Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress
Congressional research reportJun 17, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ
ȱ£ȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱŗŝǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŚřŞŞȱ
ȱȱȱ
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states have the primary obligation to ensure child
welfare. However, Congress provides significant federal funds to help states exercise this
responsibility ($7.9 billion appropriated in FY2008). Most of this support is provided for children
who are in foster care and who meet specific federal eligibility criteria. This report discusses the
federal framework for child welfare policy; reviews the scope of activities, and children and
families served, by state child welfare agencies; summarizes several child welfare-related
hearings that were held in 2007; describes child welfare and related legislative proposals that
have been introduced in the 110th Congress; and reviews child welfare programs for which
funding authorization has expired or is set to expire on the last day of FY2008.
Child welfare agencies seek to ensure the well-being of children and their families, including
protecting children from abuse or neglect and ensuring that they have a safe and permanent home.
In FY2006 child protection agencies found 905,000 children to be victims of abuse or neglect.
Some of these children were removed to foster care, some remained in their homes and received
services, while others received no further follow-up from the agency. After reaching a recorded
high of 567,000 on the last day of FY1999, the number of children in foster care has declined by
about 10%, and on the last day of FY2006, an estimated 510,000 children were in foster care.
Less than half of these children are eligible for federal foster care support under Title IV-E of the
Social Security Act.
Legislation that would respond to a number of the concerns raised in 2007 child welfare hearings
has been introduced in the 110th Congress. These proposals would expand the eligible populations
served with Title IV-E funds to include (potentially) all children in foster care or adopted (with
special needs) from foster care (H.R. 5466, H.R. 4207, S. 2900, S. 1462, H.R. 4091, and S. 3038),
as well as children leaving foster care for legal guardianship with a relative (S. 661, H.R. 2188,
H.R. 5466, and S. 3038), and youth who choose to remain in foster care until their 21st birthday
(S. 1512, H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 5466). Other introduced proposals would authorize
additional support for child and family services (H.R. 5466 and S. 2237); authorize or require
new services or protections for children in, or about to enter, foster care (H.R. 3283, S. 379, S.
382, H.R. 687, and H.R. 5466); seek to improve services for youth who have, or are expected to,
age out of care (S. 2341, H.R. 2188, H.R. 4208/S. 2560, and H.R. 3409); help support or permit
access to services for kinship caregivers and further encourage their use as caregivers (S. 661,
H.R. 2188, H.R. 5645, and H.R. 5466); provide new support for training or other related efforts to
improve the child welfare workforce (H.R. 5466, H.R. 2314 and S. 2944); aim to improve foster
and adoptive parent recruitment efforts (S. 2395 and H.R. 4198); permit direct access to federal
Title IV-E funds for tribal governments (S. 1956, H.R. 4688, and H.R. 5466); and make other
related changes intended to enhance the welfare of children, including requiring states to have
licensing standards for certain residential programs for youth with emotional or behavioral issues
(H.R. 5876), and expanding or making permanent the current Adoption Tax Credit rules (H.R.
273, H.R. 471, S. 561, H.R. 1074, H.R. 3192, and H.R. 4313). This report will be updated as
legislative activity occurs.
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Federal-State Framework for Child Welfare Policy ........................................................................ 1
Child Maltreatment and Children in Foster Care ............................................................................ 2
Scope of Children and Families Served .................................................................................... 4
Activities of the Child Welfare Agency .............................................................................. 6
Federal Child Welfare Funding in FY2008......................................................................... 7
Federal Program Administration......................................................................................... 7
Congressional Committee Work ......................................................................................... 8
Funding Authority............................................................................................................... 8
Child Welfare Hearings in the 110th Congress............................................................................... 10
Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System................................................................... 10
Youth Aging-Out of Foster Care ........................................................................................11
Health Care for Children in Foster Care ........................................................................... 13
Prescription Psychotropic Drug ........................................................................................ 14
Legislative Proposals for Change.................................................................................................. 14
Proposals to Expand Title IV-E Eligible Populations.............................................................. 14
De-Link Foster Care and Adoption Assistance from AFDC Rules................................... 15
De-Link Adoption Assistance ........................................................................................... 17
Support for Subsidized Guardianship ............................................................................... 18
Extending the Age Limit for Federal Foster Care Assistance ........................................... 22
Funding for Services to Children and Families....................................................................... 24
Title IV-E Child and Family Services Component ........................................................... 24
Maintenance of Effort Provisions and Service Spending ................................................. 25
Transfer of “Unused” Title IV-E Funds for Services and Training................................... 25
Additional Funding Authorization Sought........................................................................ 26
Improving Services for Older Current or Former Foster Youth .............................................. 26
Foster Child Protections.................................................................................................... 27
Social Services.................................................................................................................. 27
Education Attainment........................................................................................................ 29
Medical Assistance............................................................................................................ 30
Other Supports or Assistance Proposed ............................................................................ 31
Services and Protections for Children in Foster Care ............................................................. 32
Educational Stability......................................................................................................... 32
Coordination of Child Welfare and Medical Services ...................................................... 33
Reasonable Efforts to Place Siblings Together ................................................................. 34
Access to Court Advocates ............................................................................................... 35
Provision of Mentoring..................................................................................................... 36
Reducing the Number of Children Who Run Away from Foster Care ............................. 37
Preventing Certain Foster Care Placements ............................................................................ 37
Prohibition on Removal Related to Homelessness ........................................................... 37
Alternative to Relinquishment for Mental Health Reasons .............................................. 37
Other Supports and Services for Kinship Care Providers ....................................................... 38
Children Cared for by Relatives ....................................................................................... 39
Kinship Navigator............................................................................................................. 40
Family Connection Grants ................................................................................................ 40
Notify Relatives of a Child’s Placement in Foster Care ................................................... 41
Licensing Standards .......................................................................................................... 41
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ
Housing Support ............................................................................................................... 43
Additional Provisions Related to Kin Accessing Services................................................ 43
Foster and Adoptive Parent Recruitment ................................................................................ 43
Tribal Access to Title IV-E Funds and Technical Assistance .................................................. 46
Tribal Access to Title IV-E Funds ..................................................................................... 46
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Tribes ......................................................... 48
Improving the Child Welfare Workforce................................................................................. 48
Grants to Support Quality Child Welfare Workers ........................................................... 48
Increased Federal Support for Staff Training.................................................................... 49
Other Child Welfare or Related Proposals .............................................................................. 50
Home Visiting ................................................................................................................... 50
Parenting Education.......................................................................................................... 51
Infant Safe Haven ............................................................................................................. 52
Children of Incarcerated Parents....................................................................................... 54
Court Teams for Maltreated Infants and Toddlers............................................................. 55
White House Conference on Children and Youth ............................................................. 56
Adoption Tax Credit.......................................................................................................... 56
Post-Adoption Services for Birthparents .......................................................................... 59
Expired or Expiring Programs....................................................................................................... 59
Adoption Incentives.......................................................................................................... 59
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) ..................................................... 61
Adoption Opportunities .................................................................................................... 62
Abandoned Infants Assistance .......................................................................................... 63
Children’s Advocacy Centers............................................................................................ 64
Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners ............................................................. 64
Adoption Awareness ......................................................................................................... 65
ȱ
Figure 1. Children Brought to the Attention of, or Served by, Child Welfare Agencies;
National Estimates 2006............................................................................................................... 5
ȱ
Table 1. National Estimates of Children Found To Be Victims of Abuse or Neglect,
Entering Foster Care, and Remaining in Foster Care, 1990-2006................................................ 3
Table 2. Selected Child Welfare Programs by Funding Authority, FY2008 Appropriation
(Enacted Funding), and Committee.............................................................................................. 9
Table B-1. Eligibility Criteria........................................................................................................ 71
¡ȱ
Appendix A. Other Financing Proposals ....................................................................................... 66
Appendix B. Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Criteria................................................................ 71
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ
ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 72
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
C
ȱ
hild welfare agencies seek to ensure the well-being of children and their families,
including protecting children from abuse or neglect and ensuring that they have a safe and
permanent home.
Ȭȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
As the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted, states have the primary obligation to ensure child
welfare. At the state level, the child welfare “system” consists of state and local judges and other
court personnel, prosecutors, law enforcement personnel, and public and private social service
workers. These representatives of various state and local entities investigate allegations of child
abuse and neglect, provide services to families in their own homes, remove children from homes
if necessary, and supervise and administer payments for children in out-of-home settings.
Federal involvement in child welfare is tied to the financial assistance it provides to states to
conduct these activities. In FY2008, Congress appropriated just under $7.9 billion for child
welfare purposes. The bulk ($4.6 billion) of this money was appropriated to reimburse states for
the cost of providing foster care for children who meet federal eligibility criteria (estimated 43%
of national foster care caseload in FY2006). Beginning in the early 1960s, the federal government
has paid for part of the cost of foster care for children who would have been entitled to federally
assisted cash welfare had they continued to live in their own homes. (In essence, the cash aid was
expected to follow the child into foster care.) States had primary responsibility to pay the full
foster care costs for other children who were removed from their homes. In the 1996 welfare
reform law (P.L. 104-193), Congress ended the entitlement to cash aid for needy families with
children and converted funding for this purpose to a block grant. At the same time, it continued to
require that only children removed from homes that would have met the eligibility requirements
for cash aid under the state’s pre-1996 welfare-reform rules would be eligible for federal foster
care assistance.
As a condition of receiving these foster care and other child welfare funds, states are required to
abide by a series of federal child welfare policies.1 Federal child welfare policies focus, overall,
on ensuring safety and well-being for all children served. However, the most specific and
extensive requirements are designed for the protection of children in foster care, especially to
ensure them a safe and permanent home. These protections must generally be provided to all
children in foster care, regardless of whether they meet federal foster care eligibility criteria. State
compliance with the majority of these federal requirements is checked as part of the Child and
Family Services Review (CFSR). A state that is not in “substantial conformity” with federal child
welfare policy—as determined by the review—must implement a Program Improvement Plan (
PIP). The state typically has two years to implement a PIP. The PIP must successfully address the
compliance issues identified by the CFSR or the state faces a loss of a part of their federal child
welfare funding.2
1
For more information about specific program requirements, see CRS Report RL31242, Child Welfare: Federal
Program Requirements for States, by (name redacted).
2
The CFSR was designed by HHS to meet the conformity review requirements mandated by Congress in 1994 (P.L.
103-432) and enacted as Section 1123A of the Social Security Act. The initial round of the CFSR was conducted from
2001 through 2004, and all states were required to take some corrective actions. A second round of reviews is now
underway and is expected to continue into FY2010. For more information, see CRS Report RL32968, Child Welfare:
State Performance on Child and Family Services Reviews, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
In FY2006, an estimated 905,000 U.S. children, or about 12.1 children for every 1,000 in the
general population, were found to be victims of abuse or neglect; an estimated 1,530 children
died due to abuse or neglect in that year. The rate of reported child maltreatment victims has been
about 12 children per 1,000 children in the national population in every year since 1999. This rate
is well below the recorded highs in the early to mid-1990s (1992-1996), when the rate ranged
around 15 victims for every 1,000 children in the population and the number of child victims was
counted as more than 1 million annually. (See Table 1.) For FY2006, states reported 64% of child
victims experienced neglect, 16% were found to have experienced physical abuse, 9% sexual
abuse, 7% psychological maltreatment, 2% medical neglect, and 14% “other abuse.”3 These
shares were fairly constant between 2000 and 2006, although the rate of children found to have
experienced neglect increased somewhat while the rate of children found to have experienced
physical abuse or sexual abuse declined somewhat.4
Preliminary estimates show 510,000 children were in foster care on the last day of FY2006 (or
about 6.8 per every 1,000 children in the general population). This represents a modest decline
from the estimated 511,000 children in care on the last day of FY2005, but is well below the
recorded high of 567,000 children in care on the last day of FY1999 (when there were about 8.0
children in foster care per 1,000 in the population).5 (See Table 1.)
Overall, the national foster care caseload declined by about 10% between FY1999 and FY2006;
however, this decline has not been shared by all states. Between FY1999 and FY2006 (most
recent year state-level data are available), less than half of all the states (24, including Puerto Rico
and the District of Columbia) reported reductions in their foster care caseload, ranging from a less
than 1% decline in Connecticut (40 children) and Michigan (200 children) to a nearly 47%
decline in Illinois (16,000 children). Along with Illinois, California and New York posted the
greatest numerical and percentage change declines in their caseloads between the last days of
FY1999 and FY2006: California’s caseload dropped by close to 40,000 children (34% decline);
New York’s caseload declined by more than 21,000 children (41% decline).6 Over the FY1999FY2006 time period, slightly more states (27) posted increases in their caseloads.7 These ranged
from an increase of about 3% (more than 300 children) in Massachusetts to increases of 93%
(close to 900 children) in Idaho, 89% in Texas (nearly 15,000 children) and 86% in Iowa (more
than 4,000 children). In addition, five states (WY, SD, OK, AZ, and WV)8 saw caseload increases
3
Some children experience more than one type of maltreatment. These percentages total more than 100 because a child
may be included in as many categories as the types of maltreatment he or she experienced.
4
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, Child
Maltreatment 2006, (April 2008) (hereafter Child Maltreatment 2006 [or another year in the series]) and unpublished
state-reported data received from the Children’s Bureau.
5
The number of children in foster care includes some youth age 18 or older. However, the comparison to the general
population is made with population estimates of individuals age 17 or younger.
6
The state of Maine also saw a caseload decline of more than 34% over those same years, which reduced the number
of children in the state’s caseload by more than 1,000 (with nearly all of the decrease occurring since FY2002).
7
Mississippi’s caseload was virtually unchanged between the last day of FY1999 (3,196 children in care) and the last
day of FY2006 (3,203 children in care). It is not included in the count of states showing an increased caseload.
