The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program: Reauthorization in the 109th Congress

The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program:
Reauthorization in the 109th Congress
Updated February 28, 2007
Emilie Stoltzfus
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division



The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program:
Reauthorization in the 109th Congress
Summary
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 was enacted on
September 25, 2006 (P.L. 109-288). As enacted it extends the funding authorization
of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program for five years (FY2007-
FY2011) and annually targets the use of $40 million in new funds for the program
for two purposes: to support monthly caseworker visits and to improve outcomes
for children affected by their parent/caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine or
another substance. As under prior law, states must spend the majority of PSSF funds
on four broad categories of child and family services: community-based family
support, family preservation, time-limited reunification and adoption promotion and
support. P.L. 109-288 requires states to report on their actual — as opposed to
simply planned — use of PSSF (and Child Welfare Services) funds. It also increases
the PSSF set-aside for tribal child and family services, and allows access to these
funds for more tribes. (Appendix A of this report compares selected enacted
provisions with prior law as well as provision in earlier versions of the
reauthorization legislation.)
Separately, P.L. 109-288 amended the Child Welfare Services program (Title
IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act), re-organizing its provisions and limiting
its funding authorization to FY2007-FY2011. Beginning with FY2008, the new law
limits the use of Child Welfare Service funds for administrative purposes to no more
than 10%, and prohibits their use for foster care maintenance payments, adoption
assistance payments, and child care above a state’s use of the program’s funds for
those purposes in FY2005. Further, it requires states to — 1) develop procedures to
respond to and maintain services in the wake of a disaster; 2) describe in their state
plans how they consult with medical professionals to assess the health of and provide
appropriate medical treatment to children in foster care; and 3) establish a standard
of no less than monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care along with
standards for the content of the visit. The new law provides that in any state where
less than 90% of children in foster care are visited on a monthly basis — or where the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determines that the state is
not making enough progress to meet that standard by October 1, 2011 — the state
will need to supply a greater amount of non-federal funds in order to access its full
federal Child Welfare Services allotment. P.L. 109-288 also extends authorization
for five years (FY2007-FY2011) of Mentoring Children of Prisoners, and includes
authority for a project to demonstrate the effectiveness of vouchers as a method of
delivering these services. Further, it extends for five years (FY2007-FY2011) certain
grants under the Court Improvement Program.
This report tracked successful legislative efforts to reauthorize these programsth
in the 109 Congress. It describes provisions enacted by P.L. 109-288 and provides
information on PSSF funding. Further it contains an appendix showing (in table
form) selected provisions in prior law compared to those proposed and enacted, and
additional appendices that provide a legislative history of the PSSF program, discuss
selected program policy issues and offer an overview of federal programs providing
funding for purposes related to the PSSF program. It will not be updated.



Contents
In troduction ......................................................1th
Reauthorization Activity in the 109 Congress.......................2
Senate action.............................................3
House action..............................................3
Provisions of the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
(P.L. 109-288)................................................4
Funding Reauthorization and Other Changes to PSSF .................4
Broader limitation on administrative spending...................4
Reporting on use of funds...................................4
Targeting the Use of New PSSF Funds.............................4
Support for monthly caseworker visits.........................5
Grants to Increase the Well-Being of and Improve the
Permanency for Children Affected by Methamphetamine
or Other Substance Abuse...............................5
Evaluation of targeted spending...............................6
Tribal PSSF Program Funding and Access..........................7
Amendments to the Child Welfare Services Program..................8
Purposes .................................................8
Limitation on Administrative Spending.........................8
Revised Limitation on Use of Federal Funds.....................8
Limit on use of non-federal (matching) funds....................9
State Plan Requirements....................................9
Monthly Caseworker Visit Standards.........................10
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Reauthorization....................10
Extension of the Court Improvement Program......................12
Court Consultation with Child/Youth in Permanency Review
P roceedi n gs .............................................12
PSSF Funding Authorizations and Distribution of Funds .................12
Mandatory and Discretionary Funding Authorizations................12
Distribution of Funds .........................................13
Program Funding History.......................................15
Allotment of PSSF Funds to States...............................16
Appendix A: Selected Provisions of the Child and Family Services Act
of 2006 as Compared to Prior Law and to Earlier Versions of the Bill....18
Appendix B: Legislative History of the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program.............................................36
Original Enactment.......................................36
ASFA Amendments.......................................37
2001 Amendments........................................38
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005...........................39
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act................39



Appendix C: Selected Policy Issues..................................40
Service Categories Defined.....................................40
Service Category Overlap......................................41
State Planned Spending by Category..........................42
Effectiveness of Services.......................................43
Intensive Family Preservation Services........................43
Family Support Services...................................48
Other Services...........................................50
Planning and Reporting........................................51
Limited Information on Current Program......................52
Reporting Requirements...................................53
Appendix D: Selected Federal Programs with Related Purposes............54
Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP)............54
Child Welfare Services....................................54
Other Child Welfare and Related Programs....................55
Some Non-dedicated Federal Funding Used for PSSF Purposes....56
List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of Targeted PSSF Funds...........................5
Table 2. Statutory Rules for Distribution of PSSF Funds, as Amended by
P.L. 109-288.................................................14
Table 3. Funding Provided for the PSSF Program, by Year and Purpose.....15
Table 4. PSSF Funding by State, FY2005-FY2007......................16



The Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program: Reauthorization
th
in the 109 Congress
This report discusses reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Familiesth
(PSSF) program (and amendments to related programs) in the 109 Congress, as
enacted by P.L. 109-288. It also provides information on PSSF funding. It concludes
with a number of appendices. The first of these shows (in table form) selected
provisions in prior law compared with provisions in reauthorization legislationth
considered in the 109 Congress, as well as the final provisions enacted in P.L. 109-
288. Other appendices provide a legislative history of the PSSF program, discuss
certain policy issues related to the program, and offer an overview of federal
programs providing funding for purposes related to those of the PSSF program.
Introduction
The Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)
extended funding authorization for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF)
program (Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act) for five years (FY2007-
FY2011). The program primarily provides formula grants to states, territories, and
tribes for provision of four broad categories of services to children and families:
community-based family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification, and
adoption promotion and support. P.L. 109-288 increased the amount of funds that
will be made available to tribes for these purposes and also provides that no less than
$40 million of funds provided for the program annually (through FY2011) are to be
set-aside for competitive grants to eligible regional partnerships to address child
welfare issues raised by parent/caretaker abuse of methamphetamine (or other
substances) and for formula grants to states to support monthly caseworker visits to
children in foster care.
In addition, as under prior law, a part of the total funding provided for the PSSF
program is reserved for certain grants under the Court Improvement Program (CIP,
Section 438 of the Social Security Act). These CIP grants are distributed by formula
to each eligible highest state court and are for those courts to assess and make
improvements to their handling of child welfare cases. Finally, funds are also set
aside for evaluation, research, and technical assistance related to the PSSF program.
P.L. 109-288 provides that a portion of those set-aside funds must be used to provide
evaluations, research and technical assistance related to monthly caseworker visits
and grants to improve the outcomes of children affected by parent/caretaker abuse of
methamphetamine or other substances.



The Promoting Safe and Stable Families program was initially created as a
program of “Family Preservation and Support Services” by the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66). That program was reauthorized, expanded,
and given its current name by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-
89). Subsequently, Congress passed the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133), which reauthorized the program through
FY2006. More recently, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) increased
the authorization for mandatory PSSF appropriations by $40 million for FY2006 and,
separately, appropriated funding ($20 million for each of FY2006-FY2010) for two
new kinds of grants under the Court Improvement Program. The Senate Finance and
House Ways and Means committees have exercised jurisdiction over the program and
both committees held hearings related to reauthorization of this program during

2006.


In addition to reauthorizing the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program
and extending certain Court Improvement Program grants, P.L. 109-288 made
significant amendments to the Child Welfare Services program (Title IV-B, Subpart
1 of the Social Security Act). That program provides formula grants to states for a
wide range of services to children and families and was first authorized in 1935 by
the original Social Security Act. Under prior law, that program had an “indefinite”
or “no-year” funding authorization. P.L. 109-288 set the program’s funding
authorization to expire with FY2011 (placing it on the same reauthorization calendar
as the PSSF program) and made other changes related to the program’s purposes,
how funds may be used under the program and what states are required to do in order
to receive these funds.
Finally, P.L. 109-288 extended funding authorization for the Mentoring
Children of Prisoners program (Section 439 of the Social Security Act), which
provides funds to eligible entities to support mentoring services for children of
prisoners. In addition to extending the program’s funding authorization for these site-
based, competitive grants, P.L. 109-288 authorized a demonstration project to test the
effectiveness of using vouchers to deliver these services more broadly.
Reauthorization Activity in the 109th Congress
On September 28, 2006, the President signed the Child and Family Services
Improvement Act of 2006, which was enacted as P.L. 109-288. By unanimous
consent, the Senate on September 20, 2006 amended (S. Amdt 5024 and S. Amdt

5025) and passed the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (S. 3525).


