reserved for RPGs was set at $20 million
for each of FY2012-FY2016 (§102(a)(2) of P.L. 112-34) and funding reserved for the grants for those five years totaled
roughly $95 million (after required sequestration of mandatory PSSF support for the grants, which has applied in each
year beginning with FY2013). The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA, §50752(c)(2) of P.L. 115-123),
extended the annual $20 million reservation of mandatory PSSF funds for RPGs through FY2021. However, the
FY2017-FY2021 support for RPGs totaled roughly $141 million due to additional PSSF discretionary funding directed
to RPGs (via annual appropriations laws: P.L. 115-141, P.L. 115-245, and P.L. 116-94) in three of those five years.
RPGs have received just under $20 million ($18,860,000) in mandatory PSSF funding in subsequent fiscal years
through extension of the earlier reservation of funding (§305(a), Division CC, P.L. 116-260; §6103(a)(3), Division FF,
P.L. 117-328; and §402, Division G, P.L. 118-42). Section 105(a) of P.L. 118-258 intends to retain this same level of
RPG funding in FY2025 but raises the amount of mandatory PSSF funding reserved for the program to $30 million for
FY2026 and each subsequent fiscal year. That amount is expected to be reduced annually by sequestration to
$28,290,000 (through FY2031) and to $29,160,000 (for FY2032). Under current law, sequestration does not apply to
this funding as of FY2033.
Congressional Research Service
15
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Focus on Increasing Evidence-Based Services
The current-law purpose of the RPG program is to enable HHS to make grants to support services
to improve outcomes for children affected by the substance use of a parent or caregiver.
P.L. 118-258 adds, as of FY2026, that the funding is also made available to expand the scope of
evidence-based services that may be supported under the Title IV-E prevention services program.
Consistent with this change, HHS, when awarding grants, is expected to consider an applicant
partnership’s ability to carry out a rigorous evaluation of its work. And as part of its annual report
to Congress on the RPG program, HHS is to include information about submission of any RPG
evaluation work to the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse, including the rating results
of any review by the clearinghouse.61
Participation of Court Partners and Other Revisions to Grant Programs
A wide range of public or private entities may lead a regional partnership. Generally, however,
every partnership must include the state agency administering child welfare programs (in Title IVB or Title IV-E of the SSA) and the state agency that administers federal substance abuse
prevention and treatment block grant funding (provided under the Public Health Service Act).62
As of FY2026, P.L. 118-258 newly requires all partnerships to involve a relevant administrative
office of the most appropriate juvenile/family or state court handling child abuse and neglect
proceedings. (Involvement of such a court-related office has been required beginning with
FY2019, but only if the grantee partnership intends to work with families whose children are in
foster care.63) The new law further offers that a partnership might optionally include state or local
agencies administering federal health care, housing, family support, or related programs.
P.L. 118-258 requires HHS, in awarding RPGs, to consider whether the applicant partnership is
led by a state or public agency or has outlined a plan to expand services on a statewide basis.
Separately, as of FY2026, it permits HHS to waive a planning phase for any applicant partnership
that demonstrates its readiness to implement the grant. However, for grantees that do make use of
a planning phase, it strikes a $250,000 limit on the amount of planning phase funding.
Core Performance Indicators
Since the first RPG grants were awarded in FY2007, each partnership has been required to collect
and report implementation and outcome data used to assess the performance of grantees.64 P.L.
61 The Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse, created consistent with Section 476(d)(3)(2) of the SSA, is
charged with carrying out independent, systematic reviews of prevention services and programs (and kinship navigator
programs), to identify and rate them in accordance with the practice and evidence standards necessary for support under
the Title IV-E program (as given at Section 471(e)(4) of the SSA); https://preventionservices.acf.hhs.gov.
62 A regional partnership that includes an Indian tribe or tribal consortium is not required to include the state child
welfare agency (although it may choose to do so).
63 P.L. 118-258 also strikes, as of FY2026, a provision that allows a regional partnership serving families with children
in foster care, and that includes a tribe or tribal consortium, to opt instead to partner with tribal court organizations (i.e.,
in lieu of the administrative office of a juvenile court overseeing child abuse and neglect proceedings). See Section
437(f)(2)(D)(iii) of the SSA as in effect prior to October 1, 2025.
64 Section 437(f)(8) of the SSA initially required HHS to establish indicators to assess the performance of regional
partnership grantees. As amended by P.L. 115-123, the law now references “core indicators” related to child safety,
parental recovery, parenting capacity, and family well-being, HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, Regional
Partnership Grants to Increase the Wellbeing of, and Increase the Permanency Outcomes for, Children in Families
Affected by Substance Abuse: Eighth Report to Congress, submitted December 2024; and Betsy Keating, Angela
D’Angelo, and Juliette Henke, Regional Partnership Grant Cross-Site Evaluation: Annual Report, October 2022(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
118-258 requires HHS, within 9 months of its enactment (i.e., by early October 2025) to review
the indicators used to assess RPG performance and to develop a set of core indicators. Current
law calls for core indicators to enable assessment of child safety, parental recovery, parenting
capacity and family well-being. The new law adds that the core indicators must further enable
assessment of permanency for children served, including whether they were reunited with family
and/or if they re-entered foster care. And as well, the core indicators are to measure access to
services for families with substance use disorder, including for families with children that are
over-represented in foster care, are difficult to place, or that have low permanency rates.
The new law directs HHS to consult with the National Institute on Drug Abuse in developing
these indicators along with the HHS agencies described in current law (i.e., ACF, and the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA]).
Increased Funding for Monthly Caseworker Visit Grants and Other
Revisions65
Monthly Caseworker Visit (MCV) grants are distributed by formula to each state and territory to
support activities designed to increase the retention, recruitment, and training of caseworkers, and
to improve the quality of monthly caseworker visits with children in foster care. 66
Funding Reserved and Revised Distribution
Beginning with FY2026, P.L. 118-258 increases the mandatory PSSF funding reserved for MCV
grants to $26 million (from $20 million).67 In addition, the new law revises the allocation of
funding for these grants, also beginning with FY2026, to provide a base award of $100,000 to
each state and territory; remaining funds will be distributed in accordance with the existing
formula.68
Use of Funds
The new law maintains all of the current-law provisions regarding use of MCV grants, but it also
suggests some additional uses focused on support for recruitment and retention of caseworkers.
September 2023, submitted by Mathematica to HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, February 2024,
https://www.mathematica.org/publications/regional-partnership-grants-cross-site-evaluation.
65 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 112 (a), (b), and (c) of P.L. 118-258.
66 Section 436(b)(4)(B) of the SSA. Effective with October 1, 2025, P.L. 118-258 amends this provision and moves it
to Section 436(b)(3)(B) of the SSA.
67 MCV grants are funded solely via a reservation of PSSF funding stipulated in the SSA. They were first funded in
FY2006 at $40 million (with funds available for expenditure through FY2009 [§2(c)(2) of P.L. 109-288]); no additional
funds were reserved for FY2007; for FY2008, $5 million was provided, for FY2009, $10 million, and in each
subsequent fiscal year (through FY2025) a reservation of $20 million in mandatory PSSF funds has been made
available for MCV grants (§4(a) of P.L. 109-288; §103(a) of P.L. 112-34; §50752(c)(1) of P.L. 115-123; §305,
Division CC of P.L. 116-260; and §6103(a)(2) of P.L. 117-328). Section 112(a) of P.L. 118-258 increases the MCV
grant set-aside to $26 million for FY2026 and each succeeding fiscal year. Beginning with FY2013, this set-aside has
been affected by sequestration and this has reduced the amount available for MCV grant allotments by roughly $1.0
million to $1.5 million annually. After sequestration, MCV grant funding for FY2026 is expected to be roughly $24.5
million (i.e., a reduction of about $1.5 million).
68 Based on the overall increase in PSSF mandatory funds set aside for MCV grants, all states and territories are
expected to see some increase in MCV funding beginning with FY2026. In addition, due to the base grant provision in
the formula, any state or territory that received less than $100,000 in MCV funding in FY2024 is expected to see the
largest percentage boost in support. As shown in Table B-1, 15 states, the District of Columbia, and four territories
received MCV allotments of less than $100,000 in FY2024.
Congressional Research Service
17
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
For example, it cites support for activities intended to reduce caseload and administrative burdens
for caseworkers, streamlines caseworker duties (using technology and modernized systems),
improves caseworker safety, and addresses mental health resources for caseworkers, including
with peer-to-peer support programs.
Competitive Grants for Kinship Navigator Programs69
Kinship navigator programs are intended to enable kinship caregivers to learn about and access
supports necessary to care for children they are raising, as well as for themselves.70 The PSSF
program (as now given in Subpart 2 of the SSA) does not authorize specific support for kinship
navigator programs. However, from FY2018 through FY2024 each final appropriations act has
directed a portion of PSSF discretionary funding for “grants to each State, territory, and Indian
tribe operating title IV-E plans for developing, enhancing, or evaluating kinship navigator
programs.”71 This funding has been intended to enable development of kinship navigator
programs that meet all the evidence standards and other requirements necessary for a state to
claim support for their kinship navigator program under the Title IV-E kinship navigator funding
authority (as added to the SSA by the Family First Prevention Services Act [FFPSA; Title VII,
Division E of P.L. 115-123]).72 As directed via the annual appropriations act language, this PSSF
kinship navigator funding has been distributed so that each eligible state or territory that applies for
it receives no less than $200,000 and no eligible tribe that applies receives less than $25,000.73 The
appropriations language has also provided that no matching (nonfederal) funding is required to receive
these funds.