8
The percentage increase and the increased number of children this represents for these states are: WV - 33%, 1,100
children; AZ - 38%, 2,700 children; OK - 45%, 3,600 children; SD - 50%, 550 children; WY - 68%, 520 children.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
in their foster care caseloads ranging from roughly one-third to two-thirds between the last day of
FY1999 and the last day of FY2006.9
The overall number of children in care on the last day of a given year rises or falls depending
upon both the number of entries to foster care, that is children who are removed from their homes
in a given year, and the number of exits in that same year, that is children reunited with their
families, adopted, emancipated, or placed in another permanent setting. Nationally, the number of
children reported as having exited foster care has risen from an estimated 250,000 in FY1999 to
an estimated 289,000 in FY2006. (However, this is understood as an undercount because some
states do not report all exits from foster care.10) Nationally, the number of children who entered
foster care may be trending up. During FY2006 (most recent year for which data are available),
the number of children who entered foster care in FY2006 was estimated as 303,000 compared to
293,000 children who entered in FY1999. Table 1 indicates that this represents a rate of about 4.1
children per 1,000 in the population in both of those years. However, during the period of greatest
recorded decline in the national caseload, FY2000 through FY2004, the rate of children entering
foster care also declined, reaching a low point of 3.9 in FY2003.
Table 1 shows national estimates of the total number and the rate (i.e. the number of children per
1,000 in the population) who were found to be victims of child maltreatment, who entered foster
care, and who were in care on the last day of the fiscal year.
Table 1. National Estimates of Children Found To Be Victims of Abuse or Neglect,
Entering Foster Care, and Remaining in Foster Care, 1990-2006
(Rate refers to the number of children per 1,000 in the general child population)
Yeara Children Found to Be Victims of
Abuse or Neglectb
Entering Foster Care
During the Yearb
In Foster Care on the Last
Day of the Yearb
Total
Rate
Total
Rate
Total
Ratec
1990
860,000
13.4
238,000
3.7
400,000
6.2
1991
911,000
14.0
224,000
3.4
414,000
6.4
1992
998,000
15.1
238,000
3.6
427,000
6.5
1993
1,025,000
15.3
230,000
3.4
445,000
6.6
1994
1,031,000
15.2
254,000
3.7
468.000
6.9
1995
1,006,000
14.7
255,000
3.7
483,000
7.0
1996
1,015,000
14.7
237,000
3.4
507,000
7.3
1997
953,000
13.7
251,000
3.6
537,000
7.7
9
Caseload changes are based on children reported in care on the last day of FY1999 compared to those reported in care
for the last day of FY2006. Available data includes 49 states, plus DC, and PR. Data for NV are not available for
FY1999, so the state is excluded from this analysis. Based on caseload data compiled by U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration of Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, from the Adoption and Foster Care
Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS). FY2006 caseload estimates are as reported by states as of March 2008;
FY1999 caseload estimates are as reported by states as of April 2005. Hereafter USDHHS, Caseload Estimates, March
2008 and April 2005.
10
See discussion following footnotes in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children
and Families, Children’s Bureau, “Trends in Adoption and Foster Care, 2000-2006” (according to data submitted as of
January 2008).
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
Yeara Children Found to Be Victims of
Abuse or Neglectb
Entering Foster Care
During the Yearb
In Foster Care on the Last
Day of the Yearb
Total
Rate
Total
Rate
Total
Ratec
1998
904,000
12.9
299,000
4.2
559,000
7.9
1999
828,000
11.8
293,000
4.1
567,000
8.0
2000
883,000
12.2
293,000
4.0
552,000
7.5
2001
905,000
12.5
296,000
4.0
545,000
7.4
2002
910,000
12.3
295,000
4.0
523,000
7.1
2003
905,000
12.2
289,000
3.9
510,000
6.9
2004
892,000
12.0
298,000
4.0
507,000
6.8
2005
900,000
12.1
308,000
4.1
511,000
6.9
2006
905,000
12.1
303,000
4.1
510,000
6.8
Child abuse and neglect victims and rate are as reported in U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Children’s Bureau, Child Maltreatment 2004,
April 2006, Table 3-3, as amended and updated by Child Maltreatment 2006 (April 2008), Table 3-2. Children
entering, and in, foster care FY1990-FY1997 are based on estimates provided in U.S. Congress, House of
Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, Green Book 2004, and for remaining years are based on
estimates (final, interim, or preliminary) provided by HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau.
Note: Child population data used to calculate the rates of children entering or in care are not shown in this
table but are drawn from U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for individuals under the age of 18. The
population estimates used included children in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and (beginning with 1998)
Puerto Rico.
a. Data on child maltreatment victims were reported by calendar year from 1990 through 2002 and by fiscal
year in 2003 and each year thereafter. Reporting methodologies related to children entering or in care
varied over time. However, beginning no later than 1995, estimates of children entering foster care refer to
those who entered at any time during the fiscal year and for children in foster care refer to those in care on
the last day of the fiscal year.
b. Data from Puerto Rico is estimated regarding child maltreatment for the first time in 2002 and regarding
entries to foster care and children in foster care beginning, at least, with 1998.
c. A relatively small, but possibly growing number of children in foster care are 18 years of age or older. These
youth are included in the calculation of the rate, even though the population estimates used are of
individuals under the age of 18 only.
Source:
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Federal child welfare policy has sometimes been considered synonymous with foster care policy,
and most federal dedicated funding and policy proscriptions are related to children in foster care.
At the same time, the mission of child welfare agencies, as described in federal policy, and the
group of children and families those agencies work with, is far broader.
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Figure 1. Children Brought to the Attention of, or Served by,
Child Welfare Agencies; National Estimates 2006
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2006 (April 2008); Adoption and
Foster Care Analysis Reporting System, “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption” (January 2008); State Title IV-E
foster care expenditure claims for FY2006.
Source:
During FY2006 (most recent data available), states received allegations of abuse or neglect
related to roughly six million children. Many of these allegations were “screened out,” and no
further attention was given to the case. A screen out might occur because the alleged behavior
does not match the state definition of child abuse or neglect, because the case is transferred to
another agency (considered by the child protective services agency to be more appropriate),
because not enough information was provided to follow up on the allegation, or for other reasons.
In the end, states conducted investigations or assessments of abuse or neglect involving some 3.6
million children during FY2006 and found more than 905,000 children to be victims of child
abuse or neglect. States also reported providing post-investigation services to an estimated 1.3
million children, including some of those who were found to be victims as well as some who
were not found to be victims. Most of these children (77%) were served in their homes, and the
remainder were removed to foster care.11
11
Child Maltreatment 2006.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
Although the number of children receiving some services after the investigation (1.3 million)
exceeds the number of victims (905,000), not all victims received post-investigation services.12
Instead, the data reported by states suggest that roughly three out of every five victims received
any services following the investigation. Overall, states reported that, among children found to be
victims of child maltreatment, an estimated 22% were removed to foster care, and roughly equal
portions of the remaining victims were either served in their homes (37%) or received neither inthe-home nor out-of-the home services following the investigation (41%). Among the children
who were not found to be “victims” in the investigation, states reported that more than 4% were
removed to foster care, close to 26% received services in the home, and the remaining 70%
received neither in-the-home nor out-of-the-home services following the close of the
investigation.13
Finally, during FY2006, states reported serving some 799,000 children for at least one day (24
hours) in foster care. This number includes some children who were in care at the beginning of
the year and some of those who entered care during that fiscal year—whether due to abuse or
neglect or another reason (e.g., child behavior). On the last day of the fiscal year (September 30,
2006), an estimated 510,000 children were in foster care.14
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
Federal statute authorizes state child welfare agencies to use federal funds to offer a broad range
of services and other activities toward the central goals of ensuring the well-being of children and
their families and ensuring that children have safe and permanent homes.15 These services and
activities may take a variety of forms and include the following:
•
efforts to educate the public about child abuse or neglect and how to report
suspected maltreatment;
•
efforts to prevent child abuse and neglect and improve child and family wellbeing generally (such as provision of community-based family support services
like parenting education classes);
•
procedures to identify children who have been abused or neglected (such as
operating a hotline to receive and screen referrals and investigating abuse or
neglect allegations);
•
procedures and services to protect children from unsafe home situations by
providing services to prevent the need for their removal (such as parenting
12
Ibid. Not all states reported data on the number of victims and non-victims served following an investigation. The
total numbers and shares of victims served, or not served, are national estimates using data provided by reporting states.
These data should be treated as rough estimates.
13
Children who are non-victims may nonetheless be served because of risk factors identified during the course of the
investigation and consequent efforts intended to prevent future abuse or neglect. The reason that children counted as
“non-victims” are sometimes removed from their homes is not fully understood. These children may be the siblings of
other children who have been found to be victims of maltreatment, they may have been removed for alternative reasons
(e.g., child behavior issue), or there may be other issues (including those related to how states report these data).
14
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS)
data, “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption, FY2002-FY2006.” (Based on data submitted by states as of January 2008.)
15
These broad goals are most clearly expressed in the federal regulations promulgated as part of implementing the Title
IV-B, Subpart 2 program (now known as the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program). See “Principals of Child
and Family Services,” at U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 45CFR 1355.22.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
education, respite care, counseling, or mental health, substance abuse or other
treatment services); or, when necessary, finding a temporary foster home for
children and supporting their stay in foster care;
•
services and activities to enable children removed to foster care to be returned to
their families (e.g. permanency planning; counseling; mental health, substance
abuse, or other treatment services; parenting education; or other supports for
children or their parents);
•
for children and youth who cannot be reunited with their biological parents,
services and activities to enable them to be placed in another permanent family
(e.g. locating and supporting adoptive parents or fit and willing legal guardians
for those children and youth); and
•
procedures to identify children likely to “age out” of foster care without finding a
permanent family and services and activities to enable these youth to succeed as
independent adults (including services and support to youth who have already
aged out of the foster care system).
ȱȱȱȱȱŘŖŖŞȱ
For FY2008, Congress made available just under $7.9 billion in dedicated child welfare funding.
By far the largest amount of this funding is made available for states to help support and provide
certain casework activities (e.g. permanency planning) for eligible children who have been
removed from their birth families—primarily due to abuse or neglect. These include children in
foster care ($4.6 billion) and children who have been adopted (primarily out of foster care) ($2.2
billion). A smaller amount of FY2008 federal child welfare funding ($763 million) is distributed
to all states for a wide range of child and family services and activities. These include to identify
and assess children at risk of child maltreatment; prevent the removal of children from their
homes when possible; plan for and permit the safe reuniting of children in foster care with their
parents (or when this is not possible, plan for and find another permanent home for children in
foster care); and, overall, to provide services intended to ensure the safety and well-being of
children in their homes (whether with biological parents, other relatives, or in foster or adoptive
families). Separately, states receive some funding ($185 million in FY2008) to help youth that are
expected to leave foster care without being placed in a permanent home (or for those who have
already done so) to successfully make the transition to independent adulthood. Finally, funds
totaling $173 million in FY2008 is made available (mostly as competitive grants to eligible
entities) primarily for support of research, demonstration or pilot programs, services and other
activities related to child welfare.16
ȱȱȱ
Nearly all federal child welfare programs are administered by the Children’s Bureau, within the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). A handful of programs (authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act and
related primarily to court adjudication of child abuse cases) are administered by the Office of
Justice Programs within the Department of Justice.
16
For more information, see CRS Report RL34121, Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding, by (name r
edacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
In Congress, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee typically
report legislation related to the largest child welfare programs, all of which are authorized under
the Social Security Act. These include the Title IV-B programs (Child Welfare Services and
Promoting Safe and Stable Families) and the Title IV-E programs (Foster Care and Adoption
Assistance, Adoption Incentives, and the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, including
Education and Training Vouchers).
At the same time, the House Education and Labor Committee and the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee generally report bills amending the grant programs
authorized under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). That law authorizes
grants to states to improve child protective services; grants for research, demonstrations, and
other activities; and grants for community-based services to prevent child abuse and neglect.17
Those same committees have typically dealt with legislative proposals related to two additional
and freestanding programs: Adoption Opportunities and Abandoned Infants Assistance. Finally,
several other committees deal with a variety of competitive grant programs related to child
welfare purposes (see Table 2).
ȱ¢ȱ
Many federal social service programs, including some child welfare programs, have discretionary
and time-limited funding authorizations. This gives Congress the discretion to appropriate funds
for the program (generally up to the amount specified in the authorizing law) for a specific
number of years (e.g., for FY2004-FY2008). A discretionary funding authorization is said to
“expire” once the last year of the funding authorization is completed. Although Congress may
sometimes choose to appropriate funds even after the expiration of the funding authorization,
congressional committees that authorize federal programs often use these dates as a time to revisit
how the programs are working and to consider “reauthorization” legislation.
Other child welfare programs have mandatory funding authorizations—either capped (meaning
the amount of funding that must be provided is specified in the authorizing statute) or open-ended
(meaning the funding level is ultimately determined by the value of eligible claims submitted by
states). The funding for some of these child welfare programs is authorized on a time-limited
basis (like the discretionary authorizations discussed above), while for others it is authorized on a
“permanent” basis. A permanent funding authority may only be ended by repealing the law that
provides for this authority. For programs with a permanent funding authority, there is no need for
“reauthorization” legislation. All the same, just as with programs that have time-limited funding
authorities, an authorizing committee may propose to amend the program at any time.
Table 2 shows selected federal child welfare programs by funding authority (kind, expiration, and
level of the program’s current, or most recent, certain sum funding amount); FY2008
appropriation level; and committee that has previously exercised jurisdiction over the program.
17
In addition to those three grant programs, Section 107 of CAPTA contains the program authority for grants to all
states to improve the handling and prosecution of child abuse and neglect cases. These grants were initially authorized
by the Children’s Justice Act of 1986 (Title I of P.L. 99-401) but program authority was subsequently moved to
CAPTA. At the same time, authority to fund these grants is not provided in CAPTA but remains in a separate law. That
law, the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-473, as amended), authorizes a set-aside of up to $20 million annually
(out of the Crime Victims Fund) for these grants.
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
. Selected Child Welfare Programs by Funding Authority, FY2008
Appropriation (Enacted Funding), and Committee
Table 2
(Funding authority amount is shown as the most recent certain sum funding amount authorized. If a
program’s funding authority has expired, the amount of funding authorized at the time of expiration is
displayed in brackets.)