On September 26, 2006 the House passed identical legislation under suspension of
the rules. The final legislation included significant portions of separate bills
previously passed in the House and in the Senate.1


1 In lieu of a conference report, which was not filed because no conference was formally
held, a staff-prepared section-by-section analysis of the final enacted legislation, including
“reasons for change” was submitted for the record by Senator Grassley. See Congressional
Record, September 27, 2006, p. S10279-S10281.

Senate action. On June 8, 2006, a unanimous Senate Finance Committee
ordered favorably reported a bill to reauthorize the PSSF program and make other
changes . On June 15, that bill, the Improving Outcomes for Children Affected by
Meth Act of 2006 (S. 3525) was introduced by Senator Grassley and a written report
from the Finance Committee was submitted on June 23 (S.Rept. 109-269). On July
13, 2006, the Senate passed the legislation by unanimous consent and then sent the
bill to the House for further action.
Hearings. Before approving this legislation, the Senate Finance Committee
held two related hearings. On April 25, 2006, witnesses, including child welfare
program administrators, advocates, and researchers, as well as individuals in recovery
from methamphetamine, testified at a hearing titled “The Social and Economic
Effects of the Methamphetamine Epidemic on America’s Child Welfare System.”
A number of witnesses emphasized that treatment for methamphetamine abuse,
especially family-based, longer-term and comprehensive residential treatment, can
be effective, and that increasing access to these services could improve the lives of
children and their families affected by methamphetamine abuse. On May 10, 2006,
in a hearing titled “Fostering Permanence: Progress Achieved and Challenges Ahead
for America’s Child Welfare Systems,” the Senate Finance Committee heard
testimony from child welfare advocates and policy experts, federal and tribal program
administrators, and a former foster care youth. These witnesses stressed the need for
continued federal support of child welfare programs; the tribal administrator
emphasized the limited funds available to her tribe and the many challenges it faced,
including methamphetamine abuse.2
House action. On June 20, 2006, Representatives Wally Herger and Jim
McDermott, introduced the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006
(H.R. 5640). After amending the bill, the House Ways and Means Committee gave
it unanimous approval on June 29, 2006 and the bill was reported to the House on
July 12 (H.Rept. 109-555). Under suspension of the rules, the House passed this
legislation (renumbered as S. 3525) on July 25, 2006.
Hearing. On May 23, 2006, the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on
Human Resources held a hearing to review proposals to improve child protective
services. The subcommittee heard from representatives of the court, social workers,
state child welfare agencies, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and
many advocates — representing a range of viewpoints — who spoke on behalf of3


children served in the child welfare system.
2 Both hearings can be viewed on the Senate Finance Committee website at
[http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/2006hearings .htm] .
3 A transcript of the hearing is available on the House Ways and Means Committee website
at [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=482].

Provisions of the Child and Family Services
Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288)
As enacted, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (S. 3525,
P.L. 109-288) incorporates language approved in two earlier versions of S. 3525. The
following discussion describes provisions of the enacted legislation. (For a table
comparing selected provisions from each of the predecessor bills along with prior law
and current law, see Appendix A.)
Funding Reauthorization and Other Changes to PSSF
Under prior law, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program was
authorized to receive mandatory appropriations of $345 million in FY2006 and
discretionary appropriations of $200 million. P.L. 109-288 extended these same
funding authorization levels to each of FY2007-FY2011.
Broader limitation on administrative spending. The costs of the PSSF
program are shared by the federal government (75%) and the states (at least 25%).
Under prior law, a state was not permitted to spend more than 10% of its federal
PSSF funds for administrative purposes, but there was no limit on use of the state
PSSF funds (often described as “matching” funds) that could be spent for
administrative purposes. Beginning with FY2008, P.L. 109-288 extends the 10%
limit on spending for administrative purposes to include all funds spent under the
program, both federal and non-federal (or matching).
Reporting on use of funds. Federal law and policy emphasize planning the
use of PSSF funds (along with the Child Welfare Services and other child welfare or
related programs) to ensure that a comprehensive range of child and family services
is developed in each state. (See Appendix C “Planning and Reporting.”) In keeping
with this emphasis, states are required to annually send information to HHS on their
planned use of funds under the PSSF, Child Welfare Services, and other child
welfare and related programs. Beginning on June 30, 2007, P.L. 109-288 requires
states to annually submit actual (in addition to planned) expenditure data on their use
of funds under the PSSF and Child Welfare Services programs. (States, at their own
option, may also provide data on actual use of funds for child welfare purposes in
other programs.) Data on the use of funds are to be submitted on standard forms
(which were previously used to report planned expenditures only) and include, for
each program, spending by service, activity, or assistance provided, and the number
of people served, the populations targeted for services, and the geographic areas
served. The new law also requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) to compile the forms showing this planned and actual use of funds
and to submit them to the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees
by September 30 of each year.
Targeting the Use of New PSSF Funds
The FY2006 mandatory funding authorization for the PSSF was raised from
$305 million to $345 million by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171),
but this additional $40 million was not appropriated in that law. P.L. 109-288



appropriated the newly authorized FY2006 funds and extended the $40 million
annual increase in the mandatory funding authorization level through FY2011.
Further, as shown in Table 1, the law targets the use of the new funding to support
monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care and to provide grants to increase
the well-being of children affected by a parent or caretaker’s abuse of
methamphetamine (or other substances).
Table 1. Distribution of Targeted PSSF Funds
($ in millions)
Purpose FY2006 a FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 To tal
Support for more frequent and
improved monthly caseworker400510202095
visits of children in foster care
Support for grants to improve
outcomes of children affected
by a parent or, caretaker’s04035302020145
methamphetamine abuse or
other substance abuse
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service, based on Section 4 of P.L. 109-288..
a. These funds are to remain available for states and territories to spend through FY2009.
Support for monthly caseworker visits. Between FY2006 and FY2011,
P.L. 109-288 provides a total of $95 million in funds for support of monthly
caseworker visits of children in foster care “with a primary emphasis on activities
designed to improve caseworker retention, recruitment, training and ability to access
the benefits of technology.” This total figure includes all of the $40 million in new
FY2006 PSSF funds (which were appropriated by the law and will remain available
for states to spend through FY2009), as well as $5 million in FY2008; $10 million
in FY2009; and $20 million in each of FY2010 and FY2011.
States are to receive these funds on essentially the same formula basis as is the
case for the current PSSF program (distribution is based on a state’s relative share of
children receiving food stamps in the nation). States may not use these funds to
supplant other federal foster care funds available (under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act) for the same purposes. Also, for FY2008-FY2011, a state’s access to
the full allotment of funds reserved for support of monthly caseworker visits will be
contingent upon its spending no less than $1 on support of caseworker visits for
every $3 in federal funds it received for that purpose. (For additional provisions in
P.L. 109-288 that are related to caseworker visits of children in foster care, see the
discussion under “Monthly Caseworker Visit Standards,” below.)
Grants to Increase the Well-Being of and Improve the Permanency
for Children Affected by Methamphetamine or Other Substance Abuse.
Between FY2007 and FY2011, P.L. 109-288 reserves $145 million in mandatory
PSSF funds to support competitive grants to regional partnerships for services and
activities designed to improve the safety, permanency, and well-being of children
who are in an out-of-home placement or are at-risk of such placement because of a



parent or caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine or another substance. (The annual
set-aside amounts are $40 million for FY2007, $35 million for FY2008, $30 million
for FY2009 and $20 million in each of FY2010 and FY2011.)
Use of grant funds. The services and activities that may be funded under
such a grant include family-based comprehensive long-term substance abuse
treatment and replication of successful models for such treatment; early intervention
and preventative services; counseling for children and families; mental health
services; and parenting skills training.
What is a regional partnership? Regional partnerships must be established
by a collaborative agreement between two or more entities (for example, providers
of child welfare services, including the state child welfare agency; the state agency
administering federal substance abuse prevention and treatment funding; local law
enforcement agencies; juvenile justice officials, judges and school or court personnel;
providers of community health and mental health services and tribes, including tribal
child welfare agencies). The state child welfare agency doesn’t need to be the lead
agency in the partnership applying for these funds, but with one exception it must be
a member of each partnership. (The agency does not need to be a part of the
partnership if a tribe/tribal child welfare agency is a member of the partnership.)
Considerations in awarding grants. HHS must first give consideration to
the level of need demonstrated in the grant application of a regional partnership.
Once that initial consideration is made added weight must be given to those
applications from regional partnerships showing the effect of methamphetamine
abuse and addiction on the child welfare system in the partnership region.
Size and duration of grant awards and reports on activities. Grants
must extend for a minimum of two years but can not be made for more than five
years; the annual funding to the grantee must be at least $500,000 but may not be
more than $1 million. Finally, grantees will be required to submit annual reports on
their activities and to incorporate information related to their performance on certain
indicators (to be developed by HHS in consultation with representatives of states and
tribes receiving funds). Further, HHS must annually send information regarding the
use of this grant funding to the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means
committees.
Evaluation of targeted spending. Prior law required HHS to annually
reserve $6 million in PSSF funds to support research, technical assistance, and
training related to the program and for evaluation of the program (or other programs
designed to achieve the same purposes). P.L. 109-288 further stipulates that HHS
must annually spend no less than $1 million of those reserved funds for research,
evaluation and technical assistance related to supporting monthly caseworker visits
of children in foster care and, separately, no less than $1 million annually for
research, evaluation, and technical assistance related to the competitive grants to
increase the well-being and improve the permanency of children affected by
methamphetamine or other substance abuse.



