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

Congressional research reportFeb 28, 2007

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and

Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

(P.L. 109-288)

(name redacted)

Specialist in Social Policy

February 28, 2007

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL33354

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Summary

The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 was enacted on September 25, 2006

(P.L. 109-288). As enacted it extends the funding authorization of the Promoting Safe and

Stable Families (PSSF) program for five years (FY2007-FY2011) and annually targets the use of

$40 million in new funds for the program for two purposes: to support monthly caseworker visits

and to improve outcomes for children affected by their parent/caretaker’s abuse of

methamphetamine or another substance. As under prior law, states must spend the majority of

PSSF funds on four broad categories of child and family services: community-based family

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

109-288 requires states to report on their actual—as opposed to simply planned—use of PSSF

(and Child Welfare Services) funds. It also increases the PSSF set-aside for tribal child and family

services, and allows access to these funds for more tribes. (Appendix A of this report compares

selected enacted provisions with prior law as well as provision in earlier versions of the

reauthorization legislation.)

Separately, P.L. 109-288 amended the Child Welfare Services program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of

the Social Security Act), re-organizing its provisions and limiting its funding authorization to

FY2007-FY2011. Beginning with FY2008, the new law limits the use of Child Welfare Service

funds for administrative purposes to no more than 10%, and prohibits their use for foster care

maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, and child care above a state’s use of the

program’s funds for those purposes in FY2005. Further, it requires states to—1) develop

procedures to respond to and maintain services in the wake of a disaster; 2) describe in their state

plans how they consult with medical professionals to assess the health of and provide appropriate

medical treatment to children in foster care; and 3) establish a standard of no less than monthly

caseworker visits of children in foster care along with standards for the content of the visit. The

new law provides that in any state where less than 90% of children in foster care are visited on a

monthly basis—or where the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines

that the state is not making enough progress to meet that standard by October 1, 2011—the state

will need to supply a greater amount of non-federal funds in order to access its full federal Child

Welfare Services allotment. P.L. 109-288 also extends authorization for five years (FY2007FY2011) of Mentoring Children of Prisoners, and includes authority for a project to

demonstrate the effectiveness of vouchers as a method of delivering these services. Further, it

extends for five years (FY2007-FY2011) certain grants under the Court Improvement Program.

This report tracked successful legislative efforts to reauthorize these programs in the 109th

Congress. It describes provisions enacted by P.L. 109-288 and provides information on PSSF

funding. Further it contains an appendix showing (in table form) selected provisions in prior law

compared to those proposed and enacted, and additional appendices that provide a legislative

history of the PSSF program, discuss selected program policy issues and offer an overview of

federal programs providing funding for purposes related to the PSSF program. It will not be

updated.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Contents

Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1

Reauthorization Activity in the 109th Congress ......................................................................... 2

Senate action ....................................................................................................................... 2

House action........................................................................................................................ 3

Provisions of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) ................ 3

Funding Reauthorization and Other Changes to PSSF.............................................................. 3

Broader limitation on administrative spending ................................................................... 3

Reporting on use of funds ................................................................................................... 4

Targeting the Use of New PSSF Funds ..................................................................................... 4

Support for monthly caseworker visits................................................................................ 5

Grants to Increase the Well-Being of and Improve the Permanency for Children

Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse ............................................. 5

Evaluation of targeted spending .......................................................................................... 6

Tribal PSSF Program Funding and Access................................................................................ 6

Amendments to the Child Welfare Services Program ............................................................... 7

Purposes .............................................................................................................................. 7

Limitation on Administrative Spending .............................................................................. 8

Revised Limitation on Use of Federal Funds...................................................................... 8

Limit on use of non-federal (matching) funds..................................................................... 8

State Plan Requirements...................................................................................................... 8

Monthly Caseworker Visit Standards.................................................................................. 9

Mentoring Children of Prisoners Reauthorization................................................................... 10

Extension of the Court Improvement Program........................................................................ 11

Court Consultation with Child/Youth in Permanency Review Proceedings ........................... 11

PSSF Funding Authorizations and Distribution of Funds.............................................................. 11

Mandatory and Discretionary Funding Authorizations ........................................................... 12

Distribution of Funds............................................................................................................... 12

Program Funding History ........................................................................................................ 13

Allotment of PSSF Funds to States ......................................................................................... 14

Tables

Table 1. Distribution of Targeted PSSF Funds................................................................................. 4

Table 2. Statutory Rules for Distribution of PSSF Funds, as Amended by P.L. 109-288 .............. 12

Table 3. Funding Provided for the PSSF Program, by Year and Purpose ...................................... 14

Table 4. PSSF Funding by State, FY2005-FY2007 ....................................................................... 15

Appendixes

Appendix A. Selected Provisions of the Child and Family Services Act of 2006 as

Compared to Prior Law and to Earlier Versions of the Bill........................................................ 18

Appendix B. Legislative History of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program ................ 31

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Appendix C. Selected Policy Issues .............................................................................................. 35

Appendix D. Selected Federal Programs with Related Purposes .................................................. 48

Contacts

Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 51

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

his report discusses reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)

program (and amendments to related programs) in the 109th Congress, as enacted by P.L.

109-288. It also provides information on PSSF funding. It concludes with a number of

appendices. The first of these shows (in table form) selected provisions in prior law compared

with provisions in reauthorization legislation considered in the 109th Congress, as well as the final

provisions enacted in P.L. 109-288. Other appendices provide a legislative history of the PSSF

program, discuss certain policy issues related to the program, and offer an overview of federal

programs providing funding for purposes related to those of the PSSF program.

Introduction

The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) extended funding

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

of the Social Security Act) for five years (FY2007-FY2011). The program primarily provides

formula grants to states, territories, and tribes for provision of four broad categories of services to

children and families: community-based family support, family preservation, time-limited

reunification, and adoption promotion and support. P.L. 109-288 increased the amount of funds

that will be made available to tribes for these purposes and also provides that no less than $40

million of funds provided for the program annually (through FY2011) are to be set-aside for

competitive grants to eligible regional partnerships to address child welfare issues raised by

parent/caretaker abuse of methamphetamine (or other substances) and for formula grants to states

to support monthly caseworker visits to children in foster care.

In addition, as under prior law, a part of the total funding provided for the PSSF program is

reserved for certain grants under the Court Improvement Program (CIP, Section 438 of the Social

Security Act). These CIP grants are distributed by formula to each eligible highest state court and

are for those courts to assess and make improvements to their handling of child welfare cases.

Finally, funds are also set aside for evaluation, research, and technical assistance related to the

PSSF program. P.L. 109-288 provides that a portion of those set-aside funds must be used to

provide evaluations, research and technical assistance related to monthly caseworker visits and

grants to improve the outcomes of children affected by parent/caretaker abuse of

methamphetamine or other substances.

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families program was initially created as a program of “Family

Preservation and Support Services” by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 10366). That program was reauthorized, expanded, and given its current name by the Adoption and

Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89). Subsequently, Congress passed the Promoting Safe and

Stable Families Amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133), which reauthorized the program through

FY2006. More recently, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) increased the

authorization for mandatory PSSF appropriations by $40 million for FY2006 and, separately,

appropriated funding ($20 million for each of FY2006-FY2010) for two new kinds of grants

under the Court Improvement Program. The Senate Finance and House Ways and Means

committees have exercised jurisdiction over the program and both committees held hearings

related to reauthorization of this program during 2006.

In addition to reauthorizing the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program and extending

certain Court Improvement Program grants, P.L. 109-288 made significant amendments to the

Child Welfare Services program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act). That program

provides formula grants to states for a wide range of services to children and families and was

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

first authorized in 1935 by the original Social Security Act. Under prior law, that program had an

“indefinite” or “no-year” funding authorization. P.L. 109-288 set the program’s funding

authorization to expire with FY2011 (placing it on the same reauthorization calendar as the PSSF

program) and made other changes related to the program’s purposes, how funds may be used

under the program and what states are required to do in order to receive these funds.

Finally, P.L. 109-288 extended funding authorization for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners

program (Section 439 of the Social Security Act), which provides funds to eligible entities to

support mentoring services for children of prisoners. In addition to extending the program’s

funding authorization for these site-based, competitive grants, P.L. 109-288 authorized a

demonstration project to test the effectiveness of using vouchers to deliver these services more

broadly.

Reauthorization Activity in the 109th Congress

On September 28, 2006, the President signed the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of

2006, which was enacted as P.L. 109-288. By unanimous consent, the Senate on September 20,

2006 amended (S. Amdt 5024 and S. Amdt 5025) and passed the Child and Family Services

Improvement Act of 2006 (S. 3525). On September 26, 2006 the House passed identical

legislation under suspension of the rules. The final legislation included significant portions of

separate bills previously passed in the House and in the Senate.1

Senate action

On June 8, 2006, a unanimous Senate Finance Committee ordered favorably reported a bill to

reauthorize the PSSF program and make other changes. On June 15, that bill, the Improving

Outcomes for Children Affected by Meth Act of 2006 (S. 3525) was introduced by Senator

Grassley and a written report from the Finance Committee was submitted on June 23 (S.Rept.

109-269). On July 13, 2006, the Senate passed the legislation by unanimous consent and then sent

the bill to the House for further action.

Hearings

Before approving this legislation, the Senate Finance Committee held two related hearings. On

April 25, 2006, witnesses, including child welfare program administrators, advocates, and

researchers, as well as individuals in recovery from methamphetamine, testified at a hearing titled

“The Social and Economic Effects of the Methamphetamine Epidemic on America’s Child

Welfare System.” A number of witnesses emphasized that treatment for methamphetamine abuse,

especially family-based, longer-term and comprehensive residential treatment, can be effective,

and that increasing access to these services could improve the lives of children and their families

affected by methamphetamine abuse. On May 10, 2006, in a hearing titled “Fostering

Permanence: Progress Achieved and Challenges Ahead for America’s Child Welfare Systems,”

the Senate Finance Committee heard testimony from child welfare advocates and policy experts,

federal and tribal program administrators, and a former foster care youth. These witnesses

In lieu of a conference report, which was not filed because no conference was formally held, a staff-prepared sectionby-section analysis of the final enacted legislation, including “reasons for change” was submitted for the record by

Senator Grassley. See Congressional Record, September 27, 2006, p. S10279-S10281.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

stressed the need for continued federal support of child welfare programs; the tribal administrator

emphasized the limited funds available to her tribe and the many challenges it faced, including

methamphetamine abuse.2

House action

On June 20, 2006, Representatives Wally Herger and Jim McDermott, introduced the Child and

Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (H.R. 5640). After amending the bill, the House Ways

and Means Committee gave it unanimous approval on June 29, 2006 and the bill was reported to

the House on July 12 (H.Rept. 109-555). Under suspension of the rules, the House passed this

legislation (renumbered as S. 3525) on July 25, 2006.

Hearing

On May 23, 2006, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources held a

hearing to review proposals to improve child protective services. The subcommittee heard from

representatives of the court, social workers, state child welfare agencies, and the Government

Accountability Office (GAO) and many advocates—representing a range of viewpoints—who

spoke on behalf of children served in the child welfare system.3

Provisions of the Child and Family Services

Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)

As enacted, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (S. 3525, P.L. 109-288)

incorporates language approved in two earlier versions of S. 3525. The following discussion

describes provisions of the enacted legislation. (For a table comparing selected provisions from

each of the predecessor bills along with prior law and current law, see Appendix A.)

Funding Reauthorization and Other Changes to PSSF

Under prior law, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program was authorized to

receive mandatory appropriations of $345 million in FY2006 and discretionary appropriations of

$200 million. P.L. 109-288 extended these same funding authorization levels to each of FY2007FY2011.

Broader limitation on administrative spending

The costs of the PSSF program are shared by the federal government (75%) and the states (at

least 25%). Under prior law, a state was not permitted to spend more than 10% of its federal

PSSF funds for administrative purposes, but there was no limit on use of the state PSSF funds

Both hearings can be viewed on the Senate Finance Committee website at http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/

2006hearings.htm.

A transcript of the hearing is available on the House Ways and Means Committee website at

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=482.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

(often described as “matching” funds) that could be spent for administrative purposes. Beginning

with FY2008, P.L. 109-288 extends the 10% limit on spending for administrative purposes to

include all funds spent under the program, both federal and non-federal (or matching).

Reporting on use of funds

Federal law and policy emphasize planning the use of PSSF funds (along with the Child Welfare

Services and other child welfare or related programs) to ensure that a comprehensive range of

child and family services is developed in each state. (See Appendix C “Planning and

Reporting.”) In keeping with this emphasis, states are required to annually send information to

HHS on their planned use of funds under the PSSF, Child Welfare Services, and other child

welfare and related programs. Beginning on June 30, 2007, P.L. 109-288 requires states to

annually submit actual (in addition to planned) expenditure data on their use of funds under the

PSSF and Child Welfare Services programs. (States, at their own option, may also provide data on

actual use of funds for child welfare purposes in other programs.) Data on the use of funds are to

be submitted on standard forms (which were previously used to report planned expenditures only)

and include, for each program, spending by service, activity, or assistance provided, and the

number of people served, the populations targeted for services, and the geographic areas served.

The new law also requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to compile

the forms showing this planned and actual use of funds and to submit them to the Senate Finance

and House Ways and Means committees by September 30 of each year.

Targeting the Use of New PSSF Funds

The FY2006 mandatory funding authorization for the PSSF was raised from $305 million to $345

million by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), but this additional $40 million was

not appropriated in that law. P.L. 109-288 appropriated the newly authorized FY2006 funds and

extended the $40 million annual increase in the mandatory funding authorization level through

FY2011. Further, as shown in Table 1, the law targets the use of the new funding to support

monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care and to provide grants to increase the wellbeing of children affected by a parent or caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine (or other

substances).

Table 1. Distribution of Targeted PSSF Funds

($ in millions)

Purpose

FY2006a

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

FY2011

Total

Support for more frequent and

improved monthly caseworker visits

of children in foster care

Support for grants to improve

outcomes of children affected by a

parent or, caretaker’s

methamphetamine abuse or other

substance abuse

145

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service, based on Section 4 of P.L. 109-288.

