Child Welfare: Programs Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990

CRS Report for Congress
Child Welfare: Programs Authorized
by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990
Updated April 26, 2006
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Child Welfare: Programs Authorized
by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990
Summary
The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II, P.L. 101-647) authorized
three programs: Children’s Advocacy Centers, the Court Appointed Special
Advocates (CASA) program, and Training for Judicial Practitioners and Personnel.
Funding authorization for each of these programs expired with FY2005. In mid-
December 2005, Congress approved the Violence Against Women and Department
of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (H.R. 3402), which reauthorizes funding for
the CASA program (for FY2007-FY2011) at its FY2005 authorization level of $12
million. That legislation (now P.L. 109-162) also extends funding for training and
technical assistance related to the Children’s Advocacy Centers for FY2006-FY2010,
increasing that authorization level to $7.5 million (previously $5 million) —
although it does not extend the authorization for the Children’s Advocacy Centers
themselves. Despite the expiration of their spending authorizations, funding for each
of the Victims of Child Abuse Act programs was included in FY2006 appropriations
(P.L. 109-108), and the Administration has requested funding for these programs in
FY2007.
Children’s Advocacy Centers are authorized to provide services to child victims
of abuse (and to their non-offending family members), to coordinate child abuse
investigations in ways that reduce their trauma, and to provide for related training and
technical assistance. Funding for the centers and related training and technical
assistance grew from approximately $13 million in FY2004 to close to $15 million
in each of FY2005 and FY2006. For FY2007, the Administration has requested
$11.7 million in funding for Children’s Advocacy Centers.
Under the CASA program, funding is provided to the National Court Appointed
Special Advocates Association to initiate and expand local programs that provide
volunteer advocates (called CASAs) to children who are the victims in child abuse
or neglect cases. The Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Act
reauthorizes funding for CASA for FY2007-FY2011 and, among other changes,
includes authority for the use of these funds to “sustain” CASA programs. Funding
for CASA was $11.7 million in FY2005. For FY2006, Congress appropriated
approximately $11.7 million for CASA. The Administration has requested $11.8
million for the program in FY2007.
Funds appropriated for Training Judicial Practitioners and Personnel have been
awarded to the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and have been
used to create the ongoing “model courts” initiative. Funding for this program was
somewhat lower in FY2005 ($1.9 million) than in each of the seven preceding fiscal
years. For FY2006, Congress appropriated approximately $2.3 million for this
training program, and the Administration has requested the same level of funding for
FY2007. This report will be updated as necessary.



Contents
Legislation in the 109th Congress......................................2
Appropriations ................................................2
Children’s Advocacy Centers................................2
Court Appointed Special Advocates...........................2
Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners.................2
Authorization .................................................3
Children’s Advocacy Centers................................3
Court Appointed Special Advocates...........................4
Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners.................4
Prior Reauthorization History........................................5
Description and Funding of Victims of Child Abuse Act Programs...........6
Children’s Advocacy Centers....................................6
Court Appointed Special Advocates...............................9
Training Programs for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners............11
Certain Programs and Acts with Related Purposes.......................13
CAPTA and Multi-Disciplinary Approaches........................13
Children’s Justice Act Grants...................................13
CAPTA and Court Advocacy for Child Victims ....................14
Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts and CASA.................14
The Court Improvement Project.................................14
Court and Child Welfare Agency Collaboration.................15
SANCA and Court Processes....................................15
Other Court-Related Child Welfare Legislation.........................16
Other selected provisions...................................16
Resources .......................................................17
List of Tables
Table 1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding
for Children’s Advocacy Centers and for Training
and Technical Assistance........................................8
Table 2. Authorized and Appropriated Funding
for the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program,
as included in the Victims of Child Abuse Act......................10
Table 3. Authorization Level and Appropriations
for the Training Programs for Judicial Practitioners
and Personnel as Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act........12



Child Welfare: Programs Authorized
by the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990
The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Title II of P.L. 101-647, the Crime
Control Act of 1990) authorizes Children’s Advocacy Centers (and related training
and technical assistance), the Court-Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program,
and Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. Funding for these programs
expired with FY2005. Congress has reauthorized the CASA program (for FY2007-
FY2011) and training and technical assistance related to Children’s Advocacy
Centers (for FY2006-FY2010) (see P.L. 109-162). Despite their expiration, FY2006
funding for all of the programs was included in the FY2006 Department of Justice
Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-108).1 Further, the Administration has requested
funding for all of these programs for FY2007. The basic purposes of the programs
and their final FY2005 and FY2006 funding levels, along with the President’s
FY2007 requested funding level, are given below.
!Children’s Advocacy Centers — to provide services to child
victims of abuse (and their non-offending family members), to
coordinate child abuse investigations in ways that reduce their
trauma, and to provide for training and technical assistance.
FY2005: $14.8 million
FY2006: $14.8 million
FY2007: President’s funding request — $11.7 million
!Court Appointed Special Advocates — to ensure proper court
advocacy for children who are child abuse and neglect victims
FY2005: $11.7 million
FY2006: $11.7 million
FY2007: President’s funding request — $11.8 million
!Training for judicial personnel and practitioners — to improve
court handling of child abuse and neglect cases.
FY2005: $1.9 million
FY2006: $2.3 million
FY2007: President’s funding request — $2.3 million


1 Discretionary funds provided in P.L. 109-108 were subject to a 0.28% reduction. In
addition, the program funding described in this report was subject to a 1% funding
rescission as provided in P.L. 109-148 (Defense Appropriations Act for FY2006).