Tribal PSSF Program Funding and Access
Under prior law tribal PSSF programs were funded with a 1% set-aside of the
program’s mandatory funding, plus a 2% set-aside of any discretionary funds
provided for the program and in recent years tribes have received annual PSSF
funding of roughly $5 million. Beginning with FY2007, P.L. 109-288 raises the
tribal set-aside to 3% of the program’s mandatory funding plus 3% of any
discretionary funding provided for PSSF. (However, it would apply the 3% set-aside
of mandatory funds only after the $40 million in targeted funds are reserved for the
purposes described above.) Thus, the maximum funding authorized to be made
available to tribes out of the PSSF would be $15.2 million (and the minimum funding
would be $9.2 million). Based on these set-aside rules and the expected funding
provided in the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (P.L. 110-5),
tribal PSSF funding in FY2007 is expected to be $11.8 million.
Tribal allotment of PSSF funds are based on a tribe’s relative share of
individuals under the age of 21 (among all eligible tribes) and no allotment may be
less than $10,000. For FY2006, about 90 tribes received PSSF funds (or less than
a third of the tribes that received funds under the Child Welfare Services program).
P.L. 109-288 permits a group of tribes to form a consortium and to have their PSSF
allotment determined based on their combined share of children under the age of 21.
The effect of this provision should be to expand access to PSSF funds by permitting
tribes with smaller populations to band together (or to band with a larger tribe) to
ensure their allotment amount is equal to or greater than the $10,000 threshold.4
Finally, P.L. 109-288 limits the prior law authority of HHS to exempt tribes
from any PSSF state plan requirement that the Department determines would be
inappropriate for that tribe based on the tribe’s size and resources. The law now
provides that HHS may continue to exempt tribes from requirements that limit the
use of the federal PSSF funds for administrative purposes to no more than 10% and
the requirement that provides that “significant portions” of PSSF federal funds must
be spent on each of the four service categories: community-based family support,
family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support.
However, tribes are required to comply with all other plan requirements (including
assurances that the funds received will not supplant other federal or non-federal funds
available for those purposes as well as other planning and reporting requirements).


4 In FY2005, $5.0 million in PSSF funding was set aside for tribes and about 90 tribes/tribal
organizations received allotments. Those allotments ranged from a little above $10,000 to
about $911,000. By contrast, tribal allotments under the Child Welfare Services program
(Title IV-B, Subpart 1) are not provided by a set-aside but are taken out of the amount
allotted by formula to the given state in which the tribal children live (and based on the
tribal population under age 21) and there is no funding threshold. For FY2005, $5.7 million
in Child Welfare Services funding was allotted to more than 350 tribes/tribal organizations
and the allotment amounts ranged from less than $10 to just over $1 million.

Amendments to the Child Welfare Services Program
Under prior law, the Child Welfare Services program (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of
the Social Security Act) was authorized to receive funding of $325 million annually
on an indefinite basis. P.L. 109-288 continues this same funding authorization level
but limits it to five years (FY2007-FY2011) — thus placing this program on the same
reauthorization calender as the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program. For
FY2006 the Child Welfare Services Program received an appropriation of $287
million; (under P.L. 110-5, FY2007 funding for the program was expected to again
be $287 million).
Purposes. P.L. 109-288 deleted a lengthy prior law definition of “child
welfare services” along with a brief program purpose statement. However, it largely
incorporated the intent of those prior provisions in a new purpose section. The law
now describes the purpose of the Child Welfare Services program as “to promote
State flexibility in the development and expansion of a coordinated child and family
services program that utilizes community-based agencies and ensures all children are
raised in safe, loving families, by — (1) protecting and promoting the welfare of all
children; (2) preventing the neglect, abuse, or exploitation of children; (3) supporting
at-risk families through services which allow children, where appropriate, to remain
safely with their families or return to their families in a timely manner; (4) promoting
the safety, permanence, and well-being of children in foster care and adoptive
families; and (5) providing training, professional development and support to ensure
a well-qualified child welfare workforce.” New aspects of this language include both
the assertion that the program is intended to promote “state flexibility in the
development and expansion of a coordinated child and family services program” and
the inclusion of an explicit program purpose related to providing training
development and support to ensure a well-qualified child welfare workforce.
Limitation on Administrative Spending. The total cost of the Child
Welfare Services program is shared by the federal government (75%) and the state
(25%). Prior law placed no limit on the amount of program funds states could spend
for administrative purposes. Beginning with FY2008, P.L. 109-288 limits the use of
program funds for those purposes to no more than 10%, (which applies to both
federal and non-federal program funds). The law also defines administrative costs to
include CWS program-related procurement, payroll management, personnel
functions (except supervision of caseworker services), management, maintenance and
operation of space and property, data processing and computer services, accounting,
budgeting, auditing, and certain travel expenses. (Under this definition, spending on
caseworker services is not considered an administrative cost.)
Revised Limitation on Use of Federal Funds. Under prior law the state
could not spend more of its federal program funds on those foster care maintenance
payments, adoption assistance payments, or to provide child day care (that was
necessary solely for the employment or employment related training of a
parent/relative of a child) than the amount of federal funds it had received under this
program in FY1979. (In FY1979, funding for the program was $56.5 million or
roughly 20% of the FY2006 funding level.) By contract, P.L. 109-288 provides that
beginning with FY2008, no state may spend any federal CWS funds for foster care
maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, or child day care unless it can



demonstrate to HHS that it used federal CWS funds for at least one of these purposes
in FY2005. If a state can show this, then its new annual limit on spending of federal
CWS funds for these three purposes, combined, is the amount of the federal CWS
funds it spent on them in FY2005.
Limit on use of non-federal (matching) funds. For purposes of
providing their required 25% of the Child Welfare Services program cost (i.e. their
matching dollars), states have been permitted to count their own spending for foster
care maintenance payments without any limits. Beginning with FY2008, P.L. 109-
288 prohibits states from using any foster care maintenance payment expenditures
for the purpose of providing their non-federal matching dollars under the CWS
program unless the state can show that it used foster care maintenance payment
spending to meet the matching requirement for CWS funds in FY2005. If a state can
show this, then the amount of the foster care maintenance payment spending that it
counted under the program for matching purposes in FY2005 is the maximum
amount of foster care maintenance payment spending it may count in the program in
FY2008 and every following year.
State Plan Requirements. Under the Child Welfare Services program,
states are required to develop a plan that assures the state will meet federal
requirements. P.L. 109-288 adds several new requirements. It requires states to
describe how they consult with and involve physicians or other appropriate medical
professionals in assessing the health and well-being of children in foster care and in
determining appropriate medical treatment for them. Further, no later than one year
after the enactment of P.L. 109-288 (that is by late September 2007), states must
have procedures in place to ensure continued availability of child and family services
in the wake of a disaster. In addition, P.L. 109-288 requires states to describe (by the
first day of FY2008), their standards for the content and frequency of caseworker
visits to children in foster care, which at a minimum, must include a monthly visit by
the caseworker that is “well-planned and focused on issues pertinent to case planning
and service delivery to ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of the
children.”5 (Related requirements are described below, under Monthly Caseworker
Visit Standards.)
P.L. 109-288 includes a separate requirement to clarify that for children in foster
care who have a permanency goal of “another planned permanent living
arrangement” such an arrangement may include placement in a residential education
program. It also eliminated certain requirements that have little or no meaning today.
These eliminated provisions required a state to assure that — the child care standards
used in the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) applied to any child day care
services funded under CWS; it would train and use paraprofessional staff and
volunteers to help with the program; and it had (as of June 1980) conducted an
inventory of children in foster care. Finally, the law re-organizes much of the CWS