These funds are to remain available for states and territories to spend through FY2009.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Support for monthly caseworker visits

Between FY2006 and FY2011, P.L. 109-288 provides a total of $95 million in funds for support

of monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care “with a primary emphasis on activities

designed to improve caseworker retention, recruitment, training and ability to access the benefits

of technology.” This total figure includes all of the $40 million in new FY2006 PSSF funds

(which were appropriated by the law and will remain available for states to spend through

FY2009), as well as $5 million in FY2008; $10 million in FY2009; and $20 million in each of

FY2010 and FY2011.

States are to receive these funds on essentially the same formula basis as is the case for the

current PSSF program (distribution is based on a state’s relative share of children receiving food

stamps in the nation). States may not use these funds to supplant other federal foster care funds

available (under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) for the same purposes. Also, for FY2008FY2011, a state’s access to the full allotment of funds reserved for support of monthly caseworker

visits will be contingent upon its spending no less than $1 on support of caseworker visits for

every $3 in federal funds it received for that purpose. (For additional provisions in P.L. 109-288

that are related to caseworker visits of children in foster care, see the discussion under “Monthly

Caseworker Visit Standards,” below.)

Grants to Increase the Well-Being of and Improve the Permanency for

Children Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse

Between FY2007 and FY2011, P.L. 109-288 reserves $145 million in mandatory PSSF funds to

support competitive grants to regional partnerships for services and activities designed to improve

the safety, permanency, and well-being of children who are in an out-of-home placement or are

at-risk of such placement because of a parent or caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine or

another substance. (The annual set-aside amounts are $40 million for FY2007, $35 million for

FY2008, $30 million for FY2009 and $20 million in each of FY2010 and FY2011.)

Use of grant funds

The services and activities that may be funded under such a grant include family-based

comprehensive long-term substance abuse treatment and replication of successful models for such

treatment; early intervention and preventative services; counseling for children and families;

mental health services; and parenting skills training.

What is a regional partnership?

Regional partnerships must be established by a collaborative agreement between two or more

entities (for example, providers of child welfare services, including the state child welfare

agency; the state agency administering federal substance abuse prevention and treatment funding;

local law enforcement agencies; juvenile justice officials, judges and school or court personnel;

providers of community health and mental health services and tribes, including tribal child

welfare agencies). The state child welfare agency doesn’t need to be the lead agency in the

partnership applying for these funds, but with one exception it must be a member of each

partnership. (The agency does not need to be a part of the partnership if a tribe/tribal child welfare

agency is a member of the partnership.)

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Considerations in awarding grants

HHS must first give consideration to the level of need demonstrated in the grant application of a

regional partnership. Once that initial consideration is made added weight must be given to those

applications from regional partnerships showing the effect of methamphetamine abuse and

addiction on the child welfare system in the partnership region.

Size and duration of grant awards and reports on activities

Grants must extend for a minimum of two years but can not be made for more than five years; the

annual funding to the grantee must be at least $500,000 but may not be more than $1 million.

Finally, grantees will be required to submit annual reports on their activities and to incorporate

information related to their performance on certain indicators (to be developed by HHS in

consultation with representatives of states and tribes receiving funds). Further, HHS must

annually send information regarding the use of this grant funding to the Senate Finance and

House Ways and Means committees.

Evaluation of targeted spending

Prior law required HHS to annually reserve $6 million in PSSF funds to support research,

technical assistance, and training related to the program and for evaluation of the program (or

other programs designed to achieve the same purposes). P.L. 109-288 further stipulates that HHS

must annually spend no less than $1 million of those reserved funds for research, evaluation and

technical assistance related to supporting monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care and,

separately, no less than $1 million annually for research, evaluation, and technical assistance

related to the competitive grants to increase the well-being and improve the permanency of

children affected by methamphetamine or other substance abuse.

Tribal PSSF Program Funding and Access

Under prior law tribal PSSF programs were funded with a 1% set-aside of the program’s

mandatory funding, plus a 2% set-aside of any discretionary funds provided for the program and

in recent years tribes have received annual PSSF funding of roughly $5 million. Beginning with

FY2007, P.L. 109-288 raises the tribal set-aside to 3% of the program’s mandatory funding plus

3% of any discretionary funding provided for PSSF. (However, it would apply the 3% set-aside of

mandatory funds only after the $40 million in targeted funds are reserved for the purposes

described above.) Thus, the maximum funding authorized to be made available to tribes out of the

PSSF would be $15.2 million (and the minimum funding would be $9.2 million). Based on these

set-aside rules and the expected funding provided in the Revised Continuing Appropriations

Resolution, 2007 (P.L. 110-5), tribal PSSF funding in FY2007 is expected to be $11.8 million.

Tribal allotment of PSSF funds are based on a tribe’s relative share of individuals under the age of

21 (among all eligible tribes) and no allotment may be less than $10,000. For FY2006, about 90

tribes received PSSF funds (or less than a third of the tribes that received funds under the Child

Welfare Services program). P.L. 109-288 permits a group of tribes to form a consortium and to

have their PSSF allotment determined based on their combined share of children under the age of

21. The effect of this provision should be to expand access to PSSF funds by permitting tribes

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

with smaller populations to band together (or to band with a larger tribe) to ensure their allotment

amount is equal to or greater than the $10,000 threshold.4

Finally, P.L. 109-288 limits the prior law authority of HHS to exempt tribes from any PSSF state

plan requirement that the Department determines would be inappropriate for that tribe based on

the tribe’s size and resources. The law now provides that HHS may continue to exempt tribes

from requirements that limit the use of the federal PSSF funds for administrative purposes to no

more than 10% and the requirement that provides that “significant portions” of PSSF federal

funds must be spent on each of the four service categories: community-based family support,

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

tribes are required to comply with all other plan requirements (including assurances that the funds

received will not supplant other federal or non-federal funds available for those purposes as well

as other planning and reporting requirements).

Amendments to the Child Welfare Services Program

Under prior law, the Child Welfare Services program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security

Act) was authorized to receive funding of $325 million annually on an indefinite basis. P.L. 109288 continues this same funding authorization level but limits it to five years (FY2007FY2011)—thus placing this program on the same reauthorization calendar as the Promoting Safe

and Stable Families program. For FY2006 the Child Welfare Services Program received an

appropriation of $287 million; (under P.L. 110-5, FY2007 funding for the program was expected

to again be $287 million).

Purposes

P.L. 109-288 deleted a lengthy prior law definition of “child welfare services” along with a brief

program purpose statement. However, it largely incorporated the intent of those prior provisions

in a new purpose section. The law now describes the purpose of the Child Welfare Services

program as “to promote State flexibility in the development and expansion of a coordinated child

and family services program that utilizes community-based agencies and ensures all children are

raised in safe, loving families, by—(1) protecting and promoting the welfare of all children; (2)

preventing the neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children; (3) supporting at-risk families through

services which allow children, where appropriate, to remain safely with their families or return to

their families in a timely manner; (4) promoting the safety, permanence, and well-being of

children in foster care and adoptive families; and (5) providing training, professional

development and support to ensure a well-qualified child welfare workforce.” New aspects of this

language include both the assertion that the program is intended to promote “state flexibility in

the development and expansion of a coordinated child and family services program” and the

inclusion of an explicit program purpose related to providing training development and support to

ensure a well-qualified child welfare workforce.

In FY2005, $5.0 million in PSSF funding was set aside for tribes and about 90 tribes/tribal organizations received

allotments. Those allotments ranged from a little above $10,000 to about $911,000. By contrast, tribal allotments under

the Child Welfare Services program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1) are not provided by a set-aside but are taken out of the

amount allotted by formula to the given state in which the tribal children live (and based on the tribal population under

age 21) and there is no funding threshold. For FY2005, $5.7 million in Child Welfare Services funding was allotted to

more than 350 tribes/tribal organizations and the allotment amounts ranged from less than $10 to just over $1 million.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Limitation on Administrative Spending

The total cost of the Child Welfare Services program is shared by the federal government (75%)

and the state (25%). Prior law placed no limit on the amount of program funds states could spend

for administrative purposes. Beginning with FY2008, P.L. 109-288 limits the use of program

funds for those purposes to no more than 10%, (which applies to both federal and non-federal

program funds). The law also defines administrative costs to include CWS program-related

procurement, payroll management, personnel functions (except supervision of caseworker

services), management, maintenance and operation of space and property, data processing and

computer services, accounting, budgeting, auditing, and certain travel expenses. (Under this

definition, spending on caseworker services is not considered an administrative cost.)

Revised Limitation on Use of Federal Funds

Under prior law the state could not spend more of its federal program funds on those foster care

maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, or to provide child day care (that was

necessary solely for the employment or employment related training of a parent/relative of a

child) than the amount of federal funds it had received under this program in FY1979. (In

FY1979, funding for the program was $56.5 million or roughly 20% of the FY2006 funding

level.) By contract, P.L. 109-288 provides that beginning with FY2008, no state may spend any

federal CWS funds for foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, or child

day care unless it can demonstrate to HHS that it used federal CWS funds for at least one of these

purposes in FY2005. If a state can show this, then its new annual limit on spending of federal

CWS funds for these three purposes, combined, is the amount of the federal CWS funds it spent

on them in FY2005.

Limit on use of non-federal (matching) funds

For purposes of providing their required 25% of the Child Welfare Services program cost (i.e.

their matching dollars), states have been permitted to count their own spending for foster care

maintenance payments without any limits. Beginning with FY2008, P.L. 109-288 prohibits states

from using any foster care maintenance payment expenditures for the purpose of providing their

non-federal matching dollars under the CWS program unless the state can show that it used foster

care maintenance payment spending to meet the matching requirement for CWS funds in

FY2005. If a state can show this, then the amount of the foster care maintenance payment

spending that it counted under the program for matching purposes in FY2005 is the maximum

amount of foster care maintenance payment spending it may count in the program in FY2008 and

every following year.

State Plan Requirements

Under the Child Welfare Services program, states are required to develop a plan that assures the

state will meet federal requirements. P.L. 109-288 adds several new requirements. It requires

states to describe how they consult with and involve physicians or other appropriate medical

professionals in assessing the health and well-being of children in foster care and in determining

appropriate medical treatment for them. Further, no later than one year after the enactment of P.L.

109-288 (that is by late September 2007), states must have procedures in place to ensure

continued availability of child and family services in the wake of a disaster. In addition, P.L. 109288 requires states to describe (by the first day of FY2008), their standards for the content and

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

frequency of caseworker visits to children in foster care, which at a minimum, must include a

monthly visit by the caseworker that is “well-planned and focused on issues pertinent to case

planning and service delivery to ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of the children.”5

(Related requirements are described below, under “Monthly Caseworker Visit Standards.”)

P.L. 109-288 includes a separate requirement to clarify that for children in foster care who have a

permanency goal of “another planned permanent living arrangement” such an arrangement may

include placement in a residential education program. It also eliminated certain requirements that

have little or no meaning today. These eliminated provisions required a state to assure that—the

child care standards used in the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) applied to any child day care

services funded under CWS; it would train and use paraprofessional staff and volunteers to help

with the program; and it had (as of June 1980) conducted an inventory of children in foster care.

Finally, the law re-organizes much of the CWS program language and makes numerous, related

conforming amendments and some technical amendments. (See Appendix A for more specific

information.)

Monthly Caseworker Visit Standards

Beyond requiring specific caseworker visitation standards in state Child Welfare Services plans

(described above), P.L. 109-288 requires each state—before it can receive any FY2008 CWS

funding—to provide data to HHS that show (for FY2007) the percentage of children in its foster

care caseload who were visited on a monthly basis (by their caseworkers) and the percentage of

those visits that occurred in the place where the child lived. Based on these data, HHS, in

consultation with the state, must outline (as of June 30, 2008) state-specific steps (including target

percentages to be reached) to ensure that no later than October 1, 2011 (first day of FY2012), at

least 90% of the children in foster care receive a monthly visit (and that most of these visits occur

where the child lives).6

Further, P.L. 109-288 provides that, beginning with FY2009, if HHS determines that a state has

not made the requisite progress toward meeting the monthly caseworker visitation standard, then

the state must spend more of its own funds under the program in order to receive its full federal

allotment. The minimum penalty is 1 percentage point (meaning the state would need to provide

26% of program funding to receive its full federal allotment) and the maximum penalty is 5

percentage points (meaning a state would need to provide 30% of the program funding to receive

its full federal allotment). The amount of penalty for a state is to be determined by its degree of

noncompliance with the state-specific monthly caseworker visit targets established in consultation

with HHS (described above). P.L. 109-288 also requires HHS to prepare a progress report,

including recommendations, on state caseworker visitation standards and to submit this report to

the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees no later than March 31, 2010.

The Children’s Bureau has indicated that it expects states to address these new requirements in its Annual Progress

and Services Report that is to be submitted by June 30, 2007. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, ACYF-CB-IM-06-05, “New Legislation: The Child and

Family Services Improvement Act of 2006, P.L. 109-288,” December 7, 2006.

For more information about frequency of caseworker visits and child welfare outcomes request a copy of CRS

Congressional Distribution Memorandum CD061205, “Foster Children and Caseworker Visits,” June 30, 2006 by

(name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Publication of state visitation rate

Finally, P.L. 109-288 requires that beginning with the report for FY2007, the annual Child

Welfare Outcomes report, which HHS is required to prepare (under Section 479A of the Social

Security Act), must include state-by-state data on the percentage of children in foster care who

received monthly caseworker visits and the percentage of the visits that occurred where the child

lives.

Mentoring Children of Prisoners Reauthorization

Since it received its initial funding in FY2003, the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program

(Section 439 of the Social Security Act) has provided grants to local public or private entities to

establish, expand, or operate programs that provide mentoring services to children of prisoners.7

P.L. 109-288 expands the purpose of the program by requiring HHS to enter into a cooperative

agreement with a qualified entity to demonstrate the effectiveness of using vouchers to deliver

mentoring services to children of prisoners nationwide. In addition, P.L. 109-288 extended

program authority for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, which had been scheduled to

expire with FY2006, through FY2007-FY2011. It also provides that funds may be appropriated

for the program in each of those years at “such sums as may be necessary.” For FY2006, the

program received $49.5 million in funding. Under P.L. 110-5, the program is expected to receive

this amount in FY2007 as well.