P.L. 118-258 requires HHS, for each of FY2026-FY2029, to reserve $10 million in PSSF
discretionary funding to support kinship navigator programs. As described below, unlike the
formula funding states received under the PSSF for kinship navigators in recent years, the new
PSSF kinship navigator funding must be awarded on a competitive basis and state and tribal child
welfare agencies will need to compete (along with other non-public eligible entities) to receive
the funding. Among other new features, HHS will be able to award a maximum of 30 new grants
69 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 110(b) of P.L. 118-258.
70 “Children’s Bureau Grantee Synthesis: Kinship Navigator Programs,” January 2019, https://cwig-prod-prod-drupal-
s3fs-us-east-1.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/kinshipnavigator.pdf.
71 See appropriations provision for HHS, ACF, “Promoting Safe and Stable Families” account in P.L. 115-141, P.L.
115-245, P.L. 116-94, P.L. 116-260, P.L. 117-103, P.L. 117-328, and P.L. 118-47. See also “Grants for Kinship
Navigator Programs,” in CRS Report R45270, Child Welfare Funding in FY2018.
72 Section 474(a)(7) of the SSA, as added by the FFPSA, authorizes states, territories, and tribes with a Title IV-E plan
to claim federal support for 50% of the costs of a kinship navigator program that includes the components required in
Section 427(a)(1) and meets at least the “promising” evidence standards given in Section 471(e)(4)(C). This support
was authorized as of FY2019; however, no program was identified as meeting the necessary evidence standards before
October 2021. Currently, five kinship navigator programs—30 Days to Family, Arizona Kinship Support Services,
Colorado Kinnected Kinship Navigator Program, Foster Kinship Navigator Program, and Ohio’s Kinship Supports
Intervention/Protect/OHIO—are identified as meeting those criteria; see
https://preventionservices.acf.hhs.gov/program?combine_1=&prograting%5B1%5D=1&prograting%5B2%5D=2&prog
rating%5B3%5D=3&progarea_filter%5B4%5D=4.
73 PSSF discretionary funding directed to the support of kinship navigator programs was $19 million in each of FY2018
to FY2023, and $9.5 million for FY2024. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands were eligible for and, generally, received these funds (in several recent years, Tennessee did not request this
support). As many as 13 tribes were eligible for this funding in FY2024. The level of funding provided for FY2024 was
not sufficient to ensure that all eligible states and tribes received the minimum allotment. Accordingly, HHS awarded
all agencies that applied an equal amount that brought the state or tribal agency as close as possible to its relevant
minimum award. This was $177,212 for each of 55 states and territories and $21,923 for each of 13 eligible tribal
entities (Table B-1). See also HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-24-08, June 5, 2024,
https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/PI-24-08.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
per year, it must make the grants for no less than one and not more than three years, and
successful applicants must provide no less than 25% of the kinship navigator program funding to
receive the grant award.74
Eligible Grantees; New Program Rules
Entities eligible to compete for the new PSSF kinship navigator grant funding (as of FY2026) are
state, local, or tribal child welfare agencies; private nonprofit organizations with experience
working with children in foster care or kinship care; and institutions of higher education. HHS
may award up to 30 new kinship navigator grants each year and each grant award must be for not
less than one year nor more than three years.
An entity seeking funding under the new PSSF kinship navigator program will need to provide an
application describing, among other things, how it intends to use the funds to (1) help the state
transition to operating a kinship navigator program with Title IV-E support or (2) fund a
published evaluation, or otherwise provide data to HHS that will be submitted for review to the
Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse. (In accordance with requirements added to Title
IV-E by FFPSA, the clearinghouse is the entity designated by HHS to systematically review
evidence from operation of kinship navigator programs, as well as prevention services and
programs, to determine if they may be rated as meeting the “promising,” “supported,” or “wellsupported” criteria given in Title IV-E.)75
A grantee receiving this PSSF kinship navigator funding will need to provide nonfederal
resources of not less than 25% of its total spending under the grant (i.e., $1 in nonfederal
resources for every $3 in federal grant funds). HHS is permitted to reserve up to 2% ($200,000)
of the $10 million in reserved kinship navigator funding to support technical assistance for
grantees.
Grants to Accelerate Development of the Evidence Base for Prevention
Services76
Under current law, in order for a state to use Title IV-E dollars for prevention services the
program or service must (1) address mental health or substance abuse prevention and treatment
needs or in-home parent skills (including through parent education, training, and individual or
group counseling), (2) meet general practice standards (e.g., have a written manual and no
findings of harm done through provision of the service), and (3) have been found superior at
achieving one or more important child or family outcomes when compared to an appropriate
alternative program or practice.77 A service or program may be rated as “promising,” “supported,”
or “well-supported” depending on the level of evidence for it.78
74 The new kinship navigator grant program revises/replaces a prior law program known as Family Connection Grants.
That program (§427 of the SSA) received independent funding (i.e., it was not a part of PSSF) for each of FY2009FY2014. The program established grants for four different types of projects—kinship navigator programs, family group
decisionmaking, intensive family finding efforts, and residential family treatment programs—intended to demonstrate
activities that could help children safely stay with or reconnect to family. To read about the projects funded, see James
Bell Associates, Inc, Cross-Site Evaluation of the Family Connection Grants, https://www.jbassoc.com/project/crosssite-evaluation-family-connection-discretionary-grants/.
75 Sections 476(d)(2) and 471(e)(4) of the SSA.
76 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 108 of P.L. 118-258.
77 Sections 471(e)(1) and 474(e)(4)(C) of the SSA.
78 Support for Title IV-E prevention services or programs is authorized under Section 474(a)(6) of the SSA. It is
distinct from the Title IV-E support for kinship navigator programs authorized at Section 474(a)(7).
Congressional Research Service
19
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
P.L. 118-258 directs that $5 million in PSSF discretionary funding must be made available
(FY2026-FY2029) to enable HHS to make competitive grants for the evaluation of prevention
services or programs and kinship navigator programs in a manner that will allow them to be rated
by the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse as eligible for Title IV-E support.
Eligible Grantees and Requirements
Eligible grantees include any state or county, or any agency or department of a state or county,
including the agency administering a CWS or PSSF plan, an Indian tribe or tribal organization, a
public or nonprofit child welfare research organization, or a nonprofit institution of higher
learning.
Additionally, to compete for a grant award any such entity must (1) be carrying out a prevention
service or program (or a kinship navigator program), or be deemed by HHS as capable of doing
so; (2) provide specified application information to HHS; and (3) be in partnership with an
agency that administers a Title IV-E program and has a program evaluator (or agree to work with
an external evaluator appointed by HHS).
Grant Priorities
In making the grants, HHS must prioritize addressing gaps identified in prevention services or
programs that may be supported with Title IV-E funds (as identified in consultation with states,
localities and tribes, individuals with lived experience, and child welfare experts) and, among
other things, an applicant’s ability to complete evaluations and produce evidence on a timely
basis.
Technical Assistance and Reports
HHS is permitted to reserve up to 5% of the annual $5 million in discretionary PSSF funds
($250,000) to provide technical assistance to grantees. Each grantee will be required to provide
annual reports on their work to HHS. In turn, HHS must provide annual reports to the House
Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees on work being done under the grant program,
including provision of any technical assistance and any efforts it has made to support program
evaluation and review related to increasing the number of programs that may be supported with
Title IV-E funding (as indicated through the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse).
PSSF and Related Evaluation, Research, and Technical Assistance79
Under current law, certain mandatory and discretionary funding annually reserved for evaluation,
research, training, and technical assistance is provided to HHS and may be used to evaluate
PSSF-supported programs or other funded programs with similar or related purposes.80 The law
directs HHS to spend no less than $1 million of the mandatory PSSF funding reserved for
evaluation, research, and technical assistance for work to support MCV grants and a separate $1
million for work related to RPGs.81 To the extent funding is available, HHS is also permitted to
use these funds to provide certain technical assistance to states and tribes.82
79 This section of the report discusses provisions in Sections 115, 106(g), and 105(e) of P.L. 118-258.
80
Sections 436(b)(1) and 437(b)(1) of the SSA. Also see Section 435.
81 Section 435(c) of the SSA.
82 Section 435(d) of the SSA.
Congressional Research Service
20
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Mandatory Funding Reservation Ended; Revised Use of Funds
Beginning with FY2026, P.L. 118-258 ends the annual reservation of PSSF mandatory funding for
research, evaluation, training, and technical assistance ($6 million); however, it maintains a
separate 3.3% reservation of any PSSF discretionary funding for those purposes.83 (At the level of
discretionary funding provided for FY2024, this 3.3% reservation would be about $2.4 million.84)
P.L. 118-258 also removes from the law (as of FY2026) the provisions directing the use of $2
million in mandatory PSSF funds for work related to MCV grants and the RPG program. It newly
directs HHS to use $2 million of discretionary PSSF funding reserved for research, evaluation,
and technical assistance to support required technical assistance work related to state compliance
with ICWA ($1 million) and, separately, to help ensure regional partnerships (current or former)
are able to publish data and submit evidence of program effectiveness to the Title IV-E Prevention
Services Clearinghouse ($1 million).