Legislation in the 109th Congress
Appropriations
Funding authorization for the Victims of Child Abuse Act programs expired
with FY2005. Congress nonetheless provided FY2006 funding for these programs
in the conference report to H.R. 2862 (H.Rept. 109-272), which was signed by the
President on November 22, 2005 (P.L. 109-108). That law provided for a 0.28%
reduction in all the discretionary funding amounts provided in the bill. Subsequently,
Congress approved a conference agreement to the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (H.R. 2863, enacted as P.L. 109-148), which includes a 1%
rescission in nearly all FY2006 discretionary appropriations. Each of the Victims of
Child Abuse Act programs is discretionary and subject to this combined 1.28%
reduction in FY2006 funding. (Both laws stipulate that these reductions are to be
applied proportionately to all accounts and activities funded.) Unless otherwise
noted, the FY2006 appropriations levels discussed in this report estimate the effect
of this 1.28% reduction on each of the programs assuming a proportionate
application of the reduction.
Children’s Advocacy Centers. Neither the House nor the Senate followed
the President’s FY2006 budget request to significantly reduce funding for Children’s
Advocacy Centers (and its related training and technical assistance). Congress
provided $14.8 million in FY2006 appropriations for this program rather than the
$11.8 million proposed by the President. The conference report (H.Rept. 109-272)
accompanying this FY2006 appropriation (and as adjusted proportionately by the
1.28% funding reduction) specified that, of this amount, $12.6 million is for
Children’s Advocacy Centers and $2.2 million is for specialized training and
technical assistance. For FY2007, the Administration has again requested reduced2
funding for the program, totaling $11.679 million.
Court Appointed Special Advocates. The House, Senate, and President
proposed roughly the same FY2006 funding levels (ranging between $11.846 million
and $11.897 million) for the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program.
The final estimated FY2006 funding level for this program is approximately $11.745
million. For FY2007, the Administration has proposed $11.750 million in CASA
funding.
Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. Floor amendments
approved in both the House and Senate (to their respective versions of H.R. 2862)
would have significantly raised the funding levels for Training for Judicial Personnel


2 The text of the Administration’s budget requests makes clear that $11.7 million is sought
for the Children’s Advocacy Centers and related training program. However, the actual
legislative language proposed in the budget references only the program authority for the
related training program. U.S. Department of Justice, FY2007 Performance Budget, Office
of Justice Programs, pp. 17, 206-209, and Exhibit B-3.

and Practitioners for FY2006.3 However, conferees to the Department of Justice
Appropriations Act stripped this extra money from the final agreement, and the
FY2006 appropriation for this program is estimated as $2.258 million. For FY2007,
the President’s budget requests $2.263 million for this program.
Authorization
Congress often uses the expiration of a program’s funding authorization to both
amend program authority and extend funding authorization.
Children’s Advocacy Centers. Legislation to reauthorize grants to supportth
Children’s Advocacy Centers has not been introduced in the 109 Congress.
However, the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization
Act (P.L. 109-162) includes an authorization of $7.5 million (in each of FY2006-
FY2010) for specialized technical assistance and training programs related to the
purposes of Children’s Advocacy Centers. The Victims of Child Abuse Act provided
an authorization of $5 million (for each of FY2004-FY2005) for grants to “national
organizations” to provide technical assistance and training ... for the purpose of
improving the quality of criminal prosecution of [child abuse and neglect] cases.”
As recently enacted, P.L. 109-162 stipulates that the training and technical assistance
funding authorized for FY2006-FY2010 is “in addition” to any other funding under
the Victims of Child Abuse Act for this purpose, and that this new funding
authorization is specifically for grants to the American Prosecutors Research Institute
(APRI). (There are currently no other funds authorized for this purpose.) Congress
has often — via appropriations conference report language — made grants to APRI
out of this funding authority. However, funds provided under this authority have not
been exclusively devoted to that organization. (See the program discussion under
Children’s Advocacy Centers below for more information.)
During the first session of the 109th Congress, bills that sought to ensure funds
would be sent to the APRI were introduced in the House (H.R. 3687, by
Representative Gutknecht) and Senate (S. 885, by Senator Dayton), and the
provisions of these bills have now largely been approved as part of the Violence
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-
162). (However, Senator Dayton’s bill would have further provided that in each of
FY2006 to FY2010, $4.5 million of the funds would be authorized for APRI’s
National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse, while the remaining $3.0 million
would be authorized for APRI’s National Child Protection Training Center at
Winona State University.4)


3 In the House, Representative Jackson-Lee (Amendment 11 to H.R. 2862) successfully
proposed raising the funding level by $2 million, which set the initial House-passed
FY2006 appropriation for the program at $3.925 million. In the Senate, Senator Ensign
(S.Amdt. 1653) successfully proposed raising the funding level by $3 million, which set the
initial Senate-passed FY2006 appropriation for this program at $5.287 million.
4 For information about the National Child Protection Training Center, which was created
in 2003, see [http://www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/programs/ncptc/ncptc_home.html]. For
information about the National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse see the training
(continued...)