P.L. 109-288 stipulates that HHS must use a competitive process to select the entity that will

conduct the voucher demonstration (under a cooperative agreement with the agency). And it

requires that the entity selected must 1) identify children in need of mentoring services (with

priority given to Indian children, and children in areas that are rural, are not now served by the

program, or that have substantial numbers of children of prisoners); 2) provide families of these

identified children with vouchers (as well as a list of qualified mentoring programs in their area);

3) develop (with HHS) quality program standards for mentoring services, including criminal

background checks of prospective mentors; and 4) monitor and oversee the delivery of the

vouchers. Contingent on sufficient appropriated funding, the entity must agree to provide 3,000

vouchers in the first year of the cooperative agreement, 8,000 in the second year and 13,000 in the

third year. The vouchers are to be valued at one-year of services and a qualified provider may

receive periodic payments for a voucher by providing mentoring services to the child for whom it

was issued and by demonstrating that it will be able to continue these services (with non-federal

resources) after the 12-month value of the voucher is exhausted.

P.L. 109-288 increased to 4% (from 2.5%) the amount of funds that are to be reserved by HHS

out of the total appropriation for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program for evaluation,

research, and technical assistance (related now to both the site-based and voucher-based delivery

of mentoring services). In addition to completing an evaluation of the total program, P.L. 109-288

requires HHS to fund an independent evaluation of the voucher demonstration project, and to

provide a report of this evaluation to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees

no later than 90 days after the end of the second year of the demonstration. The new law also

provides that the cooperative agreement may be extended two years beyond the initial three-year

For more information on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, see CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth:

Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

demonstration phase—but only if the entity administering the project performs satisfactorily and

if an independent evaluation shows that vouchers are an effective way to deliver these services.

Finally, P.L. 109-288 provides that if at least $25 million in program appropriations are made

available for site-based grants (i.e. the prior law program), HHS must reserve not more than $5

million for the entity selected to demonstrate voucher service delivery in the first year of the

cooperative agreement, $10 million for the second year of the agreement, and $15 million for the

third year.

Extension of the Court Improvement Program

P.L. 109-288 extended through FY2011, the entitlement of eligible state highest courts to certain

funds reserved from the PSSF program. Those funds are to be used to assess and improve court

handling of child welfare proceedings. It also extends through FY2011 the requirement that a

highest state court receiving these funds must provide no less than 25% of the funding for the

activities supported by the Court Improvement Program (Section 438 of the Social Security Act).

For more information about this program, including changes made to it by the Deficit Reduction

Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), see CRS Report RL33350, Child Welfare: The Court

Improvement Program, by (name redacted).

Court Consultation with Child/Youth in Permanency Review

Proceedings

P.L. 109-288 also amended the definition of the case review system provided in Section 475 of

the Social Security Act, to assert that as part of the required annual permanency review for each

child in foster care, the court or administrative body conducting the review must consult (in an

age-appropriate manner) with the child whose permanency plan is the subject of the review. This

includes permanency hearings that review plans for a foster youth’s transition to independent

living.

PSSF Funding Authorizations and Distribution of

Funds

As noted above, P.L. 109-288 appropriated $40 million in additional FY2006 funding for the

Promoting Safe and Stable Families, which brought the total FY2006 program funding to $434

million. Under the Revised Continuing Appropriation Act, 2006, (P.L. 110-5), the PSSF program

is expected to receive this same level of funding in FY2007. This section discusses mandatory

and discretionary funding authorizations under the program, outlines statutory distribution

requirements as amended by P.L. 109-288 (see Table 2), shows total program funding by purpose

since the program’s inception (see Table 3), and provides funding levels by state for recent years

(see Table 4).

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Mandatory and Discretionary Funding Authorizations

The PSSF program is authorized to receive total funding of $545 million annually through a

combination of mandatory and discretionary authorization levels. The Deficit Reduction Act of

2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) raised the mandatory funding authorized for the PSSF program from

$305 million to $345 million and the five-year cost of this increased mandatory funding was

“scored” or “paid for” in that law. P.L. 109-288 extended the mandatory funding authorization of

$345 million for the PSSF through each of FY2007-FY2011.

P.L. 109-288 also continues the prior law discretionary funding authorization in the PSSF

program of $200 million. The authorization of discretionary funds, at this level, was first made

for FY2002 but Congress has never provided more than $99 million in any one year under this

discretionary authorization. In FY2006 and FY2007, Congress provided $89 million in

discretionary funding.8

Distribution of Funds

The statute entitles eligible states to receive a portion of the fixed mandatory funding amount, as

well as a portion of any discretionary funds that may be appropriated to provide certain child and

family services. Before the funds are allocated to states, however, the statute provides that certain

PSSF funds are to be reserved for specific purposes.

P.L. 109-288 amended those set-aside provisions by requiring that $40 million of the program’s

mandatory funds must be reserved in each of FY2006-FY2011 to support increased frequency

and better quality of caseworker visits to children in foster care and to improve the outcomes of

children affected by parents or caretakers’ abuse of methamphetamine or another substance.

(Table 1 above shows the split of these funds by year.) It also increased PSSF funding to tribes by

(as discussed earlier) establishing a 3% set-aside of both mandatory and any discretionary funds

appropriated. Finally, the law also stipulates that HHS must use a portion of the funds reserved to

it for research, evaluation and technical assistance to study or support improved quality and

quantity of caseworker visits to foster children ($1 million annually) and to study or support

grants to improve outcomes for children affected by methamphetamine abuse or other substance

abuse ($1 million annually).

Table 2 outlines the PSSF funding distribution requirements by purpose, as amended by P.L. 109288.

Table 2. Statutory Rules for Distribution of PSSF Funds, as Amended by P.L. 109-288

Entity funded (purpose)

Regional partnerships (for

services or activities to

improve the outcomes of

children affected by

Share of

mandatory

funds

$40 million

Share of any

discretionary

funds

Distribution

Funds for regional partnerships made

available on a competitive basis (FY2006: $0;

$FY2007: $40 million; FY2008: $35 million;

FY2009: $30 million: FY2010: $20 million and

For more information on child welfare program funding, see CRS Report RL34121, Child Welfare: Recent and

Proposed Federal Funding, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Entity funded (purpose)

Share of

mandatory

funds

Share of any

discretionary

funds

Distribution

parent/caretaker

methamphetamine or other

substance abuse)

FY2011: $20 million).

States and Territories (for

support of monthly

caseworker visits to children

in foster care)

Funds to states allotted based on a state’s

relative share of children receiving food

stamps; funds to territories allotted using

formula provided for distribution of funds

under Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social

Security Act (Child Welfare Services),

without the minimum allotment. (FY2006:

$40 million; FY2007: $0; FY2008: $5 million;

FY2009: $10 million: FY2010: $20 million;

FY2011:$20 million)

Tribes (for child and family

services)

3% (but only

after $40

million, above,

is removed).

Highest state courts (for

improved handling of child

welfare proceedings)a

$10 million

3.3%

Minimum allotment of $85,000 with

remainder divided among eligible courts

based on their state’s relative share of

population under age 21.

HHS (for research,

evaluation, technical

assistance and training)

$6 million

3.3%

$1 million of these funds must be used for

research, evaluation or technical assistance

related to grants to regional partnerships and

$1 million of these funds must be used for

research, evaluation, or technical assistance

related to support for monthly caseworker

visits. Remainder distributed at discretion of

HHS (but guided by funding purposes in

Section 435 of the Social Security Act).

All remaining

funds

All remaining

funds

Territories (for child and

family services)b

States, including the District

of Columbia (for child and

family services)c

Allotted based on relative share of children

among all eligible Indian tribes. (Two or more

tribes are permitted to form a consortium

and to apply for these funds on the basis of

their combined share of children among

eligible tribes.)

Each territory receives $70,000 plus

additional funds based largely on its relative

share of population under age 21.

Allotted based on a state’s relative share of

children receiving food stamps.

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) appropriated additional funds ($20 million for each of

FY2006-FY2010) for two additional kinds of grants to highest state courts (for related purposes). These

funds are separately appropriated and are not shown in this table.

All five territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands)

receive PSSF funds.

Program Funding History

Table 3, below, shows annual funding for the PSSF program, by purpose and since its inception.

All of the court funding shown in this table is derived from a set-aside of PSSF appropriations. As

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

noted earlier, increased funding for courts was provided in the Deficit Reduction Act, P.L. 109171. However, this money was separately appropriated and is not shown here as a part of PSSF

funding. (The CIP as revised by P.L. 109-171 is discussed in more detail in a separate report. See

CRS Report RL33350, Child Welfare: The Court Improvement Program, by (name redacted).9)

Table 3. Funding Provided for the PSSF Program, by Year and Purpose

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal

year

To provide services to children and

families

States and

Territories

Targeted

purposea

To assess and

improve handling of

child welfare cases

Research, evaluation,

training and technical

assistance

State highest

courts

HHS

Tribes

Total

1994

57.4

0.6

1995

137.5

1.5

150

1996

206.8

2.3

225

1997

221.6

2.4

240

1998

236.5

2.6

255

1999

256.3

2.8

275

2000

276.1

3.0

295

2001

286.0

3.1

305

2002

349.9

4.5

12.3

8.3

375

2003

376.8

5.0

13.3

9.3

404.4

2004

376.8

5.0

13.3

9.3

404.4

2005

376.1

2006

2007

Not

authorized

5.0

13.3

9.3

403.6

367.4

40a

4.8

12.9

8.9

434.1

360.4

40a

11.8

12.9

8.9

434.1

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

For FY2006 all of targeted funds were provided via formula grants to states and may be spent only to

support monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care. (These funds are available to be expended by

states through FY2009.) For FY2007 all of the targeted funds are to be provided via competitive grants to

regional partnerships for services and activities to improve the outcomes of children affected by

methamphetamine or other substance abuse.

Allotment of PSSF Funds to States

Table 4 shows actual awards of PSSF funds by state for FY2005 and FY2006, and allotment of

these funds by state for FY2007. Funds for the four authorized categories of child and family

services are allotted to states based on their relative share of children (individuals under age 18)

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) appropriated $100 million over five years (FY2006-FY2010) for

the Court Improvement Program. This money, which was appropriated outright in the legislation, has been

independently provided—it is not a set-aside of the PSSF program funding—and is therefore not shown in Table 3.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

receiving food stamps. Data used to make this determination are derived from the most current

three years of available food stamps data.

As described earlier, beginning with FY2006, P.L. 109-288 annually targets $40 million in PSSF

funding for specified purposes. For FY2006 all of this money was distributed to state or territories

by formula and may only be used to support monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care.

(Because these funds were not made available until the very end of the fiscal year, P.L. 109-288

provides that states may have through FY2009 to expend these funds.) For FY2007 all of the

targeted funds must be distributed via competitive grants for services or activities to improve the

outcomes of children affected by parent/caretaker abuse of methamphetamine or another

substance.

Table 4. PSSF Funding by State, FY2005-FY2007

(in millions of dollars)

State

FY2006

FY2005

FY2007

For child and

family services

Targeted funds:

caseworker visits

FY2006

Total

Alabama

$8.23

$7.77

$0.84

$8.61

$7.62

Alaska

0.86

0.85

0.09

0.94

0.82

Arizona

8.21

8.68

0.94

9.62

8.52

Arkansas

5.44

5.11

0.55

5.66

5.01

California

43.42

39.79

4.31

44.10

39.56

Colorado

3.33

3.51

0.38

3.89

3.45

Connecticut

2.85

2.73

0.30

3.03

2.68

Delaware

0.78

0.83

0.09

0.92

0.81

District of Columbia

1.25

1.19

0.13

1.32

1.17

Florida

16.66

16.13

1.75

17.88

15.83

Georgia

12.55

12.70

1.35

14.07

12.46

Hawaii

1.75

1.45

0.16

1.61

1.42

Idaho

1.35

0.16

1.50

1.32

Illinois

16.35

15.78

1.71

17.49

15.49

Indiana

7.71

7.78

0.84

8.62

7.64

Iowa

2.47

0.27

2.74

2.42

Kansas

2.53

2.47

0.27

2.74

2.42

Kentucky

7.58

7.27

0.79

8.06

7.13

Louisiana

11.44

11.09

1.20

12.29

10.88

Maine

1.66

1.53

0.17

1.70

1.51

Maryland

4.10

4.00

0.43

4.43

3.92

Massachusetts

4.94

5.06

0.55

5.60

4.96

Michigan

14.15

13.98

1.51

15.49

13.72

Minnesota

4.10

3.75

0.41

4.15

3.68

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

State

FY2006

FY2005

FY2007

For child and

family services

Targeted funds:

caseworker visits

FY2006

Total

Mississippi

6.33

6.15

0.67

6.81

6.03

Missouri

9.13

9.04

0.98

10.02

8.87

Montana

1.10

0.12

1.22

1.08

Nebraska

1.66

0.18

1.84

1.63

Nevada

1.77

1.85

0.20

2.05

1.81

New Hampshire

0.72

0.08

0.79

0.70

New Jersey

5.91

5.56

0.60

6.16

5.45

New Mexico

3.53

3.47

0.38

3.85

3.41

New York

24.19

21.32

2.31

23.63

20.92

North Carolina

10.52

11.04

1.20

12.23

10.83

North Dakota

0.69

0.63

0.07

0.70

0.62

Ohio

13.12

13.62

1.47

15.10

13.38

Oklahoma

6.03

5.93

0.64

6.57

5.82

Oregon

5.73

5.79

0.63

6.42

5.69

Pennsylvania

13.27

12.93

1.40

14.33

12.69

Rhode Island

1.49

1.32

0.14

1.46

1.29

South Carolina

7.29

7.48

0.81

8.29

7.34

South Dakota

0.90

0.88

0.10

0.98

0.86

Tennessee

10.39

10.51

1.14

11.64

10.31

Texas

35.65

36.85

3.99

40.83

36.16

Utah

1.87

1.94

0.21

2.15

1.91

Vermont

0.58

0.54

0.06

0.59

0.53

Virginia

6.32

6.36

0.69

7.05

6.24

Washington

5.92

5.82

0.63

6.45

5.71

West Virginia

3.54

3.36

0.36

3.73

3.30

Wisconsin

5.38

5.51

0.60

6.11

5.41

Wyoming

0.44

0.43

0.05

0.47

0.42

$367

$360

$39

$398

$352

All territories

8.88

8.32

1.14

9.46

8.05

All tribes

5.02

4.83

11.82

Courts

13.25

12.94

Evaluation, research and

technical asst.