P.L. 118-258 also maintains general language now in the law regarding use of PSSF research,
evaluation, and technical assistance funding. With regard to that language, it directs inclusion of
“community-based partners with expertise in preventing unnecessary child welfare system
involvement” in development of any evaluation criteria to be used under the PSSF and related
programs. It also newly provides that, to the extent funding is available, HHS is to offer technical
assistance to states and tribes related to coordinating any RPG grants with other federal funds to
better serve child welfare-involved families and children affected by substance use disorder.
Limit on Use of CWS Funds for Grants Related to Dual-Status
Youth
CWS funding is discretionary and, to date, has been fully directed to formula grants to states,
territories, and tribes for support of child and family services. Beginning with FY2023, however,
in any year annual CWS funding exceeds $270 million HHS must reserve some portion of the
excess (i.e., funding above $270 million) to make competitive grants for improved services to
youth served by both the child welfare and juvenile justice systems (“dual-status” youth).85
Current law does not set a limit on the amount of excess funds that may be reserved for this
purpose. However, as of FY2026, P.L. 118-258 caps this set-aside at no more than $10 million.86
In recent years, regular annual CWS funding has been $269 million and thus (through FY2024)
has not triggered the reservation of funds for this grant program.
83 Since the PSSF program was established in the early 1990s, a portion of the program’s mandatory funding has been
annually reserved for research, evaluation, technical assistance, and/or training activities. The initial annual reservation
of mandatory funding was set at $2 million in FY1994. It was increased to $6 million in FY1995 (P.L. 103-66) and has
remained at that level. The PSSF Reauthorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized additional annual support for
this same work (3.3% of any discretionary funding provided).
84 For FY2024, discretionary funding provided for PSSF was $72.5 million. The appropriations act (P.L. 118-47)
directed that a portion of this funding should be used in a manner different than as given in program law. However, if
program law were applied only to that level of discretionary funding (i.e., 3.3% was reserved for PSSF evaluation,
research, and technical assistance), it would total about $2.4 million.
85 The Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-348) added this
reservation of CWS funds (contingent on certain funding levels) to Section 423(a)(2) of the SSA. Further, it spelled out
the grant program to be funded in provisions included at Section 429A of the SSA.
86 Section 103(d) of P.L. 118-258.
Congressional Research Service
21
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Demonstration Grants to Support Relationships Between
Incarcerated Parents and Their Children in Foster Care87
P.L. 118-258 provides a new and independent authorization of discretionary funding ($35 million
for each of FY2026-FY2029) for support of state partnerships to develop, implement, and carry
out programs to enable and sustain relationships between children in foster care and any
incarcerated parents of those children, including for related technical assistance and evaluation.
The new grant program strikes and replaces existing language in Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the SSA
that previously authorized funding for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners (MCP) program. The
MCP authorization expired in FY2011 and was not extended. 88
The number of children in foster care who have an incarcerated parent is not known. However, in
the most recent year for which there are published data as many as 11,800 children who entered
care during FY2022 were reported as having done so in some part due to the incarceration of
parents.89 Children who enter foster care due in some part to parental incarceration are more
likely to have a parent with drug or alcohol abuse issues than are children who enter care for other
reasons.90 A 2010 report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, notes
that parents of children in foster care who are incarcerated in state or federal prisons are often
serving sentences of five years or less for drug related offenses.91 These parents will frequently be
a part of their children’s lives after they leave prison. Supporting relationships through visits and
other communications may be approached from a child’s developmental perspective and is
understood to be important for the well-being of the child and the child’s parent.92
Eligible Partnerships and Applications
Under this newly authorized (as of FY2026) Title IV-B demonstration grant program to support
meaningful relationships between incarcerated parents and their children in foster care, an eligible
state partnership must include the state child welfare agency and the state agency in charge of
adult correctional facilities. It may additionally include an organization or entity with experience
87 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 113 of P.L. 118-258.
88 The MCP program was added to Title IV-B by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Reauthorization Act of 2001
(P.L. 107-133, see also H.Rept. 107-281). It received its first funding in FY2003 ($10 million), and in each of FY2004
through FY2010 it was funded at between $49 million and $50 million. In its FY2012 budget (released in February
2011), the Obama Administration requested a 50% reduction in funding for the program, citing concerns about
evaluation findings. Full-year funding for FY2011 was provided several months after that FY2012 budget request was
made, via a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 112-10, enacted April 2011). Based on the HHS, ACF operating plan
for FY2011, it does not appear that MCP was continued in FY2011. For FY2012, the Obama Administration requested
no MCP funding and Congress did not provide any. See HHS, ACF, Justification of Estimates for the Appropriations
Committees, FY2012 (pp. 115-122) and FY2013 (p. 74).
89 HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, The AFCARS Report #30, preliminary data for FY2022 (as of May 9, 2023),
p. 3, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/afcars-report-30.pdf.
90 Maria Morrison and Brett Drake, “Foster Children in Care Due to Parental Incarceration: A National Longitudinal
Study,” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 144, January 2023, 106708.
91 Cited in “Supporting Relationships Between Children and Their Incarcerated Parents,” Families Impacted by
Incarceration (FII) Tip Sheet, from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Technical Assistance and Strategic
Dissemination Center (CANTASD), produced in partnership with the National Resource Center on Children and
Families of the Incarcerated (NRCCFI) at Rutgers University-Camden, with support from HHS, ACF, ACYF,
Children’s Bureau, no date.
92 “Supporting Relationships Between Children and Their Incarcerated Parents,” FII Tip Sheet from CANTASD. See
also “Supporting Communication for Families Impacted by Incarceration,” FII Tip Sheet from CANTASD. Additional
and related resources are available at the National Resource Center for Children & Families of the Incarcerated,
https://nrccfi.camden.rutgers.edu/.
Congressional Research Service
22
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
in serving incarcerated parents and their children. (Additionally, an Indian tribe/tribal
organization or consortium could be considered an eligible partnership so long as it partners with
more than just a tribal child welfare agency.)
Applicant partnerships will be required to describe the activities they intend to carry out with the
funding, including responsibilities of each partner and how children in foster care with
incarcerated parents will be identified and served. Among additional application requirements, a
partnership must also commit to participation in evaluation of their work (as directly or indirectly
conducted by HHS).
Required Activities of Partnerships
In general, grantees are expected to do the following with regard to children in foster care and
their incarcerated parents:
•
•
•
•
promote an organizational culture at the child welfare agency, and at
collaborating correctional facilities, that supports meaningful relationships
between these children and their parents, including through regular and
developmentally appropriate visits;
provide training for child welfare workers and correctional facilities staff to
understand the importance of these relationships;
offer case management services for incarcerated parents to promote relationships
with their children in foster care and to allow them to access services; and
permit access to necessary legal services that are not otherwise supported with
federal funding.
Cost Sharing, Technical Assistance, Evaluation, and Reports
The federal share of support for this work will be no more than 75% of the total costs (i.e., a
minimum of 25% in nonfederal support from partnerships is required). HHS is required to
provide technical assistance to grantees and to carry out an evaluation to determine the
effectiveness of the programs and identify opportunities for improvements.
No later than three years after the enactment of P.L. 118-258 (i.e., no later than January 4, 2028),
HHS must submit an initial report on the grant program to the House Ways and Means and Senate
Finance committees. It must also submit a final report no later than six years after enactment.
Other Required Work by HHS
Guidelines for Improved Data Collection and Reporting on Youth in
Residential Treatment Programs93
Within two years of enactment of P.L. 118-258 (i.e., as of January 4, 2027), HHS must prepare
and disseminate to state child welfare agencies best practices for
•
federal and state agencies to collect and share data concerning the well-being of
youth in residential treatment facilities, including those operating in more than
one state;
93 This section of the report discusses provisions in Section 114 of H.R. 9076.
Congressional Research Service
23
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
•
•
•
improving state collection and sharing of data regarding any maltreatment of
youth in those facilities, including youth in foster care;94
improving oversight of youth residential programs that receive federal funding;
and
improving strategies for risk assessment related to the health, safety, and wellbeing of youth in residential treatment facilities.
The guidance must be developed after HHS consults with several of its own agencies (i.e.,
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid [CMS], ACF, and the Administration for Community Living
[ACL]), as well as with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Education, and
other relevant policy experts.
The development of this guidance is expected to occur concurrent with broader and more
extensive study of issues related to youth in a wide variety of residential settings, which is to be
carried out by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (under contract with
HHS), as required by the Stop Institutional Child Abuse and Neglect Act (P.L. 118-194, enacted
December 23, 2024).
Post-Adoption/Guardianship Study95
Within two years of enactment of P.L. 118-258 (i.e., as of January 4, 2027), HHS must prepare a
report on children who enter foster care after an earlier finalized adoption or legal guardianship is
disrupted or dissolved. The report, which must be provided to the House Ways and Means and
Senate Finance committees, is to include information on the incidence of adoption disruption and
dissolution among children entering foster care along with associated factors (e.g., age of the
child, whether pre- and post-adoption services were provided). The report is also expected to
provide state-by-state summary information on post-adoption and guardianship services available
to families that adopt children out of foster care (including whether the services are evidencebased or informed) and funding sources used by each state to provide post-adoption or
guardianship services.