5 The Children’s Bureau has indicated that it expects states to address these new
requirements in its Annual Progress and Services Report that is to be submitted by June 30,
2007. See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and
Families, Children’s Bureau, ACYF-CB-IM-06-05, “New Legislation: The Child and Family
Services Improvement Act of 2006, P.L. 109-288,” December 7, 2006.

program language and makes numerous, related conforming amendments and some
technical amendments. (See Appendix A for more specific information.)
Monthly Caseworker Visit Standards. Beyond requiring specific
caseworker visitation standards in state Child Welfare Services plans (described
above), P.L. 109-288 requires each state — before it can receive any FY2008 CWS
funding — to provide data to HHS that show (for FY2007) the percentage of children
in its foster care caseload who were visited on a monthly basis (by their caseworkers)
and the percentage of those visits that occurred in the place where the child lived.
Based on these data, HHS, in consultation with the state, must outline (as of June 30,
2008) state-specific steps (including target percentages to be reached) to ensure that
no later than October 1, 2011 (first day of FY2012), at least 90% of the children in
foster care receive a monthly visit (and that most of these visits occur where the child
lives ). 6
Further, P.L. 109-288 provides that, beginning with FY2009, if HHS determines
that a state has not made the requisite progress toward meeting the monthly
caseworker visitation standard, then the state must spend more of its own funds under
the program in order to receive its full federal allotment. The minimum penalty is
1 percentage point (meaning the state would need to provide 26% of program funding
to receive its full federal allotment) and the maximum penalty is 5 percentage points
(meaning a state would need to provide 30% of the program funding to receive its
full federal allotment). The amount of penalty for a state is to be determined by its
degree of noncompliance with the state-specific monthly caseworker visit targets
established in consultation with HHS (described above). P.L. 109-288 also requires
HHS to prepare a progress report, including recommendations, on state caseworker
visitation standards and to submit this report to the House Ways and Means and
Senate Finance committees no later than March 31, 2010.
Publication of state visitation rate. Finally, P.L. 109-288 requires that
beginning with the report for FY2007, the annual Child Welfare Outcomes report,
which HHS is required to prepare (under Section 479A of the Social Security Act),
must include state-by-state data on the percentage of children in foster care who
received monthly caseworker visits and the percentage of the visits that occurred
where the child lives.
Mentoring Children of Prisoners Reauthorization
Since it received its initial funding in FY2003, the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program (Section 439 of the Social Security Act) has provided grants to
local public or private entities to establish, expand, or operate programs that provide
mentoring services to children of prisoners.7 P.L. 109-288 expands the purpose of


6 For more information about frequency of caseworker visits and child welfare outcomes
request a copy of CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum CD061205, “Foster
Children and Caseworker Visits,” June 30, 2006 by Emilie Stoltzfus.
7 For more information on the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, see CRS Report
RL32633, Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal Government Dedicated to
(continued...)

the program by requiring HHS to enter into a cooperative agreement with a qualified
entity to demonstrate the effectiveness of using vouchers to deliver mentoring
services to children of prisoners nationwide. In addition, P.L. 109-288 extended
program authority for the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program, which had been
scheduled to expire with FY2006, through FY2007-FY2011. It also provides that
funds may be appropriated for the program in each of those years at “such sums as
may be necessary.” For FY2006, the program received $49.5 million in funding.
Under P.L. 110-5, the program is expected to receive this amount in FY2007 as well.
P.L. 109-288 stipulates that HHS must use a competitive process to select the
entity that will conduct the voucher demonstration (under a cooperative agreement
with the agency). And it requires that the entity selected must 1) identify children in
need of mentoring services (with priority given to Indian children, and children in
areas that are rural, are not now served by the program, or that have substantial
numbers of children of prisoners); 2) provide families of these identified children
with vouchers (as well as a list of qualified mentoring programs in their area); 3)
develop (with HHS) quality program standards for mentoring services, including
criminal background checks of prospective mentors; and 4) monitor and oversee the
delivery of the vouchers. Contingent on sufficient appropriated funding, the entity
must agree to provide 3,000 vouchers in the first year of the cooperative agreement,
8,000 in the second year and 13,000 in the third year. The vouchers are to be valued
at one-year of services and a qualified provider may receive periodic payments for
a voucher by providing mentoring services to the child for whom it was issued and
by demonstrating that it will be able to continue these services (with non-federal
resources) after the 12-month value of the voucher is exhausted.
P.L. 109-288 increased to 4% (from 2.5%) the amount of funds that are to be
reserved by HHS out of the total appropriation for the Mentoring Children of
Prisoners program for evaluation, research, and technical assistance (related now to
both the site-based and voucher-based delivery of mentoring services). In addition
to completing an evaluation of the total program, P.L. 109-288 requires HHS to fund
an independent evaluation of the voucher demonstration project, and to provide a
report of this evaluation to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance
committees no later than 90 days after the end of the second year of the
demonstration. The new law also provides that the cooperative agreement may be
extended two years beyond the initial three-year demonstration phase — but only if
the entity administering the project performs satisfactorily and if an independent
evaluation shows that vouchers are an effective way to deliver these services.
Finally, P.L. 109-288 provides that if at least $25 million in program
appropriations are made available for site-based grants (i.e. the prior law program),
HHS must reserve not more than $5 million for the entity selected to demonstrate
voucher service delivery in the first year of the cooperative agreement, $10 million
for the second year of the agreement, and $15 million for the third year.


7 (...continued)
Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities, by Edith Fairman Cooper.

Extension of the Court Improvement Program
P.L. 109-288 extended through FY2011, the entitlement of eligible state highest
courts to certain funds reserved from the PSSF program. Those funds are to be used
to assess and improve court handling of child welfare proceedings. It also extends
through FY2011 the requirement that a highest state court receiving these funds must
provide no less than 25% of the funding for the activities supported by the Court
Improvement Program (Section 438 of the Social Security Act). For more
information about this program, including changes made to it by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), see CRS Report RL33350, Child Welfare:
The Court Improvement Program, by Emilie Stoltzfus.
Court Consultation with Child/Youth
in Permanency Review Proceedings
P.L. 109-288 also amended the definition of the case review system provided
in Section 475 of the Social Security Act, to assert that as part of the required annual
permanency review for each child in foster care, the court or administrative body
conducting the review must consult (in an age-appropriate manner) with the child
whose permanency plan is the subject of the review. This includes permanency
hearings that review plans for a foster youth’s transition to independent living.
PSSF Funding Authorizations
and Distribution of Funds
As noted above, P.L. 109-288 appropriated $40 million in additional FY2006
funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families, which brought the total FY2006
program funding to $434 million. Under the Revised Continuing Appropriation Act,
2006, (P.L. 110-5), the PSSF program is expected to receive this same level of
funding in FY2007. This section discusses mandatory and discretionary funding
authorizations under the program, outlines statutory distribution requirements as
amended by P.L. 109-288 (see Table 2), shows total program funding by purpose
since the program’s inception (see Table 3), and provides funding levels by state for
recent years (see Table 4).
Mandatory and Discretionary Funding Authorizations
The PSSF program is authorized to receive total funding of $545 million
annually through a combination of mandatory and discretionary authorization levels.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) raised the mandatory
funding authorized for the PSSF program from $305 million to $345 million and the
five-year cost of this increased mandatory funding was “scored” or “paid for” in that
law. P.L. 109-288 extended the mandatory funding authorization of $345 million for
the PSSF through each of FY2007-FY2011.
P.L. 109-288 also continues the prior law discretionary funding authorization
in the PSSF program of $200 million. The authorization of discretionary funds, at



this level, was first made for FY2002 but Congress has never provided more than $99
million in any one year under this discretionary authorization. In FY2006 and
FY2007, Congress provided $89 million in discretionary funding.8
Distribution of Funds
The statute entitles eligible states to receive a portion of the fixed mandatory
funding amount, as well as a portion of any discretionary funds that may be
appropriated to provide certain child and family services. Before the funds are
allocated to states, however, the statute provides that certain PSSF funds are to be
reserved for specific purposes.
P.L. 109-288 amended those set-aside provisions by requiring that $40 million
of the program’s mandatory funds must be reserved in each of FY2006-FY2011 to
support increased frequency and better quality of caseworker visits to children in
foster care and to improve the outcomes of children affected by parents or caretakers’
abuse of methamphetamine or another substance. (Table 1 above shows the split of
these funds by year.) It also increased PSSF funding to tribes by (as discussed
earlier) establishing a 3% set-aside of both mandatory and any discretionary funds
appropriated. Finally, the law also stipulates that HHS must use a portion of the funds
reserved to it for research, evaluation and technical assistance to study or support
improved quality and quantity of caseworker visits to foster children ($1 million
annually) and to study or support grants to improve outcomes for children affected
by methamphetamine abuse or other substance abuse ($1 million annually).
Table 2 outlines the PSSF funding distribution requirements by purpose, as
amended by P.L. 109-288.