9.25

8.90

8.94

Not

authorized

Not applicable

$40

Subtotal—states

Targeted funds:

methamphetamine/ other

substance abuse

Congressional Research Service

Not applicable

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

State

FY2006

FY2005

Total

$404

FY2007

For child and

family services

Targeted funds:

caseworker visits

FY2006

Total

$394

$40

$434

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). FY2005 actual funding is as given by the

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in its

FY2007 Congressional Budget Justifications; FY2006 amounts are included as received from ACF in November

2006; FY2007 allotments are from the ACF FY2008 Budget Justifications. Because of rounding, totals may not

appear to equal their parts.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Appendix A. Selected Provisions of the Child and Family Services Act of 2006

as Compared to Prior Law and to Earlier Versions of the Bill

(Section references in prior law column are to the Social Security Act, as amended prior to enactment of P.L. 109-288)

Prior Law

Short title

Not applicable.

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

The Improving Outcomes for

Children Affected by Meth Act of

2006 [Sec. 1].

The Child and Family Services

Improvement Act of 2006 [Sec.

1].

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

The Child and Family Services

Improvement Act of 2006 [Sec. 1].

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF, Title IV-B, Subpart 2)

Program funding

authorized

For FY2006 authorizes mandatory

funding of $345 million; for each of

FY2002-FY2006 authorizes

discretionary funding of $200 million

[Sec. 436 and 437].

Reauthorizes mandatory funding of

$345 million plus discretionary

funding of $200 million for each of

FY2007-FY2011 [Sec. 3].

Same as July 13 Senate bill [Sec.

3].

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 3].

FY2006 mandatory

funding

The Deficit Reduction Act increased

FY2006 mandatory funding

authorization for the PSSF program to

$345 million [P.L. 109-171, Sec. 7402].

Appropriates $40 million in

additional PSSF funding for FY2006 to

provide mandatory funding

authorized for the program [Sec. 3].

Same as July 13 Senate bill [Sec.

8].

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 3].

States may spend FY2006 funds in

either FY2006 or FY2007 [Sec. 434].

Same as current law.

Limit on

administrative

expenditures

A state may spend no more than 10%

of the federal PSSF funds it receives on

program administration; it must

provide at least 25% of the total

program costs in non-federal dollars

to receive its full federal allotment

[Sec. 434].

Same as current law.

Effective with FY2007, no more

than 10% of the total program

funds federal and non-federal may

be spent for administrative

purposes [Sec. 3].

Same as House bill except that the

new limitation is not effective until

first day of FY2008 [Sec. 3].

Tribal child and

family services

funding under PSSF

Reserves 1% of the mandatory PSSF

authorization and 2% of any

discretionary PSSF appropriations for

tribal child and family service programs

[Sec. 436 and Sec. 437].

Increases the set-aside of PSSF funds

for tribal child and family services

programs to 3% of mandatory funds

authorized plus 3% of any

discretionary funds appropriated

[Sec. 5].

Same as July 13 Senate bill [Sec.

3].

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 5].

CRS-18

States may spend the additional

$40 million in FY2006 PSSF funds

in any fiscal year through FY2008

[Sec. 8].

Provides that the 3% set-aside

from mandatory funds must be

made after the set-aside of $40

States may spend the additional

$40 million in any fiscal year

through FY2009; all of the funds

must be used for support of

caseworker visits; and none are to

be reserved for tribes [Sec. 3].

Provides that the 3% set aside from

mandatory funds must be made

after the set-aside of $40 million

for monthly caseworker visits and

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

Provides that these set-asides are to

be made before any other reservation

of program funds [Sec. 433].

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

Same as current law.

million to support monthly

caseworker visits [Sec. 4].

[Minimum set-aside: $10.35 million;

maximum set-aside: $16.35 million.]

[Minimum set-aside: $3.45 million;

maximum set aside: $7.45 million.]

[Minimum set-aside: $9.15

million; maximum set-aside:

$15.15 million.]

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

grants to improve the outcomes of

children affected by meth or other

substance abuse [Sec. 5].

[Same as House.]

Access to tribal

child and family

services funding

under PSSF

Provides that no tribe may receive

PSSF funding if the allotment of funds it

would receive (based on its relative

share of tribal population under age

21) would be under $10,000 [Sec.

432].

Provides that a group of tribes

(consortium) may apply together for

PSSF funding and that the allotment

amount is based on the consortium’s

combined relative share of the tribal

population under age 21 (among all

eligible tribes) [Sec. 5].

Same as July 13 Senate bill [Sec.

3].

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 5].

Requirements for

tribal funding

under PSSF

Provides that the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS)

may exempt a tribe from any of the

PSSF plan requirements that it

determines would be inappropriate for

the tribe [Sec. 432].

Same as current law.

Eliminates the ability of HHS to

exempt tribes from PSSF plan

requirements [Sec. 3].

Permits HHS to exempt tribes

from PSSF plan requirements that

limit use of federal program funds

for administrative purposes to 10%

and requires that “significant

portions” of these funds be spent

on certain categories of services

[Sec. 5].

Monitoring and

assessment of

certain prospective

foster and

adoptive families

No provision.

Requires states to develop

procedures that provide additional

assessment of any family seeking to

provide foster care or to adopt more

than 4 children or more than 1

sibling group (or a different number

of children or sibling groups if

approved by HHS). The plan must

provide that the additional

assessment is to occur before the

foster or adoptive placements are

made and, in the case of a foster care

family, that there will be ongoing

monitoring [Sec 6].

No provision.

Reports on Title

IV-B program

expenditures

A state is required to create a 5-year

child and family services plan stating its

goals for its program. It must annually

Requires states to update

expenditure reporting forms

(currently used to show intended

Requires HHS to create and

biennially submit to the Senate

Finance and House Ways and

Same as Senate bill except that

states must provide actual

expenditures for most recent year

CRS-19

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

review the plan and report the amount

of money it intends to spend for each

of the four PSSF (Title IV-B, Subpart 2)

service categories. A state must also

report on the service programs it

intends to make available under PSSF,

the populations to be served and the

places those services will be available.

States must also report information on

services to be provided with Child

Welfare Services (Title IV-B, Subpart

1) funding and where those services

are to be available. The reports are to

be submitted to HHS by June 30 of

each year.

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

expenditures) to show actual

expenditures by certain categories

for both Child Welfare Services and

PSSF families. The updated forms are

to be submitted to HHS no later

than June 30 of each year (with the

first such updates due on June 30,

2007 and showing FY2006

expenditures). HHS would be

required to compile these forms and

submit them to the Senate Finance

and House Ways and Means

committees no later than September

30 of each year (beginning with

September 30, 2007) [Sec. 6].

Means committees a report

showing—by state, territory, and

tribe—the level of expenditures

and the programs and activities

funded under PSSF and Child

Welfare Services; and the

number of children and families

served under the programs. HHS

must also report on how

spending under these program

helps achieve the child and family

services goals established by

each state, tribe, and territory in

their required planning

processes for these Title IV-B

programs [Sec. 9].

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

in which spending of federal

program funds is complete.

Targeting of $40 Million in PSSF Funds for Special Purposes

Support for

monthly

caseworker visits

and grants to

improve outcomes

for children

affected by meth

or other substance

abuse

No provision

Distribution of

reserved funds for

targeted purposes

No provision

CRS-20

Reserves $40 million of mandatory

PSSF funds in FY2007-FY2011 for

competitive grants to regional

partnerships to increase the wellbeing of and improve the

permanency outcomes for children

affected by methamphetamine abuse

and addiction [Sec. 2].

Reserves $40 million of the

mandatory PSSF funds in

FY2006-FY2011 for formula

grants to states and territories

to support monthly caseworker

visits for children in foster care

[Sec. 4].

For formula grants to states and

territories to support monthly

caseworker visits reserves: $40

million in FY2006 (available to

spend through FY2009); $5 million

in FY2008; $10 million in FY2009;

and $20 million in each of FY2010

and FY2011.

For competitive grants to regional

partnerships to improve outcomes

for children affected by abuse of

meth or other substances reserves:

$40 million in FY2007: $35 million

in FY2008; $30 million in FY2009

and $20 million in each of FY2010

and FY2011 [Sec. 4].

Requires HHS to make grants to

regional partnerships on a

competitive basis. A regional

partnership must consist of two or

more entities (representing child

Entitles each state and territory

to an allotment of the $40

million (based generally on

allotment formula for PSSF

program) provided that it meets

Funds for competitive grants to

regional partnerships: Same as July

13 Senate bill except that a

regional partnerships must in

nearly all cases include the state

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

welfare, health, mental health,

education, law, tribal, judicial/court

or related agencies, providers or

personnel). An applicant partnership

must show that abuse of meth by

parents or caretakers has increased

the number of children in out-ofhome placements (or those at-risk of

this placement). The grants must be

for no less than $500,000 and no

more than $1 million per fiscal year

and must be made for no less than 2

years and no more than 5 years.

HHS must take into account

demonstrated need of applicants in

awarding these grants [Sec. 2].

specific requirements. These

include that it track the

frequency and location of

caseworker visits to children in

foster care and that this tracking

shows that, as of FY2008, no less

than 90% of the foster children

in the state are visited monthly

(or that the state is making

“requisite progress” toward this

goal to enable it to reach that

standard no later than October

1, 2011). Further a state may not

use these funds to supplant

federal Title IV-E funds available

for the same purposes and a

state must agree to spend $1 in

non-federal funds to support

monthly caseworker visits of

children in foster care for every

$3 in federal funds it receives for

this purpose. [Sec. 4].

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

child welfare agency (optional if the

partnership includes tribal entities)

and regional partnerships

demonstrating evidence of meth or

other substance abuse may be

eligible applicants. In considering

which applicants to award grants,

HHS must, after taking into

account the level of need

demonstrated by all applicant

regional partnership, give greater

weight to those applicant

partnerships that can show the

negative effect of meth abuse on

child welfare in their region [Sec.

4].

Funds for formula grants to states and

territories for support of monthly

caseworker visits: Same allotment

formula (generally) for receipt of

regular program funds. State may

not supplant federal Title IV-E

funds available for the same

purposes. In addition, to receive

these funds in FY2008 through

FY2011, a state must agree to

spend $1 in non-federal funds to

support monthly caseworker visits

for every $3 in federal funds it

receives for this purpose [Sec. 4].

Monthly Caseworker Standard

Standards for

frequency and

content of

caseworker visits

CRS-21

No provision.

[As described above, provides

that states, as a condition of

receiving the funds reserved for

monthly caseworker visits must

be able to show that 90% of

foster care children are visited

monthly or that requisite

progress toward meeting that

No later than the first day of

FY2008, a state, as a part of its

Child Welfare Services (Title IV-B,

Subpart 1) state plan, must

describe its standards for the

content and frequency of

caseworker visits to children in

foster care. At a minimum the

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

Enforcement of

Standards for

frequency and

content of

caseworker visits

Not applicable

States are required to provide at least

25% of the total program costs

(matching dollars) in order to receive

their full federal allotment of Child

Welfare Services funds [Sec. 423].

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

No provision.

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

standard by the first day of

FY2012 is being made.]

standards must ensure that the

visits are well-planned, focused on

issues relevant to case planning and

occur at least monthly [Sec. 7].

[As described above, states must

report data on the percentage of

foster care children visited at

least monthly and at least 90% of

children in foster care (or

requisite progress toward that

standard) is a condition of

receipt of certain funds reserved

from the Promoting Safe and

Stable Families program.]

HHS may not provide FY2008

Child Welfare Services funding to a

state unless the state has provided

it with data showing (for FY2007)

the percentage of children in foster

care who received a monthly visit

from their caseworker and the

percentage of the visits that

occurred where the child lives.

No later than June 30, 2008, HHS

must with the state outline the

steps (including target percentages

to be reached) that the state must

take to ensure that by October 1,

2011, at least 90% of the children

in foster care under the

responsibility of the state are

visited by their caseworkers on a

monthly basis and that most of the

visits occur where the child lives.

States that fail to make the

requisite progress toward the

monthly caseworker visit standard

must expend more state

(matching) dollars to receive their

full federal allotment of Child

Welfare Services funds. The

increase is based on the degree to

which a state fails to make

progress toward the standard:

minimum penalty- state must

provide 26% of the total program

cost; maximum penalty states must

provide 30% [Sec. 7].

CRS-22

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

Child Welfare Services (Title IV-B, Subpart 1)

Program

authorization

Authorizes annual discretionary

funding up to $325 million for Child

Welfare Services. The funding

authorization is provided on an

indefinite (no year limit) basis [Sec.

420].

Same as current law.

Maintains the annual

discretionary funding

authorization of $325 million.

Limits this authorization to

FY2007-FY2011 [Sec. 5].

Same as House bill [Sec. 6].

Purpose

Provides that funds are to enable the

United States, though HHS, to

cooperate with state public welfare

agencies in establishing, extending and

strengthening child welfare services

[Sec. 420].

Same as current law.

Restates the purpose of this

program to include, generally,

the aims of child welfare services

described in the current law

definition and deletes the

definition of child welfare

services. Adds explicit reference

to services provided by

community-based agencies (as a

part of the purpose) and

reference to support for a wellqualified child welfare workforce.

Same as House bill except that the

fourth purpose is restated as—

promoting the safety, permanence,

and well-being of children in foster

care and adoptive families [Sec. 6].

Defines child welfare services (for all

of Title IV-B) as “public social

services” intended to—protect and

promote the welfare of all children,

including handicapped, homeless,

dependent, or neglected children;

—prevent, remedy or assist in the

solution of problems which may result

in the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or

delinquency of children;—prevent the

unnecessary separation of children

from their families by identifying family

problems, assisting families in resolving

their problems, and preventing

breakup of the family (where the

prevention of the child removal is

desirable and possible);

—restore to their families children

who have been removed by provision

of services to the child and the

families;

—place children in suitable adoptive

homes, in cases where restoration to

the biological families is not possible

CRS-23

Specifically, defines the purpose

of the Title IV-B, Subpart 1

program as “to promote state

flexibility in the development and

expansion of a coordinated child

and family services program that

utilizes community-based

agencies and ensures all children

are raised in safe, loving families,

by—

1) protecting and promoting the

welfare of all children;

2) preventing the neglect, abuse,

or exploitation of children;

3) supporting at-risk families

through services which allow

children, where appropriate, to

remain safely with their families

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

or appropriate and;

or return to their families in a

timely manner;

—assure adequate care of children

away from their homes, in cases

where the child cannot be returned

home or placed for adoption

4) promoting the safety,

permanence, and well-being of

children in foster care; and

[Sec. 425].