Effective Date
All provisions of Title I of P.L. 118-258 are effective as of October 1, 2025 (i.e., the first day of
FY2026). Further, as described previously, if HHS determines that a state will be required to
enact legislation in order to meet any new Title IV-B plan requirements of the bill (other than
appropriations legislation) it may be permitted to allow the state some additional time to meet the
requirements. In addition, if HHS determines that a tribe/tribal organization needs additional time
to meet any of the requirements, HHS must allow the tribe the additional time necessary (as
determined by HHS).96
94 For any child who receives federal child welfare aid with federal funds (via Title IV-B or Title IV-E of the SSA),
Section 471(a)(9)(A) of the SSA requires states to “report to an appropriate agency or official, known or suspected
instance of physical or mental injury, sexual abuse or exploitation, or negligent treatment or maltreatment of a child ...
under circumstances which indicate that the child’s health or welfare is threatened thereby.”
95 This section of the report discusses Section 116 of P.L. 118-258.
96 See the “Effective Date of Revised State Plan Requirements” section.
Congressional Research Service
24
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
The Strengthening State and Tribal Child Support
Enforcement Act (Title II)
Title II of P.L. 118-258 contains provisions that expand access to FTI to tribal child support
programs and contractors of state, local, and tribal agencies.
The child support program is authorized by Title IV-D of the SSA. All 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and 63 tribal nations operate Title IV-D
programs.97 The program is administered at the federal level by the Office of Child Support
Services (OCSS) in HHS, ACF.98 Program services include parent location, the initial
establishment and review and modification of child support orders, the collection and distribution
of child support payments, and the establishment and enforcement of medical support.99 The Title
IV-D program is estimated to handle the majority of all child support cases; the remaining cases
are handled by private attorneys, by collection agencies, or through mutual agreements between
parents.100 In FY2023, the program was estimated to serve 12.1 million families and collected an
estimated $27 billion in child support, of which about $8 billion was for obligations that were
past-due (arrears). The amount of arrears paid represented about 8% of the $115 billion in
cumulative arrears owed to cases enforced by the program.101
Title IV-D Access to and Use of Federal Tax Data
Certain child support services are supported via the exchange of federal tax data. For instance,
such data are exchanged with state and local child support agencies to locate noncustodial parents
(via external locate requests) and to verify annual wages earned, generally for the purposes of
establishing or modifying a support order.102 Tax data are also exchanged with state and local
programs as part of the Federal Tax Refund Offset Program (FOP), which withholds past-due
support from federal income tax refunds before they are issued.103 The FOP operates through a
partnership between OCSS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury.104
97 For a list of these programs, see HHS, Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), Contact information for State and
Tribal Child Support Agencies, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/map/state-and-tribal-child-support-agency-contacts.
98 This office was titled Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) prior to June 5, 2023; HHS published a notice in
the Federal Register changing the name of the program and administering entity within HHS to the Office of Child
Support Services in Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) (Federal Register, vol.
88, no. 107, June 5, 2023, p. 36587).
99 For further background, see CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Services: Program Basics.
100 Elaine Sorensen, Arthur Pashi, and Melody Morales, “Characteristics of Families Served by the Child Support (IVD) Program: 2016 U.S. Census Survey Results,” HHS, OCSE, November 2018, p. 3 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/ocse/iv_d_characteristics_2016_census_results.pdf.
101 HHS, OCSS, “Preliminary Report for FY2023,” https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/
fy_2023_preliminary_report.pdf.
102 See HHS, OCSS, “External Locate Sources, Information for Families,” June 2, 2023, https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/
outreach-material/external-locate-sources.
103 FOP is authorized in Section 464 of the SSA and Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). For further
information, see HHS, OCSS, “How does a federal tax refund offset work?,” June 2, 2023, http://acf.hhs.gov/css/faq/
how-does-federal-tax-refund-offset-program-work.
104 See U.S. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, “Treasury Offset Program,”
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/top/.
Congressional Research Service
25
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
The sharing of data used by FOP, and for other specified purposes, is generally governed by the
tax code.105 Under these provisions, the IRS may disclose to federal, state, and local child support
enforcement agencies, if requested, specific tax data on any individual with respect to whom child
support obligations are sought to be established or enforced, or any individual owed child
support, for the specified use of establishing or collecting those child support obligations or
locating that individual.106 Information that may be disclosed includes social security numbers
(SSNs), addresses, tax filing statuses, amounts and nature of income, and the number of
dependents reported on returns filed by the person from whom child support obligations are
sought, and returns filed with respect to such person or the person to whom the obligation is
owed. The tax code also allows employees of federal, state, and local child support agencies to
have access to the amount of the child support offset.107 In addition, certain tax data disclosed
from the IRS to the Social Security Administration for administering social security programs
may be redisclosed to federal, state, and local child support enforcement agencies for child
support enforcement purposes.108 This includes data on SSNs, net-earnings from selfemployment, wages, and certain amounts of retirement income. Failure to follow the law
regarding the disclosure of taxpayer information may subject employees (and contractors) of
child support agencies to penalties.109
Tribal IV-D Program Access
Prior to the enactment of P.L. 118-258, tribal IV-D programs were required to contract with a
state IV-D entity to utilize tools involving FTI (e.g., the FOP program), and could only have FTI
redisclosed to them.110 This difference in access raised long-standing parity concerns among
stakeholders.111
P.L. 118-258 amends the SSA to explicitly provide that the FOP authorities apply to tribal IV-D
programs.112 (A related technical amendment allows federal reimbursement to tribal programs for
the costs of the information exchange.113) P.L. 118-258 also amends the tax code to allow tribal
IV-D programs access to taxpayer data governed by those sections on par with the access given to
federal, state, and local child support agencies.114
In order to have direct access to the child support locate, establishment, and enforcement tools
that utilize taxpayer data, a tribal IV-D program will need to demonstrate its ability to comply
with applicable federal safeguards.115 Failure to follow the law regarding the disclosure of
105 IRC §6103.
106 IRC §6103(l)(6).
107 IRC Section 6103(l)(10) governs the FTI access authorities for this purpose. The amount of child support that may
be disclosed is that offset pursuant to IRC Section 6402(c).
108 IRC §6103(l)(8).
109 Security guidelines for Title IV-D agencies using these data can be found in IRS Publication 1075, Tax Information
Security Guidelines for Federal, State, and Local Agencies, Section 2.B.2., https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1075.pdf.
110 HHS, OCSE, “IRS Requirements for Tribes Accessing Federal Tax Information,” IM-19-03, July 5, 2019,
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/irs-requirements-tribes-accessing-federal-tax-information.
111 See, for example, National Child Support Enforcement Association, letter to Senator Thune and Senator Wyden,
RE: Support for the Tribal Child Support Enforcement Act, January 7, 2020, https://www.ncsea.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/01/NCSEA-Letter-in-Support-of-Tribal-Child-Support-Enforcement-Act.pdf.
112 These amendments were made to SSA Section 464.
113
SSA §453(g).
114 IRC §§6103 and 6402(c).
115 IRC §6103(p)(4).
Congressional Research Service
26
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
taxpayer information may subject employees and contractors of tribal child support agencies to
the same penalties as employees and contractors of state and local child support agencies.
Title IV-D Agency Contractor Access
In addition, P.L. 118-258 addresses what had been the lack of parity in IV-D child support
contractor access to FTI. As discussed in the previous section, several categories of FTI may be
shared with employees of IV-D agencies. However, prior to the enactment of P.L. 118-258 only
some of these data (i.e., SSNs, addresses, offset amounts) could be disclosed to contractors of
those IV-D agencies for the purposes of child support enforcement.116 The child support
community had long expressed concern that these categories of data were overly limited and
could hamper program effectiveness.117 At the same time, there were general concerns that
statutorily expanding data access may risk the security of taxpayer information.118 These issues
were complicated by the long-standing practice of the IRS to hold in abeyance findings of IV-D
program noncompliance with required contractor access safeguards. If this abeyance were to have
ceased, the operations of programs that had continued to be out of compliance would have been at
risk.119
P.L. 118-258 amends the tax code to remove the enumerated categories of taxpayer data that may
be disclosed to IV-D agency contractors.120 It also expressly applies the safeguard requirements to
taxpayer data shared with IV-D agencies and their contractors.121 This effectively allows
contractors of all IV-D agencies to have the same access to data as employees of these agencies.
CBO Cost Estimates of the Supporting America’s
Children and Families Act
CBO provided separate estimates for the provisions of Title I and Title II of P.L. 118-258 when
those provisions were ordered to be reported in the House. Combined, these estimates suggest the
enacted bill could result in a net reduction in federal direct spending122 of $167 million across 10
years (FY2025-FY2034). That is generally because CBO’s estimate of expected increases in
direct spending tied to the child welfare provisions in Title I were more than fully offset by its
estimate of the expected decrease in direct spending due to the inclusion of the child supportrelated provisions in Title II. The separate CBO cost estimates of the provisions in Title I and
Title II, which were produced with regard to these proposals at the House committee stage of
116 IRC §6103(l)(6).
117 See, for example, National Child Support Enforcement Association, “Confidentiality of IRS Information,” board
resolution, August 11, 2018, https://www.ncsea.org/documents/Confidentiality-of-IRS-Information_08.11.2001-1.pdf.
118 See, for example, Government Accountability Office, “Taxpayer Privacy: A Guide for Screening and Assessing
Proposals to Disclose Confidential Tax Information to Specific Parties for Specific Purposes,” December 2011,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-231sp.pdf.
119 Governor Tony Evers et. al., letter to Senator Schumer, Senator Mitch McConnell, Representative Mike Johnson,
and Representative Hakeem Jeffries, July 23, 2024, https://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/
7.23.24-HR7906-Governor-Letter.pdf.