8 For more information on child welfare program funding, see CRS Report RS22178 Child
Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding, by Emilie Stoltzfus.

Table 2. Statutory Rules for Distribution of PSSF Funds,
as Amended by P.L. 109-288
Share ofShare of any
Entity funded (purpose)mandatorydiscretionaryDistribution
f unds f unds
Regional partnershipsFunds for regional partnerships made
(for services or activities$40$0available on a competitive basis (FY2006:
to improve the outcomesmillion$0; $FY2007: $40 million; FY2008: $35
of children affected bymillion; FY2009: $30 million: FY2010: $20
parent/caretakermillion and FY2011: $20 million).
methamphetamine or
other substance abuse)
States and TerritoriesFunds to states allotted based on a state’s
(for support of monthlyrelative share of children receiving food
caseworker visits tostamps; funds to territories allotted using
children in foster care)formula provided for distribution of funds
under Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social
Security Act (Child Welfare Services),
without the minimum allotment. (FY2006:
$40 million; FY2007: $0; FY2008: $5
million; FY2009: $10 million: FY2010: $20
million; FY2011:$20 million)
Tribes (for child and3% (but3%Allotted based on relative share of children
family services)only afteramong all eligible Indian tribes. (Two or
$40more tribes are permitted to form a
million,consortium and to apply for these funds on
above, isthe basis of their combined share of children
removed). among eligible tribes.)
Highest state courts$103.3%Minimum allotment of $85,000 with
(for improved handlingmillionremainder divided among eligible courts
of child welfareabased on their state’s relative share of
proceedings)population under age 21.
HHS (for research,$6 million3.3%$1 million of these funds must be used for
evaluation, technicalresearch, evaluation or technical assistance
assistance and training)related to grants to regional partnerships
and $1 million of these funds must be used
for research, evaluation, or technical
assistance related to support for monthly
caseworker visits. Remainder distributed at
discretion of HHS (but guided by funding
purposes in Section 435 of the Social
Security Act).
Territories (for childbAllAllEach territory receives $70,000 plus
and family services)remainingremainingadditional funds based largely on its relative
funds fundsshare of population under age 21.
States, including theAllotted based on a state’s relative share of
District of Columbia (forchildren receiving food stamps.
child and familyc
services)
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) appropriated additional funds ($20 million for
each of FY2006-FY2010) for two additional kinds of grants to highest state courts (for related
purposes). These funds are separately appropriated and are not shown in this table.
b. All five territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands) receive PSSF funds.



Program Funding History
Table 3, below, shows annual funding for the PSSF program, by purpose and
since its inception. All of the court funding shown in this table is derived from a set-
aside of PSSF appropriations. As noted earlier, increased funding for courts was
provided in the Deficit Reduction Act, P.L. 109-171. However, this money was
separately appropriated and is not shown here as a part of PSSF funding. (The CIP
as revised by P.L. 109-171 is discussed in more detail in a separate report. See CRS
Report RL33350, Child Welfare: The Court Improvement Program.9)
Table 3. Funding Provided for the PSSF Program,
by Year and Purpose
(in millions of dollars)
To assess andResearch,
To provide services to children andimprovehandling ofevaluation,training and
Fiscalfamilieschild welfaretechnicalTotal
year cases a ssist a n c e
States andTargetedaTribesState highestHHS
Territories purpo se courts
1994 57.4 0.6 0 2 60
1995 137.5 1 .5 5 6 150
1996 206.8 2 .3 10 6 225
1997 221.6 2 .4 10 6 240
1998 236.5 2 .6 10 6 255
No t1999 256.3 2 .8 10 6 275
authorized2000 276.1 3 .0 10 6 295
2001 286.0 3 .1 10 6 305
2002 349.9 4 .5 12.3 8 .3 375
2003 376.8 5 .0 13.3 9 .3 404.4
2004 376.8 5 .0 13.3 9 .3 404.4
2005 376.1 5 .0 13.3 9 .3 403.6
2006 367.4 4 0 a 4.8 12.9 8 .9 434.1
2007 360.4 4 0 a 11.8 12.9 8 .9 434.1
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
a. For FY2006 all of targeted funds were provided via formula grants to states and may be spent only
to support monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care. (These funds are available to be
expended by states through FY2009.) For FY2007 all of the targeted funds are to be provided via
competitive grants to regional partnerships for services and activities to improve the outcomes of
children affected by methamphetamine or other substance abuse.


9 The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) appropriated $100 million over five
years (FY2006-FY2010) for the Court Improvement Program. This money, which was
appropriated outright in the legislation, has been independently provided — it is not a set-
aside of the PSSF program funding — and is therefore not shown in Table 3.

Allotment of PSSF Funds to States
Table 4 shows actual awards of PSSF funds by state for FY2005 and FY2006,
and allotment of these funds by state for FY2007. Funds for the four authorized
categories of child and family services are allotted to states based on their relative
share of children (individuals under age 18) receiving food stamps. Data used to
make this determination are derived from the most current three years of available
food stamps data.
As described earlier, beginning with FY2006, P.L. 109-288 annually targets
$40 million in PSSF funding for specified purposes. For FY2006 all of this money
was distributed to state or territories by formula and may only be used to support
monthly caseworker visits of children in foster care. (Because these funds were not
made available until the very end of the fiscal year, P.L. 109-288 provides that states
may have through FY2009 to expend these funds.) For FY2007 all of the targeted
funds must be distributed via competitive grants for services or activities to improve
the outcomes of children affected by parent/caretaker abuse of methamphetamine or
another substance.
Table 4. PSSF Funding by State, FY2005-FY2007
(in millions of dollars)
FY2006
For childTargetedfunds:FY2006
State FY2005 FY2007and familyservicescaseworkerTotal
visits
Alabama $8.23 $7.77 $0.84 $8.61 $7.62
Alaska 0.86 0.85 0.09 0.94 0.82
Ar izona 8 .21 8 .68 0 .94 9 .62 8 .52
Arkansas 5.44 5.11 0.55 5.66 5.01
California 43.42 39.79 4.31 44.10 39.56
Co lo rado 3.33 3.51 0.38 3.89 3.45
Co nnecticut 2.85 2.73 0.30 3.03 2.68
Delaware 0.78 0.83 0.09 0.92 0.81
District of Columbia1.251.190.131.321.17
Florid a 16.66 16.13 1.75 17.88 15.83
Georgia 12.55 12.70 1.35 14.07 12.46
Hawaii 1.75 1.45 0.16 1.61 1.42
Idaho 1 .35 1 .35 0 .16 1 .50 1 .32
I llino is 1 6 . 3 5 1 5 . 7 8 1 . 7 1 1 7 . 4 9 1 5 . 4 9
Indiana 7 .71 7 .78 0 .84 8 .62 7 .64
Iowa 2.47 2.47 0.27 2.74 2.42
Kansas 2.53 2.47 0.27 2.74 2.42
Kentucky 7.58 7.27 0.79 8.06 7.13
Lo uisiana 11.44 11.09 1.20 12.29 10.88
Maine 1 .66 1 .53 0 .17 1 .70 1 .51
Maryland 4.10 4.00 0.43 4.43 3.92
Massachusetts 4.94 5.06 0.55 5.60 4.96
Michigan 14.15 13.98 1.51 15.49 13.72
Minneso ta 4.10 3.75 0.41 4.15 3.68