Court Appointed Special Advocates. The Violence Against Women and
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162) also amended the
CASA program and reauthorized its funding for FY2007-FY2011. (As noted above,
FY2006 funding for CASA was provided in P.L. 109-108 despite the lapsed funding
authorization.) Legislation to amend CASA and reauthorize its funding had earlier
passed the Senate (S. 1197) as part of a bill to extend Violence Against Women Act5
(VAWA) programs. S. 1197 would have raised the annual funding authorization for
the CASA program to $17 million for FY2006-FY2010. By contrast, P.L. 109-162
reauthorizes funding for CASA for five years but maintains the FY2005 funding
authorization level of $12 million and changes the first year of the extension to
FY2007. Like S. 1197, however, P.L. 109-162 clarifies that funds provided for
CASA may be used to “initiate, sustain, and expand” CASA programs. (Prior law
generally limited the purpose of these funds to initiating or expanding CASA
programs.) Also, like S. 1197, the final legislation authorizes state and local CASA
programs to request criminal background checks for prospective volunteers from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and stipulates that programs that make such6
a request are required to pay for “reasonable costs” associated with the FBI check.
Finally, P.L. 109-162 includes two provisions that were not in S. 1197. These are:
1) a requirement the Inspector General of the Department of Justice prepare a report
on the CASA program that looks at the types of activities funded by the National
Court-Appointed Special Advocate Association since 1993 and compares outcomes
in cases where CASA volunteers are appointed to assist children to those where no
CASA is appointed; and 2) a prohibition on the use of funds provided under this
authority for lobbying.7
Training for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners. No legislation to
reauthorize funding for grants to provide Training for Judicial Personnel and
Practitioners has been introduced during the 109th Congress.


4 (...continued)
and technical assistance provider website of the Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) at
[http://www.nttac.org/main/index.cfm?event=projectDetails&id=57] or the center’s own
website at [http://www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/programs/ncpca/ncpca_home.html].
5 S. 1679, introduced September 12, 2005, by Senator DeWine with Senator Rockefeller,
sought to reauthorize CASA at $17 million annually for FY2006-FY2010. It would further
provide that out of any funds appropriated for CASA in each of those years, no less than $5
million must be used for grants to develop or expand CASA programs in rural or under-
served urban areas.
6 The final legislation stated this provision slightly differently from how it was stated in S.
1197 as P.L. 109-162 removes a reference to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center
(given in S. 1197) but adds a reference to “fingerprint-based” checks.
7 Also as S. 1197 would have done, P.L. 109-162 revises and updated the findings and
purpose sections of the CASA law. However the enacted legislation removes a reference
in the findings section to the National CASA (which had been in S. 1197 and in prior law).
Also both S. 1197 and the enacted legislation (P.L. 109-162) changed the date by which the
legislation is intended to ensure provision of a CASA to every victim of child abuse and
neglect in the United States who needs one (from January 1995 to January 2010).

Prior Reauthorization History
The House and Senate Judiciary Committees reported the 1990 legislation that
established the Victims of Child Abuse Act and, in general, those committees have
exercised jurisdiction over its programs. In both 1994 (P.L. 103-322) and 2000 (P.L.
106-386), reauthorization of funding for the Court Appointed Special Advocates
(CASA) program and for the Training Program for Judicial Personnel and
Practitioners occurred as part of the legislation creating and amending the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA). While the 2005 VAWA reauthorization extends
CASA funding authorization (FY2007-FY2011) it does not do so for the judicial
training program.
Neither does the legislation that reauthorizes VAWA include reauthorization of
the Children’s Advocacy Centers, although it does include reauthorization of training
funds related to the work done by the centers (FY2006-FY2010). Past
reauthorizations of Children’s Advocacy Centers have occurred as part of separate
legislation and in different years. The 1992 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act (P.L. 102-586) rewrote and reauthorized the original
provisions of the Victims of Child Abuse Act to authorize the current Children’s
Advocacy Centers and related training program. The 1996 amendments (P.L. 104-
235) to the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (which was
handled by the committees that are currently called House Education and the
Workforce and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) extended this8
authorization without any changes to the program. The program’s funding
authorization was expired from FY2001 through FY2003, although the program
continued to receive funding. In 2003, a House floor amendment to the legislation
that would become P.L. 108-21 (PROTECT Act) reauthorized funding for the
program in FY2004 and FY2005.


8 S.Rept. 104-117 (July 1995), p. 23, which accompanied the bill, states that this
reauthorization was included at the request of the Judiciary Committee, which planned to
re-examine the programs during the expected 1996 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act. That reauthorization did not occur until 2002 legislation
(P.L. 107-273) and then did not address Children’s Advocacy Centers.

Description and Funding
of Victims of Child Abuse Act Programs
Children’s Advocacy Centers
Regional children’s advocacy centers, local children’s advocacy centers, and
related technical assistance and training (to improve the quality of criminal
prosecution of child abuse cases) are authorized under Subtitle A (Sections 213, 214,
and 214A) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act. Funding for these programs is
authorized under Section 214B of this subtitle.
Children’s Advocacy Centers are intended to coordinate a multi-disciplinary
response to child abuse (e.g., law enforcement, social service, medical, mental health)
in a manner that ensures child abuse victims (and any non-offending family
members) receive the support services they need and do not experience the
investigation of child abuse as an added trauma. Since the inception of the federal
program, the Department of Justice, through its Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), has provided funds to the National Children’s
Alliance (NCA) to foster development of local children’s advocacy centers.9
(Children’s advocacy centers solicit private or other non-federal funds.) NCA
provides subgrants to create or help maintain local children’s advocacy centers,
which currently exist in approximately 400 communities. And, together with the four
federally supported regional children’s advocacy centers (located in Philadelphia,
PA; St. Paul, MN; Huntsville, AL; and Colorado Springs, CO), federal funds are used
to provide training and technical assistance to those local child advocacy centers.10
Funding for the regional and local children’s advocacy centers is authorized
under Section 214B(a) of the Victims of Child Abuse Act, and is to be administered
within the Department of Justice in coordination with the Department of Health and11
Human Services (HHS). For FY2005, funding was authorized at $15 million for
the centers, and approximately $12.5 million was appropriated for these centers. No
Children’s Advocacy Center funding is authorized for FY2006 but Congress
nonetheless appropriated an estimated $12.6 million for them.
Separately, Subtitle A of the Victims of Child Abuse Act (Section 214A)
authorizes grants to national organizations for “specialized technical assistance and
training programs” for attorneys and others instrumental to the criminal prosecution
of child abuse cases and to improve the quality of criminal prosecution of such cases.
For FY2005 funding for this purpose was authorized [Section 214B(b)] at $5 million