120 IRC §6103(l)(6)(B).
121 These safeguard requirements are in IRC Section 6103(p)(4).
122 Direct spending (also referred to as mandatory spending) is funding that is controlled by authorization acts, such as
the SSA. For further information, see CRS Report R44582, Overview of Funding Mechanisms in the Federal Budget
Process, and Selected Examples.
Congressional Research Service
27
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
consideration, are discussed below. (These provisions are substantially the same as those
eventually enacted in P.L. 118-258.)
Title I Child Welfare Provisions
CBO estimated that the provisions later enacted in Title I of P.L. 118-258 would increase federal
direct spending by $610 million across FY2025-FY2034.123 That 10-year sum included $574
million in increased federal outlays for PSSF services and activities (under Title IV-B of the SSA)
and $36 million in increased federal outlays for provision of “independent legal representation”
(under Title IV-E of the SSA). P.L. 118-258 does not amend the Title IV-E program authorities
directly. All the same, CBO estimated that the law’s change in CWS program policy (under Title
IV-B, Subpart 1 of the SSA), requiring states to inform certain child welfare-involved children
and their parents of any available independent legal representation, would result in states
accessing some additional federal support for independent legal representation which may be
supported under the Title IV-E program.124
Title II Child Support Provisions
CBO estimated that the provisions later enacted in Title II of P.L. 118-258 would decrease direct
spending outlays by $777 million across FY2025-FY2034.125 This estimate included the
budgetary effects of both the tribal IV-D FTI access provisions and those expanding contractor
access. CBO noted in its estimate that “the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)
estimate that enacting H.R. 7906 would have a negligible effect on revenues over the 2024-2034
period.”
The Origins and Enactment of the Supporting
America’s Children and Families Act
Both titles of P.L. 118-258 were developed as independent bills and each carried the same name
that it now has as a separate title (i.e., Title I—the Protecting America’s Children by
Strengthening Families Act; and Title II—the Strengthening State and Tribal Child Support
Enforcement Act). During the 118th Congress, the child welfare provisions that became Title I of
123 CBO Cost Estimates, H.R. 9076, Protecting America’s Children by Strengthening Families Act, October 23, 2024,
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-10/hr9076.pdf. This estimate is based on legislative provisions that were
ordered reported by the House Ways and Means Committee on July 24, 2024. Those provisions were substantively the
same as the enacted provisions.
124 The ability to use Title IV-E funds for independent legal representation was first articulated in 2019 via informal
guidance (see HHS, ACF, ACYF, Child Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.1B, Question 30, https://acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/
public_html/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=36). In November 2024, this authority was
formalized via federal regulations (45 C.F.R. §1356.60(c)(2)(xi) and (c)(4)). As was initially permitted in guidance, the
formal regulation permits states and tribes with an approved plan under Title IV-E of the SSA to seek federal support
for 50% of the cost of providing independent legal representation during foster care proceedings for eligible children in
foster care, eligible children at imminent risk of entering foster care, and the parents of those children. Beyond this, the
formal regulations permit, for this same child and parent population, provision of Title IV-E-supported independent
legal representation in certain civil legal proceedings related to the child welfare case (e.g., matters concerning
domestic violence or housing).
125 CBO, H.R. 7906, Strengthening State and Tribal Child Support Enforcement Act, Cost Estimate, August 12, 2024,
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-08/hr7906.pdf. This estimate is based on legislative provisions that were
approved by the House Ways and Means Committee in July 2024. Those provisions were substantively the same as
those enacted in Title II of P.L. 118-258.
Congressional Research Service
28
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
P.L. 118-258 were introduced as H.R. 9076 on July 22, 2024, and the child support related
provisions that became Title II were introduced in the House as H.R. 7906 on April 9, 2024.
These bills were given separate consideration by the House Ways and Means Committee at a July
24, 2024, markup, after incorporating minor manager’s amendments proposed by Ways and
Means Committee Chair Jason Smith. Each received unanimous approval and was ordered
reported to the House.
When H.R. 9076 was considered on the House floor in September, the House adopted an
amendment that renamed the bill the Supporting America’s Children and Families Act and
reorganized it so that its earlier committee-approved child welfare provisions were redesignated
as Title I, and a new Title II was added to the bill comprised of the committee-approved child
support-related provisions in H.R. 7906.
The amended H.R. 9076—merging child welfare (Title I) and child support (Title II) provisions—
was approved by the House on September 18, 2024, by a vote of 405-10. The merged bill was
then sent to the Senate, where it was approved, without amendment, by unanimous consent on
December 21, 2024.126
On January 4, 2025, the bill was signed by the President and was subsequently designated as P.L.
118-258.
Title I—Introduction, Related Bills, and Committee Action in the
118th Congress
Representative Darin LaHood introduced the Protecting America’s Children by Strengthening
Families Act (H.R. 9076), with Representative Danny K. Davis, on July 22, 2024. The bill was
informed by several child welfare-specific hearings held by the full House Ways and Means
Committee or its Work and Welfare Subcommittee127 and incorporated some or all provisions or
ideas included in a range of child welfare bills introduced in the 118th Congress.128
126 Prior to its Senate approval, the text of the House-passed version of H.R. 9076 was proposed for inclusion in a
legislative package that would have provided for an extension of the FY2025 continuing resolution and addressed a
variety of other matters. This package was not ultimately taken up by the House or the Senate. For background and the
text of this package (see Division E, Title III for the child welfare and child support provisions), see House
Appropriations Committee, Committee Releases Bill to Continue Current Funding and Provide Much-Needed Disaster
Relief, majority staff press release, December 17, 2024, https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/
committee-releases-bill-continue-current-funding-and-provide-much-needed.
127 Child welfare-specific hearings included Modernizing Child Welfare to Protect Vulnerable Children, September 28,
2023 (subcommittee); Pathways to Independence: Supporting Youth Aging Out of Foster, January 17, 2024
(subcommittee); and Strengthening Child Welfare and Protecting America’s Children, June 26, 2024 (full committee).
In addition, the hearing Empowering Native American and Rural Communities (full committee) was held in Arizona
and included some child welfare-specific testimony related to support for tribal child welfare and concerns related to
compliance with the ICWA. See hearing information at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.
128 Bills with at least some provisions included in Title I of the Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L.
118-258) include the Helping Hands for Families Act (H.R. 476, by Rep. Carol Miller, with Rep. Judy Chu/S. 73 by
Sen. Marco Rubio with Sen. Robert Casey); Tribal Family Fairness Act (H.R. 2762 by Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove,
with Reps. Don Bacon and Sharice Davids); Court Improvement Program Enhancement Act (H.R. 8460 by Rep. Blake
Moore, with Reps. Judy Chu and Carol Miller); Strengthening Tribal Families Act (S. 4471 by Sen. Tammy
Baldwin/H.R. 8621 by Rep. Don Bacon, with Reps. Judy Chu, Daniel Kildee, Tom Cole, and Sharice Davids); Foster
Youth Mental Health Support Act (H.R. 8643 by Rep. Michelle Steel); Empowering Kinship Caregivers and Youth
through Title IV-B (H.R. 8743 by Rep. Lloyd Smucker, with Rep. Don Davis); Reducing Administrative Burden for
Child Welfare Agencies Act (H.R. 8744) and Child Welfare Workforce Development Act (H.R. 8745), both by Rep.
Lloyd Smucker; Foster Care Adoption Oversight and Support Act (H.R. 8793 by Rep. Brad Wenstrup with Rep. Lloyd
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
29
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
At a July 24, 2024, markup of H.R. 9076, the full committee adopted an Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute (AINS) by a voice vote, which was offered by House Ways and Means
Committee Chair Jason Smith. (The AINS made limited and largely technical changes to the
bill.129) The committee then ordered the bill reported, as amended, by a vote of 38-0. A report on
the bill was submitted to the House on September 17, 2024 (H.Rept. 118-679).
On November 18, 2024, Senator John Cornyn (with Senator Michael Bennet) introduced identical
legislation in the Senate (S. 5336). (However, Senate action on these provisions ultimately
occurred as part of the House-passed H.R. 9076.)
Title II—Introduction, Related Bills, and Committee Action in the
118th Congress
Representative Kevin Hern introduced the Strengthening State and Tribal Child Support
Enforcement Act (H.R. 7906), with Representative Suzan DelBene, Representative Lloyd
Smucker, Representative Gwen Moore, Representative David Schweikert, and Representative
Darin LaHood, on April 9, 2024. The bill was substantially the same as earlier legislation, S. 534,
that was passed by the Senate in the 117th Congress but received no further congressional action.
(This legislation was re-introduced in the Senate as S. 3154 in the 118th Congress, but Senate
action on the proposal ultimately occurred with regard to the final version of this proposal in H.R.
9076.)
At a July 24, 2024, markup of H.R. 7906, the full committee adopted an AINS by a voice vote,
which was offered by House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith. (The AINS made
minor technical changes to the bill.130) The committee then ordered the bill reported, as amended,
by a vote of 37-0. The committee reported the bill to the House on December 24, 2024 (H.Rept.
118-951).131
Smucker); Promoting Community-Based Prevention Services Act (H.R. 8798 by Rep. Mike Carey, with Rep. John
Larsen), Promoting Active Relationships to Enable Nurturing Ties (PARENT) Act (H.R. 8799 by Rep. Danny K.