Program
Kind
Title IV-B of the Social Security Act
Child Welfare Services
(Subpart 1)
Promoting Safe and
Stable Families
Program (Subpart 2)
Title IV-
Funding Authority
Expiration
Amount
FY2008
Approp.
Committeesa
discretionary
FY2011
$325 million
$282
million
$408
million
House: Ways and
Means
Senate: Finance
discretionary and
capped
mandatory
FY2011
$545 million
open-ended
mandatory
open-ended
mandatory
discretionary
capped
mandatory
permanent
permanent
amount
necessary to
pay all eligible
claims
$4.6
billionb
$2.2
billionb
$4 million
$140
million
House: Ways and
Means
Senate: Finance
FY2008
permanent
$43 million
$140 million
permanent
$60 million
$45 million
$27 million House: Education and
Labor
$37 million
Senate: Health,
Education, Labor and
$42 million Pensions (HELP)
E of the Social Security Act
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Adoption Incentives
Chafee Foster Care
Independence Program
(CFCIP)
Education and Training
Vouchers (CFCIP)
discretionary
House: Ways and
Means
Senate: Finance
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
State Grants
Discretionary
Activities
Community-Based
Grants to Prevent
Child Abuse and
Neglect
discretionary
discretionary
FY2008
FY2008
$120 millionc
discretionary
FY2008
$80 millionc
Court Appointed
Special Advocates
Children’s Advocacy
Centers
Training for judges and
judicial practitioners
discretionary
FY2011
$12 million
discretionary
FY2005
[$20 million]
$13 million House: Judiciary
Senate: Judiciary
$17 million
discretionary
FY2005
[$2 million]
$2 million
Victims of Child Abuse Act
ȱȱȱ
şȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
Program
Other Programs
Adoption
Opportunities
Abandoned Infants
Assistance
Adoption Awareness
Kind
Funding Authority
Expiration
Amount
discretionary
FY2008
$40 million
discretionary
FY2008
$45 million
discretionary
FY2005
[such sums as
may be
necessary]
FY2008
Approp.
Committeesa
$26 million House: Education and
Labor
$12 million Senate: HELP
$12 million House: Energy and
Commerce
Senate: HELP
Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The committees listed are those committees that reported the legislation that initially authorized the
program (or reported the most recent legislation amending or reauthorizing the program).
b. The amount of funds provided for the Title IV-E Foster Care and Adoption Assistance programs is based on
the amount of funds the Administration estimates it will need to reimburse eligible claims under those
programs for the fiscal years. Any funds not needed for this purpose are returned to the treasury;
alternatively if not enough funds have been provided, Congress must provide the funds necessary to
reimburse the eligible claims.
c. For FY2004, P.L. 108-36 provided a combined funding authorization of $120 million for CAPTA state grants
and discretionary activities, along with a separate authorization of $80 million for CAPTA CommunityBased grants. Both funding authorizations were continued for each of FY2005 through FY2008 at “such
sums as may be necessary.”
Source:
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖȱȱ
In 2007, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, the
House subcommittee that has exercised jurisdiction over the largest share of federal child welfare
programs, held several hearings that were directly related to child welfare policy. In addition to
the hearings discussed below, in February 2008 that subcommittee held a hearing to receive
testimony on the Investment in Kids Instruction Development and Support Act (Invest in KIDS
Act, H.R. 5466), which was introduced by Representative Jim McDermott, who chairs the
subcommittee.18 As of mid-June 2008, no hearings have been held in the Senate during the 110th
Congress that focused primarily on child welfare.
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
The first of these hearings, and the broadest in scope, was held on May 15, 2007, and sought to
identify the major challenges facing the child welfare system.19 Witnesses at the hearing included
representatives of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA), the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), Casey Family Programs (a private foundation that both provides
18
The hearing to receive testimony on the introduced bill is not discussed in this report. However, you can view the
written testimony at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=612.
19
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing
on Challenges Facing the Child Welfare System,” May 15, 2007, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=559.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
foster care services and supports research to improve those services), an independent consultant
(who was also a former child welfare administrator), and the first lady of Virginia (who
previously served as a judge in juvenile and domestic relations court).
Witnesses most often highlighted concerns related to
•
the availability or adequacy of services provided to families and children
(including services to prevent placement, reunite families, or to sustain
permanence via post-reunification, post-adoption, or guardianship supports and
services);
•
the recruitment of foster homes for children, especially older children and those
with special needs; and
•
ensuring adequate child welfare workforce staffing and training, and availability
of federal funds for child welfare purposes.20
Other specific challenges cited included disproportionate representation of African-American
children (and other racial or ethnic minority groups) in the child welfare system, and providing
adequate services to youth in foster care, as well as those who leave the system without being
placed in a permanent home (i.e., those who “age-out”).
ȱ
With regard to the availability and adequacy of services, witnesses noted both the difficulty and
necessity of cross-system collaborations to treat child and family health, mental health, or
substance abuse issues, and to respond to housing and education needs. They also cited the
importance of addressing how federal funds are distributed for child welfare purposes. Among the
recommendations for change with regard to recruitment and retention of foster families, witnesses
suggested the need to focus on recruiting families willing and able to care for older children in
foster care or those with special needs and to better prepare foster parents (both kin and non-kin)
to adequately meet these needs. Recommendations on workforce issues included setting national
standards for the number of cases that may be assigned to a single child welfare caseworker as
well as providing standards for staff levels needed among workers who receive and screen calls
alleging abuse or neglect (“hotline” workers). Improved training, support, and accountability for
supervisors and caseworkers was recommended. Finally, a number of witnesses stressed the
importance of accountability. Although some cited the federal Child and Family Services Review
(CFSR) as a positive step, others sought greater efforts in this regard. Some witnesses also
stressed the value and necessity of HHS-supported training and technical assistance to improve
child welfare practice.
ȱȬȱȱȱȱ
At a June 19, 2007, hearing, the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support looked
broadly at issues facing vulnerable youth populations—including those who are homeless or
20
These concerns generally echoed or expanded on the challenges identified most frequently by state child welfare
administrators in a survey conducted by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) between October 2005 and
August 2006. See U.S. GAO, Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and Technical Assistance
Information Would Help Address Long-standing Service Level and Workforce Challenges, GAO-07-75, October 2006.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
“disconnected” (i.e., those not in school or employed) and those who “age-out” of foster care.21
Several witnesses at this hearing spoke about children in foster care and their need for educational
stability.22 On July 12, the subcommittee held a hearing specifically concerning the support
services and activities available to those youth in foster care who upon reaching the state age of
majority (typically on their 18th birthday) leave state custody without being reunited with their
birth family or placed in another permanent family.23 (These independent adolescents are
frequently referred to as youth who have “aged out.”) Witnesses at the July 12 hearing included
Representative Dennis Cardoza (who is the father of two children adopted from foster care); the
GAO; several youths who had “aged out” of foster care; and, representatives of research and
advocacy groups who are interested in learning about, and improving, the outcomes for youth
who age out of foster care.24
Advocates and researchers noted that although some youth managed to do well when they left
care, in many cases youth aging out of foster care had low educational attainment, experienced
homelessness, were unable to pay bills (e.g. rent, utilities), experienced early pregnancy or
parenthood, or had relatively frequent involvement with the criminal justice system. Researchers
testified that independent living services for youth varied widely by state25 and were “spotty,”
with one survey showing that less than half of youth exiting foster care receive transitional
services related to vocational training and employment, budgeting and financial management,
health education, housing, and services to promote youth development. At least half did indicate
they had received some educational support.26
ȱ
The youth who testified stressed the critical importance of working to create permanent
connections for youth before they leave foster care—by matching the youth with a permanent
supportive family, including relative families, or, at the least, by helping the youth connect with
an adult mentor. Some suggested that youth should have the option to remain in foster care
custody until at least age 21 (with federal support), called on child welfare agencies to pay greater
attention to sibling connections for youth in care, and, overall, emphasized the necessity of
supports and services for youth who age out of foster care. Researchers and advocates testifying
also noted the critical importance of finding permanence for foster youth by creating adult
connections for them. They further highlighted the need to provide services and supports related
21
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing
on Disconnected and Disadvantaged Youth,” June 19, 2007, available at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=569.
22
Ibid. See testimony of Representative Michele Bachmann, who has been a foster parent, and of Dan Lips, an
Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
23
For information about federal support services see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care:
Background and Federal Programs , by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
24
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, “Hearing
on Children who ‘Age Out’ of the Foster Care System,” July 12, 2007; http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=576.
25
Testimony from the GAO about wide variety in independent living services (as well as information available about
those services) was based, in part, on a 2004 survey of state independent living programs discussed in U.S. GAO,
Foster Youth: HHS Actions Could Improve Coordination of Services and Monitoring of States’ Independent Living
Programs, GAO-05-25, November 2004. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0525.pdf.
26
Testimony from Mark Courtney, based on findings from the three-state “Midwest Evaluation of Adult Functioning of
Former Foster Youth.” To learn more, see http://www.chapinhall.org/article_abstract.aspx?ar=1355.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
to housing, financial literacy, employment, education, and job training. Finally, some emphasized
the importance of private foundation or other community engagement on the issue of youth aging
out of foster care and called for better data on outcomes for youth and the services that are now
offered.27
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
On July 19, 2007, the subcommittee held a hearing to review the health and mental health status
of children in foster care, as well as their access to needed services. Witnesses included
researchers; medical doctors, including a representative of the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP); and a state child welfare administrator (representing APHSA).28
The witnesses referenced studies showing that children in foster care have high rates of physical
and mental health needs. A recent research review concluded that 35% to 60% of children in
foster care have at least one chronic health issue or a significant acute health condition. And a
nationally representative study of children in foster care for at least one year (ages 2-14) found
that nearly half (47%) had clinically significant emotional or behavioral issues. Children in foster
care are typically eligible for Medicaid and should receive screening and treatment under that
program’s Early and Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) component.
Further, many children in foster care are eligible for services under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but identification of the need for such services and access to
them is not always provided.29
ȱ
Witnesses at the July 19 hearing stressed the importance of early identification of problems. They
noted the importance of establishing channels for coordination between health, mental health,
education, and child welfare agencies to ensure that timely assessments are made and appropriate
treatment is offered. Testimony regarding the prescription of psychotropic medication for children
in foster care stressed the importance of a clinical review of a child’s medical history and need, as
well as clear consent protocols. The critical importance of access to complete medical histories
for children in foster care was also raised. Proposals related to creating electronic records (e.g.
web-based) to store and permit needed access to medical histories, as well as establishment of a
“medical home” for each child in foster care were discussed.30
27
In 1999 (P.L. 106-169) Congress required development of a national data system to track outcomes for youth aging
out of foster care. The system has not been implemented yet, but a notice of proposed rule making was published in
July 2006. For more information, request a copy of CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, “Notice of
Proposed Rule Making to Implement the Chafee Foster Care Independence Act Database,” by Adrienne Fernandes,
August 28, 2006.
28
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support,
“Hearing on Health Care for Children in Foster Care,” July 19, 2007; http://waysandmeans.house.gov/
hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=578.
29
Ibid. See written testimony of John Landsverk, Director, Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, Rady
Children’s Hospital and Senior Scholar, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St.
Louis.
30
A “medical home” refers to treatment of one child by one pediatrician/pediatric practice.
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱ
On May 8, 2008, the subcommittee held a hearing to review the prescription of psychotropic
drugs for children in foster care. Witnesses included health researchers, state administrators, a
representative from the Foster Care Alumni of America, and the medical director of a private
residential treatment school for children.31
ȱȱȱȱ
The 109th Congress enacted numerous changes intended to improve and strengthen child welfare
services, including a number of new requirements that states must meet related to children in
foster care.32 Many proposals to further amend federal child welfare policy continue to be
debated. Legislation that would respond to a number of the concerns raised in the child welfare
hearings held during 2007, including proposals to change the federal child welfare financing
structure, has been introduced in the 110th Congress. The bills introduced would expand the
eligible populations served with Title IV-E funds and provide some additional support for child
and family services. (Appendix A discusses several child welfare financing proposals made
outside of Congress—including a proposal by the Bush Administration—that have influenced or
continue to influence legislative proposals.)
Other legislative proposals would authorize or require new services and protections for children
in (or about to enter) foster care; seek to improve services for youth who are aging out of care
(including those who have already exited due to age); encourage greater access to a range of
services for kinship caregivers and further encourage their involvement as decision-makers and
use as caregivers for children who cannot remain safely with their parents; aim to improve foster
and adoptive parent recruitment efforts of state child welfare agencies; permit direct access to
federal Title IV-E funds for tribal governments; and make other related changes intended to
enhance the safety, permanence, and well-being of children.
These legislative proposals are described in greater detail below. Most of the bills discussed
would amend child welfare programs and policy that currently exist; however, some would create
new and freestanding programs or would amend other social service or education programs. An
effort was made to identify bills with proposals that highlight a wide range of child welfare policy
concerns and that would be expected to affect the primary populations served by the child welfare
agency (as well as the child welfare agency itself). At the same time, this discussion is not
comprehensive and inclusion of a bill (or exclusion) is not intended to suggest the viability (or
lack of viability) for a given proposal.
ȱȱ¡ȱȱ Ȭȱȱȱ
A number of bills would expand the population of children who are eligible for federal assistance
under Title IV-E of the Social Security by de-linking the program (or parts of it) from the
31
For more information see U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Income Security
and Family Support, “Hearing on the Utilization of Psychotropic Medication for Children in Foster Care,” May 8,
2008; http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=631
32
See CRS Report RL34252, Child Welfare: Federal Policy Changes Enacted in the 109th Congress, by (name r
edacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
eligibility rules of the former federal cash welfare program (repealed in 1996 by P.L. 104-193).
That program was known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Additional bills
would further expand the population of children who may be served with Title IV-E dollars by
permitting eligible children leaving foster care for legal guardianship (in a relative’s home) to
receive Title IV-E support and by extending the age at which youth could remain eligible for Title
IV-E foster care support to 21 years of age.
Ȭȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
The overall share of children in the national foster care caseload who are eligible for Title IV-E
foster care support has been in decline. This share was estimated to be less than half of all
children in foster care in FY2006 (43%) compared to a high of 51%-55% in the mid-to late
1990s.33 Three bills would de-link federal Title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance eligibility
from the income (and all, or most, other eligibility rules) of the prior law AFDC program: The
Investment in Kids Instruction, Development and Support Act, or Invest in KIDS Act (H.R.
5466), an omnibus child welfare policy bill introduced by Representative Jim McDermott; the
Partnership for Children and Families Act (H.R. 4207/S. 2900), introduced by Representative
Shelley Berkley and Senator Sherrod Brown; and the Place to Call Home Act (H.R. 3409), an
omnibus youth policy bill introduced by Representative Ruben Hinojosa.34 This change would
potentially expand eligibility for federal foster care maintenance payments and adoption
assistance subsidies to include any child in foster care as well as any child adopted from foster
care who meets state “special needs” criteria.
ȱȱȱȱ
There are multiple criteria for federal Title IV-E eligibility (see Appendix B) and wide variation
among states in the estimated share of children in foster care who meet these eligibility criteria.
No simple correlation between a state’s 1996 income eligibility rules and the share of its foster
care caseload that is Title IV-E eligible can be established. Nonetheless, the current law
requirement that links Title IV-E foster care (and in most cases adoption assistance) eligibility to
the income rules of the now-repealed AFDC program is viewed by many as an explanation for the
recent decline in the share of children who are eligible for federal foster care support.
Specifically, federal law requires a state to “look back” to, and apply, the income and other
eligibility rules that were in use in the state (on July 16, 1996) under the prior law cash welfare
program, AFDC.35
33
There are various ways to estimate this coverage rate on a national basis and the coverage rates shown here are based
on the average monthly number of children claimed by states as eligible for Title IV-E foster care maintenance
payments (expenditure data) in a given fiscal year compared to the number of children the state reported in foster care
on the last day of the same fiscal year (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, AFCARS data). For
example, there were an estimated 510,000 children in care on the last day of FY2006, and during that year, states
submitted Title IV-E foster care maintenance payment claims for an average monthly number of 220,000 children in
foster care.
34
H.R. 5466 would strike all references to the prior AFDC program with regard to eligibility. However, for purposes of
federal Title IV-E eligibility, H.R. 3409 and H.R. 4207 would continue to require that a child must have been removed
to foster care from the home of a specified relative as defined in the prior law AFDC program.
35
Although the current link was established by the 1996 welfare reform measure (P.L. 104-193), the initial link
between eligibility for cash aid and federal reimbursement for foster care expenses was established in the early 1960s.
For a brief review of the policy and its legislative history, see CRS Report RL32849, Child Welfare Financing: An
Issue Overview, by (name redacted), section on “The ‘Look Back’” under “Proposals for Change.”
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
This requirement has limited Title IV-E eligibility to children from families whose incomes
represent a declining share of the federal poverty guidelines. In 1996, the median value of all
states’ AFDC income tests for a family of three was equal to 60% of the federal poverty level; by
2007 this median value had slipped to 45%. In fully two-thirds of the states (34, including DC)
the Title IV-E income eligibility test for a family of three is now less than 50% of the federal
poverty guideline for a family of three (or less than $8,585).36
ȱȱȱ
There is no upper (or lower) limit on federal Title IV-E foster care (or adoption assistance)
funding to states. Instead, the federal government is committed to sharing a fixed part of every
eligible claim submitted by a state on behalf of an eligible child. This kind of federal funding is
sometimes referred to as “open-ended entitlement” funding. H.R. 5466, H.R. 3409, H.R. 4207
and S. 2900 would continue to provide support for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments
and adoption assistance payments on an open-ended entitlement basis. These bills would also
provide for continued open-ended reimbursement for related child placement activities (e.g. case
management), training, data collection costs, and other program administration costs. However,
H.R. 5466 would limit overall state reimbursement for specific administrative costs—eligibility
determination, setting payment rates for foster care homes and institutions, and for related agency
overhead—to no more than 15% of a state’s federal Title IV-E administrative funding37 and H.R.
3409 would limit those same costs to no more then 15% of a state’s total federal Title IV-E
funding. (H.R. 4207 and S. 2900 do not include this limit.)
ȱȱ
H.R. 4207 and S. 2900 would not make any changes to current federal reimbursement rates under
Title IV-E. However, H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409 propose to reduce the expected cost to the federal
government of expanding eligibility for Title IV-E by reducing the rate at which states are now
reimbursed for foster care and adoption assistance costs. In general, these bills propose to
determine what portion of all state’s total foster care and adoption assistance costs (whether
incurred on behalf of a IV-E eligible child or a non-IV-E eligible child) is now provided by the
federal government, and would ensure that this same national level of commitment be continued
into the future. To achieve this, each state’s current reimbursement rates under the Title IV-E
program (except those related to training, and development and operation of a data collection
system) would be reduced by the same percentage. At the same time, H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409
would provide a three-year period, following the enactment of these changes, during which any
state that received fewer federal foster care or adoption assistance dollars because of lowered
federal reimbursement rates, could submit additional claims to receive funding at the level they
would have received under prior law.38 Ultimately, the overall share of federal support received
by the state during that three-year period would be used as part of establishing its Title IV-E
reimbursement rates.
36
CRS calculations based on annualized state AFDC “need standards” for a family of three (as they existed in 1996)
and the federal poverty guidelines for a family of three in 1996 and 2007.
37
H.R. 5466 would exclude from this calculation all administrative expenses related to training or data collection.
38
This is the presumed intent of the language in these bills.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Current Law. Currently, the reimbursement rate for foster care maintenance payments and
adoption assistance payments is pegged to the state’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage
(FMAP), which ranges from a low of 50% (for highest per capita income states) to as high as
83% (for lowest per capita income states);39 the reimbursement rate for program administration
costs, including child placement activities is 50%; and the reimbursement rate for training costs is
75%. With the exception of eligibility determination and certain data collection costs (both
counted as administrative costs), foster care and adoption assistance costs may only be
reimbursed if incurred on behalf of Title IV-E eligible children. States are expected to pay the full
costs for children who do not meet the federal eligibility criteria (either out of state or local
treasuries or, if allowable, some other federal funding).
Ȭȱȱȱ
In most cases, eligibility for Title IV-E adoption assistance is also based, in part, on whether or
not a child was removed from a family that met a state’s 1996 AFDC income standards and other
eligibility criteria.40 Roughly 89% of children adopted with child welfare agency involvement in
FY2006 receive an adoption subsidy. (The remainder either did not meet state special needs
criteria or for some other reason did not receive ongoing adoption assistance.) Among only those
children adopted in FY2006 with an adoption subsidy (roughly 45,500), 78% received federal
adoption assistance (under Title IV-E), and the remaining 22% received a subsidy that was solely
state financed. By comparison, among the children adopted in FY2000 with an adoption subsidy
(roughly 44,800), 85% received federal (Title IV-E) adoption assistance, and 15% received a
state-only subsidy.41 Data that would allow an estimate of the total share of children (adopted in
any year) who receive federal adoption assistance versus those who receive state-only support are
not available.42
The Adoption Equality Act of 2007 (S. 1462, introduced by Senator John Rockefeller, and H.R.
4091, introduced by Representative Jim Cooper) and the Improved Adoption Incentives and
Relative Guardianship Assistance Act (S. 3038, as introduced by Senator Charles Grassley) would
remove the AFDC link for purposes of Title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility only.43 S. 1462
39
See CRS Report RL32950, Medicaid: The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), by (name redacted). The
statute provides that for purposes of the Medicaid program, the District of Columbia’s FMAP is fixed at 70%; however,
for purposes of Title IV-E, the FMAP is calculated annually and has consistently been 50%. Both H.R. 5466 and H.R.
3409 would fix the District’s Title IV-E FMAP at 70%, making it equal to its FMAP for Medicaid.
40
A child may currently be eligible for Title IV-E adoption assistance without meeting the AFDC-related requirements
if he or she is eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or if he or she is the son or daughter of a Title IV-E
eligible youth (a “minor”) who is in foster care and whose foster care maintenance payment includes costs incurred on
behalf of the child.
41
For state-by-state data from FY2006 see information on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau website http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/
stats_research/afcars/statistics/subsidy_tbl5_2006.htm. FY2000 data received from HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau.
42
States currently report data on all children with an adoption assistance agreements in the year an adoption is
finalized. Although the number of children receiving Title IV-E supported adoption assistance (regardless of the year of
the adoption finalization) may be estimated based on state Title IV-E expenditure claims, there are no data reported
regarding the total number of children who receive adoption assistance payments, whether federally subsidized or
solely state supported, regardless of the year the adoption was finalized. HHS, however, has recently proposed to
collect this data. See Federal Register, Proposed Rules, “Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System,”
January 11, 2008, p. 2083.
43
S. 1462 and S. 3038 would also make optional the current requirement that for a foster child to be eligible for
adoption assistance, a judge (as opposed to, for instance, the state child welfare agency) must have determined that the
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
and H.R. 4091 are largely identical bills, and S. 3038 contains provisions very similar to those
bills. All three would potentially expand the adoption assistance caseload to each child who is
adopted from foster care, provided that the state has made reasonable efforts to place the child for
adoption without assistance (if appropriate) and that the child meets the “special needs” criteria of
a given state.44 Special needs criteria are any factors that a state determines make it unlikely that a
child will be adopted without adoption assistance (or medical assistance). These criteria vary by
state but must include a determination by the state that the child cannot or should not be returned
to the home of his parents, and they often address some or all of the additional factors suggested
in federal law, including ethnic background, membership in a minority or sibling group, medical
conditions, or physical, mental, or emotional handicaps.45
The number of children receiving Title IV-E adoption assistance in an average month has grown
dramatically in the recent past—from 106,200 in FY1995 to more than 390,900 in FY2007. The
Administration predicts continued growth and estimates that in an average month in FY2009,
430,400 children will receive this assistance.46 The growth in the number of children receiving
federal adoption assistance is consistent with the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA,
P.L. 105-89), which among other things encouraged states to expeditiously aid the adoption of
children out of foster care (when returning home is not possible for them). Some states had begun
to increase these efforts even before this legislative change, and between FY1995 and FY2000,
the number of children adopted with public child welfare agency involvement nearly doubled
(from 25,700 to 51,100). Since FY2000, adoptions with public child welfare agency involvement
have remained roughly constant at between 50,000 and 53,000 children annually.47
ȱȱ£ȱ ȱ
Children in foster care frequently live with relatives: on the last day of FY2006, about one in four
of all children in foster care (more than 124,000) were living in the home of a relative. In
addition, many children leave foster care to live with relatives. In FY2006, some 13,300 children
left foster care to be adopted by a relative; a somewhat greater number (15,000) left foster care
for legal guardianship (most of these placements are presumed to be with relatives), and many
(...continued)
child’s continuation in the home of their parents was contrary to the child’s welfare. H.R. 4091 would maintain the
requirement that such a determination be made by a judge.
44
S. 1462, S. 3038, and H.R. 4091 would also remove the need for a child to meet the income eligibility of the
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to be eligible for Title IV-E Adoption Assistance and would permit the
continued eligibility of other specific groups of children who now may qualify for Title IV-E adoption assistance,
including those voluntarily relinquished and those who are the children of a Title IV-E-eligible minor in foster care
whose maintenance payment included costs incurred on behalf of the child. Each of the bills proposes somewhat
different eligibility criteria with regard to citizenship or immigration status. S. 3038 would retain the current
requirement (as enacted by P.L. 104-193) that an eligible child must be either a citizen or a “qualified alien.” H.R. 4091
would require that the child be “lawfully present in the United States,” and S. 1462 would not link any eligibility
criteria to citizenship/immigration status of the child.
45
Section 473(c) of the Social Security Act.
46
U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Green Book 2004, Table 11-3; U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families, Title IV-E State Claims for Adoption Assistance
Expenditures—FY2006, (May 2007); and Budget of the United States Government, FY2009 - Appendix, p. 462.
47
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
“Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfare Agency Involvement By State, FY1995-FY-2005” (revised March
2007); available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/adoptchild05.pdf.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
more left care to live with a relative in some other (less formal) arrangement (30,800).48 The
Kinship Caregiver Support Act (S. 661, introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton, and H.R. 2188,
introduced by Representative Danny Davis), as well as H.R. 5466, an omnibus child welfare
policy bill, S. 3038, a multi-purpose child welfare bill, and H.R. 3409, an omnibus youth policy
bill, would permit states to seek open-ended federal reimbursement under Title IV-E for a part of
the cost of providing guardianship subsidies to relatives who assume legal guardianship of
children who were previously in foster care and were Title IV-E eligible.49
Federal child welfare policy views guardianship as a positive permanent placement for children
who cannot be reunited with their parents and for whom adoption is not possible or appropriate.50
Some research has found that on a range of factors related to safety (recurrence of maltreatment),
permanence (re-entry to foster care) and well-being (school performance, engagement in risky
behaviors, and access to community resources), children placed in a subsidized guardianship fare
at least as well as children who left foster care to be reunited with birth families or were adopted.
Further, this research found that children placed in subsidized guardianships cited as positive both
an increased sense of stability and loss of the “stigma” of foster care, while their caregivers
pointed to their enhanced ability to make decisions for the child around health care, family visits,
and education as a principal advantage of guardianship over foster care.51 In 2007, the GAO
recommended that “Congress consider amending federal law to allow federal reimbursement for
legal guardianship similar to that currently provided for adoption” as a way to reduce the
disproportionate representation of African-American children in foster care.52
Many relative caregivers have limited income. Advocates of federally supported subsidized
guardianship argue that financial support is critical for relatives to assume care and that many
relatives cannot afford to assume care of children outside of the foster care system. According to
a nationally representative survey, close to two out of every three children (estimated 66%) who
were placed in a kinship care arrangement—after an investigation of alleged abuse or neglect in
their own home—were placed in households with income below 200% of the federal poverty
threshold, including some 40% who went to live in households with incomes below 100% of the
federal poverty level.53
Relative caregivers are currently eligible for varying levels of financial support depending on
their legal relationship to the child and the licensing or other policies of the state in which they
live. Relatives may receive foster care maintenance payments if they serve as formal foster
48
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The AFCARS Report (14), Preliminary FY2005 Estimates as of
January 2008, available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm.