9 The NCA was formerly called the National Network of Children’s Advocacy Centers.
10 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2005 Congressional Budget, Feb.

2004, pp. 125-126. For additional information go to [http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/programs/


ProgResults.asp] and click on Children’s Advocacy Centers.
11 The statute provides that this coordination is to be done with the Director of the National
Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. The mandate for this position, created by the CAPTA,
was repealed by P.L. 104-235. That law simultaneously authorized the creation of the
currently existing HHS Office on Child Abuse and Neglect.

and Congress appropriated about half that amount. Funding for this training program
is not authorized for FY2006 but Congress nonetheless appropriated an estimated
$2.2 million for this purpose.
In every year, beginning with FY1992, the American Prosecutors Research
Institute’s (APRI) National Center for the Prosecution of Child Abuse has received
funding under this grant authority. The Center provides publication services, as well
as training and technical assistance for prosecutors and other professionals involved
in the prosecution of child abuse at the state, local and federal levels. While the
Congress has designated the Center as the recipient of most of these funds, some
training and technical assistance funds provided under this legislative authority have
also been directed by the appropriators to the National Children’s Alliance and, in a
few years, to the National Children’s Advocacy Center in Huntsville, AL.
The annual appropriation for the Children’s Advocacy Centers and related
training and technical assistance has never reached the combined funding
authorization level of $20 million (which was originally set for FY1991). At the
same time, combined federal funding has grown for these purposes from $1.5 million
in FY1992 to an estimated $14.8 million in FY2006.
Table 1 shows a funding history for the Children’s Advocacy Centers and
related training and technical assistance. Readers should note that certain funding
reductions were applied in the legislation that appropriated funds for this program,
and which were applicable to the program in FY2003 (0.65%), FY2004 (1.055%),
FY2005 (1.34%) and FY2006 (1.28%). These reductions, which may or may not
have been applied proportionately by the Department, are not reflected in the table
but are discussed in the table notes.



Table 1. Authorized and Appropriated Funding for Children’s
Advocacy Centers and for Training and Technical Assistance
($ in millions)
Amounts shown do not reflect any across-the-board funding reductions that affected the
appropriation amount, including those passed by Congress in each of FY2003-FY2006.
Children’s Advocacy CentersTraining and technical assistance
local and regional centers to improve prosecution
(Sections 213 and 214)(Section 214A)
Fiscal Authorizatio n Authorizatio n
year To t a llevel Appropriatio n level Appropriatio n
P.L. 101-647 authorized $20 million for grants to develop and establish multi-
disciplinary child abuse investigation and prosecution programs and for grants to
1991national organizations to provide technical assistance and training to attorneys and others
to improve the quality of criminal prosecution of child abuse cases. No funding wasa
appropriated under this authority.
1992such sums as not fundedsuch sums as$1.5$1.5
necessaryanecessarya1993 not funded$1.5$1.5
1994 $15 $1.5 $ 5 $1.5 $3.0
1995 $2.5 $2.0 $4.5
1996 $2.5 $2.0 $4.5
such sums assuch sums as1997$2.5$2.0$4.5
necessary necessary1998 $5.0 $2.0 $7.0
1999 $5.0 $2.0 $7.0
2000 $5.0 $2.0 $7.0
2001 $6.3 $2.3 $8.5
no ne no ne2002 $6.2 $2.2 $8.5
2003 b $7.8 $3.2 $11 b
2004c$15not less than $9d$5no more than $3d$13c
2005 e $15 $12.5 $ 5 $2.5 $15 e
2006 f no ne $12.8 $7.5 g $2.3 $15 f
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on appropriations acts and accompanying
conference reports. Figures may not sum to the total due to rounding.
a. P.L. 101-647provided total funding authorization of $20 million in FY1991 and such sums as
necessary for each of FY1992 - FY1993; it also stipulated that not less than 90% of any funding
was for developing and implementing multi-disciplinary child abuse and investigation programs.
However, in FY1992 and FY1993 the appropriators stipulated otherwise.
b. P.L. 108-7, which included the FY2003 appropriation for this program, made an across-the-board
funding reduction of 0.65% on most discretionary accounts, including this program. This
brought total funding to $10.9 million in this year.
c. P.L. 108-199, which included the FY2004 appropriation for this program made an across-the-board
funding reduction of 0.59% on most discretionary accounts and an additional reduction of
0.465% on Justice programs. This brought total program funding to $12.9 million in FY2004.
d. The conference report provided only that of the $13 million appropriated for these purposes, not
less than $9 million was to be available to regional or local child advocacy centers.
e. The omnibus funding bill (P.L. 108-447), which included the FY2005 appropriation for this
program included an across-the-board funding reduction on most discretionary accounts of
0.80% and an additional reduction of 0.54% on Commerce-State-Justice programs, including
this program. This brought total program funding to $14.8 million in FY2005.
f. The Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-148) reduced most FY2006 discretionary appropriation
amounts by 1% and P.L. 109-108 reduced discretionary funding of Justice programs an
additional 0.28%. This lowered the total FY2006 appropriation to an estimated $14.8 million.
g. This funding authorization is provided in freestanding law, which refers to the Victims of Child
Abuse Act (Section 214A), but does not amend that act.