Davis, with Rep. Darin LaHood); Ensuring Legal Representation for Child Welfare Act (H.R. 8810 by Rep. Claudia
Tenney, with Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon); Preventing Child Welfare Entry Caused by Poverty (H.R. 8813 by Rep. Jason
Smith, with Rep. Gwen Moore); Strengthening Evidence-based Prevention Services Act (H.R. 8814 by Rep. Randy
Feenstra, with Rep. Daniel Kildee); Youth and Family Engagement in Child Welfare Act (H.R. 8815 by Rep. Adrian
Smith, with Rep. Gwen Moore); Promoting Accountability, Reporting, Information Sharing and Health Act (H.R. 8817
by Rep. Gregory Steube, with Rep. Jimmy Panetta); Partnership Grants to Strengthen Families Affected by Parental
Substance Use Disorder Act (H.R. 8885 by Rep. Danny K. Davis, with Rep. Steven Horsford); Regional Partnership
Grants Reauthorization Act (H.R. 8890 by Rep. Steven Horsford, with Rep. Danny K. Davis) and Tribal Child Welfare
Support Act (H.R. 8921 by Rep. Kevin Hern, with Rep. Judy Chu). This list is similar, but not identical, to a list of
relevant House-sponsored language included by the House Ways and Means Committee in its report on H.R. 9076; see
H.Rept. 118-679, pp. 17-18, https://www.congress.gov/118/crpt/hrpt679/CRPT-118hrpt679.pdf.
129 See the AINS, a description of changes made in the AINS, and the vote tally at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/
event/markup-of-h-r-7906-and-h-r-9076/.
130 See the AINS, a description of changes made in the AINS, and the vote tally at https://waysandmeans.house.gov/
event/markup-of-h-r-7906-and-h-r-9076/.
131 House Ways and Means Committee, H.Rept. 118-951, to accompany the Strengthening State and Tribal Child
Support Enforcement Act (H.R. 7906), https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress/house-report/
951.
Congressional Research Service
30
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Earlier in the Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee’s Work and Welfare
Subcommittee and Oversight Subcommittee held a joint hearing on November 29, 2023. The
primary topics discussed were the issues addressed by the legislation.132
132 House Ways and Means Committee, Joint Hearing of the Work and Welfare Subcommittee and Oversight
Subcommittee, Strengthening the Child Support Enforcement Program for States and Tribes, November 29, 2023,
http://gop-waysandmeans.house.gov/event/joint-work-welfare-and-oversight-subcommittee-hearing-on-strengtheningthe-child-support-enforcement-program-for-states-and-tribes/.
Congressional Research Service
31
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Appendix A. Program Background
Title I: Child Welfare
Title I of P.L. 118-258 extends funding authorities for, and makes amendments to, the primary
child welfare programs included in Title IV-B of the SSA. These are the Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Child Welfare Services (CWS, Subpart 1) program and the MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe and
Stable Families (PSSF, Subpart 2) program. It repeals the prior-law Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program (last funded in FY2010), and replaces it with a new authorization of funding
for state partnership grants to support meaningful relationships between children in foster care
and their incarcerated parents.
CWS and PSSF Program Background
The CWS program was authorized as part of the original SSA in 1935 (P.L. 74-271). The Public
Welfare Amendments of 1967 (P.L. 90-248) moved the CWS program from its original location
(Title V of the SSA) to a newly established Title IV-B of the SSA. As the founding federal child
welfare program, CWS has the broadest purposes and may be used to support nearly any child
welfare activity authorized in any federal child welfare program.133 Funding for the program is
authorized on a discretionary basis.
The PSSF program was established in the early 1990s (P.L. 103-66), at a time when the number
of children in foster care was climbing. The program initially offered support for services to
strengthen and preserve families to prevent the need for foster care. It was expanded in 1997 (via
the Adoption and Safe Families Act [ASFA], P.L. 105-89) to also support services to reunite
children in foster care with their families and, if that was not possible, to identify a new
permanent family for those children via adoption. The program was originally supported wholly
with capped mandatory funding; however, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Reauthorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) added a separate authorization of discretionary
appropriations for it.134
Both the CWS and PSSF programs have received funding in every year since their respective
enactments and both programs have been amended multiple times. Although appropriations for
the CWS program were initially authorized on a permanent (no-year limit) basis, the Child and
Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) added a five-year limit. That law also
aligned the timeframe for the CWS authorization of appropriations with the one given for the
PSSF program. A portion of PSSF funding has been reserved for evaluation and research in every
year of the program and for the Court Improvement Program (CIP) in every year beginning with
FY1995. The 2006 reauthorization (P.L. 109-288) added new reservations of PSSF funding for
the Regional Partnership Grants (RPGs) and Monthly Caseworker Visit (MCV) grants.
Since the 2006 reauthorization, the CWS and PSSF programs have been amended and jointly
reauthorized in 2011 (P.L. 112-34, through FY2016) and 2018 (§50751 of P.L. 115-123, through
FY2021). Amendments to the SSA subsequently extended funding authorizations under the
133 The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) prohibited CWS spending for foster care
maintenance, adoption assistance, and certain child care unless a state had used CWS funds for those purposes in
FY2005. In that case, the state may spend CWS funds for any of the given purposes in an amount no greater than was
spent on that purpose in FY2005. See Section 424(c) of the SSA.
134 For more information on this change, see CRS Report RL30894, Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program in the 107th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
32
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
programs through FY2023, largely without any permanent policy changes.135 Under the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (§402, Division G of P.L. 118-42), activities under Title
IV-B are authorized to continue (as they were supported in FY2023) through December 31, 2024.
Title I of P.L. 118-258 amends the CWS and PSSF programs and extends their funding authorities
through FY2029. This includes extension of PSSF funding reserved for the CIP, MCV grants, and
RPGs.
Other Title IV-B Programs
The 2001 PSSF reauthorization law (P.L. 107-133) first authorized the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners (MCP) program, including it as an independent program in Title IV-B, Subpart 2. The
program received initial discretionary funding in FY2003, was amended and extended in the 2006
Title IV-B reauthorization (P.L. 109-288), and was last supported in FY2010. Budget documents
from the time noted that a significant minority of mentor-mentee relationships ended after a
relatively short period, causing “significant loss in financial investment through training,
screening, and other elements of the mentoring match program,” and that, based on research
showing the importance of sustained relationships, this was potentially adding to feelings of
insecurity and abandonment felt by the mentees.136 The 2011 Title IV-B reauthorization bill (P.L.
112-34) did not extend the program.
Title I of P.L. 118-258 repeals the dormant MCP program language, and in its place authorizes
appropriations of discretionary funding to support a grant program for projects that support and
maintain meaningful connections between incarcerated parents and their children in foster care.
In 2008, the Fostering Connections to Success and Promoting Adoptions Act (P.L. 110-351)
established and funded Family Connection Grants in Section 427 of the SSA to support
demonstration projects related to kinship navigator programs, intensive family finding, family
group decisionmaking, and residential family treatment programs. These grants received
independent (mandatory) funding of $15 million in each of FY2009-FY2014; however, no
funding for the grant program has subsequently been provided. Title I of P.L. 118-258 revises and
renames the grant program, focusing it solely on kinship navigator programs and requiring HHS
annually to set aside $10 million out of any discretionary PSSF funding appropriated to support
the grants from FY2026 through FY2029.
Title II: Child Support
Title II generally permits tribal child support enforcement agencies and contractors for state and
local child support enforcement agencies access to the same federal tax information (FTI), under
the Federal Offset Program (FOP), that is now available to state and local child support
enforcement agencies. When they access this information, tribal agencies and relevant contractors
135 The capped mandatory funding authority for the PSSF program (included at Section 436(a) of the SSA) was
extended for one year (through FY2022) by Division CC of P.L. 116-260. That law also made multiple, albeit largely
technical, changes to the CIP as it is included in the SSA. Those changes appear to have been designed to ensure that
all of the CIP program funds were considered a part of the “CBO baseline” for the PSSF program. In the following
year, Section 6103 of P.L. 117-328 amended the SSA to extend the CWS funding authorization (§425 of the SSA) and
both the mandatory (§436(a)) and discretionary (§437(a)) PSSF funding authorizations through FY2023. This extension
was made without any policy amendments, and also included extension of each of the time-limited reservations of
PSSF funding for specific program activities.
136 HHS, ACF, Justifications of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, FY2012, February 2011, pp. 115-116,
https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/olab/2012_all.pdf#page=119.
Congressional Research Service
33
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
are subject to the same access and disclosure rules that apply to state and local child support
enforcement agencies.
The Child Support Program
The child support program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the
SSA, P.L. 93-647). At its inception, the primary purpose of the Title IV-D program was to reduce
public expenditures on cash assistance (then, Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC];
currently, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF] block grant) by obtaining
ongoing support from noncustodial parents that could be used to reimburse state and federal
governments for part of that assistance. Relatedly, the program also sought to ensure financial
support for children from their noncustodial parents on a consistent and continuing basis to enable
some of those families to remain off public assistance.
