# Child Welfare Issues in the 110th Congress > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34388 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** June 17, 2008 - **Citation:** RL34388 ## Text ȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ –’•’Žȱ˜•£žœȱ ™ŽŒ’Š•’œȱ’—ȱ˜Œ’Š•ȱ˜•’Œ¢ȱ ž—ŽȱŗŝǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ ǯŒ›œǯ˜Ÿȱ řŚřŞŞȱ ȱŽ™˜›ȱ˜›ȱ˜—›Žœœ Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ ž––Š›¢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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ ˜—Ž—œȱ 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 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ 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 ’ž›Žœȱ Figure 1. Children Brought to the Attention of, or Served by, Child Welfare Agencies; National Estimates 2006............................................................................................................... 5 Š‹•Žœȱ 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 ™™Ž—’¡Žœȱ Appendix A. Other Financing Proposals ....................................................................................... 66 Appendix B. Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Criteria................................................................ 71 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ˜—ŠŒœȱ Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 72 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ŽŽ›Š•ȬŠŽȱ›Š–Ž ˜›”ȱ˜›ȱ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ˜•’Œ¢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). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ ȱ ‘’•ȱŠ•›ŽŠ–Ž—ȱŠ—ȱ‘’•›Ž—ȱ’—ȱ˜œŽ›ȱŠ›Žȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ řȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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: Œ˜™Žȱ˜ȱ‘’•›Ž—ȱŠ—ȱŠ–’•’ŽœȱŽ›ŸŽȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Śȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ śȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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 Œ’Ÿ’’Žœȱ˜ȱ‘Žȱ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›ŽȱŽ—Œ¢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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Ŝȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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). ŽŽ›Š•ȱ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱž—’—ȱ’—ȱŘŖŖŞȱ 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 ŽŽ›Š•ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ–’—’œ›Š’˜—ȱ 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). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŝȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ ȱ ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱ˜––’ŽŽȱ˜›”ȱ 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). ž—’—ȱž‘˜›’¢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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Şȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ şȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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: ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ ŽŠ›’—œȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ‘ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ 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. ‘Š••Ž—ŽœȱŠŒ’—ȱ‘Žȱ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ¢œŽ–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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŖȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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”). ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱ 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. ˜ž‘ȱ’—Ȭžȱ˜ȱ˜œŽ›ȱŠ›Žȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŗȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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 ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŘȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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 ŽŠ•‘ȱŠ›Žȱ˜›ȱ‘’•›Ž—ȱ’—ȱ˜œŽ›ȱŠ›Žȱ 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 ŽŒ˜––Ž—Š’˜—œȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗřȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ ›ŽœŒ›’™’˜—ȱœ¢Œ‘˜›˜™’Œȱ›žȱ 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 Ž’œ•Š’ŸŽȱ›˜™˜œŠ•œȱ˜›ȱ‘Š—Žȱ 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. ›˜™˜œŠ•œȱ˜ȱ¡™Š—ȱ’•Žȱ Ȭȱ•’’‹•Žȱ˜™ž•Š’˜—œȱ 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). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŚȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ŽȬ’—”ȱ˜œŽ›ȱŠ›ŽȱŠ—ȱ˜™’˜—ȱœœ’œŠ—ŒŽȱ›˜–ȱȱž•Žœȱ 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. ‘Š›Žȱ˜ȱ•’’‹•Žȱ‘’•›Ž—ȱ 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.” ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗśȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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 Šž›Žȱ˜ȱž—’—ȱ 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.) Ž’–‹ž›œŽ–Ž—ȱŠŽœȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŜȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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). ŽȬ’—”ȱ˜™’˜—ȱœœ’œŠ—ŒŽȱ 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...) ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŝȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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 ž™™˜›ȱ˜›ȱž‹œ’’£Žȱ žŠ›’Š—œ‘’™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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗŞȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŗşȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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 ›˜™˜œŽȱŠŽȱŽšž’›Ž–Ž—œȱ˜›ȱŽ’–‹ž›œŽ–Ž—ȱ˜ȱ žŠ›’Š—œ‘’™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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŖȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. •’’‹’•’¢ȱ˜ȱ žŠ›’Š—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). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řŗȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ •’’‹’•’¢ȱ˜ȱ‘’•ȱ 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. ›Š’—’—ȱ˜›ȱŽ•Š’ŸŽȱ žŠ›’Š—œȱ 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. ¡Ž—’—ȱ‘ŽȱŽȱ’–’ȱ˜›ȱŽŽ›Š•ȱ˜œŽ›ȱŠ›Žȱœœ’œŠ—ŒŽȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŘȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řřȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ž—’—ȱ˜›ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ˜ȱ‘’•›Ž—ȱŠ—ȱŠ–’•’Žœȱ 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 ’•Žȱ Ȭȱ‘’•ȱŠ—ȱŠ–’•¢ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ˜–™˜—Ž—ȱ 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). ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŚȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. Š’—Ž—Š—ŒŽȱ˜ȱ˜›ȱ›˜Ÿ’œ’˜—œȱŠ—ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ™Ž—’—ȱ 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. ›Š—œŽ›ȱ˜ȱȃ—žœŽȄȱ’•Žȱ Ȭȱž—œȱ˜›ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱŠ—ȱ›Š’—’—ȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řśȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ’’˜—Š•ȱž—’—ȱž‘˜›’£Š’˜—ȱ˜ž‘ȱ 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.) –™›˜Ÿ’—ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ˜›ȱ•Ž›ȱž››Ž—ȱ˜›ȱ˜›–Ž›ȱ˜œŽ›ȱ˜ž‘ȱ 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 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŜȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ ˜œŽ›ȱ‘’•ȱ›˜ŽŒ’˜—œȱ 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 ›’Ž—ȱŠœŽȱ•Š—ȱ 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 Ž›–Š—Ž—Œ¢ȱ•Š——’—ȱŽŸ’Ž 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.) ˜Œ’Š•ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ 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 ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ Řŝȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ȱ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ 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. ž—’—ȱž‘˜›’£Š’˜—ȱŠ—ȱ˜ž‘ȱŽ›ŸŽȱ 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. ŒŒŽœœȱ˜ȱ›˜›Š–ȱ —˜›–Š’˜—ȱŠ—ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽœȱ 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. ˜—›Žœœ’˜—Š•ȱŽœŽŠ›Œ‘ȱŽ›Ÿ’ŒŽȱ ŘŞȱ ‘’•ȱŽ•Š›Žȱ œœžŽœȱ’—ȱ‘ŽȱŗŗŖ ˜—›Žœœȱ ‘ ȱ ȱ ‘Ž›ȱ ȱ‘Š—Žœȱ 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). žŒŠ’˜—ȱŠ’—–Ž—ȱ 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 service [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL34388. Public record. Not legal advice.