Court Appointed Special Advocates
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) are volunteers who are appointed
by judges and who work to ensure that children who are in foster care (or who
because of abuse or neglect are at risk of placement in foster care) receive strong
effective representation in dependency court proceedings. The first CASA pilot
program began in Seattle, Washington in 1977 and the National Court Appointed
Special Advocate Association was founded in 1982 to help replicate and support
CASA programs across the nation. Local CASA programs are located in every state,
the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands.12
Federal support for the National CASA Association preceded by more than a
decade the specific authorization of funds for this purpose in Subtitle B of the 1990
Victims of Child Abuse Act. These funds are administered by OJJDP within the
Department of Justice. In authorizing funds specifically for CASA programs, the
1990 Act asserted that only a small fraction of children in dependency proceedings
received CASA representation and declared that its purpose was to ensure that each
of these children would have a CASA made available to them. Although this goal
has not yet been reached, there are more than 950 CASA/Guardian Ad Litem
programs in 49 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. In FY2005,
almost 200,000 children were served by approximately 60,000 CASA volunteers.
Many children, however, were represented through CASA programs that did not
receive federal support. For FY2005, about 89,700 children were served by federally
supported centers, and those centers recruited approximately 15,600 volunteers.13
Funds appropriated for CASA are awarded to the National CASA Association,
which awards subgrants (on a competitive basis) to be used for new local program
development or expansion of existing programs; state CASA organizations; urban
program demonstrations; and to increase the diversity of CASA staff and volunteers.
The National CASA also uses this federal funding to provide training and technical
assistance to CASA programs, child welfare professionals, attorneys, judges, social
workers, and volunteer advocates.14
Table 2 shows authorization and appropriation levels for the Court Appointed
Special Advocates program. Federal funding of CASA programs has grown from
half a million dollars in 1989 (before specific authorization was given by the Victims
of Child Abuse Act) to nearly $12 million in FY2006. Readers should note that
certain funding reductions were applied in the legislation that appropriated funds for
this program, and which were applicable to the program in FY2003 through FY2006.
These reductions are shown in the table and are discussed in the table notes.
However, for certain years the Department of Justice may have applied additional
transfers of funds between programs; any of these funding changes are not shown.


12 OJJDP Annual Report 2002, July 2004, Chapter 2.
13 Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, FY2007 Performance Budget, Feb.

2006, p.p. 205, 223.


14 For more information go to [http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/programs/ProgResults.asp] and click
on “Court Appointed Special Advocates.”

Table 2. Authorized and Appropriated Funding
for the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program,
as included in the Victims of Child Abuse Act
Amounts shown for FY2003 through FY2006 do reflect across-the-board funding reductions
included in appropriations acts for each of those years.
Fiscal
yearAuthorization levelAppropriation
1989-aNo specific CASA funding authorization was provided. However, under the generalauthority of Title II, part C of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act,
1990approximately $500,000 was made available for CASA in each of these fiscal years.
1991a$5 million$750,000
1992a$1 million
such sums as necessary1993a$2 million
1994 $4.5million
1995none$6.0 million
1996b$6 million$6.0 million
1997b$6 million$6.0 million
1998b$7 million$7.0 million
1999b$9 million$9.0 million
2000b$10 million$10.0 million
2001$12 million$11.5 million
2002$12 million$12.0 million
2003$12 million$11.9 millionc
2004$12 million$11.6 milliond
2005$12 million$11.7 millione
2006none$11.7 millionf
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS). Data for FY1989 through FY1993 is based on
information provided by the U.S. Department of Justice. Information for FY1994 through FY2006
is based on appropriations acts for those years.
a. Although the Victims of Child Abuse Act (P.L. 101-647) authorized funding for CASA as early
as FY1991 no money was appropriated under this authority until FY1994. However, funding
for CASA programs was provided in prior years out of money appropriated for Part C of the
Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention Act (as it was then written).
b. The amount of funding for the CASA program was specified in the appropriations acts for each of
these years but the money was derived from the Crime Victims Fund.
c. The omnibus funding bill (P.L. 108-7) for FY2003 initially included $11.975 million for CASA.
However the bill also included an across-the-board funding reduction of of 0.65% on most
discretionary accounts, including this program. This reduced the actual appropriation for
FY2003 to $11.897 million.
d. The omnibus funding bill (P.L. 108-199) for FY2004 initially included $11.897 million for CASA.
However, the bill also included an across-the-board funding reduction (on most discretionary
accounts) of 0.59% and an additional reduction of 0.465% on Commerce-State-Justice
programs. This reduced the actual appropriation for FY2004 to $11.629 million.
e. The omnibus funding bill (P.L. 108-447) for FY2005 initially included $11.897 million for CASA.
However, the bill also included an across-the-board funding reduction on most discretionary
accounts of 0.80% and an additional reduction of 0.54% on Commerce-State-Justice programs,
including this program. This reduced the actual appropriation for FY2005 to $11.738 million.
f. Subject to an across-the -board rescission of 0.28%, P.L. 109-108 provided $11.897 million. This
amount was further reduced by a 1% reduction in most FY2006 discretionary appropriations
(P.L. 109-148), which brought the actual FY2006 funding to an estimated $11.745 million.