49
S. 661 and H.R. 2188 would also authorize “such sums as may be necessary” for guardianship payment programs
established as demonstrations in large metropolitan areas of any state that opted not to participate in the Title IV-E
guardianship payment program.
50
Legal guardianship is defined in federal statute (Section 475(7) of the Social Security Act and is also mentioned in
connection with reasonable efforts to place a child in a permanent home, making a written case plan regarding a child’s
permanent placement, and reviewing a child’s permanent plan. See Section 471(a)(15)(F), Section 475(1)(E), and
Section 475(5)(C), all in the Social Security Act.
51
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Synthesis of Findings from the State Assisted Guardianship
Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration Projects (James Bell Associates: September 2005, available at
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/agissue/index.htm.
52
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), African American Children in Foster Care, GAO-07-816, July 2007,
available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07816.pdf.
53
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being
(NSCAW), CPS Sample Component, Wave 1, Data Analysis Report (April 2005), pp. 6-13 to 6-16.
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
parents for a relative child. However, those payments may not be Title IV-E (federally) subsidized
unless the relative meets the state’s licensing standards and approval process. Similarly, children
who exit foster care to relative adoption may be eligible for a Title IV-E adoption assistance
payment (but only if that relative meets specific background check requirements). Some
(unlicensed) relatives caring for children in formal foster care may instead receive a Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) “child-only” benefit, and this may also be true for
children who exit foster care to either an informal relative-care arrangement or to a more formal
relative guardianship.54 TANF child-only benefit levels vary by state but are typically worth
significantly less than a foster care maintenance payment. (A 2004 study of child-only benefits in
five states found that, depending on the number of children a relative cares for, a TANF childonly benefit may represent as little as 22% of the foster care maintenance rate or as much as
82%.)55
Some children who exit foster care to a legal guardian may receive support through a stateestablished subsidized guardianship program. There is no dedicated federal source of funding for
state subsidized guardianship programs, but more than 30 states (including DC) are believed to
have such programs in place. These programs vary in design and scope, but all provide monthly
financial payments to adults who assume legal guardianship of a child. Some, but not all, states
require these adults to be relatives, and most require that the child was previously in foster care
(under the responsibility of the state). Typically states rely entirely, or in some part, on state and
local funding to operate subsidized guardianship programs. However, nine states (IL, IA, MN,
MT, NC, OR, TN, VA, and WI) have child welfare demonstration projects (waivers) specifically
allowing federal Title IV-E funds to provide guardianship payments, although these programs,
generally, may not operate on a statewide basis. As many as 11 states use TANF funds to support
subsidized guardianship programs (including AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, IN, KY, LA, NV, NJ, and
ND).56
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ
S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, S. 3038 and H.R. 3409 would each provide that to claim federal
reimbursement of guardianship payments under Title IV-E, the state child welfare agency would
need to enter into a guardianship assistance agreement with the legal relative guardian, provide a
copy of the agreement to the relative guardian, and certify that any child moving to a Title IV-E
guardianship assistance arrangement is eligible for Medicaid.
54
On an average monthly basis in FY2005, as many as 500,000 children who lived with a non-parent relative received
a TANF “child-only” benefit. (See CRS Report RL34206, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Issues
for the 110th Congress, by (name redacted).) These children may be living with a relative via private family arrangement,
may be in formal foster care, may be in a legal guardianship or may be in some other less formal arrangement made by
the child welfare agency or the court.
55
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(report prepared by researchers at RTI International and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) Children in
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Child-Only Cases with Relative Caregivers (June 2004), pp. 4-10.
56
Generations United, Grandfamilies: Subsidized Guardianship Programs, June 2006 and U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), “Summary of Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstrations,” James Bell Associates,
May 2007. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/cwwaiver/2007/summary_demo2007.htm. Certain
additional states (or parts of states) have broad Title IV-E waivers that might allow them to spend Title IV-E funds for
subsidized guardianship.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
The guardianship assistance agreement would need to specify the services to be made available to
the family and the amount of the guardianship assistance payment. S. 661, H.R. 2188, and H.R.
3409 would provide that this amount must take into account the needs of a relative guardian and
of the child and that it may not be less than what the child would otherwise receive as a foster
care maintenance payment. H.R. 5466 would make these same stipulations except that it would
also give states the option to set the payment amount at the adoption assistance rate the child
would have received had he or she been adopted. S. 3038 would require states to take into
account the circumstances of the relative guardian and the needs of the child and would permit
states to establish a guardianship assistance payment amount that was no less than the adoption
assistance rate the child would have been eligible for if adopted nor greater than the foster care
maintenance payment the child would be eligible for in a foster family home. All five bills would
further provide that the state must pay nonrecurring expenses associated with obtaining a legal
guardianship, although S. 3038 would cap the amount of reimbursement of those costs at no more
than $2,000. Finally, each of the five bills would require that, for any child in foster care whose
permanency plan was legal guardianship, the state must have documented that relative
guardianship is the most appropriate permanent placement option for the child. And among other
items, this documentation would need to include the reasons the relative had for not pursuing
adoption and the efforts made by the state agency to obtain consent of the child’s parent (or
parents) to the relative guardianship arrangement.
¢ȱȱ ȱ
S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409 would each provide that, for an adult guardian to
receive guardianship assistance payments on behalf of a former foster child, he or she must be a
grandparent or other relative of the child; must have been the foster parent of that child; must
show a “strong attachment” to the child, including a commitment to care for the child on a
permanent basis; and must become the legal guardian of the child through a legal guardianship
established by a court.57 S. 3038 would make these same requirements except that the grandparent
or other relative is not explicitly required to have been the foster parent of the child. All five bills
would also require that relative guardians complete a fingerprint-based criminal background
check, and four of them (S. 661, S. 3038, H.R. 2188 and H.R. 3409) would specify that relatives
with certain criminal histories may not be approved as legal relative guardians for a child who
receives a Title IV-E guardianship assistance payment. (These provisions regarding denial of
approval for prospective caretakers with certain criminal history records now apply with regard to
prospective foster and adoptive parents.)58 By contrast, although H.R. 5466 requires fingerprintbased criminal record checks, it does not reference a list of findings that would disqualify a legal
relative guardian from receiving a federally supported (Title IV-E) kinship guardianship
assistance payment on behalf of a child. Finally, S. 3038 would further require that a relative
guardian’s home meet the licensing standards developed by the state for foster family homes.
57
The bills each reference “legal guardianship,” which is defined at Section 475(7) of the Social Security Act as a
“judicially created relationship between child and caretaker which is intended to be permanent and self-sustaining as
evidenced by the transfer to the caretaker of the following parental rights with respect to the child: protection,
education, care and control of the person, custody of the person, and decisionmaking.”
58
For more information on the Title IV-E criminal background check requirements see CRS Report RL34252, Child
Welfare: Federal Policy Changes Enacted in the 109th Congress, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱȱȱ
S. 661, H.R. 2188, H.R. 5466, and H.R. 3409 would each further provide that to be eligible for a
Title IV-E guardianship assistance payment, the child must have been in foster care for at least 12
months and must have been eligible for Title IV-E payments; S. 3038 would require that the child
was in foster care and eligible to receive a federal (Title IV-E) foster care maintenance payment in
the month prior to the establishment of the guardianship. All five bills require that the child
demonstrate a strong attachment to the relative guardian, and, further both reuniting with a
parent(s) and adoption must be considered inappropriate permanent placement options for the
child. In addition, all five bills state that a child who is 14 years of age or older must be consulted
regarding the kinship guardianship arrangement. And further, a child who does not meet all of
these criteria but is a minor sibling of a child that does may (or in the case of S. 3038 “must”) be
placed in the same guardianship assistance arrangement with his or her eligible sibling, and both
(or all) siblings in the arrangement may receive federal (Title IV-E) guardianship assistance
payments.
S. 661, S. 3038, and H.R. 2188 would provide that the child must meet the current requirements
for Title IV-E foster care eligibility (including the income rules tied to the prior law AFDC
program). Both H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409 would similarly require a child to have met Title IV-E
eligibility requirements in order to be eligible for a Title IV-E guardianship assistance payment.
However, as discussed above, both of those bills would de-link Title IV-E foster care eligibility
from the prior law AFDC program, so those current law income eligibility rules would not apply.
S. 661 and H.R. 2188 also would provide that to be eligible for Title IV-E guardianship
assistance, a child must be under the age of 18 (unless he or she is not yet 19 and is a full-time
student in a secondary school or equivalent level vocational or training program) or under the age
of 21 (if the state determines the child has a mental or physical illness that warrants continued
support). By contrast, H.R. 5466 would permit a state to choose to provide a federally supported
(Title IV-E) guardianship assistance payment for any youth who remains in the care of a legal
guardian up until his or her 21st birthday, while S. 3038 would not permit payment of a federal
(Title IV-E) guardianship assistance payment on behalf of any youth who had attained 18 years of
age.
ȱȱȱ ȱ
Under current law (Title IV-E of the Social Security Act), states are permitted to seek
reimbursement for 75% of their cost of training current or prospective foster or adoptive parents
(of Title IV-E eligible children). S. 661, H.R. 2188, S. 3038, and H.R. 5466 would provide that
states could also make claims for reimbursement of 75% of the costs related to the short-term
training for current or prospective relative guardians of Title IV-E eligible children.
¡ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
The Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act of 2007 (S. 1512 introduced by Senator Barbara
Boxer), the Reconnecting Youth to Prevent Homelessness Act of 2007 (H.R. 4208, introduced by
Representative Shelley Berkley and S. 2560, introduced by Senator John Kerry), the omnibus
child welfare policy bill (H.R. 5466), and the omnibus youth policy bill (H.R. 3409), would each
permit youth who remain in foster care until their 21st birthday to remain eligible for federal
foster care support.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
Under current federal policy, children cannot be Title IV-E eligible once they reach their 18th
birthday or (in most states) their 19th birthday if they are finishing high school or an equivalent
level of training.59 Additionally, to be eligible for Title IV-E foster care, a child must be under the
care and placement responsibility of the state (or any public agency with which the state agency
has made an agreement). However, in most states a child reaches the “age of majority” on their
18th birthday and is considered to be legally “emancipated” from either his/her parents or, in the
case of a child in foster care, the state foster care system. Most youth leave foster care upon
reaching their 18th birthday, and this is true even though many states now permit youth to choose
to remain in care beyond that date.60 However, with a handful of exceptions, few states appear to
actively facilitate a youth’s extended stay in foster care—possibly because states must pay most
of these foster care costs.
S. 1512 and H.R. 5466 would permit a state to continue to make foster care maintenance payment
claims for an otherwise Title IV-E eligible youth who remains in foster care (under the
responsibility of the state) until the youth’s 21st birthday (or at state option up until their 19th or
20th birthday). S. 1512 would explicitly state that remaining in foster care would be a choice made
by the youth. H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would require states to make foster care
maintenance payments on behalf of any otherwise eligible youth who chooses to be in foster care
after their 18th birthday (but not beyond their 21st birthday). Further, under each of H.R. 3409,
H.R. 4208, and S. 2560, as part of choosing to remain in foster care, a youth would be required to
enter into a written “voluntary placement agreement” that would be binding on both the youth
and the state agency and that would specify the youth’s legal status as well as the rights and
obligations of both the state agency and the youth while he or she remains in foster care.
Each of H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, H.R. 5466, and S. 2560 would expand eligible placement settings
for older youth in care. Current federal policy provides that a state may only claim federal
reimbursement for foster care maintenance payments made on behalf of a child who is placed in a
licensed foster family home or “child-care institution,” and further, that these payments may not
be made directly to an older youth who is in a supervised independent living situation or to help
an older foster youth pay rent.61 Many older foster youth—even those who remain in state care—
do not live with a foster family (or in a child care institution) but instead live in supervised
independent living quarters or with relatives.62 H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would each
amend the law to explicitly include a licensed supportive housing facility as a federally eligible
placement setting for older youth in foster care and would also permit foster care maintenance
59
See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Child
Welfare Policy Manual, Section 8.3A.2, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/
cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=15. This policy manual incorporates formal guidance and rules from HHS/ACF related to
federal child welfare policy.
60
Regarding states that permit youth to remain in care beyond age 18, see June Kim and Kevin Sobczyk, Continuing
Court Jurisdiction in Support of 18 to 21 Year-Old Foster Youth, American Bar Association, Center on Children and
the Law, July 2004.
61
Section 472(b) and HHS, ACF, Child Welfare Policy Manual regarding allowable use of Title IV-E foster care
maintenance payments. Section 8.3B, Question 2, available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/j2ee/programs/cb/laws_policies/
laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=41#423.
62
A study published in 2005 by Chapin Hall tracked older foster youth in Illinois (where youth are permitted to remain
in care until their 21st birthday) and found that at age 19, half (50%) of the surveyed youth lived in supervised
independent living settings, about 20% lived in foster family homes, and 19% lived with relatives. The remainder lived
in group quarters (7%) or other settings (4%). See Mark E. Courtney et al., Midwest Evaluation of Adult Functioning of
Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19, Chapin Hall Center for Children and Families: University of Chicago, May
2005, p. 13.
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
payments to be used to cover the rent for a youth’s apartment. Alternatively, H.R. 5466 would
amend the definition of “child-care institution” to include a “supervised setting in which the
individual is living independently,” but only for otherwise Title IV-E eligible youth who are at
least 18 years of age, and in accordance with any conditions related to the supervised setting
established by HHS in regulations.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
A common criticism of federal child welfare financing is that most federal support is for children
after they have been removed from their homes (i.e., funds provided for foster care or adoption
assistance) and that relatively little federal funding is provided to encourage states to provide
services that would prevent placement of a child in foster care or to help children who are placed
in foster care be successfully reunited with their parents. In recent years, the share of dedicated
child welfare funding that is available for all states to provide child welfare services and activities
on behalf of any child (or their family) needing them has been about 10% of all dedicated child
welfare funding.63
ȱ Ȭȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ
H.R. 5466 would authorize open-ended reimbursement of a new child and family services
component under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. This would enable states to seek federal
reimbursement for services that seek to (1) safely reduce the number of children in foster care; (2)
safely reduce the length of stay for children in foster care; (3) increase the percentage of foster
children who are cared for in family-like settings; and (4) improve the well-being of children in
foster care or those who are receiving a Title IV-E supported adoption assistance or guardianship
assistance payment. The federal reimbursement rate for these services would be pegged to a
state’s Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), which may range from 50% in the
highest per capita income states to 83% in states with the lowest per capita income.