Limit on

administrative

expenditures

5) providing training, professional

development and support to

ensure a well-qualified child

welfare workforce” [Sec. 5].

No provision.

To receive their full allotment of

federal Child Welfare Services funds a

state must provide at least 25% of the

total program costs.

Same as current law.

No provision.

Requires a state to assure, as of

FY2007, that no more than 10%

of its expenditures under the

Child Welfare Services program

will be for administrative

purposes [Sec. 5].

As of FY2007, prohibits HHS

from making any payment of

Child Welfare Services funds to

a state for administrative costs

that are above 10% of the total

(federal and non-federal)

expenditures for the program

[Sec. 5].

Defines administrative costs as

program costs related to

procurement, payroll

management, personnel

functions (other than the part of

a supervisor’s salary attributable

to direct supervision of

caseworker services),

maintenance and operation of

space and property, data

processing and computer

services, accounting, budgeting,

auditing and travel expenses

(other than those related to

CRS-24

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

Same as House bill except that the

effective date is FY2008 [Sec. 6].

Same as House bill except that the

effective date is FY2008 [Sec. 6].

Same as House bill [Sec. 6].

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

caseworker provision of services

or oversight of programs funded

with Child Welfare Services)

[Sec. 5].

Limits on

expenditures for

foster care

maintenance

payments,

adoption

assistance

payments and child

care

A state may spend a limited amount of

its Child Welfare Services funding for

foster care maintenance payments,

adoption assistance payments and child

day care (necessary solely for the

employment or training of the child’s

parent/related caretaker). The per

state limit on Child Welfare Services

expenditures for these purposes is the

amount of total federal funds allotted

to the state for this program in

FY1979 (when the program was

funded at $56.5 million) [Sec. 423].

Same as current law.

Effective with FY2007, states are

generally prohibited from

spending program funds for

foster care maintenance

payments, adoption assistance or

child day care (for any purpose).

However, any state that can

show HHS that it spent Child

Welfare Service funds for these

purposes in FY2005 may

continue to spend the lesser of

that FY2005 spending amount or

the state’s total FY1979 funding

allotment under the program

[Sec. 5].

Effective with FY2008, states are

generally prohibited from spending

program funds for foster care

maintenance payments, adoption

assistance or child day care (for

any purpose), unless the state can

show that it spent some of its

FY2005 federal program allotment

for these purpose. If a state can

make this showing then the

amount of federal program money

it spent for those purposes in

FY2005 is its limit for those

purposes in FY2008 and every

future year [Sec. 6].

Counting state

matching funds

To receive its full federal allotment of

Child Welfare Services funds states

must provide at lest 25% of the total

program costs. To meet this matching

requirement, states may count their

non-federal spending for foster care

maintenance payments in unlimited

amount [Sec. 423].

Same as current law.

Effective with FY2007, deletes

the provision permitting states

to count foster care maintenance

payments for purposes of

providing state matching funds

under this program [Sec. 5].

Effective with FY2008, states may

not count foster care maintenance

payments for purposes of providing

state matching funds under this

program unless a state can show it

did this in FY2005. If a state can

make this showing, then the

amount of foster care maintenance

payment spending it counted as

matching funds in FY2005 is its

limit for that purpose in FY2008

and every future year [Sec. 6].

Planning

consultation with

medical

professionals

No provision.

Requires the state to outline

how it will ensure that physicians

or other appropriate medical

professionals are actively

consulted and involved in

assessing the health and wellbeing of children in foster care

and in determining appropriate

Requires the state to describe how

it actively consults with and

involves physicians or other

appropriate medical professionals

in assessing the health and wellbeing of children in foster care and

in determining appropriate medical

CRS-25

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

Procedures for

operation

following a disaster

No provision.

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

No provision.

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

medical treatment for them [Sec.

5].

treatment for them [Sec. 6].

No provision.

Requires a state, no later than 12

months after enactment of the bill

to have in place procedures for

how the states foster care,

adoption assistance, independent

living, as well as its Child Welfare

Services and Promoting Safe and

Stable Families programs will

respond in a disaster. The

procedures must be in accord with

criteria established by HHS and

should include how the state

would—

1) identify, locate, and continue

availability of services for children

under state care or supervision

who are affected by the disaster;

2) respond appropriately to new

child welfare cases resulting from

the disaster;

3) remain in communications with

caseworkers and other essential

child welfare personnel who are

displaced by the disaster;

4) preserve essential program

records; and

5) coordinate services and share

information with other states [Sec.

6].

Procedures related

to abandoned

children

CRS-26

Requires a state to assure that as of

October 31, 1995 it has reviewed

state policies and administrative and

judicial procedures regarding children

abandoned shortly after birth

Same as current law.

Rewrites this provision to

require a state to assure that it

has in place policies and

administrative and judicial

procedures in place for children

Same as House bill except further

specifies that the policies and

procedures must include those

that provide for legal

representation of these children

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

(including policies related to legal

representation of these children); and

is implementing policies and

procedures determined (based on this

review) to enable permanency

decisions to be made expeditiously for

abandoned children [Sec. 422].

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

abandoned at or shortly after

birth which enable permanency

decisions to be made

expeditiously for these children

[Sec. 5].

[Sec. 6].

Inventory of

children in foster

care

Since June 17, 1980 states are required

to have conducted a statewide

inventory of all children in foster care

for at least 6 months to determine 1)

the appropriateness and necessity for

the foster care placement; 2) whether

the children could or should be turned

over to their parents or be freed for

adoption or other permanent

placement and 3) the services

necessary to facilitate the return of the

child or the placement of the child for

adoption or legal guardianship [Sec.

422]

Same as current law.

Deletes this provision [Sec. 5].

Same as House bill [Sec. 6].

Placement settings

for a child with

permanency goal

of another planned

permanent living

arrangement

A state must assure that it will operate

a service program that helps return

foster children to their families (when

it is safe and appropriate) or places

them for adoption or in a legal

guardianship. However, if reunification,

adoption or legal guardianship is

determined not to be appropriate,

places them in “some other planned

permanent living arrangement” [Sec.

422].

Same as current law.

Clarifies that “some other

planned permanent living

arrangement” may include a

residential education program

[Sec. 5].

Same as House bill [Sec. 6].

Child care

standards

A state must assure that, except for

eligibility criteria, it will impose the

same standards and requirements for

child care services funded with Child

Welfare Services as are applied to

those funded under Title XX (Social

Same as current law.

Deletes this state plan

requirement [Sec. 5].

Same as House bill [Sec. 6].

CRS-27

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

Same as current law.

Deletes this state plan

requirement [Sec. 5].

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

Services Block Grant) [Sec. 422].

Use of paraprofessionals and

volunteers

A state must assure that it will provide

for the training and effective use of

paid para-professionals and volunteers

in providing services and assisting any

advisory committees established by

the state child welfare agency.

Same as House bill [Sec. 6].

Mentoring Children of Prisoners (Title IV-B, Subpart 2)

Program purpose

and authorization

Authorizes HHS to make competitive

grants in each of FY2002-FY2006 to

support the establishment or

expansion and operation of programs

that provide mentoring services to

children of prisoners in areas with

substantial numbers of children who

have incarcerated parents [Sec 439].

Extends the current authorization

from FY2007-FY2011.

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 7].

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 8].

Expansion of

program purpose

No provision.

Adds additional authority for HHS to

enter into a cooperative agreement

with a national mentoring

organization to develop mentoring

program standards, publicize the

availability of mentoring services for

children of prisoners at programs

that meet these standards, and to

distribute vouchers for such services

to the programs selected by families

of prisoners with children [Sec. 4].

No provision.

Adds additional authority for HHS

to enter into a cooperative

agreement with a qualified entity to

conduct a demonstration of use of

vouchers as a way to deliver

mentoring services to children of

prisoners nationwide. The entity

must identify children in need of

those services, provide vouchers

to the families of these children,

and monitor and oversee the

delivery of the services. Vouchers

may be good for one year of

mentoring services. A provider of

the services may only redeem the

voucher if it meets the quality

program standards developed by

the entity, provides mentoring

services to the child and

demonstrates that it can continue

(with non-federal resources)

providing mentoring to the child

CRS-28

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

after the voucher expires.

Contingent on available funding,

the entity must agree to provide

3,000 vouchers in year one of the

demonstration project; 8,000 in

year two and 13,000 in year three.

The project may then be renewed

for an additional 2 years if the

entity performs well and an

independent evaluation shows that

vouchers are an effective method

of service delivery for this service

[Sec. 8].

Funding

authorization

For each of FY2002-FY2003

authorized $67 million for these

grants; for FY2004 and every year

thereafter authorizes “such sums as

may be necessary” for the program.

No provision.

HHS must reserve 2.5% of the funds

appropriated for the program for

related research, evaluation and

technical assistance [Sec. 439]

For each of FY2007-FY2011

authorizes $67 million [Sec. 4].

Up to 50% of these funds may be

used for the cooperative agreement/

voucher distribution but no less than

$25 million must remain available for

the previously authorized site-based

grants [Sec. 4].

Maintains the annual “such sums

as may be necessary” funding

authorization but limits it to each

of FY2007-FY2011 [Sec. 7].

No provision.

Same as current law.

Same as House bill [Sec. 8].

Provided that $25 million in

program funds are made available

for the previously authorized sitebased grants, HHS may reserve up

to $5 million of the appropriated

funds for the voucher

demonstration in the first year

funds are awarded for the

demonstration; $10 million for the

second year; and $15 million for

the third fiscal year [Sec. 8].

HHS must reserve 4% of the funds

appropriated for the program for

related research, evaluation and

technical assistance [Sec. 8].

Court Improvement Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 2)

Program

authorization

CRS-29

For each of FY2002-FY2006 an eligible

highest state court (with an approved

application) is entitled to a share of

funds, which are set-aside from funds

provided for the PSSF program, to

assess and make improvements to its

handling of child welfare related

Extends both the court entitlement

to these funds and the related

matching requirement through

FY2011 [Sec. 3].

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 6].

Same as Senate bill [Sec. 9].

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Prior Law

As passed by the Senate,

As passed by the House,

July 13, 2006

July 25, 2006

As enacted (P.L. 109-288)

September 28, 2006

proceedings. To receive is full

allotment of the funds in FY2002FY2006, the court must provide at

least 25% of the total expenditures for

this purpose [Sec. 438].

Court Consultation with Foster Child/Youth at Permanency Review Proceedings (Title IV-E)

Case review

system

States are required to have in place a

case review system for each child in

foster care. This system is defined to

include an annual permanency hearing

(conducted by a court or courtappointed/approved administrative

body) to review the permanency plan

for the child. In the case of a youth in

foster care who is age 16 or older the

annual permanency hearing must

determine the services the youth

needs to make the transition from

foster care to independent living. [Sec.

475]

Provides that a court or

administrative body that is holding a

permanency hearing must consult, in

an age-appropriate manner, with the

child or youth whose permanency

plan/arrangement is under review

(including youth who are age 16 or

older and are in transition to

independent living. [Sec. 7].

Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

CRS-30

Same as current law.

Same as Senate bill except that the

reference to age of the child for

whom transition to independent

living planning is being made is

deleted [Sec. 10].

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Appendix B. Legislative History of the Promoting

Safe and Stable Families Program

At least since the creation of the current federal child welfare program structure by the Adoption

Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272), Congress has remained consistently

concerned about the number of children in foster care and the lack of stability and permanence in

their lives. During the 1990s, Congress created a new program (P.L. 103-66), now called the

Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, which responded to some of those concerns.

By the end of the 1980s, there were widespread concerns about a rapidly growing foster care

caseload (believed to be spurred by the spread of crack cocaine use) and a belief that too few

preventive services were resulting in too many children being unnecessarily placed in foster care.

At the same time, a number of states, often with the support of private foundations, had begun to

offer a model of family preservation services that provided families with short-term, intensive

services; early research suggested these services would significantly reduce the number of

children unnecessarily placed in foster care.

In this climate, Congress began discussions about increasing federal support for preventive

services, including intensive family preservation. Several years of legislative efforts lead initially

to a 1992 agreement between the House and Senate on new capped entitlement funding for 1)

“innovative services” to children and families (e.g., family preservation services); 2) substance

abuse prevention and treatment; and 3) respite care. The agreement would have entitled states to

their share of $165 million for these purposes in FY1993 rising to $575 million in FY1998, and

for every succeeding year, the FY1998 amount adjusted by an inflation factor. The legislation

provided specific allotment of the total funds for each purpose—with the largest share reserved

for innovative services (conference agreement to accompany H.R. 11, 102nd Cong., H.Rept. 1021034). Although this legislation was approved by both the Senate and the House, as part of an

omnibus package, the Revenue Act of 1992, it was vetoed by President George H. W. Bush (for

reasons unrelated to the child welfare provisions) and so did not become law.

Original Enactment

One year later, however, child welfare advocates succeeded in including new entitlement funding

for family preservation and support services in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993

(P.L. 103-66) which created Subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act. Proposed by the

Clinton Administration, the 1993 legislation drew much of its inspiration from the earlier

legislative work but made several notable changes. Among those, it included less entitlement

funding and deleted specific allotment of funds for substance abuse prevention and treatment and

respite care (both of which could nonetheless be funded out of the program that was approved).

As enacted, the Family Preservation and Support Services provisions of P.L. 103-66 entitled

states to receive a certain portion of federal funds (rising from $60 million in FY1994 to no less

than $255 million by FY1998) to enable states and territories “to develop and establish, or

expand, and to operate a program of family preservation services and community-based family

support services.” One percent of the funds was to be reserved for support of tribal child and

family services, and each state was to be allotted these new funds based on its relative share of

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

children in the nation who receive food stamps.10 To receive their full formula allocation states

were required to maintain at least their FY1992 level of funding for these services and to support

no less than 25% of the state’s total family preservation and family support services program with

non-federal funding. Finally, the new law also provided that funds were to be set aside annually to

allow state highest courts to assess their need for improvements to their handling of child welfare

cases ($5 million for such grants in FY1995 and $10 million for each of FY1996-FY1998) and,

separately, to allow HHS to evaluate programs carried out under the new subpart or others

designed to achieve the same purposes and to support research, training and technical assistance

related to the program ($2 million in FY1994 and $6 million in each of FY1995-FY1998).