Training Programs for Judicial Personnel and Practitioners
Citing an increase in abuse and neglect cases attributed to drug-related
maltreatment of children and the new requirements placed on juvenile and family
courts by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272),15
Subtitle C of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 required the Department of
Justice’s OJJDP to “provide expanded technical assistance and training to judicial
personnel and attorneys ... to improve the judicial system’s handling of child abuse
and neglect cases with specific emphasis on the role of the courts in addressing
reasonable efforts that can safely avoid unnecessary and unnecessarily prolonged
foster care placement.”16 The statute authorizes grants for these purposes to be made
to 1) national organizations to develop model technical assistance and training
programs for these purposes; and 2) juvenile and family courts.
Congress has never appropriated separate funds under the authority of this act
for grants to state courts. All funding under this authorization is awarded to the
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Drawing on the experience
and reform initiatives in more than 30 Model Courts across the country, the National
Council has developed publications, and provides technical assistance and training
programs to improve handling of child abuse and neglect cases across the nation.17
Table 3 provides a funding history for this program authorization. Readers
should note that certain funding reductions were applied in the legislation that
appropriated funds for this program, and which were applicable to the program in
FY2003 (0.65%), FY2004 (1.055%), FY2005 (1.34%) and FY2006 (1.28%). These
reductions, which may or may not have been applied proportionately by the
Department, are not reflected in the table below but are discussed in the table notes.


15 P.L. 96-272 significantly rewrote federal child welfare policy. The 1980 law revised Title
IV-B of the Social Security Act, which deals with child welfare services broadly, established
federal foster care as an independent program (in a new Title IV-E of the act), and created
a new federal adoption assistance program (also in the new Title IV-E).
16 Among the requirements of P.L. 96-272 that affected courts, and which were noted by the
Victims of Child Abuse Act, were 1) the determination of whether a child welfare agency
has made reasonable efforts to prevent foster care placement; 2) approval of voluntary
foster care placements; and 3) provision of procedural safeguards for parents when their
parent-child relationship is affected.
17 For more information on model courts, go to the National Council of Juvenile and Family
Court Judges website [http://www.ncjfcj.org/content/blogcategory/117/156/].

Table 3. Authorization Level and Appropriations
for the Training Programs for Judicial Practitioners
and Personnel as Authorized by the Victims of Child Abuse Act
Amounts shown do not reflect any across-the-board funding reductions that were included
in some of the funding acts passed in these years
Fiscal yearAuthorization levelAppropriation
1991authorized but not funded
1992a$10 million$500,000
1993asuch sums as necessary$500,000
1994asuch sums as necessary$500,000
1995 no ne $750,000
1996 a $750,000 $750,000
1997$1 million$1 million
1998$2 million$2 million
1999$2 million$2 million
2000$2.3 million$2 million
2001$2.3 million$2 million
2002$2.3 million$2.3 million
2003$2.3 million$2.3 millionb
2004$2.3 million$2.3 millionc
2005$2.3 million$1.9 milliond
2006none$2.3 millione
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on appropriations acts and accompanying
conference reports.
a. For each of FY1991 through FY1994 the statute provided that of the total funding provided for
grants to courts and for grants to a national organization to develop training and technical
assistance, no less then 80% must be provided for the grants to state courts program. However
funds appropriated in those years were all designated (in the appropriations acts) for training and
technical assistance. P.L. 103-322 lowered the funding authorization level, beginning with
FY1996 and removed the language that required a share of funds to be granted to state courts.
b. The omnibus funding bill for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) included an across-the-board funding reduction
of of 0.65% on most discretionary accounts, including this program. This reduction is not
reflected in the table.
c. The omnibus funding bill for FY2004 (P.L. 108-199) included an across-the-board funding
reduction (on most discretionary accounts) of 0.59% and an additional reduction of 0.465% on
Commerce-State-Justice programs. This reduction is not reflected in the table.
d. The omnibus funding bill for FY2005 (P.L. 108-447) included an across-the-board funding
reduction on most discretionary accounts of 0.80% and an additional reduction of 0.54% on
Commerce-State-Justice programs, including this program. This reduction is not reflected in
the table.
e. Subject to a 0.28% across-the-board reduction, P.L. 109-108 appropriated $2.287 million for this
program. After applying the additional 1% across-the-board reduction on most FY2006
discretionary appropriations, final program funding is estimated to be $2.258 million.