A state seeking funding under the Title IV-E child and family services component would need to
submit a plan to HHS describing what services it intends to support with this funding, the process
by which it intends to assess the effects of the spending on the state’s established goals and on
other indicators of child welfare performance, and whether it intends to spend some or all of the
funds on a required Program Improvement Plan (PIP). The plan would also need to contain an
assurance that the state would submit detailed annual spending reports to HHS (in accordance
with a uniform reporting system to be developed by HHS). HHS would be required to approve a
state’s plan for the child and family services component provided it meets these specified
requirements, except that it may not approve the plan from a state if a review (e.g., the Child and
Family Services Review) has found that the state is not in substantial conformity with child
welfare policy and the state is not implementing a PIP to correct the failure. Further, HHS would
also be permitted to disapprove a state’s Title IV-E child and family services component plan if
the state was not making meaningful progress toward ending its failure to conform with federal
child welfare policy. Finally, HHS would be allowed to disapprove a state’s Title IV-E child and
family service component plan if the state intended to spend the funds on a service method
substantially the same as one that was used in the last two of the most recent five years and if the
prior spending on that service method failed to result in meaningful progress toward the goals the
63
See CRS Report RL34121, Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding, by (name redacted).
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
state described in its plan. Finally, states would be required to use the funds received under this
new service component of Title IV-E to supplement, rather than supplant, any federal, state, or
local funds currently used for such child and family services.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
H.R. 3409 would require each state to spend at least the same amount of money previously spent
to provide foster care maintenance payments for children who were not Title IV-E eligible
(because of the AFDC link) on either foster care maintenance payments or any of the four
services categories for which states must now spend Promoting Safe and Stable Families funding
(i.e. family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and
support).64 S. 1462, which as described above would remove the AFDC link for purposes of
federal eligibility for Adoption Assistance only, would provide that a state must spend any
savings it derives from the increased share of children that would be eligible for adoption
assistance on any purpose now authorized under Title IV-E or Title IV-B of the Social Security
Act (including post-adoption services). This requirement is also included in S. 3038. By contrast,
H.R. 4091, which would also expand eligibility for federal adoption assistance support by
removing the AFDC link, would not make this requirement of states but would include a “Sense
of Congress” statement to this effect.
By removing the AFDC eligibility link and thus increasing the number of children eligible for
Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments, H.R. 5466, H.R. 3409, and H.R. 4207/S. 2900
would also increase the share of children in foster care for whom states could seek federal support
for certain caseworker activities (such as monthly visits and permanency planning for children in
foster care). Although these activities are not considered “services” under the Title IV-E program,
they are critical efforts that federal law requires states to make on behalf of any child in foster
care. Currently, states may seek reimbursement for these activities only on behalf of Title IV-E
eligible children in foster care; states must use their own dollars (or find other federal funds, such
as Title IV-B or Social Services Block Grant funds) to pay for these caseworker activities made
on behalf of children who are not eligible for Title IV-E support. Thus, the expanded eligibility
for Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments (described above) would make federal support
available for caseworker activities on behalf of all (or nearly all) children in foster care. This
might free up other federal funds provided to a state for services to children and their families.
Further, provided that states did not use this increased support to simply supplant their current
spending for these purposes, it might also increase available state support for those purposes. (On
the other hand, both H.R. 5466 and H.R. 3409, but not H.R. 4207/S. 2900, would reduce the
reimbursement rate for those costs to limit the effect of the expanded eligibility.) None of the
proposed bills would address maintenance of effort with regard to current funding for caseworker
activities on behalf of children not eligible for Title IV-E.
ȱȱȃȄȱȱ Ȭȱȱȱȱȱȱ
H.R. 4207/S. 2900, which as described earlier would remove the AFDC link for purposes of both
federal Foster Care and Adoption Assistance eligibility, would separately permit a state that
64
Specifically, a state’s maintenance of effort level—that is, the amount of its own money it would need to continue
spending regardless of the expanded federal funds—would be based on past average annual total state spending
(FY2001-FY2006) on foster care maintenance payments for children who were ineligible for Title IV-E because of the
program eligibility rules related to the prior law AFDC program.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
reduces the number of days children in the state spend in foster care to transfer any federal
savings from this reduction to be used for child-welfare related training or for any of the
categories of services now authorized by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. (As
noted earlier, those services are family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification,
and adoption promotion and support.) Under H.R. 4207/S. 2900, a state wishing to transfer funds
would have to negotiate with HHS the total number of days it expected children in its state to
spend in foster care (i.e., its number of “placement days”). The maximum amount of savings that
could be generated would be the product of any fewer number of placement days and the state’s
per child (federal Title IV-E) cost of keeping a child in foster care. A state applying to HHS for
the ability to transfer funds would also need to submit a plan detailing how it would use any funds
generated and assuring that relevant current law child protections would be maintained.
ȱȱ£ȱȱ
H.R. 3409 would increase by $200 million the annual mandatory funding authorization for the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program. This would raise the total annual funding
authorization for that program from $545 million to $745 million (of which $200 million would
continue to be authorized on a discretionary basis). In FY2008, the PSSF received funding of
$408 million (of which $345 million was mandatory and $63 million was discretionary).
Funding under Title I and Title II of CAPTA is appropriated on a discretionary basis and the
authorization of appropriations is set to expire with FY2008. For FY2008, CAPTA state grants
(under Title I) received an appropriation of less than $27 million and the act’s Title II communitybased grant program received funding of less than $42 million. The Crime Control and
Prevention Act of 2007 (S. 2237, introduced by Senator Biden), seeks an additional funding
authorization of $200 million in each of FY2008-FY2012 for CAPTA state grants under Title I
and a separate additional $200 million authorization for each of those same years for the Title II
community-based grants.65 Beyond this, the bill would authorize $545 million in additional funds
to be distributed to community-based groups in all states (via Title II of CAPTA) for the purpose
of “parent education and counseling services and family-strengthening services, and referral to
and counseling for adoption services.” (See also discussion under “Parenting Education,” below.)
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
A number of proposals seek to bolster support for older youth in foster care and particularly those
who “age-out” of foster care. As discussed earlier, some proposals would expand federal
eligibility for foster care aid until a youth reaches their 21st birthday (see “Extending the Age
Limit for Federal Foster Care Assistance,” above). In addition, these and other proposals seek to
ensure greater attention to the needs of older youth in foster care and to expand and improve
access to education, medical, and social services for older youths in foster care as well as those
who age out.66
65
H.R. 3409 would also extend the current CAPTA funding authorization levels without significant changes.
See also CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal Programs , by
Adrienne L. Fernandes.
66
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 3409 would amend current law related to case planning and review
of permanency plans to require earlier and added actions on behalf of older youth in foster care.
Federal statute now requires states to apply specific case planning procedures for each child in
foster care, including preparation of a written case plan and regular review of this plan, including
the child’s permanency goal. Most of these protections apply without regard to age; however,
federal law now requires that the written case plan of any youth who is in foster care on his her
16th birthday, “when appropriate,” describe the programs and services that will help the child
prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living.67 Further, when holding a
permanency hearing, a court (or other administrative body) is required to consult (in an ageappropriate way) with the child or youth concerning the content of the permanency plan,
including any transition plan.68
ȱȱȱ
H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 3409 would amend the case plan requirement now in law to provide
that, for any youth in care at age 14 (and, at state option, any other child), the case plan must
include a written description of programs and services that will facilitate the transition of the
child from foster care to independent living, and further, that it discuss the appropriateness of the
services that have been provided. These bills would also require the case plan for any youth age
14 or older (or, at state option, any other child) to document the steps the agency had taken to
ensure a permanent placement of the child with a family or to establish another adult connection
and a permanent living arrangement for the child. Finally, for any child age 17 or older (or with a
permanency goal of emancipation), each of these bills would require that the state agency
document the youth’s permanent living arrangement upon emancipation.69
¢ȱȱ ȱ
H.R. 4208, S. 2560, and H.R. 3409 would require that at any permanency hearing that concerns a
foster child/youth’s transition to independence, all documented efforts to secure a permanent
living arrangement for the child upon emancipation would be reviewed. It would also require that
the final permanency hearing held with regard to the transition of a child from foster care to a
planned permanent living arrangement or independent living be held in a court.70 (Under current
law this permanency hearing may be conducted by a court or a court-appointed administrative
body.)
ȱȱ
Several bills seek increased mandatory funds for the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
(CFCIP) or other changes intended to improve access to certain social services under that
program. The CFCIP is the primary federal child welfare program supporting services to older
67
Section 475(1)(D) of the Social Security Act.
Section 475(5)(C)(iii) of the Social Security Act.
69
This appears to be the probable intent of certain provisions found in Section 103 of H.R. 4208, Section 103 of S.
2560, and Section 121 of H.R. 3409.
70
Ibid.
68
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
youth in foster care (and those who have aged out of foster care). Under its authority, federal
funds are distributed to each state to support independent living services and other aids for youth
who leave foster care custody at age 18 (because of reaching the state age of majority) or those
who are expected to do so. These services are generally related to completing education or
training programs, finding and retaining a job, managing personal finances and other daily living
skills, and practicing good health. States may also use CFCIP funds to “provide personal and
emotional support to children aging out of foster care, through mentors and the promotion of
interactions with dedicated adults.” Finally, states are required to provide assurances they will use
some CFCIP funds to provide services for youth who have left foster care at age 18 (but who are
not yet 21 years old) for activities related to educational achievement and employment as well as
for counseling, financial support, and housing assistance. However, the law prohibits states from
using more than 30% of the CFCIP allotment for room and board purposes.
ȱ£ȱȱȱȱ
H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would amend the CFCIP program to increase the annual
mandatory funding authorization to $200 million (from the current $140 million). Those bills,
along with H.R. 2188, would also amend the purposes of the CFCIP program to provide that
states are to identify youth expected to remain in care until age 14 (current law provides no lower
age limit but instructs states to identify youth likely to remain in care until 18 years of age) and to
provide services to help them transition to independent living.71 H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S.
2560 would further provide that states could continue providing CFCIP services to youth once
they had aged out of foster care until age 25 (current law says age 21) and would also require
states to certify that they used some of their CFCIP funds to serve youth who had left foster care
at age 18 but had not reached the age of 25 (but no more than 30% for room and board services to
youth in this age category). Additionally, H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would add an
additional purpose to the program that would permit states to use CFCIP funds to provide
independent living services for any youth who left foster care (via adoption or guardianship) after
reaching their 14th birthday. By contrast, S. 3038 would amend the purposes of the CFCIP to
make eligible for the CFCIP services any youth who left foster care for adoption or placement
with a relative guardian after reaching their 16th birthday.
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
H.R. 3409 , H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would amend the CFCIP program to require states to certify
that when, or before, a youth leaves foster care, the state will inform him or her of the full range
of available financial, housing, counseling, health, public benefit, employment and education
services, and other appropriate supports and services for which the youth is eligible. Further,
these bills would also require HHS to provide for “efficient distribution to States and local areas”
of information about the full range of federal programs that may assist youth making the
transition to self-sufficiency and provide guidance on how to access services under those
programs.
71
Section 477(a)(1) of the Social Security Act. Although there is no lower age limit for receipt of CFCIP services in
current law, the proposed language appears intended to encourage states to identify youth at an earlier age than may be
current practice.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱȱ
H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would modify certain requirements related to program
evaluation and would require states to describe in their CFCIP plan how they intend to both
distribute program funds “among a diverse range of qualified” private providers and ensure that
these entities have equal opportunity to receive the CFCIP funds (to provide independent living
services and related supports).
ȱȱ
Under current law, youth eligible for Education and Training Vouchers (ETVs) include any who
are eligible for general independent living services under the CFCIP as well as any youth adopted
from foster care after their 16th birthday. ETVs may be used by these youth to pursue postsecondary education or training.72 An individual voucher may be valued at up to $5,000 and may
be used for the cost of attending an “institution of higher education,” including universities,
community colleges, and post-secondary technical training or vocational schools.73 H.R. 2188,
H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would expand eligibility for the ETV program to permit any
youth who left foster care to either guardianship or adoption after reaching their 14th birthday to
receive an ETV.74 S. 661 and S. 3038 would permit any youth exiting foster care via legal
guardianship after reaching their 16th birthday to be eligible for an ETV.
The Higher Education Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 1642, introduced by Senator Edward
Kennedy), passed by the Senate in July 2007, and the College Opportunity and Affordability Act
of 2007 (H.R. 4137, introduced by Representative George Miller), passed by the House in
February 2008, would amend the Higher Education Act (HEA) to authorize services specifically
for youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth, among other related changes. H.R. 4137
would amend the HEA to stipulate that the Education Department must require applicants seeking
funds to operate what are collectively called the federal Trio programs to “identify services to
foster care youth (including youth in foster care and youth who have left foster care after reaching
age 16) as a permissible service” and to “ensure that such youth receive supportive services,
including mentoring, tutoring, and other services provided by those programs.” The federal Trio
programs are designed to identify potential post-secondary students from disadvantaged
backgrounds, prepare these individuals for post-secondary education, provide certain support
services to them while they are in post-secondary education, and train individuals who provide
these services. The programs are known individually as Talent Search, Upward Bound, Student
Support Services, and Educational Opportunity Centers.
H.R. 4137 and S. 1642 would further authorize that services provided under Talent Search,
Upward Bound, and Educational Opportunity Centers could specifically target current and former
foster youth, as well as other youth defined as “disconnected” under the act.75 S. 1642 would also
72
Section 477(I) of the Social Security Act.