ASFA Amendments

Congress returned to child welfare issues when it passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families

Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89). That legislation sought to make a child’s safety the primary concern in

all child welfare decisions and also to move foster children to a permanent family more quickly.

With an eye toward children’s development and their concept of time, Members of Congress were

concerned that states maintained a goal of family reunification long after it was apparent that such

a goal was inappropriate (or in cases where reunification might in fact jeopardize the child’s

safety). They were also troubled by reports that the number of adoptions out of foster care had

remained virtually unchanged for years while the number of children in care had risen

dramatically.11

ASFA renamed Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, the Promoting Safe and Stable

Families program. In addition, as one part of ASFA’s multiple amendments related to the safety of

children, Congress added a requirement that the safety of children be the “paramount concern” in

administering and conducting service programs under the PSSF program. As a part of its focus on

expediting decisions around finding a permanent home for children in foster care (and

encouraging adoption as one method of doing this), Congress defined two additional service

categories for which states were required to use “significant portions” of their PSSF funding—

time-limited family reunification services and adoption promotion and support. Finally, Congress

set annual increases in the mandatory funding authorized for the program, raising it from $275

million in FY1999 to $305 million in FY2001. (Congress also continued the annual set-asides

from these funds for tribal child and family services, court improvements, and program

evaluation, research, training, and technical assistance.)

The time limit for the new category of reunification services was set at within 15 months of a

child’s removal from his/her home. This is consistent with a separate ASFA-added requirement,

which provides that states must initiate termination of parental rights (TPR) proceedings for any

child who has been in foster care for 15 of the past 22 months (unless the state can show good

cause why it should not do this). A child’s adoption cannot be completed without termination of

parental rights and courts are generally reluctant to grant TPR in cases where the family has not

first been offered needed reunification services. Thus the new “time-limited reunification”

Territories receive funds based on a minimum allotment of $70,000 and a formula that assumes low per capita

income in each territory and takes into account their relative share of the population under age 21. This is the same

formula used to distribute funds to the territories under Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act, the Child

Welfare Services program.

For a discussion of the full range of significant child welfare policy changes made by this legislation see CRS Report

RL30759, Child Welfare: Implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, by (name redacted) and Matthew Shuman.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

funding category sought to ensure that ASFA’s efforts to expedite permanency were not defeated

by a lack of available or provided services. Likewise, the addition of the adoption promotion and

support services category was consistent with other ASFA amendments that encouraged adoption

as a way of attaining permanent family for children.

2001 Amendments

Program reauthorization language introduced in 2001 largely mirrored language suggested by the

Bush Administration and initially sought to raise the annual mandatory funding level of the

program to $505 million. However, Congress subsequently changed this provision (and the

Administration also changed its budget request) to instead authorize discretionary funds above the

prior mandatory funding level.12 As enacted, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families

Amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized $200 million in discretionary funding for the

program in each of FY2002-FY2006 and maintained the prior authorized mandatory funding

level ($305 million) through FY2006. P.L. 107-133 further provided that a state was entitled to its

share of any discretionary funds appropriated in the same manner (i.e., based on its relative share

of children receiving food stamps) as was the case with mandatory funding. Additionally, it

provided that, out of any discretionary funds appropriated (and in addition to the pre-existing setasides of mandatory funds for these same purposes), 2% must be set aside for tribal child and

family services, 3.3% for Court Improvement and 3.3% for research, evaluation, training and

technical assistance.

P.L. 107-133 added four findings to the statute and provided four program objectives (each linked

to one of the four service categories funded by the program). It amended the definition of family

preservation services (to include funding of infant “safe haven” programs) and the definition of

family support services (to explicitly include funding of services that “strengthen parental

relationships and promote healthy marriages”); provided for re-allotment of any unused program

funds; moved the statutory authorization language for the Court Improvement Program

(previously freestanding) into the Social Security Act; and provided that in implementing changes

identified by an assessment, courts could use CIP funds to ensure children’s safety, well-being

and permanence (in accordance with standards established in ASFA) and to implement a

corrective action plan identified as needed via a federal conformity review of the child welfare

agency. Finally, it established research priorities and specified the kinds of technical assistance

HHS may offer to tribes, territories and states regarding implementing the Promoting Safe and

Stable Families program and required the Department to report to Congress biennially (beginning

not later than April 2003) on the evaluations, research and technical assistance funded with

money set-aside for this purpose from the PSSF.13

For more about the funding proposals made in this reauthorization, see CRS Report RL30894, Child Welfare:

Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program in the 107th Congress, by (name redacted) and

(name redacted).

P.L. 107-133 also added a new section to Title IV-B, Subpart 2, which authorizes discretionary funds for competitive

grants to eligible entities that support mentoring for children of prisoners. P.L. 109-288 extended and amended this

program, as described in the body of this report. For more information about federal support of mentoring see CRS

Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

As enacted in February 2006, the Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171) increased the FY2006

mandatory funding authorization for the PSSF program, for FY2006 only, to $345 million.

Separately P.L. 109-171 also amended the Court Improvement Program, which had been entirely

funded as a set-aside from the PSSF funding. These amendments provide for two new kinds of

Court Improvement Program grants, which are related to improved training and, separately,

timely achievement of safety, permanence and well-being for children; the law appropriated $20

million for each of FY2006-FY2010 (total of $100 million) to make these grants. These funds are

independent of PSSF funding, and are in addition to the funds already set-aside from the PSSF for

assessing and improving court performance in child welfare proceedings.

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families and Court Improvement provisions of the Deficit

Reduction Act were incorporated into the legislation during the conference negotiations and had

not been previously acted on by the Senate or the House. However, changes to the Court

Improvement Program are consistent with recommendations made in a May 2004 report by the

Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care and legislation introduced in the Senate (S. 1679)

and House (H.R. 3758) sought to make similar or related court improvement changes.14

The Child and Family Services Improvement Act

As enacted in September 2006, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L.

109-288) extends the funding authorization of the PSSF program for five years (FY2007FY2011) and annually targets the use of $40 million in new funds for the program for two

purposes: to support monthly caseworker visits and to improve outcomes for children affected by

their parent/caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine or another substance. HHS is required to use

some of the research, evaluation and technical assistance funds it is provided under PSSF to

evaluate or otherwise support those newly authorized PSSF activities. In addition, the law

requires states to report on their actual—as opposed to simply planned—use of PSSF (and Child

Welfare Services) funds and both increases the PSSF set aside for tribal child and family services,

and allows access to these funds for more tribes.

For more information see CRS Report RL33350, Child Welfare: The Court Improvement Program, by (name r

edacted).

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Appendix C. Selected Policy Issues

The following section was developed prior to the reauthorization of the PSSF in 2006 to discuss

the definition of service categories under the PSSF program, findings related to the effectiveness

of these services, as well as requirements related to planning and reporting child and family

services. The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) did not amend

the definition of services under the PSSF program, although it does require states to report

information on the actual as opposed to planned spending of PSSF funds. Further it requires HHS

to use some of its research set-aside to support research, evaluation, and technical assistance

related to two new purposes for which some PSSF funds are targeted: improving the quality and

quantity of caseworker visits of children in foster care and providing services and activities to

improve the outcomes of children affected by parent/caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine (or

another) substance.

Service Categories Defined

States are required to spend significant portions of their PSSF funding on each of four service

categories: family support, family preservation, time-limited family reunification, and adoption

promotion and support services. The statute (Section 431 of the Social Security Act) defines these

service categories at some length.

Family support—community-based services to promote the safety and well-being of children and

families designed to increase the strength and stability of families (including adoptive, foster, and

extended families), to increase parents’ confidence and competence in their parenting abilities, to

afford children a safe, stable and supportive family environment, to strengthen parental

relationships and promote healthy marriages, and otherwise to enhance child development.

Family preservation—services for children and families designed to help families (including

adoptive and extended families) at risk or in crisis, including

•

service programs designed to help children safely return to families from which

they have been removed; or be placed for adoption or with a legal guardian (or, if

adoption or legal guardianship is determined not to be safe and appropriate for

the child, in some other planned, permanent living arrangement);

•

pre-placement preventive services programs, such as intensive family

preservation programs, designed to help children at risk of foster care placement

remain safely with their families;

•

service programs designed to provide follow-up care for families to whom a child

has been returned after a foster care placement;

•

respite care of children to provide temporary relief of parents and other

caregivers (including foster parents);

•

services designed to improve parenting skills (by reinforcing parents’ confidence

in their strengths, and helping them to identify where improvement is needed and

to obtain assistance in improving those skills) with respect to matters such as

child development, family budgeting coping with stress, health, and nutrition;

and

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

•

infant safe haven programs to provide a way for a parent to safely relinquish a

newborn infant at a safe haven designated pursuant to a state law.

Time-limited family reunification—services and activities provided to a child that is removed

from his/her home and placed in foster care, and to the parents or primary caregiver of such a

child, in order to facilitate the reunification of the child safely, appropriately and within a timely

fashion, but only during the 15-month period that begins on the date that the child is considered to

have entered foster care:

•

individual, group, and family counseling;

•

inpatient, residential, or outpatient substance abuse services;

•

mental health services;

•

assistance to address domestic violence;

•

services designed to provide temporary child care and therapeutic services for

families, including crisis nurseries;

•

transportation to or from any of the services and activities described.

Adoption promotion and support—services and activities designed to encourage more adoptions

out of the foster care system, when adoptions promote the best interests of children, including

such activities as pre- and post-adoptive services and activities designed to expedite the adoption

process and support adoptive families.

Service Category Overlap

Even a relatively quick reading of these definitions reveals that in many cases they define a

mission rather than provide a list of specific activities that are expected to achieve this mission.

Further, the PSSF service categories have similar and, in some cases, even identical missions. At

the same time, while the service categories can be understood as having overlapping missions or

even, in certain cases as subsets of each other, each of the PSSF services categories have different

target populations and, as the legislative history shows, they were created by Congress to meet

separate if related goals.

Family support services have the broadest target population and, in philosophy, aim to bolster the

functioning of any family in a given community. Family preservation services are generally

understood to serve a far narrower group of families—those where children are at imminent risk

of removal to foster care, meaning in most cases that a child has already experienced abuse or

neglect (and including some families where a child has been removed to foster care and

reunification efforts are underway). Federal child welfare funding for family support and family

preservation services was instituted at a time when Congress was particularly concerned about the

burgeoning foster care caseload. The services were intended to prevent the need for foster care

placement, whenever possible and the new funding for these services was the centerpiece of the

child welfare legislation in which they were enacted (P.L. 103-66).

Time-limited reunification services may be understood as a subset of family preservation services

and are explicitly meant to serve the needs of children and families who have been separated for

15 months or less (because the child is placed in foster care). Adoption promotion and support

services aim to encourage families seeking to adopt from foster care and to support those who

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

have done so. Such services might also be understood as a subset of family support services, or in

the case of adoptive families in crisis, as a family preservation service.

Federal funding for these services was not the central creation of the Adoption and Safe Families

Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89). Rather, Congress increased PSSF funding to some extent and required

states to spend money on time-limited reunification and adoption promotion and support to

augment ASFA’s central goals of promoting safety and permanency for children. At the time,

Congress remained deeply concerned about the size of the foster care caseload, but ASFA helped

shift the focus of this concern from policies primarily intended to prevent entries into foster care

to policies that sought to safely expedite exits from care.

State Planned Spending by Category

Federal statute, as interpreted in HHS policy, requires states to spend at least 20% of their PSSF

funds on each of the four service categories.15 Collectively states reported that they intended to

spend their FY2002 PSSF funds as follows—29% for family support, 30% for family

preservation, 21% for time-limited reunification, and 20% for adoption promotion and support.

Given that family support and family preservation have received dedicated funding the longest

and that their service goals (and target populations) are more expansive, program evaluators note

that the two newest services categories—time-limited family reunification and adoption

promotion and support—have become “well-established in the continuum of PSSF-funded

services.”16

At the same time, because states may choose to include the same given activity in more than one

service category, this spreading of resources across categories could ideally mean that states have

a full range of child and family services available to those who are not yet in need of extensive

child welfare services, those who need such services to ensure that children and their parents can

safely live together (rather than be separated via foster care placement), those for whom the

services are needed to ensure a short foster care stay and permit early reunification, and those for

whom the services support successful creation and functioning of permanent adoptive families.

The statute provides that states must spend a “significant portion” of funds of each of the four categories. HHS has

interpreted this to mean that a state must spend 20% of the funds allotted to it on each service category, unless the state

can provide an “especially strong rationale” for not doing this. See ACYF-CB-PI-04-01, February 2, 2004.

James Bell Associates, Analysis of States’ Annual Progress and Services Reports and Child and Family Services

Plans (1999-2002), April 2002, pp. 49-50. For FY2002, eight states did not plan to spend at least 20% of their PSSF

funds on either time-limited family reunification or adoption promotion and support (but planned to use other state or

federal fund for these services). The General Accounting Office (GAO) (now called the Government Accountability

Office) surveyed states on their FY2002 actual spending of PSSF funds. When compared to the Bell Associates

analysis of state’s planned spending PSSF funds in that year, the GAO survey shows states reporting different spending

proportions (for categories that most closely match the PSSF categories). These were: family support/prevention—

50%; family preservation 12%; family reunification 9%; and adoption support and preservation services 11%. Apart

from differences that might be attributed to actual versus estimated spending, the overlapping nature of these service

categories and various definitions employed by GAO/states and James Bell makes a strict comparison impossible. U.S.

General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: Enhanced Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide States Additional

Information to Improve Services” (GAO-03-956), September 2003, p. 14. Data on PSSF spending for more recent

years have not been compiled or analyzed on a national basis.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Effectiveness of Services

Congress required HHS to evaluate the effectiveness of programs funded under Title IV-B,

Subpart 2 as part of its initial approval of funding for family preservation and family support

services in the early 1990s. HHS used those funds to support three large-scale evaluations. One

looked at overall implementation issues for the program, a second looked at the effectiveness of

two particular models of family preservation services (both providing relatively intensive

casework), and the third looked at the effectiveness of a very wide range of family support

services. (Findings from these evaluations are discussed below.)