Certain Programs and Acts with Related Purposes
A number of programs, primarily within HHS, have similar or related purposes
to those supported by the Victims of Child Abuse Act funding.
CAPTA and Multi-Disciplinary Approaches
The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) seeks to encourage
multi-disciplinary approaches to study, prevent and respond to child abuse and
neglect. The effort to establish multi-disciplinary teams to investigate child abuse and
neglect, a primary aim of Children’s Advocacy Centers, is echoed in CAPTA’s state
grant program. The program provides formula grant money to each eligible state to
improve their child protective services generally, and lists among the approved uses
of these funds, the creation and use of multi-disciplinary teams and interagency
protocols to enhance child abuse investigations and to improve legal preparation and
representation. However, CAPTA state grant money, which is administered by HHS,
is also available for a wide range of additional activities intended to improve how
states assess and investigate child abuse reports, including worker training, case
management and tracking, and public education on the role of child protective
services. In FY2006, a total of $27.0 million was appropriated for CAPTA’s state
grants to improve child protective services, and the Administration has requested this
same funding level for FY2007.
Children’s Justice Act Grants
Section 107 of CAPTA now incorporates authorization for the Children’s
Justice Act grants. First authorized in 1986 by P.L. 99-401, these are formula grants
to each eligible state for programs related to the investigation and prosecution of
child abuse and neglect cases, including funds for handling of child maltreatment
cases (especially cases of child sexual abuse and exploitation) in a way that limits
additional trauma to the child victim; cases of suspected child maltreatment-related
fatalities; and cases involving children with disabilities or serious health-related
problems who are victims of child maltreatment and, finally, for the investigation and
prosecution of child maltreatment cases (especially cases of child sexual abuse and
exploitation). State eligibility for this grant money rests in part on establishment of
a multi-disciplinary task force, including representatives of the law enforcement,
judicial, mental health, health, and child protective services communities, as well as
parents and others, to make recommendations regarding improving laws, regulations
or protocols for the handling of child abuse and neglect cases and to recommend use
of experimental or model programs for this purpose.
The grants are to be administered by HHS in consultation with the Department
of Justice. Funding for the grants is not appropriated but is instead provided for in
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, which stipulates an annual set-aside out of the
Crime Victims Fund of up to $20 million. For FY2006, $20 million is expected to
be available from these non-appropriated funds. In recent years, $17 million of this
amount has been made available to eligible states (administered by HHS), and the
remaining $3 million has been distributed to tribes (and administered by the
Department of Justice). As enacted in late December 2005 however, P.L. 109-162



permits the Department of Justice to set aside an additional part (5%) of this $20
million for tribes. If the Department of Justice elects to make this additional set-
aside, funds to states for Children’s Justice Act grants would be reduced to $16
million, and the remaining $4 million would be available to tribes.
CAPTA and Court Advocacy for Child Victims
As it was originally enacted in 1974, P.L. 93-247 made the appointment of a
guardian ad litem for every abused or neglected child who was part of a judicial
proceeding a condition of eligibility for CAPTA state grants. In 1996 amendments
to CAPTA (P.L. 104-235), Congress specified that this guardian ad litem could be
an attorney or a court-appointed special advocate and noted that the duties of this
individual included obtaining a first hand, clear understanding of the situation and
needs of the child and “to make recommendation to the court concerning the best
interests of the child.” The 2003 amendments to CAPTA (P.L. 108-36) further
amended this provision to require that this individual receive “training appropriate
to the role.”
Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts and CASA
P.L. 106-314, The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act of 2000
(SANCA) authorized an additional $5 million for FY2001 through FY2005 for the
Department of Justice to make grants to the National Court Appointed Special
Advocate Association to expand recruitment for and the capacity of CASA programs
in the 15 largest urban areas; to develop regional, multi-jurisdictional court-appointed
special advocate programs serving rural areas; and to provide training and
supervision of volunteers in court-appointed special advocate programs. This
authority was separate from the provisions in the Victims of Child Abuse Act
discussed earlier in this report; however, no funds were appropriated under this
authority.
The Court Improvement Project
Improving court handling of child abuse and neglect cases is a primary purpose
of the Court Improvement Project (CIP). Created in 1993 by P.L. 103-166, the Court
Improvement Project has, since FY1995, provided grants to each state’s highest court
for the court to conduct an assessment of its role, responsibilities and effectiveness
in handling child welfare proceedings — including making determinations related to
removal of a child from his/her home, terminating parental rights, and approving
permanency goals — and to make needed improvements. Funds for this grant ($12.9
million in FY2006), are set aside out of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
program, and are authorized through FY2006.18
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) amended the CIP to add two
new kinds of court grants to 1) improve the training of judicial personnel and 2) to


18 The 2001 Promoting Safe and Stable Families Amendments (P.L. 107-133) moved the
program authority for the Court Improvement Project, previously a free standing law, into
a new Section 438 of the Social Security Act.

ensure that children’s safety and permanency needs are acted on in a timely and
complete manner. That law also appropriated a total of $100 million for these grants
for FY2006-FY2010. Eligible state highest courts may apply, separately, for one or
all three of the CIP grants in FY2006. All CIP funds are distributed by formula to the
highest court in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.19
These changes, which were consistent with court-related recommendations made in
May 2004 by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care,20 were incorporated
into S. 1679 (Senators DeWine and Rockfeller) and H.R. 3758 (Representative
Schiff), introduced earlier in the 109th Congress.
Court and Child Welfare Agency Collaboration. The Deficit Reduction
Act (P.L. 109-171), as also proposed by the Pew Commission on Children and Foster
Care (and in S. 1679), enacted several measures designed to require and facilitate
increased collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies, including
amending certain state plan requirements to ensure that child welfare agencies and
courts regularly meet to review policies and procedures, share data and information,
provide joint training, and engage in other ongoing efforts to improve decisions and
outcomes for children served by the child welfare system.21
SANCA and Court Processes
Citing in part the increased demands on courts expected to flow from the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-89), P.L. 106-314 authorized
several grant programs intended to improve the efficiency with which courts handled
child abuse and neglect related cases. In addition to the authorization of additional
CASA funding cited above, these included
!a $10 million authorization for FY2001 and FY2002 for grants to
state and local courts to reduce backlogs in handling of child abuse
and neglect related cases (to be administered by the Department of
Justice in consultation with HHS); and
!$10 million for FY2001 through FY2005 for grants to state and local
courts to develop, implement or enhance computer data collection
and case-tracking systems (to be administered by the Department of
Justice).
Through FY2005, Congress made one appropriation of funds ($2 million in
FY2002) to support the purposes of SANCA. Although the appropriation did not
state which grant program was to be funded, the Department of Justice, OJJDP has
awarded grants to local or state courts in six states (Colorado, Georgia, Idaho,


19 For more information on the Court Improvement Program see CRS Report RL33350 Child
Welfare: The Court Improvement Program, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
20 Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Fostering The Future (2003), pp. 34-47.
21 For more information on the court and child welfare agency collaboration provisions, see
CRS Report RL33155, Child Welfare: Foster Care and Adoption Assistance Provisions in
Budget Reconciliation, by Emilie Stoltzfus.