Since its enactment in 1975, numerous laws have made changes to the IV-D program. Early
amendments broadened the program’s mission beyond cash assistance cost-recovery to include
service delivery for both assistance and nonassistance families as well as expanded enforcement
methods. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) authorized the IRS to
withhold all or part of federal income tax refunds of certain individuals who owed past-due child
support to collect those obligations on behalf of AFDC families. The Child Support Enforcement
Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-378) expanded these authorities to apply to non-AFDC families
through January 1, 1991. It also further specified procedures with regard to these tax offsets that
were to be followed by state IV-D programs and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, including
the disclosure of FTI under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to state and local IV-D programs,
and the limited redisclosure of FTI to contractors of those programs. (Subsequently, P.L. 101-508
repealed the expiration of the non-AFDC authorities, and further technical changes were made by
P.L. 104-134 and P.L. 104-193.)
Originally, Title IV-D of the SSA placed authority to administer the delivery of child support
services solely with the states. However, on many types of tribal lands the authority of state and
local governments was (and continues to be) limited, constraining their ability to provide child
support services on tribal lands. Similarly, some Indian families had difficulty obtaining CSE
services from the state CSE programs.137 To further the goal of tribal self-governance, the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA; P.L. 104193) authorized the HHS Secretary to provide direct federal funding to Indian tribes with
approved IV-D programs (§455(f) of the SSA). (PRWORA also permitted states to enter into
cooperative agreements with Indian tribes and tribal organizations [§454(33) of the SSA].)
However, tribal IV-D programs were not explicitly included in the provisions of the SSA and IRC
that allowed state and local IV-D programs to have access to FTI.138
137 For further background, see HHS, ACF, “Tribal Child Support Enforcement Programs” final rule, Federal Register,
vol. 69, no. 61, March 20, 2024, pp. 16638-16639.
138 Instead, these tribal programs were required to contract with a state IV-D entity to have limited data redisclosed to
them; HHS, OCSE, “IRS Requirements for Tribes Accessing Federal Tax Information,” IM-19-03, July 5, 2019,
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/irs-requirements-tribes-accessing-federal-tax-information.
Congressional Research Service
34
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Appendix B. Recent Title IV-B Funding and
Distribution of FY2024 Funds
For FY2024, total funding provided and available for distribution under Title IV-B of the SSA
was $689 million, comprised of $269 million for the Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare
Services (CWS, Subpart 1) program; $398 million for the MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe and
Stable Families (PSSF, Subpart 2) program (including $325 million in mandatory funding, postsequestration, and $73 million in discretionary funding); and $22 million for the independently
authorized Child Welfare Research, Training, or Demonstration (CWRTD) projects (§426 of the
SSA). The $689 million funding level in FY2024 was less than the nominal dollar total provided
under Title IV-B in each of FY2018-FY2023, but matched or exceeded total nominal dollar
funding under Title IV-B for FY2013-FY2017.139
Under the full-year continuing resolution (CR, P.L. 119-4) enacted in mid-March 2025, FY2025
funding for the PSSF program is expected to be the same as the levels specified in the final
FY2024 appropriation, including $345 million in mandatory funds (i.e., $325 million after
sequestration) and roughly $73 million in discretionary funding. However, final funding levels for
the CWS program and for CWRTD have not yet been determined because, unlike the PSSF
program (which had precise mandatory and discretionary funding levels stated in the final
FY2024 law itself), the specific funding levels for the CWS and CWRTD programs are not
included in that annual appropriations law. Instead, as is customary for CWS and CWRTD, the
FY2024 appropriations law (P.L. 118-47) indicates that funding for them is to be taken out of a
larger sum of money provided for “Children and Families Services Programs.” Most of the
programs funded from that account, which includes a variety of programs receiving discretionary
funding and administered at the federal level by HHS’ ACF, do not typically have a specific
funding level given in the annual appropriations law itself. Instead, the amounts to be provided
for these programs, including CWS and CWRTD, are usually included in a table report or
explanatory statement accompanying the final annual appropriations law.140 No accompanying
report or explanatory statement is included with P.L. 119-4 (which is typical for a full year CR),
and as of early April 2025, HHS had not yet announced how much they will allocate for CWS
and CWRTD.
FY2024 Distribution
Distribution of FY2024 Title IV-B funding by program and/or activity, including by state, is
shown in Table B-1. Amounts distributed include all discretionary funding provided for CWS,
PSSF, and CWRTD and all mandatory funding made available for PSSF (post-sequestration).141
139 Total funding under Title IV-B reached a highpoint in the 2000s. For more information, congressional clients may
request a copy of CRS Congressional Distribution (CD) Memorandum, “Trends in Funding Provided under Title IV-B
of the Social Security Act,” April 19, 2024.
140 See items listed under the heading “Children and Families Services Programs,” printed page numbers 934 and 935
in https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-118HPRT55008/pdf/CPRT-118HPRT55008.pdf#page=944.
141 Sequestration is the automatic cancellation of previously enacted funding to achieve specific budgetary savings.
Under the Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) of 1985, as amended, many federal programs
that receive mandatory funding are subject to a certain level of sequestration. The PSSF program is classified as a
nonexempt, nondefense program and its mandatory funding has been subject to sequestration in every year beginning
with FY2013. For 2024, the sequestration rate was 5.7%, and that rate is slated to continue to apply each year through
FY2031; for FY2032, the last year that PSSF mandatory funding is subject to sequestration under current law, the rate
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
35
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Table B-1. FY2024 Title IV-B Funding: Distribution by Program,
State, Other Jurisdictions, or Activity
(dollars in millions)
All CWS +
PSSF (to
state/tribal
CW
agencies)
(Col. e
=Cols.
a+b+c+d)
CIP
(to
courts)
(Col. f)
Total Title
IV-B
(Col. g =
Cols. e + f)
$11.682
$0.497
$12.179
CWS
Child and
Family
Services
(Col. a)
PSSF
Child and
Family
Services
(Col. b)
MCV
Grants
(Col. c)
Kinship
Navigator
Program
Grantsa
(Col. d)
Alabama
$5.001
$6.117
$0.387
$0.177
Alaska
$0.069
$0.555
$0.035
$0.177
$0.836
$0.292
$1.128
Arizona
$5.629
$6.457
$0.408
$0.177
$12.672
$0.600
$13.272
State/Other
Arkansas
$3.088
$2.477
$0.157
$0.177
$5.899
$0.405
$6.304
California
$25.142
$30.285
$1.914
$0.177
$57.518
$2.095
$59.614
Colorado
$4.017
$3.992
$0.252
$0.177
$8.438
$0.519
$8.958
Connecticut
$1.928
$2.215
$0.140
$0.177
$4.461
$0.419
$4.879
Delaware
$0.862
$0.970
$0.061
$0.177
$2.070
$0.300
$2.371
District of Columbia
(DC)
Florida
$0.352
$0.802
$0.051
$0.177
$1.382
$0.283
$1.665
$15.982
$21.461
$1.357
$0.177
$38.977
$1.182
$40.159
Georgia
$10.212
$12.122
$0.766
$0.177
$23.278
$0.796
$24.073
Hawaii
$1.150
$1.073
$0.068
$0.177
$2.468
$0.318
$2.786
Idaho
$2.003
$1.133
$0.072
$0.177
$3.385
$0.356
$3.742
Illinois
$9.413
$13.956
$0.882
$0.177
$24.428
$0.843
$25.271
Indiana
$6.427
$4.922
$0.311
$0.177
$11.837
$0.595
$12.432
Iowa
$2.988
$2.158
$0.136
$0.177
$5.460
$0.414
$5.874
Kansas
$2.723
$1.493
$0.094
$0.177
$4.487
$0.405
$4.892
Kentucky
$4.382
$4.188
$0.265
$0.177
$9.012
$0.470
$9.482
Louisiana
$4.393
$6.834
$0.432
$0.177
$11.837
$0.482
$12.319
Maine
$1.027
$0.860
$0.054
$0.177
$2.119
$0.309
$2.428
Maryland
$4.391
$4.369
$0.276
$0.177
$9.214
$0.543
$9.757
Massachusetts
$3.543
$5.196
$0.328
$0.177
$9.244
$0.557
$9.801
Michigan
$8.401
$8.305
$0.525
$0.177
$17.409
$0.714
$18.123
Minnesota
$4.402
$3.271
$0.207
$0.177
$8.058
$0.533
$8.591
Mississippi
$3.169
$3.435
$0.217
$0.177
$6.998
$0.402
$7.400
Missouri
$5.597
$5.466
$0.346
$0.177
$11.586
$0.549
$12.136
Montana
$0.669
$0.640
$0.040
$0.177
$1.527
$0.305
$1.832
Nebraska
$1.796
$1.281
$0.081
$0.177
$3.335
$0.358
$3.693
Nevada
$2.649
$3.229
$0.204
$0.177
$6.259
$0.401
$6.659
New Hampshire
$0.862
$0.474
$0.030
$0.177
$1.542
$0.311
$1.853
is 2.8%. See Section 251A(6)(B)(ii) and (E)(ii) of the BBDECA; Section 109, Division G of P.L. 118-47; and OMB
Report to Congress on the BBEDCA 251A Sequestration for Fiscal Year 2025, March 11, 2024,
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/BBEDCA_251A_Sequestration_Report_FY2025.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
36
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
State/Other
New Jersey
CWS
Child and
Family
Services
(Col. a)
PSSF
Child and
Family
Services
(Col. b)
MCV
Grants
(Col. c)
Kinship
Navigator
Program
Grantsa
(Col. d)
$5.706
$6.301
$0.398
$0.177
All CWS +
PSSF (to
state/tribal
CW
agencies)
(Col. e
=Cols.