FY2006
For childTargetedfunds:FY2006
State FY2005 FY2007and familyservicescaseworkerTotal
visits
Mississippi 6.33 6.15 0.67 6.81 6.03
Misso uri 9 .13 9 .04 0 .98 10.02 8.87
Montana 1 .10 1 .10 0 .12 1 .22 1 .08
Nebraska 1.66 1.66 0.18 1.84 1.63
Nevada 1.77 1.85 0.20 2.05 1.81
New Hampshire0.720.720.080.790.70
New Jersey5.915.560.606.165.45
New Mexico3.533.470.383.853.41
New York24.1921.322.3123.6320.92
North Carolina10.5211.041.2012.2310.83
North Dakota0.690.630.070.700.62
Ohio 13.12 13.62 1.47 15.10 13.38
Oklaho ma 6.03 5.93 0.64 6.57 5.82
Oregon 5.73 5.79 0.63 6.42 5.69
Pennsylvania 13.27 12.93 1.40 14.33 12.69
Rhode Island1.491.320.141.461.29
South Carolina7.297.480.818.297.34
South Dakota0.900.880.100.980.86
T ennessee 10.39 10.51 1.14 11.64 10.31
T exas 35.65 36.85 3.99 40.83 36.16
Utah 1.87 1.94 0.21 2.15 1.91
Vermont 0 .58 0 .54 0 .06 0 .59 0 .53
Virginia 6.32 6.36 0.69 7.05 6.24
Washington 5.92 5.82 0.63 6.45 5.71
West Virginia3.543.360.363.733.30
Wisconsin 5 .38 5 .51 0 .60 6 .11 5 .41
Wyoming 0 .44 0 .43 0 .05 0 .47 0 .42
Subtotal states$367$360$39$398$352
All territories8.888.321.149.468.05
All tribes5.024.834.8311.82
Not applicableCourts13.2512.9412.9412.94Evaluation, research
and technical asst.9.258.908.908.94
Targeted funds: NotNot$0$0$40
me thamphetamine/ authorized applicable
other substance abuse
To tal $404 $394 $40 $434 $434
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). FY2005 actual funding is as
given by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) in its FY2007 Congressional Budget Justifications; FY2006 amounts are included as
received from ACF in November 2006; FY2007 allotments are from the ACF FY2008 Budget
Justifications. Because of rounding, totals may not appear to equal their parts.



CRS-18
Appendix A: Selected Provisions of the Child and Family Services Act
of 2006 as Compared to Prior Law and to Earlier Versions of the Bill
(Section references in prior law column are to the Social Security Act, as amended prior to enactment of P.L. 109-288)
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Short titleNot applicable.The Improving Outcomes forThe Child and FamilyThe Child and Family
Children Affected by MethServices Improvement Act ofServices Improvement Act of
Act of 2006 [Sec. 1].2006 [Sec. 1].2006 [Sec. 1].
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program (PSSF, Title IV-B, Subpart 2)
ProgramFor FY2006 authorizesReauthorizes mandatorySame as July 13 Senate billSame as Senate bill [Sec. 3].
fundingmandatory funding of $345funding of $345 million plus[Sec. 3].
authorizedmillion; for each of FY2002-discretionary funding of $200
FY2006 authorizesmillion for each of FY2007-
iki/CRS-RL33354discretionary funding of $200million [Sec. 436 and 437].FY2011 [Sec. 3].
g/w
s.orFY2006The Deficit Reduction ActAppropriates $40 million inSame as July 13 Senate billSame as Senate bill [Sec. 3].
leakmandatoryincreased FY2006 mandatoryadditional PSSF funding for[Sec. 8].
fundingfunding authorization for theFY2006 to provide
://wikiPSSF program to $345mandatory funding
httpmillion [P.L. 109-171, Sec.authorized for the program
7402].[Sec. 3].
States may spend theStates may spend the
States may spend FY2006Same as current law.additional $40 million inadditional $40 million in any
funds in either FY2006 orFY2006 PSSF funds in anyfiscal year through FY2009;
FY2007 [Sec. 434].fiscal year through FY2008all of the funds must be used
[Sec. 8].for support of caseworker
visits; and none are to be
reserved for tribes [Sec. 3].
Limit onA state may spend no moreSame as current law.Effective with FY2007, noSame as House bill except
administrativethan 10% of the federal PSSFmore than 10% of the totalthat the new limitation is not
expendituresfunds it receives on programprogram funds federal andeffective until first day of
administration; it mustnon-federal may be spent forFY2008 [Sec. 3].


provide at least 25% of theadministrative purposes [Sec.
total program costs in non-3].
federal dollars to receive its
full federal allotment [Sec.
434].

CRS-19
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Tribal childReserves 1% of theIncreases the set-aside ofSame as July 13 Senate billSame as Senate bill [Sec. 5].
and familymandatory PSSFPSSF funds for tribal child[Sec. 3].
servicesauthorization and 2% of anyand family services programs
funding underdiscretionary PSSFto 3% of mandatory funds
PSSFappropriations for tribal childauthorized plus 3% of any
and family service programsdiscretionary funds
[Sec. 436 and Sec. 437].appropriated [Sec. 5].
Same as current law.Provides that the 3% set-asideProvides that the 3% set aside
Provides that these set-asidesfrom mandatory funds mustfrom mandatory funds must
are to be made before anybe made after the set-aside ofbe made after the set-aside of
other reservation of program$40 million to support$40 million for monthly
funds [Sec. 433]. monthly caseworker visitscaseworker visits and grants
[Sec. 4].to improve the outcomes of
children affected by meth or
iki/CRS-RL33354other substance abuse [Sec.
g/w 5].
s.or[Minimum set-aside: $3.45[Minimum set-aside: $10.35million; maximum set-aside: [Minimum set-aside: $9.15[Same as House.]
leakmillion; maximum set aside:$16.35 million.]million; maximum set-aside:
://wiki$7.45 million.]$15.15 million.]
httpAccess toProvides that no tribe mayProvides that a group ofSame as July 13 Senate billSame as Senate bill [Sec. 5].


tribal child andreceive PSSF funding if thetribes (consortium) may[Sec. 3].
family servicesallotment of funds it wouldapply together for PSSF
funding underreceive (based on its relativefunding and that the allotment
PSSF share of tribal populationamount is based on the
under age 21) would be underconsortiums combined
$10,000 [Sec. 432].relative share of the tribal
population under age 21
(among all eligible tribes)
[Sec. 5].

CRS-20
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
RequirementsProvides that the U.S.Same as current law.Eliminates the ability of HHSPermits HHS to exempt tribes
for tribalDepartment of Health andto exempt tribes from PSSFfrom PSSF plan requirements
funding underHuman Services (HHS) mayplan requirements [Sec. 3].that limit use of federal
PSSFexempt a tribe from any ofprogram funds for
the PSSF plan requirementsadministrative purposes to
that it determines would be10% and requires that
inappropriate for the tribesignificant portions” of these
[Sec. 432].funds be spent on certain
categories of services [Sec.
5].
MonitoringNo provision.Requires states to developNo provision.No provision.
andprocedures that provide
assessment ofadditional assessment of any
certainfamily seeking to provide
iki/CRS-RL33354prospectivefoster andfoster care or to adopt morethan 4 children or more than 1
g/wadoptivesibling group (or a different
s.orfamiliesnumber of children or sibling
leakgroups if approved by HHS).
://wikiThe plan must provide that theadditional assessment is to
httpoccur before the foster or
adoptive placements are made
and, in the case of a foster care
family, that there will be
ongoing monitoring [Sec 6].
Reports onA state is required to create aRequires states to updateRequires HHS to create andSame as Senate bill except that
Title IV-B5-year child and familyexpenditure reporting formsbiennially submit to the Senatestates must provide actual
programservices plan stating its goals(currently used to showFinance and House Ways andexpenditures for most recent
expendituresfor its program. It mustintended expenditures) to showMeans committees a reportyear in which spending of
annually review the plan andactual expenditures by certainshowing — by state, territory,federal program funds is
report the amount of money itcategories for both Childand tribe — the level ofcomplete.


intends to spend for each ofWelfare Services and PSSFexpenditures and the programs
the four PSSF (Title IV-B,families. The updated formsand activities funded under
Subpart 2) service categories.are to be submitted to HHS noPSSF and Child Welfare
A state must also report on thelater than June 30 of each yearServices; and the number of
service programs it intends to(with the first such updates duechildren and families served
make available under PSSF,on June 30, 2007 and showingunder the programs. HHS must
the populations to be servedFY2006 expenditures). HHSalso report on how spending