Florida, New Jersey and Virginia) for purposes that appear most closely related to the
automated case tracking grant program authorized in SANCA.22
Other Court-Related Child Welfare Legislation
Both S. 1679 (Senators DeWine and Rockfeller) and H.R. 3758 (Representative
Schiff) are omnibus child welfare proposals concerned primarily with court/child
welfare issues. While a number of their proposals were incorporated into the Deficit
Reduction Act (discussed above), other proposed changes have not yet been acted
upon.
Both H.R. 3758 and S. 1679 (like the Pew Commission on Children in Foster
Care) would require courts to develop specific performance measures as a part of
receiving funding to enable them to better track their court performance.
(Development of performance measures by courts is not required by the Deficit
Reduction Act as a condition of receiving funds to improve timely and complete
decision-making on behalf of children.) Additionally, H.R. 3758 would also require
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to “conduct a study that compares
States” with respect to each of the following issues: 1) legal representation provided
to children; 2) children’s participation in their own cases; 3) preparation of
dependency court judges; 4) case tracking and performance measurement; and 5)
statewide collaborative foster care councils. The final report of the study would be
due within one year of the legislation’s enactment.
With regard to collaboration between the court and child welfare agencies, S.

1679 makes several proposals that were not included in the Deficit Reduction Act.


That bill would require that demonstration of court and child welfare agency
collaboration be a mandatory review item in future Child and Family Service
Reviews (CFSRs), and it would provide that 2% of funds appropriated for the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families program (Subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social
Security Act) be reserved to support such collaboration. Finally, S. 1679 would
require the creation of a multi-disciplinary Commission on Child Welfare in each
state (jointly chaired by the head of the child welfare agency and the state’s chief
judge).
Other selected provisions. S. 1679 and H.R. 3758 also include provisions
related to providing student loan forgiveness for attorneys who work on child abuse
and neglect or related cases. (The attorney loan forgiveness provisions of S. 1679 are
identical in effect to those of S. 1431, introduced earlier this session by Senator
DeWine.) In addition, S. 1679 would require the state child welfare agency to
develop and encourage the implementation of practice standards for its child welfare
attorneys.
Separately, H.R. 3576, an omnibus child welfare measure introduced by
Representative McDermott includes a provision that would amend Title IV-E of the


22 For more information, see information on the project at this website
[http://www.ncsconline.org/ WC/Publications/KIS_FamJ usSANCAProj ect.pdf]

Social Security Act to permit state child welfare agencies to seek federal
reimbursement for 75% of training costs for abuse and neglect court staff, agency
attorneys, and attorneys representing children (including guardian ad litem or
CASAs), as well as those representing parents.23
Resources
The full text of the Victims of Child Abuse Act is available under “publications”
on the House Education and the Workforce website. This compilation includes the
law as currently authorized, except that it does not include amendments made by the
PROTECT Act (P.L. 108-21), which primarily extended funding authorization for
Children’s Advocacy Centers and related training and technical assistance through
FY2004 and FY2005. Further, it does not indicate that the funding authorization for
related training and technical assistance funds has been extended (FY2006-FY2010)
and increased to $7.5 million. Those provisions were included in the final version
(enrolled) of H.R. 3402 as freestanding law.
The full text of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (including
program authority for Children’s Justice Act grants), as currently authorized, the
Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Court Act, and the Court Improvement Project, are
available via the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau
website. (The Court Improvement Program language would be significantly altered
by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 if it is enacted.) Web links are listed below.
!Compilation of the Victims of Child Abuse Act (pp. 541-553)
[http://edworkforce.house.gov/publications/edcomps/
vol6nutrition.pdf] .
!P.L. 108-21 amendment to the Victims of Child Abuse Act not
included in this compilation (Subtitle E, Section 381)
[ h t t p : / / f r webgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.c gi ? dbname=

108_cong_bills&docid=f:s151enr.tx t .pdf] .


!Compilation of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA), including program authority for the Children’s Justice
Act grants [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/
cblaws/capta03/capta_manual.pdf] .
!Text of the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Act
[ h t t p : / / f r w e b ga t e . a ccess.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi ? dbname=

106_cong_bills&docid=f:s2272enr.pdf] .


23 Under Title IV-E, states currently may only claim the 75% reimbursement for training of
agency staff and certain care providers, including prospective or current foster or adoptive
parents. However, states may claim reimbursement of training costs for other relevant
individuals (including court personnel) at the administrative reimbursement rate of 50%.

!Compilation of certain Social Security Act programs, including the
Court Improvement Program (see Section 438)
[ h t t p://www.acf.dhhs.gov/pro g r a m s / c b / l a w s _policies/cblaws/
safe2003.pdf] .