For the purposes of the ETV program, the terms “cost of attendance” and “institution of higher education” are as
defined in Section 472 and Section 102, respectively of the Higher Education Act.
74
This is the assumed intent of the four bills although each also proposes separate language that would permit access to
ETVs for any youth who left foster care (for any reason) after reaching their 14th birthday in care.
75
H.R. 4137 specifies that certain students are considered “disconnected” for purposes of the act: homeless children
and youth; orphans, in foster care, or wards of the court, or who were in foster care or were wards of the court until the
students reached the age of 16; adjudicated or convicted juveniles, and related juvenile offenders; and pregnant and
parenting youth.
73
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
authorize services under Student Support Services specifically for current and recently
emancipated foster youth, including temporary housing during breaks in the academic year for
these youth. In addition, S. 1642 would amend the Student Support Services program by
changing one of its purposes—concerning fostering an institutional climate to support certain
students—to include youth in foster care or recently emancipated youth.
H.R. 4137 would make amendments to another program authorized by the HEA, Gaining Early
Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEARUP). Like the Trio programs,
GEARUP seeks to increase disadvantaged students’ high school completion and enrollment in
higher education by providing a variety of academic, counseling, and college preparatory
services. The bill would require grantees seeking funding under GEARUP for early intervention
activities (e.g., comprehensive mentoring, counseling, outreach, and support services to
participating students) to treat as a priority any student in preschool through grade 12 (and firstyear students at an institution of higher education), who is in foster care or was in care until age
16.
H.R. 4137 would further authorize funding through the Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education to be used to establish demonstration projects that provide
comprehensive support services for students who were in foster care until the age of 18, to enroll
and succeed in postsecondary education, including providing housing to the youth when housing
at an educational institution is closed or unavailable to other students. Finally, S. 1642 would
amend the Higher Education Act to require that educational technology used in training programs
for staff and leadership personnel that operate Trio, GEARUP, and related programs, include
strategies for recruiting and serving students who are in foster care or aging out.
The College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-84) amended and expanded the
definition of “independent student,” which is used as part of determining eligibility for federal
student aid under the Higher Education Act, to include in that definition an “emancipated minor;”
someone who is “in legal guardianship as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction;” or
any child who “is an orphan, in foster care, or a ward of the court, at any time when the individual
is 13 years of age or older.”76 The House has passed technical amendments to this law (H.R.
4153, introduced by Representative George Miller), which would restate this last provision to
clearly indicate that it includes any individual who is or was an orphan, in foster care, or a ward
of the court at any time when the individual was 13 years of age or older. In other words, any
youth who spent at least some time in foster care at age 13 or older—and without regard to the
subsequent reason for exit from this care—would be eligible for “independent student” status for
purposes of pursuing federal student aid.77 (See also “Educational Stability,” below.)
ȱȱ
The Medicaid Foster Care Coverage Act (H.R. 1376, introduced by Representative Cardoza)
would require states to provide Medicaid coverage to youths who have not yet reached their 21st
birthday and who were in foster care on their 18th birthday. H.R. 3409 would make this same
change; however, it would provide that this mandatory Medicaid coverage could continue until
76
Section 604 of P.L. 110-84 enacted September 27, 2007.
H.R. 3409, which was introduced before P.L. 110-84 was enacted and before H.R. 4153 was passed by the House,
also proposes to amend the definition of “independent student” under the Higher Education Act. However, it would
provide that to be eligible a youth must be in foster care or have been in foster care on their 18th birthday.
77
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
the youth reached the age of 25. At the same time, both H.R. 1376 and H.R. 3409 would permit
states to limit this mandatory coverage to those youths who were in foster care on their 18th
birthday who meet certain income or asset criteria, were previously Title IV-E eligible, or
received CFCIP services.78
Under current law, states are given the option to provide federally subsidized health insurance
(Medicaid) to youth who age out of foster care. As many as 18 states have done so, and, in
addition, some states use other eligibility pathways to provide coverage to these youth.79
However, research continues to suggest many youth are not covered. For instance, a recent study
that looked at 19-year-olds who were, or had been, in foster care in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin
found that less than half of the youth (47%) who had left foster care had health coverage. By
contrast, nearly all (98%) of those who remained in foster care at age 19 had health insurance
coverage.80
ȱȱȱȱȱ
Several proposals would seek to increase the personal funds youth have available to them when
making the transition to adulthood or to ensure that certain immigrant youth have legal resident
status.
ȱȱȱ
The Focusing Investments and Resources for a Safe Transition Act (S. 2341, introduced by
Senator Clinton), would permit HHS to make competitive grants to states (or state partners) to
establish individual development accounts (IDAs) for any youth aging out of foster care. Funds
saved in this account could be used by a youth for housing, education, vocational training, to
operate a business or to purchase a car and, at the option of the state, for purchase of work-related
items or car insurance. (However, before a youth could expend these funds to either operate a
business or purchase a car, he or she would first need to spend money on housing, education, or
vocational training.) S. 2341 would establish this grant program as an amendment to CAPTA and
would authorize additional funding under that act of “such sums as may be necessary” for each of
FY2008-FY2012 solely for grants to establish these IDAs.
ȱ¢Ȧ ȱȱȱ
The Foster Children Self-Support Act (H.R. 1104, introduced by Representative Stark) would
prohibit states from using certain Social Security benefits (including survivors benefits authorized
under Title II and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits authorized under Title XVI) to
reimburse a state for the cost of a child’s foster care maintenance payment. The bill would also
78
Under current law, any child who is eligible for a Title IV-E foster care maintenance payment is deemed eligible for
Medicaid assistance. Because S. 1512 , H.R. 4208, H.R. 5466, and S. 2560 would permit expansion of Title IV-E foster
care maintenance payments (to age 21), these bills would also provide expanded mandatory Medicaid coverage
provided the youth otherwise met all Title IV-E eligibility criteria.
79
For more information see CRS Report RL34499, Youth Transitioning from Foster Care: Background and Federal
Programs , by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
80
Mark Courtney, et al., Midwest Evaluation of Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 19,
Chapin Hall Center for Children and Families: University of Chicago, May 2005, p. 44.
ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
require the state child welfare agency to ensure that children in foster care were screened for
potential eligibility for these benefits and to assist such children in applying for the benefits.
Further, for any foster child receiving an SSI or other Social Security Act benefit (under Title II),
H.R. 1104 would require states to develop a plan specific to the needs of that child and which
would conserve benefits not necessary for the immediate needs of the child to enable the child to
achieve self-support after leaving foster care. Any savings accumulated under the plan would not
be counted for purposes of determining the child’s continued SSI eligibility.81
ȱ ȱ ȱȱ
H.R. 3409 would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow youth who may now be
denied access to special immigrant juvenile classification (due, for instance, to the length of
application processing time or other reasons) to achieve this classification. Congress created the
special immigrant juvenile classification in 1990 (P.L. 101-649) to allow a child who was born in
a foreign country, was brought to the United States illegally, and who subsequently experienced
abuse, neglect or abandonment, to petition for special immigrant juvenile classification. A child or
youth who receives this classification may then petition to become a legal permanent resident of
the United States and may thus legally secure a driver’s license, get a job, obtain a mortgage, and
do any number of other things necessary to successfully live as an independent adult in this
country.82
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Federal law currently requires states to provide certain protections for each child in foster care,
and these are primarily related to ensuring the child’s safety and finding a permanent home for the
child. Several proposals would amend child welfare programs authorized under Title IV-B or Title
IV-E of the Social Security Act to authorize or require that additional services or protections be
offered to children in foster care, including activities related to a child’s educational stability,
receipt of medical services, and access to court advocates or other supports.
ȱ¢ȱ
Children in foster care often experience more than one placement, and this is disruptive to their
academic achievement as well as to peer and adult relationships.83 H.R. 5466 would require states
to take new steps to ensure stability in school placement for children in foster care and would
81
For more description of these and additional changes proposed by H.R. 1104, see CRS Report RL33855, Child
Welfare: Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Benefits for Children in Foster Care, by Adrienne L.
Fernandes, Scott Szymendera, and (name redacted).
82
For information on the Special Immigrant Juvenile Classification, see Sally Kinoshita and Katherine Brady,
Immigration Benchbook for Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Immigration and Legal Resource Center, San
Francisco, CA: January 2005, pp. 8-19; and with special attention to child welfare issues: Kathleen McNaught and
Lauren Onkeles, Improving Outcomes for Older Youth: What Judges and Attorneys Need to Know, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, National Resource Center for Youth Development, Tulsa OK: 2004, pp. 83-87; and Annie
E. Casey Foundation, Undercounted, Underserved: Immigrant and Refugee Families in the Child Welfare System,
Baltimore, MD: 2006, pp. 22-23.
83
For more information, see the website of the National Working Group on Foster Care and Education, which includes
a number of legal and child welfare advocacy groups, as well as foster parents, state human service administrators, and
others. See http://www.casey.org/FriendsAndFamilies/Partners/NWGFCE.
ȱȱȱ
řŘȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
permit support for certain transportation costs to facilitate these efforts. Under current law, states
are required to maintain a health and education record for every child in foster care, including the
name and address of the child’s educational provider, a child’s grade level performance, school
record, and other relevant education information (as determined relevant by the state agency).
States are also required to make assurances (as part of this health and education record) that a
“child’s placement in foster care takes into account the proximity to the school in which the child
is enrolled at the time of placement.”84
H.R. 5466 would further require that a state have a plan for ensuring the educational stability of
each child in foster care. In addition to the current assurance that the child’s placement take into
account the proximity of the school where the child is enrolled at the time of the placement, the
plan would need to discuss the efforts by the state agency to coordinate with appropriate local
educational agencies to ensure a child may remain enrolled in the school he or she attended at the
time of placement or, if remaining in that school is not in the child’s best interest, efforts to
coordinate with the appropriate educational agencies to ensure a child’s immediate enrollment in
a new school. Finally, H.R. 5466 would amend the definition of a foster care maintenance
payment (under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act) to include the cost of “reasonable travel”
for a child to remain in the school he or she was enrolled in at the time of the placement. This
would permit states to seek partial reimbursement of these transportation costs provided they
were incurred on behalf of Title IV-E eligible children in foster care.85
Alternatively, the School Choice for Foster Care Kids Act (H.R. 4311, introduced by
Representative Bachmann) would amend the CFCIP and its related Education and Training
Vouchers (ETV) to permit funds from those programs to be used for vouchers to pay
transportation costs related to school-age children in foster care attending public elementary or
secondary education schools or to enable those school-age children to pay tuition for attendance
at private elementary or secondary schools.86 As discussed above, under current law CFCIP and
ETV funds must be used to help foster youth (of any age) who are expected to leave care without
placement in a permanent family—and those who have exited foster care on or after their 18th
birthday—to successfully make the transition to independent adulthood, and this may include
helping them secure a high school diploma (or a post-secondary degree).87
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
Many children in foster care have significant health and mental health needs.88 Although virtually
all children in foster care are eligible for Medicaid, needed services are not always made
available. Some research has identified “coordination” between child welfare agencies and health
and mental health agencies as important to improving foster children’s access to necessary
84
Section 475(1)(C) of the Social Security Act.
Transportation cost is one of a number of issues that have been identified by advocates as barriers to educational
stability for children in foster care. See Jessica Feierman and Janet Stotland, “Lessons Learned” Education Stability
Conference, Chicago, October 23-24, Education Law Center-PA and the Juvenile Law Center; see
http://www.abanet.org/child/educ-1.pdf.
86
See also Dan Lips, “Foster Care Children Need Better Education Opportunities,” Backgrounder, Heritage
Foundation (June 5, 2007), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/upload/bg_2039.pdf.
87
Section 477(a) of the Social Security Act.
88
See testimony of John Landsverk, U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Income
Security and Family Support, “Hearing on Health Care for Children in Foster Care,” July 19, 2007.
85
ȱȱȱ
řřȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
services.89 Under current law, Title IV-E eligible children in foster care are automatically deemed
eligible for Medicaid, and most or all non-Title IV-E eligible children in foster care are eligible
through other pathways (e.g. income status).90 States are now required to maintain certain health
and medical records for each child in foster care91 and to describe how they consult with
physicians and other appropriate medical professionals to assess the health and well-being of
children in foster care and to determine appropriate medical treatment for them.92
H.R. 5466 would provide that states must, in addition, have a plan for ongoing oversight and
coordination of health care services (including mental health and dental services) for any child in
foster care. The bill would require each state to coordinate and collaborate with its child welfare
agency and its agency administering Medicaid (in consultation with pediatricians, other health
care experts, and recipients of child welfare services) to develop such an oversight and
coordination plan. In addition to the current requirement that states consult with and involve
physicians in assessing and providing appropriate medical treatment to children in foster care, this
oversight and coordination plan would be required to outline (1) a schedule for initial and followup health screens that meet reasonable standards of medical practice; (2) how health needs
identified through screens will be monitored and treated; (3) how medical information for
children in care will be updated and appropriately shared (which may include development and
implementation of electronic health records); (4) steps to ensure continuity of health care services
(which may including establishing a medical home for every child in care); and (5) oversight of
prescription medicines. Finally, H.R. 5466 would provide that the requirement for a health
oversight and coordination plan must not be “construed to reduce or limit the responsibility” of
the state Medicaid agency to provide care and services for children who are also served by the
child welfare agency.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
H.R. 5466 would require states, as part of their Title IV-E foster care plan, to make “reasonable
efforts” to place siblings in the same foster care placement unless the state documents that a joint
placement would be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the siblings. Approximately
70% of children in foster care have another sibling who is also in care. For a variety of reasons,
including the size of sibling groups, adequacy of foster care placement settings, differences in
needs of siblings, and other reasons, many siblings are not placed in the same foster care home.