No similar large-scale evaluations of time-limited reunification services or of adoption promotion

and support services have been made. However, these services may in part be subsets of some

kinds of family preservation and family support programs. Further, Congress amended the

statutory language on evaluations in 2001 (P.L. 107-133) to include specific research priorities.

Among these are “promising program models in the [PSSF] service categories ... particularly

time-limited reunification services and post-adoption services.”

As noted earlier, the 2006 amendments (P.L. 109-288) require HHS to use some of its set-aside

funds to fund research, evaluation and technical assistance related to supporting improved quality

and quantity of caseworker visits of foster children ($1 million annually) and to providing

services or activities to improve the outcome of children affected by their parents’ (or other

caretakers’) abuse of methamphetamine or other substance.

Intensive Family Preservation Services

When Congress began discussion of funding these services in the early 1990s, a great deal of

optimism existed about the ability of intensive family preservation services to cost-effectively

reduce the number of placements in foster care. Since that time, multiple program evaluations

have not shown that intensive family preservation services lower placement risk for the children

and families they serve (when compared to children and families receiving standard in-home

casework services).

In addition, both children and families who received standard in-home casework services and

those receiving intensive family preservation services were found to have similar (relatively low)

levels of maltreatment recurrence (after initiation of the services) and to exhibit similar levels of

family functioning. In other words, receipt of intensive family preservation services did not

reduce out-of-home placement or maltreatment recurrence, and did not improve family

functioning beyond what normal casework services achieved.17

There have been multiple evaluations and synthesis reviews of studies, including studies that used the most rigorous

evaluation design (random assignment). Not all of these studies made all of the findings mentioned in this paragraph;

however, the finding that intensive family preservation services do not reduce placement (when compared to children

receiving regular casework services) is well-established. This report discusses findings of the multi-site HHS-funded

evaluation of family preservation services which was conducted by Westat, Chapin Hall Center for Children, and James

Bell Associates. The report studied three sites (in Louisville, KY, Memphis, TN, and seven counties in New Jersey)

where a “Homebuilders” model was applied, and a fourth (Philadelphia, PA) where a specialized intensive family

preservation services model was used. Overall the findings were similar across these sites. U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs, Final Report (Volumes 1 and 2),

December 2002.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

These evaluations did not compare—nor were they designed to compare—the placement

outcomes for families receiving no services versus outcomes for those who received services; and

they should not be understood as proof that the families served did not benefit from or need the

services. Instead the evaluations were designed to test whether a particular manner of delivering

the same kinds of caseworker activities (e.g., anything from help paying a utility bill to

counseling about effective and appropriate child discipline) could produce better outcomes for

children and families.

The most-scrutinized intensive family preservation services delivery model (Homebuilders)

provides that services must be initiated quickly (within 72 hours of a “crisis” that precipitated

imminent child removal), that they must be intensive (caseworkers are to be assigned no more

than two families to work with, must be available to those families 24 hours a day, seven days a

week, and are expected to swiftly offer any or all of a full range of material and clinical aids

needed), and they are to be of short duration (4-6 weeks). As these characteristics suggest, the

target population for the delivery of services via the Homebuilders model is families where

children are at imminent risk of removal. This is especially critical to the model’s theory of

effectiveness, which rests on an aspect of “crisis theory” and posits that a family in crisis is at a

juncture where it is particularly amenable to change.

In practice, and for a variety of reasons, providing intensive family preservation services to

families and children who are “imminent risk of foster care removal” has proven difficult. In the

four-site study contracted by HHS and jointly conducted by Westat, the Chapin Hall Center for

Children and James Bell Associates, the evaluators found that even though special precautions

were taken to ensure only families at imminent risk were studied, very small percentages of the

“control group children”—those are children who were randomly assigned to receive regular

caseworker services rather than intensive family preservation services—were actually placed in

foster care within 30 days of their assignment to the study. The share of control group children

who were not placed in foster care during this time period ranged from 89% to 95%. This was

very similar to the share of experimental group children not placed in foster care during the first

30 days after their assignment to the study (89% to 99%).18

Given that targeting intensive family preservation services on children at imminent risk for

removal has been a problem for most or all of the evaluations of this service delivery model, and

that for the multi-site HHS study the evaluators developed special tools meant to ensure only

families most at risk were included in the study, researchers suggest that optimal targeting may

never be achieved. These evaluators also questioned whether many families coming into contact

with child welfare services—and referred to family preservation services—understand themselves

to be at a crisis point. Noting that the lives of families served “are often full of difficulties—

externally imposed and internally generated” they suggest that the imminent removal of a child

might simply be understood as part of a set of ongoing problems rather than as a crisis. For

families with chronic problems, they suggest, a short term dose of services—no matter how

Ibid., pp. 9-1 through 9-4. While the low rate of foster care placement strongly suggests that the evaluation did not

successfully target families in which children were at imminent risk of removal, the evaluators note that even looked at

over the 18-month period during which the study followed families, those that received intensive family preservation

services did not have a reduced likelihood of placement. Finally, even though placement was not “imminent” for these

families, they do appear to have been at greater risk for placement and thus arguably in need of services; indeed 18

months after the study was initiated anywhere from about one-fifth to more than one-third of the families receiving

family preservation services (as well as those in the control group who did not receive services) had experienced at

least one placement.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

intense—would be unlikely to resolve all or many of the chronic concerns. Noting that the

intensive family preservation services provided did not harm families, the evaluators also made it

clear that services for many families whose children are not in foster care are still needed.

However, given the heterogeneity of the child welfare needs of these families (child behavioral

problems, child abuse, child neglect, suspected child abuse or neglect, etc.), they suggest that a

single service delivery model providing access to relatively general services is unlikely to work

for everyone.19

What Next for Family Preservation Services?

The federal statute does not provide that a specific family preservation services delivery model

must be used by states and HHS explicitly declined to do this when it issued program regulations.

In addition, the discouraging evaluation data on intensive family preservation services is not new

(some suggestions of the current findings were available even as the program was being federally

implemented in the middle 1990s). States then have had ample time to adjust or otherwise change

their models of service delivery, although much remains to be learned about what the most

effective services and delivery of those services might be. Researchers have suggested more study

of the effectiveness of specific caseworker activities, more effective and more selectively

delivered parent training classes (which are a staple service in both preservation and reunification

cases) and different service delivery models, or activities on behalf of specific subgroups of child

welfare clients (e.g., young mothers or families with substance abuse concerns) are needed.20

Need for In-Home Services

Apart from the specific way in-home services are delivered to families, there remains an apparent

need for services to families in which children have not been removed from their homes but have

been maltreated in those homes. Of the estimated 872,000 children found to be victims of child

Ibid., pp. 9-11-9-20.

See, for instance, Julia Littell and John R. Shuerman, “What Works Best for Whom? A Closer Look at Intensive

Family Preservation Services,” Children and Youth Services Review 24 (September/October 2002) 9/10:673-699,

which compared subgroups of service recipients (based on characteristics of presenting problems) and found that the

likelihood of out-of-home placement, subsequent maltreatment, or case closing was not affected by the duration of

services, service intensity, or provision of specific services. Joseph P. Ryan and John R. Schuerman, “Matching family

problems with specific family preservation services: a study of service effectiveness,” Children and Youth Services

Review 26 (April 2004) 4:347-372, which re-examined data on the provision of “problem-related” services to families

who were previously included in an experimental study group receiving intensive family preservation services and who

reported some difficulty paying bills; it found that provision of clothing/furniture/supplies and housing assistance was

associated with a reduced risk of subsequent maltreatment, while participation in an income support program increased

risk of maltreatment; at the same time provision of cash aid and clothing/furniture supplies were found to decrease the

likelihood of out-of-home placement. Richard P. Barth, et al., “Parent-Training Programs in Child Welfare Services:

Planning for a More Evidence-Based Approach to Serving Biological Parents,” Research on Social Work Practice 15

(September oftline2005) 5:353-371, which shows that parent-training is widely “prescribed” by child welfare agencies

and by judges (even when poor parenting is not cited as a concern by the child welfare worker) but that the training is

often made available on an undifferentiated basis to parents with children of a wide range of ages and with different

relationships to the child welfare agency and, also, that the effectiveness of these programs has been little studied.

Robert E. Lewis, “The Effectiveness of Families First Services: An Experimental Study,” Children and Youth Services

Review 27 (May 2005) 5:499-509, which looked at an intensive, short-term, family-based intervention (based on

adaptation of the “Teaching-Family Model” and intensive family preservation services) delivered to families where

child behavioral problems were the issue; it found that families receiving the services reported significant improvement

in child behavior, physical care and resources, parental effectiveness, and parent-child relationships (sustained over a

number of months), when compared to a control group.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

maltreatment in FY2004, a little more than 40% received in-home services (following the

investigation that confirmed their maltreatment), an additional 19% were removed to foster care

while the remaining 41% of these child victims continued to live at home and received no postinvestigation services of any kind. While some of the children may not have been served because

their parents refused assistance offered (unlike removal to foster care, parents generally must

voluntarily participate in services offered to intact families), researchers also note that there may

not be enough of the kind of services needed or there may be long waiting lists for the services.21

Beyond the substantial number of children and families arguably in need of services who do not

receive them, a case-level analysis of findings in the initial Child and Family Services Review

(CFSR) shows that states were less successful in meeting the needs of children and families

served in their own homes, than those with children in foster care. This analysis found that in the

on-site review of cases, in-home cases were significantly more likely than foster care cases to

receive an “area needing improvement” rating for a number of key indicators related to ensuring

the well-being of children and families. These items in which in-home cases were significantly

more likely to receive this rating than foster care cases include those related to

•

assessing child and family needs and providing needed services;

•

involving children/families in case planning;

•

adequate face-to-face worker visits with children; and

•

ensuring that children receive services to meet their educational, mental health

and physical health needs.

In-home cases were also significantly more likely to be rated lower on the safety item related to

reducing risk of harm to children served than were foster care cases.22

This same study also reported on “common challenges” to better state performance and while

these may apply to either foster care or in-home cases, a number are directly related to the

indicators listed above and for which the on-site case reviews revealed specific weakness for inhome cases. Common challenges23 associated with those indicators and identified for many states,

include

•

the agency doesn’t consistently provide sufficient services to address risk of harm

to children, particularly in the in-home services cases;

•

the agency doesn’t consistently monitor families to assess service participation

and change in risk factors to protect children in their homes and prevent removal;

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2004, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 83-84,

Tables 6-3, 6-4.

General Finding From the Child and Family Services Review, no date or author given (accessed October 7, 2004), p.

30. This analysis required use of unpublished CFSR case files and may have been prepared by James Bell Associates.

The full report is online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/genfindings04/

genfindings04.pdf.

Ibid., pp. 8-10. The report identified “common challenges” among the 35 states where the CFSR was conducted in

FY2002-FY2004. (States reviewed in FY2001 were not included because information was extracted using a content

analysis of state final CFSR reports and the format requirements were somewhat different for reports based on reviews

done in that year.) The report includes any issue found in at least one-third of those 35 states as a “common challenge.”

However, all of the issues listed in this report were noted as a challenge for no fewer than one-half of those states.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

•

the agency doesn’t consistently provide appropriate services to meet the

identified needs of children and parents;

•

fathers, mothers, and children (age appropriate) are not sufficiently involved in

case planning;

•

the frequency of face-to-face contacts between workers and children isn’t

consistently sufficient to ensure children’s safety and well being;24

•

the agency is not consistent in providing services to meet children’s identified

education-related needs;

•

the number of dentists/doctors in the state willing to accept Medicaid is not

sufficient to meet the need;

•

there is a lack of mental health services for children; and

•

the agency doesn’t consistently conduct mental health assessments.

In sum, while children in foster care are much discussed as the barometer of states’ child welfare

performance, states’ in-home case loads are generally more sizeable than their foster care

caseloads and the data suggest that not all families are receiving needed services, nor are those

receiving services having their needs fully met.25

Family Support Services

Where family preservation services may be requested once a family has come to the attention of

the child welfare agency (e.g., child maltreatment allegation and/or finding made), family support

services seek to reach families that have not reached that threshold. The central object of these

services is to ensure a child never experiences abuse or neglect and to improve the functioning of

parents on behalf of their children. Typically these services have been provided by community

agencies or groups—rather than by the state or local public child welfare agency—and the “target

family group” is much broader than those typically served by the child welfare agency. Although

family support services may be described (and implemented) as intended for families “at-risk” of

child abuse or neglect, in theory they are designed to benefit any family in a particular

community or neighborhood. Overall, families that receive family support services (such as

parent training or child development classes) would seem much more likely to seek out (or

volunteer) for the service as opposed to families that may be offered these same services (or may

be ordered by the court to participate in them) for family preservation.

See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, State Standards and

Capacity to Track Frequency of Caseworker Visits with Children in Foster Care (OEI-04-03-00350), December 2005.

This report does not deal with in-home cases. However, it found that while most states had standards regarding the

number of visits a child in foster care should receive each month, more than half of the states could not produce

automated statewide reports of the number of caseworker visits actually received by children, and that—of 20 states

that could produce these reports—seven showed that fewer than half of the foster care children were visited monthly

(on average). (Most, but not all of those states, had a monthly visit standard for children in foster care.)

The Child and Family Services Review is intended to comprehensively review a state’s child welfare agency

performance on behalf of the children and families it serves. An in-depth case review of a sample of 50 cases

(generally) was looked at as a part of each of these reviews. Of these cases, half related to children in foster care and

half were related to children served in their homes. For more information, see CRS Report RL32968, Child Welfare:

State Performance on Child and Family Services Reviews, by (name redacted).

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Study Design

Citing the vast range of programs that might fall under the “family support” rubric, the Abt

Associates researchers who conducted the HHS-funded study opted to conduct a “meta-analysis”

of program success.26 This evaluation technique required the researchers to identify previously

conducted studies of a range of family support programs and to organize the data collected in

these studies in such a way that they could generate findings across these studies. For the family

support studies, the researchers coded information from 665 studies (representing 260 different

family support programs) that were conducted after 1965 in Canada, the United States or Great

Britain.