CRS-21
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
and the places those serviceswould be required to compileunder these program helps
will be available. States mustthese forms and submit themachieve the child and family
also report information onto the Senate Finance andservices goals established by
services to be provided withHouse Ways and Meanseach state, tribe, and territory
Child Welfare Services (Titlecommittees no later thanin their required planning
IV-B, Subpart 1) funding andSeptember 30 of each yearprocesses for these Title IV-B
where those services are to be(beginning with September 30,programs [Sec. 9].
available. The reports are to be2007) [Sec. 6].
submitted to HHS by June 30
of each year.
Targeting of $40 Million in PSSF Funds for Special Purposes
Support forNo provisionReserves $40 million ofReserves $40 million of theFor formula grants to states
monthlymandatory PSSF funds inmandatory PSSF funds inand territories to support
iki/CRS-RL33354caseworkervisits andFY2007-FY2011 forcompetitive grants to regionalFY2006-FY2011 for formulagrants to states and territoriesmonthly caseworker visitsreserves: $40 million in
g/wgrants topartnerships to increase theto support monthlyFY2006 (available to spend
s.orimprovewell-being of and improvecaseworker visits for childrenthrough FY2009); $5 million
leakoutcomes forthe permanency outcomes forin foster care [Sec. 4].in FY2008; $10 million in
childrenchildren affected byFY2009; and $20 million in
://wikiaffected bymethamphetamine abuse andeach of FY2010 and FY2011.
httpmeth or otheraddiction [Sec. 2].
substanceFor competitive grants to
abuseregional partnerships to
improve outcomes for
children affected by abuse of
meth or other substances
reserves: $40 million in
FY2007: $35 million in
FY2008; $30 million in
FY2009 and $20 million in
each of FY2010 and FY2011
[Sec. 4].
Distribution ofNo provisionRequires HHS to make grantsEntitles each state and territoryFunds for competitive grants
reserved fundsto regional partnerships on ato an allotment of the $40to regional partnerships: Same
for targetedcompetitive basis. A regionalmillion (based generally onas July 13 Senate bill except
purposespartnership must consist ofallotment formula for PSSFthat a regional partnerships
two or more entitiesprogram) provided that itmust in nearly all cases include
(representing child welfare,meets specific requirements.the state child welfare agency



CRS-22
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
health, mental health,These include that it track the(optional if the partnership
education, law, tribal,frequency and location ofincludes tribal entities) and
judicial/court or relatedcaseworker visits to children inregional partnerships
agencies, providers orfoster care and that thisdemonstrating evidence of
personnel). An applicanttracking shows that, as ofmeth or other substance abuse
partnership must show thatFY2008, no less than 90% ofmay be eligible applicants. In
abuse of meth by parents orthe foster children in the stateconsidering which applicants
caretakers has increased theare visited monthly (or that theto award grants, HHS must,
number of children in out-of-state is making “requisiteafter taking into account the
home placements (or those at-progress” toward this goal tolevel of need demonstrated by
risk of this placement). Theenable it to reach that standardall applicant regional
grants must be for no less thanno later than October 1, 2011).partnership, give greater
$500,000 and no more than $1Further a state may not useweight to those applicant
million per fiscal year andthese funds to supplant federalpartnerships that can show the
must be made for no less thanTitle IV-E funds available fornegative effect of meth abuse
iki/CRS-RL333542 years and no more than 5the same purposes and a stateon child welfare in their region
g/wyears. HHS must take intomust agree to spend $1 in non-[Sec. 4].
s.oraccount demonstrated need ofapplicants in awarding thesefederal funds to supportmonthly caseworker visits ofFunds for formula grants to
leakgrants [Sec. 2].children in foster care forstates and territories for
://wikievery $3 in federal funds itreceives for this purpose. [Sec.support of monthly caseworkervisits: Same allotment formula
http4]. (generally) for receipt of
regular program funds. State
may not supplant federal Title
IV-E funds available for the
same purposes. In addition, to
receive these funds in FY2008
through FY2011, a state must
agree to spend $1 in non-
federal funds to support
monthly caseworker visits for
every $3 in federal funds it
receives for this purpose [Sec.
4].



CRS-23
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Monthly Caseworker Standard
Standards forNo provision.No provision.[As described above, providesNo later than the first day of
frequency andthat states, as a condition ofFY2008, a state, as a part of its
content ofreceiving the funds reservedChild Welfare Services (Title
caseworkerfor monthly caseworker visitsIV-B, Subpart 1) state plan,
visitsmust be able to show that 90%must describe its standards for
of foster care children arethe content and frequency of
visited monthly or thatcaseworker visits to children in
requisite progress towardfoster care. At a minimum the
meeting that standard by thestandards must ensure that the
first day of FY2012 is beingvisits are well-planned,
made.]focused on issues relevant to
case planning and occur at
least monthly [Sec. 7].


iki/CRS-RL33354
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http

CRS-24
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
EnforcementNot applicableNo provision.[As described above, statesHHS may not provide FY2008
of Standardsmust report data on theChild Welfare Services
for frequencypercentage of foster carefunding to a state unless the
and content ofchildren visited at leaststate has provided it with data
caseworkermonthly and at least 90% ofshowing (for FY2007) the
visitschildren in foster care (orpercentage of children in foster
requisite progress toward thatcare who received a monthly
standard) is a condition ofvisit from their caseworker and
receipt of certain fundsthe percentage of the visits that
reserved from the Promotingoccurred where the child lives.
Safe and Stable Families
program.] No later than June 30, 2008,
HHS must with the state
outline the steps (including
target percentages to be
iki/CRS-RL33354reached) that the state must
g/wtake to ensure that by October
s.or1, 2011, at least 90% of thechildren in foster care under
leakthe responsibility of the state
://wikiare visited by theircaseworkers on a monthly
httpbasis and that most of the visits
occur where the child lives.
States are required to provideStates that fail to make the
at least 25% of the totalrequisite progress toward the
program costs (matchingmonthly caseworker visit
dollars) in order to receivestandard must expend more
their full federal allotment ofstate (matching) dollars to
Child Welfare Services fundsreceive their full federal
[Sec. 423].allotment of Child Welfare
Services funds. The increase is
based on the degree to which a
state fails to make progress
toward the standard: minimum
penalty- state must provide
26% of the total program cost;
maximum penalty states must
provide 30% [Sec. 7].



CRS-25
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Child Welfare Services (Title IV-B, Subpart 1)
ProgramAuthorizes annualSame as current law.Maintains the annualSame as House bill [Sec. 6].
authorizationdiscretionary funding up todiscretionary funding
$325 million for Childauthorization of $325 million.
Welfare Services. TheLimits this authorization to
funding authorization isFY2007-FY2011 [Sec. 5].
provided on an indefinite (no
year limit) basis [Sec. 420].
PurposeProvides that funds are toSame as current law.Restates the purpose of thisSame as House bill except
enable the United States,program to include,that the fourth purpose is
though HHS, to cooperategenerally, the aims of childrestated as — promoting the
with state public welfarewelfare services described insafety, permanence, and well-
agencies in establishing,the current law definition andbeing of children in foster
extending and strengtheningdeletes the definition of childcare and adoptive families
iki/CRS-RL33354child welfare services [Sec.welfare services. Adds[Sec. 6].


g/w420]. explicit reference to services
s.orprovided by community-
leakDefines child welfare servicesbased agencies (as a part of
(for all of Title IV-B) asthe purpose) and reference to
://wikipublic social servicessupport for a well-qualified
httpintended to — protect andpromote the welfare of allchild welfare workforce.
children, includingSpecifically, defines the
handicapped, homeless,purpose of the Title IV-B,
dependent, or neglectedSubpart 1 program asto
children; promote state flexibility in
prevent, remedy or assistthe development and
in the solution of problemsexpansion of a coordinated
which may result in thechild and family services
neglect, abuse, exploitation,program that utilizes
or delinquency of children;community-based agencies
— prevent the unnecessaryand ensures all children are
separation of children fromraised in safe, loving families,
their families by identifyingby
family problems, assisting1) protecting and promoting
families in resolving theirthe welfare of all children;
problems, and preventing2) preventing the neglect,
breakup of the family (whereabuse, or exploitation of
the prevention of the childchildren;

CRS-26
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
removal is desirable and3) supporting at-risk families
possible); through services which allow
— restore to their familieschildren, where appropriate,
children who have beento remain safely with their
removed by provision offamilies or return to their
services to the child and thefamilies in a timely manner;
families;4) promoting the safety,
— place children in suitablepermanence, and well-being
adoptive homes, in casesof children in foster care; and
where restoration to the5) providing training,
biological families is notprofessional development and
possible or appropriate and; support to ensure a well-
— assure adequate care ofqualified child welfare
children away from theirworkforce” [Sec. 5].
homes, in cases where the
iki/CRS-RL33354child cannot be returned
g/whome or placed for adoption
s.or[Sec. 425].
leakLimit onNo provision.No provision.Requires a state to assure, asSame as House bill except
://wikiadministrativeexpendituresof FY2007, that no more than10% of its expenditures underthat the effective date isFY2008 [Sec. 6].
httpthe Child Welfare Services
program will be for
administrative purposes [Sec.
5].
To receive their full allotmentSame as current law.As of FY2007, prohibits HHSSame as House bill except
of federal Child Welfarefrom making any payment ofthat the effective date is
Services funds a state mustChild Welfare Services fundsFY2008 [Sec. 6].
provide at least 25% of theto a state for administrative
total program costs.costs that are above 10% of
the total (federal and non-
federal) expenditures for the
program [Sec. 5].
No provision.No provision.Defines administrative costsSame as House bill [Sec. 6].