However the benefits of placing siblings together can include sense of stability and well-being for
89
For example: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Memorandum to Susan
Orr, Associate Commissioner for the Children’s Bureau and Dennis G. Smith Director Center for Medicaid State
Operations, from Brian Ritchie, Acting Deputy Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections, “Children’s Use of
Health Care Services While in Foster Care: Common Themes,” OEI-07-00-00645, July 2005; Neal Halfon, et al,
“Public Agencies and the Organization of Health Care Services for Children in Out-of-Home Care: Findings from a
National Survey, presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, March 2,
2004; and Testimony of Abraham Bergman, M.D., at U.S. Congress, House Ways and Means Committee,
Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, “Hearing on Health Care for Children in Foster Care,” July 19,
2007.
90
Section 1902(a)(10)(A) of the Social Security Act.
91
Section 475(1)(C) of the Social Security Act
92
Section 422(b)(15) of the Social Security Act.
ȱȱȱ
řŚȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
children in foster care, including better outcomes for these children as well as streamlined
casework efforts for child welfare workers.93
ȱȱȱȱ
Most, but not all, children who enter foster care do so because of parental abuse or neglect. The
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) currently provides that states must have
“provisions and procedures” for an appropriately trained guardian ad litem (GAL), including an
appropriately trained court-appointed special advocate (CASA), to be appointed to represent any
child in a judicial proceeding involving child abuse or neglect. (Available data suggest that
despite this CAPTA requirement, not all abused or neglected children receive such a court
advocate.94) A CASA for Every Child Act of 2007 (H.R. 3283, introduced by Representative
Cardoza) would require states (as a part of their Title IV-E state plan for foster care) to have in
place the “laws and procedures” necessary to ensure that each child in foster care has a CASA.
ȱȱȱ
Currently, the Victims of Child Abuse Act authorizes some funds ($13.2 million appropriated for
FY2008) to initiate, sustain, or expand local CASA programs and to provide related training and
technical assistance to local CASA programs. As amended in 2005 (P.L. 109-162) the purpose of
this funding is to “ensure that by January 1, 2010, a court appointed special advocate shall be
available to every victim of child abuse or neglect in the United States who needs one.” Funding
provided under this authorization is administered by the Department of Justice, which typically
provides these funds to the National CASA Association. The National CASA, in turn, makes
subgrants to local CASA programs and provides related training and technical assistance.95
H.R. 3283 would prohibit any federal reimbursement of CASA-related costs under the Title IV-E
foster care program unless the CASA provided is a volunteer in a member program of the
National CASA (and that member program is in compliance with national standards of the
Association). Separately, S. 2237 (an omnibus crime control and prevention measure) would
authorize a discretionary appropriation of $8 million for each of FY2008 through FY2011 for the
following purposes: to expand recruitment and build capacity of CASA programs located in the
15 largest areas to serve populations over-represented in foster care; to expand recruitment of
volunteers to serve populations of children significantly over-represented in foster care; and to
provide training and supervision of volunteers in CASA programs serving children significantly
over-represented in foster care.96 S. 2237 would provide that any CASA funds authorized or
appropriated under the authority of that law would be available to supplement, not supplant, other
federal CASA funding.
93
Child Welfare Information Gateway, Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption: A Bulletin for Professionals,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2006.
94
Child Maltreatment 2005 (April 2007), Table 6-6.
95
For background information on this program, see CRS Report RL32976, Child Welfare: Programs Authorized by the
Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, by (name redacted).
96
S. 2237 would authorize this funding under the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act (SANCA, P.L. 106314).
ȱȱȱ
řśȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱ
Under current law, CAPTA provides that a GAL/CASA who is appointed to advocate for a child
in an abuse or neglect proceeding is expected to gain a firsthand and clear understanding of the
situation and needs of the child and to make recommendations to the court concerning the best
interests of the child.97 S. 2237 would require HHS (in conjunction with the Department of
Justice) to develop model standards for curriculum and training for individuals who act as GALs
or CASAs, or other attorneys ad litem in child abuse and neglect cases. (The bill describes the
intended purpose of this model curriculum as to improve the quality of representation by, and
uniformity of practice of, such individuals throughout the country.) S. 2237 would further require
HHS, again after consulting with the Department of Justice, to develop caseload standards for
these child representatives in abuse or neglect cases. Finally, the bill would provide that not later
than 18 months after the enactment of these provisions, HHS must disseminate the curriculum
and caseload standards to state child welfare agencies (who receive Title IV-B, Subpart 1 funds).
H.R. 5466 would permit states to claim reimbursement of the cost of certain training for GALs or
CASAs, as well as other abuse and neglect court attorneys or personnel. (See “Increased Federal
Support for Training,” below.)
ȱȱȱ
Several federal programs now target specific populations of vulnerable youth for provision of
mentoring services.98 The Foster Care Mentoring Act of 2007 (S. 379 introduced by Senator
Landrieu) would permanently authorize funding (under Title IV-B of the Social Security Act) for
grants to provide mentoring to children in foster care. The grants would be awarded by HHS to
states (or to a political subdivision of the state if it serves a “substantial number” of youth in
foster care) to support, establish, and expand networks of public and private community entities
to provide this mentoring. Successful applicants would be eligible to receive a maximum of
$600,000 annually, would be required to spend no less than 50% of the federal grant funds for
training (and no more than 10% on program administration) and would need to provide matching
funds (in cash or in kind) of 25%. The bill would authorize $15 million for this grant program in
each of FY2008 and FY2009 and “such sums as may be necessary” in every following fiscal year.
S. 379 would also authorize an additional $4 million for each of FY2008 and FY2009 (and “such
sums as may be necessary” in each following fiscal year) for a national hotline (or website) to
provide information to individuals interested in being mentors to youth in foster care. The bill
would further require an annual report on the mentoring program for children in foster care
(prepared by HHS and submitted to Congress) and a separate evaluation of the program’s
effectiveness.
Finally, S. 379 would amend the Higher Education Act to authorize loan forgiveness for any
individual who has served as a mentor in a statewide foster care mentor program for at least 200
hours in a single calendar year. The amount of loan forgiveness would equal $2,000 for every 200
hours of eligible service (not to exceed a total of $20,000). The bill would further provide that
funds otherwise made available under the Higher Education Act—to make “payments to lenders
97
98
Section 106(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA).
See CRS Report RL34306, Vulnerable Youth: Federal Mentoring Programs and Issues, by Adrienne L. Fernandes.
ȱȱȱ
řŜȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
for the discharge of indebtedness of deceased or disabled individuals”—would be available to pay
for this loan forgiveness program.
ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ¢ȱȱȱȱ
H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would require a state to include in its Title IV-E state plan a
description of the written policies and procedures it has to reduce the incidence of children
missing or running away from foster care and to locate and return such children to foster care. As
of the last day of FY2005, states reported that close to 4,500 children had “exited” foster care by
running away.
ȱȱȱȱȱ
Several proposals seek to prevent placement of children in foster care solely due to inadequate
housing or because this is the only way a parent(s) may access mental health services for a
seriously emotionally disturbed child.
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ
H.R. 3409, H.R. 4208, and S. 2560 would amend the state plan provisions of the Title IV-E foster
care program to require states to have in effect “laws and procedures” necessary to ensure that no
child is placed in foster care solely because the child’s family is homeless or living in substandard
housing. The proposed change would further require that the state, as a part of meeting the federal
Title IV-E state plan requirements, have in place laws and procedures to ensure that it will work
with a family and state housing authorities to secure permanent housing for any family that
includes a minor child and is homeless or “at risk” of becoming homeless.
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
The Keeping Families Together Act (S. 382, introduced by Senator Collins, and H.R. 687,
introduced by Representative Ramstad) would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act to
authorize competitive “family support grants” for states to establish systems of care for mental
health treatment and services that would prevent the practice of parents relinquishing their
children to child welfare or juvenile justice custody in order to obtain mental health services for
their children. The GAO reported in April 2003 that a survey of 19 state child welfare directors
and juvenile justice officials in 30 counties had produced a conservative estimate of 12,700
children who, during FY2001, were placed in child welfare or juvenile justice custody so that the
children could receive mental health services. State and county officials surveyed by GAO
reported that limitations of public and private health insurance, inadequate supplies of mental
health services, limited availability of services through mental health agencies and schools, and
difficulty meeting eligibility rules of services influenced these kind of placements.99
99
U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice: Federal Agencies Could Play a
Stronger Role in Helping States Reduce the Number of Children Placed Solely to Obtain Mental Health Services,
GAO-03-397, April 2003.
ȱȱȱ
řŝȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱȱ
ȱ
S. 382 and H.R. 687 would authorize $8.5 million for FY2008, $11.5 million for FY2009, and
$20 million in each of FY2010 through FY2013 to award grant funds to states to establish a
“sustainable system of care” for child and youth (under the age of 21) who are in state custody for
the purpose of receiving mental health services or who are at risk of this kind of placement. States
winning grant funds would be able to use them to establish a state and local infrastructure that
permits interagency cooperation and cross-system financing; expand public health insurance
programs to cover an array of community-based mental health and family support services;
deliver mental health care and family support services to eligible children and youth (but only as
part of a transition to a “sustainable system” of mental health and family support services);
provide outreach and public education; provide the necessary training and professional
development for personnel who work with eligible children and youth to implement the state’s
plan; and to carry out other administration of the plan, including development and maintenance of
data systems. The grant funds would be received over six years and states would be required to
provide increasing levels of matching funds (beginning in the third year of the grant). A state plan
would need to be submitted before the second year of the grant and, among other things, would
need to describe how the planned “sustainable” system of care would be financed—including
through contributions from state agencies, state use of funds via Medicaid options or waivers, the
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and other public health insurance
mechanisms.
The grants would be administered within HHS by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA), in consultation with a task force established to examine the
issue of mental health and children and youth in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems,
including issues related to access to services and the role of agencies in promoting access to these
services for children and youth. The task force would need to be established jointly with the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare
Services (CMS) (both also within HHS); the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP) (at the Department of Justice); and the Office for Special Education (at the
Department of Education).
The task force would be required to work with stakeholders to make recommendations to
Congress for strategies to improve the delivery of mental health services to children and youth
with serious emotional disturbances and to develop improved reporting requirements concerning
the numbers of children entering child welfare and juvenile justice systems solely to access
mental health service (including creating standard definitions for categories of data to be
collected). The task force would further be required to encourage interagency cooperation to
eliminate the practice of custody relinquishment; provide advice to SAMHSA on administering
the grant program; coordinate and deliver technical assistance for states and agencies
implementing the grant program; make recommendations for breaking down barriers to
coordination in existing federal programs; and, finally, provide a biannual report to Congress on
its recommendations and progress in carrying out its duties. S. 382 and H.R. 687 would authorize
funding of $1 million in each of FY2008 through FY2013 to fund this task force (with 60% of
funds authorized for HHS, 20% for the Department of Justice, and 20% for the Education
Department).
ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
As discussed above, several bills would permit federal support (via Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act) for guardianship payments to relative caregivers who become the legal guardians of
ȱȱȱ
řŞȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
eligible foster children (see “Support for Subsidized Guardianship,” above). Other provisions in
these bills would seek to strengthen family connections for children in foster care (or at risk of
entering foster care), including children in formal or informal kinship care arrangements, and to
facilitate greater use of relatives as foster parents.
ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ
Kinship care may be broadly defined as a living arrangement in which an adult who is not the
parent of a child but who is emotionally close to a child (typically a grandparent or other relative)
assumes primary responsibility for raising this child. Children may be in a kinship care situation
for a variety of reasons, including their parents’ military deployment, death or serious illness,
poverty, abuse of drugs or alcohol, mental illness, or incarceration. At least 2.3 million children
are believed to be living with grandparents or other relatives who are responsible for their care,100
and some estimates of children living with kin who are responsible for them are larger.101
The very large majority of children living in kinship care arrangement are doing so by private
arrangement. On the last day of FY2006, only about 125,000 children were in formal (courtordered) foster care and were living with a relative.102 At the same time, some children living in
kinship care arrangements neither came to this living arrangement privately, nor are they
currently in foster care. These children may be living with a relative after some involvement with
the child welfare agency (including prior foster care placement) or because of some court
activity.103
Toward the goal of increased family connections for children in foster care (or at risk of entering
care), H.R. 5466 would authorize discretionary funds for competitive grants (under Title IV-B of
the Social Security Act) to (1) establish “kinship navigator” programs; (2) help identify family
members with whom a child may be placed; or (3) encourage involvement of family members in
planning for a child’s care through family group decision-making meetings. S. 661 and H.R. 2188
would authorize discretionary funds for competitive grants to establish kinship navigator
programs and would, separately require states to identify and give notice to relatives when a child
is placed in foster care. Finally, H.R. 5466, S. 661, H.R. 2188, and H.R. 3409 would each permit
states to establish separate licensing standards for relative foster care providers.
100
The 2002 National Survey of American Families (conducted by the Urban Institute) estimated 2.3 million children
lived with grandparents or other relatives without either parent present in the household. See “Children in Kinship
Care,” Assessing the New Federalism, Urban Institute, no date (based on 2002 survey).
101
Estimates of the number of children in kinship care are considerably larger if they include households where a
parent may be present but the grandparent is considered responsible for the child. For FY2006, the American
Community Survey (conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau) reported 2.6 million children lived with grandparents who
were responsible for them (of which 1 million lived in households without any parent present) and that an additional
2.0 million children lived in the households of “other relatives.” Although the available analysis of these data do not
indicate the number of those 2.0 million children for whom the “other relatives” were responsible (nor the number who
were living without at least one parent in the household), it seems plausible that a significant share of these children are
also in kinship care living arrangement. (See U.S. Census Bureau, Table S. 1001, Grandchildren Characteristics and
Table B09006, Relationship to Householder for Children Under 18 Years in Households. American Community
Survey, 2006.)
102
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, The
AFCARS Report (14) (Preliminary FY2006 Estimates as of January 2008).
103
“Children in Kinship Care,” Assessing the New Federalism, Urban Institute, no date (based on 2002 survey).
ȱȱȱ
řşȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱŗŗŖ ȱ
ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
Kinship providers may lack the legal authority to enroll the children they are caring for in their
neighborhood school or to access other education services for them. In addition, they may not
have the legal right to make needed medical care decisions for these children, and they may not
have access to information about the kinds of health, education, or other services they and the
children they care for may be eligible to receive. Further, advocates note that many kin must
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.