Kinds of Programs Evaluated

To be included in the meta-analysis, a study needed to evaluate a program that provided services

intended to improve child outcomes by strengthening the capacity of parents to support their

children’s development.27 Accordingly, nearly all the programs included in the meta-analysis had

goals of improved parenting (98%) and child development (91%). Most services were delivered

in the family home (62%) but other settings (in descending order of frequency) included hospital

or clinic, school, community center, university -college, and public or private agency. Home visits

were a primary service delivery mode, followed, in descending order of frequency, by parent

meetings/classes/ groups, parent-child classes/groups and group early education for children.

Most programs (87%) used at least some staff with a degree and formal training. Finally, although

the original family support programs were neighborhood-based and available to all in the

community, many programs targeted specific populations. About 88% of the family support

programs included in the meta-analysis targeted families believed to be at certain environmental

risk (e.g., poverty, risk of abuse or neglect, teen parenthood), those with certain biological risks

(e.g., low-birth weight baby, developmental delay, behavior problems) or a combination of these

populations. Most services were available to families for less than one year and families received

relatively small amounts of service (measured in number of hours per month).

Findings

Overall, the meta-analysis showed that family support programs have small but consistent and

(statistically) significant positive effects in children’s cognitive development and their social and

emotional development.28 Programs that had larger positive effects on children’s cognitive

Abt Associates, National Evaluation of Family Support Programs, Volume A: The Meta-Analysis, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2001.

These studies included both quasi-experimental research findings and experimental research findings (separately

coded to allow for comparison). In addition, the researchers coded descriptive information for 167 family support

programs where the studies did not have outcome information. This was done to ensure the full spectrum of family

support programs were included in the meta-analysis. However, based on this descriptive data the researchers noted

that while both evaluated and unevaluated programs had similar goals and types of services, there were certain

differences between the programs. Thus, they concluded that the full range of family support programs has not been

truly evaluated. Descriptive differences they note are that evaluated programs were more likely to target their services

to a specific population and to use home visits as their primary mode of service delivery, and they were less likely to

use center-based early childhood education as a primary mode of service delivery and to use para-professionals or nonprofessionals to provide parenting education.

However, the researchers caution that in each of these cases “a small group of programs” accounted for the

statistically significant positive effect. That is more than half of the studies reported an effect size that was considered

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

outcomes were those that focused on children with special needs (either biological or

developmental), or provided early childhood education directly to children, or provided parents

with opportunities for peer support. Programs that used home visiting as a primary service had

less effect on children’s cognitive outcomes. Although on an overall basis, child safety was not

otherwise shown to be meaningfully affected, programs that targeted teen parents with young

children and combined case management with parent-child activities were more effective in

protecting children from accidental injury, abuse or neglect. Finally, family support programs

were not shown to have a meaningful effect on children’s health and physical development.

With regard to parent/family outcomes, the study showed that overall family support programs

have small but consistent and statistically significant positive effects in parenting attitudes and

knowledge, parenting behavior, and family functioning.29 Programs that used professional staff to

help parents to be effective adults, and that provide opportunities for parents to meet in support

groups, were more effective in producing positive outcomes for parents. The programs that had

greatest effect on parents’ attitudes towards and knowledge of child-rearing and child

development were those that work with special needs children and provided opportunities for

peer support. The meta-analysis found no or little meaningful effect of family support programs

on parent mental health, nor on family economic self-sufficiency.

Other Services

In contrast to the large scale family preservation and family support studies, HHS has recently

directed the PSSF evaluation funds towards generally smaller scale projects that look at one kind

of service or program design (often at a single site). In recent years projects funded include those

related to strengthening and promoting healthy marriage, the meaning of termination of parental

rights for older foster children, fathers involvement in permanency planning and child welfare

casework, Early Head Start services provided to child welfare families, interventions for

substance abusing parents, post-adoption services, and adoption promotion efforts, intensive

family reunification efforts, and provision of crisis nursery/respite care service. Research and/or

evaluation is ongoing for most of these projects.30

Planning and Reporting

The 1993 law (P.L. 103-66) establishing funding for child and family services under Title IV-B,

Subpart 2, both encouraged and required states to engage in planning how these services would

be delivered. The law requires states to consult with “appropriate public and nonprofit private

agencies” with experience in administering services to children and families and to (jointly with

HHS) prepare a five-year plan, which establishes the goals the state intends to accomplish and

describes the methods that will be used to measure progress toward accomplishing those goals. It

(...continued)

not statistically significant.

However, the researchers caution that in each of these cases “a small group of programs” accounted for the

statistically significant positive effect. That is more than half of the studies reported an effect size that was considered

not statistically significant.

See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Second Biennial Report to the Congress on Evaluation,

Research and Technical Assistance Activities Supported by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, 2005 and

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, First Biennial Report to the Congress on Evaluation, Research and

Technical Assistance Activities Supported by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, 2003.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

further requires states to annually review and report on progress toward achieving these goals and

to make any necessary adjustments to the plan that reflect changed circumstances. States must

continually be engaged in this planning and review process. That is, every five years the state

must establish a new five-year plan and begin annual progress reviews and reports of that plan.

Beyond these requirements, the 1993 legislation encouraged states to take planning seriously by

permitting each state to use up to $1 million of its first year grant (FY1994) for planning purposes

and providing that this spending on planning did not need to be matched with state spending.

The policy guidance and subsequent regulations from HHS further encouraged and required this

extensive planning. As ultimately implemented by HHS, the regulation consolidated a number of

child welfare program planning requirements into a single Child and Family Services Plan. States

submit this single five-year plan (the most recent was due in June 2004 for the period FY2005FY2009), and annual progress reports. In addition to the requirements related to the PSSF

programs, this plan must include the assurances required for receipt of funds for Child Welfare

Services (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act), Basic State Grants (Section 106 of the

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), and the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program

and related Education and Training Vouchers (both in Section 477 of the Social Security Act).

Also, as part of the annual progress report, states must estimate their total child welfare spending

for the upcoming fiscal year, across the full continuum of services and noting amounts used from

all federal funding streams (as well as state and local funding). Finally, HHS permits states to use

their PSSF funds for these planning purposes without having those funds count towards the limit

on use of PSSF funds which is set at 10%.

Both the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the final rule for implementing Title IV-B,

Subpart 2 emphasized the importance of collaborating broadly when creating this plan to ensure

the full continuum of child and family services was considered and planned for and to leverage as

many resources as possible for the program’s purposes.31 Studying the implementation of the

program, James Bell Associates found that most states engaged in extensive planning and that the

focus on collaboration meant increased community and consumer involvement. Initially, over the

14 states where implementation case studies were conducted, most (8) developed a state-level

collaborative body that made the decisions about how PSSF funds would be used; that is to say

the locus of decision making was outside the state child welfare agency. In part, this no doubt

stems from the inclusion of family support on an equal basis with family preservation in the

statute. Where family preservation has a long history of child welfare agency implementation,

family support was (and remains) outside the traditional child welfare agency purview. Following

passage of ASFA (P.L., 105-89) and the addition of two new service categories (time-limited

family reunification and adoption promotion and support)—both of which were much more

closely aligned with traditional child welfare programs—the locus of decision-making shifted

back toward the state child welfare agency in the majority of the case study sites.32

Proposed rule—59 Federal Register 191 (October 4, 1994), pp. 50646-50672. Final rule—61 Federal Register 223

(November 18, 1996), pp. 58632-58633. HHS did not revise these rules following the addition of two new service

categories by ASFA (P.L. 105-89) but has instead issued policy guidance concerning changes necessitated by ASFA

and subsequent reauthorizations.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family Preservation and Family Support Services Implementation

Study, Final Report, Volume 1, Synthesis Report, James Bell Associates, Inc., Arlington, VA, April 30, 2003, pp. 4560.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Limited Information on Current Program

Since the Bell study, which as one part of its implementation study made an analysis of the annual

progress reports submitted by states for FY1999-FY2002, there has been no comparable study of

state spending plans. That analysis showed that most states were spreading their PSSF funding

across all four categories. At the same time, that report noted that the overlap in service

categories—because family support and family preservation might fund the same service (but

presumably for a different population) and because the newest service categories (time-limited

reunification and adoption promotion and support) could be understood as subsets of the initial

service categories of family support and family preservation—it was not easy to accurately report

spending in the statutorily defined categories. In addition, the consolidated planning and lack of a

single plan format made it hard to consistently track how funds were being spent across the

states.33

The researchers suggested that how funds were used (or planned to be used) might better be

understood based on where the service was delivered (in the home, child welfare office, school,

community center, clinic, etc.) and/or who the service was targeted on (families in process of

reunification, families with recently reported abuse or neglect, teenage parents, parents of

children with problem behavior, etc.). The report did track the planned use of PSSF funds for 17

specific kinds of activities between FY1999-FY2002. These included home visiting and family

centers, information and referral, recreation, basic needs, employment services, health services,

child care, prevention services, parent support, parent skills training, mentoring, respite care,

domestic violence, drug/alcohol assessment/treatment, counseling/mental health services, “family

preservation” (more narrowly defined than the statute), time-limited family reunification and

adoption promotion and support. Although the researchers had increasing difficulty in linking

PSSF funding to specific activities (due to consolidation of program planning and reporting), they

noted especially large drops in the number of states reporting that they planned to use these funds

for child care (decreased from 21 states in FY1999 to 5 for FY2002), parent support and skills

training (decreased from 27 states to 11 states and from 33 states to 12 respectively) and “family

preservation”(decreased from 34 states to 19 states).

Reporting Requirements

The PSSF reporting requirements are, for the most part, a subset of the planning requirements.

States must send their five-year plans to HHS and as a part of their Annual Progress Review and

Report, are required to provide separate descriptions of the family preservation, family support,

time-limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support services they intend to

provide under the plan in the upcoming year; the populations to be served; and the geographic

areas where the services will be available.

Just prior to the 2006 amendments (P.L 109-288), these plans were sent to HHS regional offices

of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), rather than to the central Washington,

D.C. office), and while they are required to be made available to the public, they were for the

most part, not produced in any standard format and were not necessarily easy to compare or

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Analysis of States’ Annual Progress and Services Reports and Child

and Family Services Plans (1999-2002), The Family Preservation and Family Support Services Implementation Study,

James Bell Associates, Arlington, VA, April 5, 2002, pp. 34-46.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

collect. Further all of the reporting requirements were prospective—providing information on

what a state plans to do with its money rather than what it has actually done with the money.

P.L. 109-288 amended the reporting requirements so that certain parts of the report must now

include information on how the state actually spent PSSF (and Child Welfare Services) funds as

well as continuing to provide information on planned spending. In addition, the law requires HHS

to annually compile this information in a report for Congress.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

Appendix D. Selected Federal Programs with

Related Purposes

Some other federal programs share purposes similar to those of the Promoting Safe and Stable

Families Program.

Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP)

Authorized by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) the

Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) program provides funds to each state

(including the District of Columbia), territories, and tribes to support community-based services

to prevent child maltreatment. The program purposes most closely match the category of PSSF

services described as “family support.” However, funds under this program are not available for

direct use by the state child welfare agency but must be sent to community-based groups that

provide family support and family resource services.

Funds are distributed by formula to a lead state agency (which may or may not be the state child

welfare agency); the lead agency is responsible for ensuring coordination of services and for

distributing funds to community-based groups that provide (or can refer families to) core family

resource and support services. The statute describes these core services to, among other things,

include—parent education, mutual support and self help; voluntary home visiting; and respite

care. Other services, which CBCAP local grantees may provide access to include referrals to

counseling for adoption (for those seeking to adopt or to relinquish a child for adoption); child

care, early childhood development and intervention services; referrals to services and supports to

meet special needs of families with children with disabilities; referrals to job readiness services;

referrals to educational services; life management skills training; and others.

Like Title I of CAPTA, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) and the House

Education and Labor committees have generally exercised jurisdiction over this program. It was

most recently amended and re-authorized in 2003 (P.L. 108-36). That legislation raised the

program’s authorization level to $80 million for FY2004, and such sums as necessary for each of

FY2005-FY2008. However, the program has never received more than the $43 million that was

appropriated for it in FY2005. For FY2006 the program received $42 million and (under P.L.

110-5) it is expected to receive the same sum in FY2007.

Child Welfare Services

Authorized by Title IV-B, Subpart 1, Child Welfare Services is the oldest federal program

supporting state child welfare activities and was first authorized as part of the original 1935

Social Security Act.34 P.L. 109-288 made a number of changes to this program and by changing

its funding authorization from indefinite (no year limit) to the same schedule as the PSSF

program (funding authorization will expire with FY2011), appears to promote somewhat closer

alignment of the programs. Child Welfare Services funds are distributed to states (including the

District of Columbia), territories, and tribes. The funds may be used to support a broad range of

The program was originally authorized in Title V, Part 3 of the Social Security Act and was moved to a newly

created Title IV-B by the Social Security Act Amendments of 1967.

Congressional Research Service

Child Welfare: Enactment of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006

services to children and families, which are intended to protect children who have been abused or

neglected or are at risk of maltreatment and may take various forms, ranging from counseling and

other supports for parents (intended to improve child well-being, prevent child abuse and neglect

and preserve a family), to removal of the children from their homes and provision of services to

parents to enable safe and appropriate return of children to their own homes. When efforts to

reunite are not appropriate or do not succeed, child welfare services may include termination of

parental rights, placement of the children for adoption, and provision of post adoption services.

States may use Child Welfare Services, generally, for a wider range of activities than are

permitted under PSSF and a 2003 General Accounting Office (GAO) study found that despite

considerable overlap in the purposes, states used the bulk of their Child Welfare Services and

PSSF grants to fund significantly different activities. For instance, while states reported spending

both Child Welfare Services and PSSF funds to support family support/prevention, family

preservation, family reunification, and adoption support and preservation services, they reported

using just 11% of their Child Welfare Services funds for these purposes compared to 82% of their

PSSF funds. States expended the largest share of Child Welfare Funds (71%) for child welfare

worker salaries, administration and management, child protective services, and foster care

maintenance payments. (PSSF expenditures for those purposes equaled just 8% of state PSSF

spending.35)

The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have exercised

jurisdiction over Child Welfare Services. Since 1990, the program has had a discretionary fu

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.