a+b+c+d)
CIP
(to
courts)
(Col. f)
Total Title
IV-B
(Col. g =
Cols. e + f)
$12.582
$0.682
$13.264
New Mexico
$1.488
$3.545
$0.224
$0.177
$5.435
$0.355
$5.790
New York
$11.659
$16.513
$1.044
$0.177
$29.394
$1.126
$30.520
North Carolina
$9.406
$11.967
$0.756
$0.177
$22.307
$0.755
$23.062
North Dakota
$0.616
$0.381
$0.024
$0.177
$1.198
$0.295
$1.493
Ohio
$10.229
$10.395
$0.657
$0.177
$21.458
$0.806
$22.265
Oklahoma
$0.621
$4.654
$0.294
$0.177
$5.747
$0.460
$6.207
Oregon
$3.143
$3.867
$0.244
$0.177
$7.432
$0.436
$7.868
Pennsylvania
$9.619
$11.892
$0.752
$0.177
$22.440
$0.836
$23.275
Rhode Island
$0.840
$0.805
$0.051
$0.177
$1.873
$0.302
$2.175
South Carolina
$4.806
$5.145
$0.325
$0.177
$10.453
$0.498
$10.951
South Dakota
$0.429
$0.662
$0.042
$0.177
$1.310
$0.302
$1.612
Tennessee
$6.199
$6.472
$0.409
$0.000b
$13.080
$0.584
$13.664
Texas
$28.149
$33.145
$2.095
$0.177
$63.567
$1.853
$65.420
Utah
$3.777
$1.399
$0.088
$0.177
$5.441
$0.455
$5.896
Vermont
$0.521
$0.398
$0.025
$0.177
$1.121
$0.282
$1.402
Virginia
$6.521
$5.477
$0.346
$0.177
$12.521
$0.660
$13.182
Washington
$4.923
$5.047
$0.319
$0.177
$10.467
$0.606
$11.072
West Virginia
$1.654
$1.822
$0.115
$0.177
$3.768
$0.332
$4.100
Wisconsin
$4.689
$4.943
$0.312
$0.177
$10.122
$0.527
$10.649
Wyoming
$0.426
$0.240
$0.015
$0.177
$0.858
$0.283
$1.141
$257.687
$294.809
$18.635
$8.861
$579.992
$28.689
$608.681
Territories
American Samoa
$0.158
$0.239
$0.006
c
$0.404
c
$0.404
Guam
$0.277
$0.373
$0.015
c
$0.665
c
$0.665
Northern Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
$0.137
$0.215
$0.005
c
$0.356
c
$0.356
$2.780
$3.193
$0.193
$0.177
$6.343
$0.372
$6.715
Subtotal, 50 states + DC
U.S. Virgin Islands
$0.155
$0.236
$0.006
$0.177
$0.574
$0.259
$0.833
Subtotal, territories
$3.507
$4.257
$0.225
$0.354
$8.343
$0.630
$8.973
Tribes
All tribal awards
$7.541
$10.421
d
$0.285
$18.247
$0.943e
$19.190
$268.735
$309.488
$18.860
$9.500
$606.583
$30.262
$636.845
Subtotal, formula funds to
states, territories and tribes
All Other
Child Welfare Research, Training or Demonstration (CWRTD)
$21.984
PSSF—Regional Partnership Grants (RPGs)
$18.860
PSSF—Research, Evaluation, Training & Technical Assistance
$8.268
Congressional Research Service
37
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
State/Other
CWS
Child and
Family
Services
(Col. a)
PSSF
Child and
Family
Services
(Col. b)
PSSF—Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse
Total Title IV-B
MCV
Grants
(Col. c)
Kinship
Navigator
Program
Grantsa
(Col. d)
All CWS +
PSSF (to
state/tribal
CW
agencies)
(Col. e
=Cols.
a+b+c+d)
CIP
(to
courts)
(Col. f)
Total Title
IV-B
(Col. g =
Cols. e + f)
$2.613
$688.569
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based primarily on Title IV-B allocation tables
provided to CRS by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Legislative Affairs and
Budget (OLAB), February 2025.
Notes: CWS = Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services program, PSSF = MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe
and Stable Families program, MCV = Monthly Caseworker Visit grants, CIP = Court Improvement Program.
a. Title IV-B of the SSA did not authorize specific use of PSSF funding for kinship navigator program grants for
FY2024. However, the 2024 appropriations law (P.L. 118-47) directed that $9.5 million (i.e., $10 million
reduced by 5% for other research) be used to provide formula grant funding for kinship navigator programs
to states, including territories, or tribes with an approved Title IV-E plan. The 2024 appropriations law also
maintained language (first included when funding for the grants was greater) that each eligible state or
territory that applied must receive no less than $200,000 (and each eligible tribe no less than $25,000).
However, the amount of FY2024 funds provided was not sufficient to ensure each of the eligible entities
received the minimum award; HHS allotted funds so that each entity received an amount that was as close
as possible to the minimum award required. See HHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau, PI-24-08, June 2024,
https://acf.gov/cb/policy-guidance/pi-24-08.
b. Tennessee did not apply for this funding.
c. American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands were not eligible for these funds because they
do not have an approved Title IV-E program plan.
d. Tribes are not eligible to receive MCV grant funding.
e. Tribes are not eligible to receive formula grant CIP funding; however, tribal courts carrying out foster care
or adoption proceedings may apply for competitive grant funding under the CIP.
Congressional Research Service
38
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
Appendix C. Funding Authorized, Funding SetAsides, and Formula Distribution Rules
Appendix C focuses on the levels of funding authorized to be appropriated under Title IV-B of
the SSA and the instructions provided in program law for the distribution of any appropriated
funds.
Table C-1 shows funding authorized to be appropriated in Title IV-B of the SSA for FY2024,142
and as will be authorized for FY2026. Effective October 1, 2025 (i.e., the first day of FY2026),
P.L. 118-258 increases the capped level of mandatory funding authorized under the PSSF
program by $75 million annually. However, the new law maintains the previous levels of
authorized discretionary funding for the CWS and PSSF programs.143
In general, to the extent Title IV-B authorizations are discretionary, they have typically been
provided in amounts less than the maximum authorized level. Additionally, while mandatory
PSSF funding has been appropriated at the authorized mandatory funding level it has been subject
to sequestration for more than a decade and this has reduced the amount of mandatory PSSF
funding available for distribution.144
Table C-1. Authorizations of Appropriations for FY2024 and FY2026
(all section references are to Title IV-B of the SSA)
Program
(authorization of appropriations)
Type of Funding
(expiration of
authorization)
FY2024
FY2026
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services (CWS)—formula grants for child
and family services (§425)
Discretionary
(FY2029)
$325 million
$325 million
Child Welfare Research, Training or Demonstration (CWRTD)—competitive
grants or contracts to support innovative and/or improved child welfare policy
and practice (§426)a
Discretionary
(none)
Such sums as are
necessary
Such sums as are
necessary
MaryLee Allen Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)—formula grants for
family support, family preservation, family reunification, and adoption
promotion and support services (§436(a))
Mandatory
(FY2029)
$345 million
$420 million
Discretionary
(FY2029)
$200 million
$200 million
Demonstration projects—competitive grants to support meaningful
relationships between children in foster care and their incarcerated parents
(§439, as of October 1, 2025)
Discretionary
(FY2029)
Not authorized
$35 million
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), based on Title IV-B of the SSA. Title IV-B
programs that are no longer funded and/or have expired authorizations of appropriations (§§427, 439), and
142 These Title IV-B authorizations in the SSA were through FY2023 only. Section 402, Division G of P.L. 118-42
extended each of them, at the FY2024 level, through the end of 2024.
143 The levels of mandatory and discretionary CWS and PSSF funding authorized to be appropriated for FY2025 are
given in P.L. 118-258, as the same levels provided for FY2024. However, the new law does not make that change
effective until the first day of FY2026. This delay is expected to be inadvertent.
144 Sequestration is the automatic cancellation of previously appropriated funding, typically to meet specific budget
goals. Under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as amended, PSSF mandatory
funding has been subject to sequestration in every year beginning with FY2013. Current law provides for annual
sequestration of 5.7% of appropriated funds in each year through FY2031 and 2.8% of appropriated funds for FY2032.
As of early April 2025, there is no sequestration required for the account in FY2033 or later years.
Congressional Research Service
39
Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (P.L. 118-258)
projects that received one-time funding (i.e., §436(c), project completed; and §435(f), project ongoing) are not
shown in this table.
Notes: Formula grants are distributed to all eligible entities based on distribution rules written in the law.
Competitive grants are awarded to selected eligible entities submitting successful applications for the funds. The
amount of any discretionary funding provided under Title IV-B is determined as part of the annual appropriations
process and is not necessarily provided at the authorized level. The amount of any mandatory funding provided is
determined based on program law and is expected to match the level specified or authorized in that law.
a. Section 429 of the SSA authorizes a child welfare study known as the National Survey of Child and
Adolescent Wellbeing (NSCAW). Initially authorized with mandatory funding (P.L. 104-193), NSCAW
received circa $6 million per year from FY1997 through FY2011. After a lapse in support, the explanatory
statements accompanying final FY2015-FY2020 appropriations laws directed NSCAW to be continued with
CWRTD funds. From FY2021 through FY2024, HHS continued to support NSCAW using CWRTD funds.
Reservation of Authorized Funding for Specific Activities or
Programs
Table C-2 shows additional programs or activities authorized under Title IV-B. None of these
programs or activities have individual authorizations of funding; instead, all of their fun
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.