as program costs related to
procurement, payroll
management, personnel

CRS-27
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
functions (other than the part
of a supervisor’s salary
attributable to direct
supervision of caseworker
services), maintenance and
operation of space and
property, data processing and
computer services,
accounting, budgeting,
auditing and travel expenses
(other than those related to
caseworker provision of
services or oversight of
programs funded with Child
Welfare Services) [Sec. 5].
iki/CRS-RL33354Limits onA state may spend a limitedSame as current law.Effective with FY2007, statesEffective with FY2008, states
g/wexpendituresamount of its Child Welfareare generally prohibited fromare generally prohibited from
s.orfor foster careServices funding for fosterspending program funds forspending program funds for
leakmaintenancecare maintenance payments,foster care maintenancefoster care maintenance
://wikipayments,adoptionadoption assistance paymentsand child day care (necessarypayments, adoption assistanceor child day care (for anypayments, adoption assistanceor child day care (for any
httpassistancesolely for the employment orpurpose). However, any statepurpose), unless the state can
payments andtraining of the childsthat can show HHS that itshow that it spent some of its
child careparent/related caretaker). Thespent Child Welfare ServiceFY2005 federal program
per state limit on Childfunds for these purposes inallotment for these purpose.
Welfare ServicesFY2005 may continue toIf a state can make this
expenditures for thesespend the lesser of thatshowing then the amount of
purposes is the amount ofFY2005 spending amount orfederal program money it
total federal funds allotted tothe state’s total FY1979spent for those purposes in
the state for this program infunding allotment under theFY2005 is its limit for those
FY1979 (when the programprogram [Sec. 5].purposes in FY2008 and
was funded at $56.5 million)every future year [Sec. 6].


[Sec. 423].

CRS-28
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Counting stateTo receive its full federalSame as current law.Effective with FY2007,Effective with FY2008, states
matchingallotment of Child Welfaredeletes the provisionmay not count foster care
fundsServices funds states mustpermitting states to countmaintenance payments for
provide at lest 25% of thefoster care maintenancepurposes of providing state
total program costs. To meetpayments for purposes ofmatching funds under this
this matching requirement,providing state matchingprogram unless a state can
states may count their non-funds under this programshow it did this in FY2005. If
federal spending for foster[Sec. 5].a state can make this
care maintenance paymentsshowing, then the amount of
in unlimited amount [Sec.foster care maintenance
423].payment spending it counted
as matching funds in FY2005
is its limit for that purpose in
FY2008 and every future year
[Sec. 6].
iki/CRS-RL33354PlanningNo provision.No provision.Requires the state to outlineRequires the state to describe
g/wconsultationhow it will ensure thathow it actively consults with
s.orwith medicalphysicians or otherand involves physicians or
leakprofessionalsappropriate medicalother appropriate medical
://wikiprofessionals are activelyconsulted and involved inprofessionals in assessing thehealth and well-being of
httpassessing the health and well-children in foster care and in
being of children in fosterdetermining appropriate
care and in determiningmedical treatment for them
appropriate medical treatment[Sec. 6].
for them [Sec. 5].
Procedures forNo provision.No provision.No provision.Requires a state, no later than
operation12 months after enactment of
following athe bill to have in place
disasterprocedures for how the states
foster care, adoption
assistance, independent
living, as well as its Child
Welfare Services and
Promoting Safe and Stable
Families programs will
respond in a disaster. The
procedures must be in accord
with criteria established by



CRS-29
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
HHS and should include how
the state would —
1) identify, locate, and
continue availability of
services for children under
state care or supervision who
are affected by the disaster;
2) respond appropriately to
new child welfare cases
resulting from the disaster;
3) remain in communications
with caseworkers and other
essential child welfare
personnel who are displaced
by the disaster;
iki/CRS-RL333544) preserve essential program
g/wrecords; and
s.or5) coordinate services andshare information with other
leakstates [Sec. 6].
://wikiProceduresRequires a state to assure thatSame as current law.Rewrites this provision toSame as House bill except
httprelated toas of October 31, 1995 it hasrequire a state to assure that itfurther specifies that the
abandonedreviewed state policies andhas in place policies andpolicies and procedures must
childrenadministrative and judicialadministrative and judicialinclude those that provide for
procedures regarding childrenprocedures in place forlegal representation of these
abandoned shortly after birthchildren abandoned at orchildren [Sec. 6].


(including policies related toshortly after birth which
legal representation of theseenable permanency decisions
children); and isto be made expeditiously for
implementing policies andthese children [Sec. 5].
procedures determined (based
on this review) to enable
permanency decisions to be
made expeditiously for
abandoned children [Sec.
422].

CRS-30
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Inventory ofSince June 17, 1980 states areSame as current law.Deletes this provision [Sec.Same as House bill [Sec. 6].
children inrequired to have conducted a5].
foster carestatewide inventory of all
children in foster care for at
least 6 months to determine
1) the appropriateness and
necessity for the foster care
placement; 2) whether the
children could or should be
turned over to their parents or
be freed for adoption or other
permanent placement and 3)
the services necessary to
facilitate the return of the
child or the placement of the
iki/CRS-RL33354child for adoption or legal
g/wguardianship [Sec. 422]
s.orPlacementA state must assure that it willSame as current law.Clarifies that “some otherSame as House bill [Sec. 6].


leaksettings for aoperate a service programplanned permanent living
://wikichild withpermanencythat helps return fosterchildren to their familiesarrangement” may include aresidential education program
httpgoal of another(when it is safe and[Sec. 5].
plannedappropriate) or places them
permanentfor adoption or in a legal
livingguardianship. However, if
arrangementreunification, adoption or
legal guardianship is
determined not to be
appropriate, places them in
some other planned
permanent living
arrangement” [Sec. 422].

CRS-31
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Child careA state must assure that,Same as current law.Deletes this state planSame as House bill [Sec. 6].
standardsexcept for eligibility criteria,requirement [Sec. 5].
it will impose the same
standards and requirements
for child care services funded
with Child Welfare Services
as are applied to those funded
under Title XX (Social
Services Block Grant) [Sec.
422].
Use of para-A state must assure that it willSame as current law.Deletes this state planSame as House bill [Sec. 6].
professionalsprovide for the training andrequirement [Sec. 5].
and volunteerseffective use of paid para-
professionals and volunteers
iki/CRS-RL33354in providing services andassisting any advisory
g/wcommittees established by the
s.orstate child welfare agency.
leak
Mentoring Children of Prisoners (Title IV-B, Subpart 2)
://wiki
httpProgramAuthorizes HHS to makeExtends the currentSame as Senate bill [Sec. 7].Same as Senate bill [Sec. 8].
purpose andcompetitive grants in each ofauthorization from FY2007-
authorizationFY2002-FY2006 to supportFY2011.
the establishment or
expansion and operation of
programs that provide
mentoring services to
children of prisoners in areas
with substantial numbers of
children who have
incarcerated parents [Sec
439].
Expansion ofNo provision.Adds additional authority forNo provision.Adds additional authority for
programHHS to enter into aHHS to enter into a
purposecooperative agreement with acooperative agreement with a
national mentoringqualified entity to conduct a
organization to developdemonstration of use of
mentoring program standards, vouchers as a way to deliver



CRS-32
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
publicize the availability ofmentoring services to
mentoring services forchildren of prisoners
children of prisoners atnationwide. The entity must
programs that meet theseidentify children in need of
standards, and to distributethose services, provide
vouchers for such services tovouchers to the families of
the programs selected bythese children, and monitor
families of prisoners withand oversee the delivery of
children [Sec. 4].the services. Vouchers may
be good for one year of
mentoring services. A
provider of the services may
only redeem the voucher if it
meets the quality program
standards developed by the
iki/CRS-RL33354entity, provides mentoring
g/wservices to the child and
s.ordemonstrates that it cancontinue (with non-federal
leakresources) providing
://wikimentoring to the child afterthe voucher expires.
httpContingent on available
funding, the entity must agree
to provide 3,000 vouchers in
year one of the demonstration
project; 8,000 in year two and
13,000 in year three . The
project may then be renewed
for an additional 2 years if the
entity performs well and an
independent evaluation shows
that vouchers are an effective
method of service delivery
for this service [Sec. 8].
FundingFor each of FY2002-FY2003For each of FY2007-FY2011Maintains the annual “suchSame as House bill [Sec. 8].


authorization authorized $67 million forauthorizes $67 million [Sec.sums as may be necessary
these grants; for FY2004 and4]. funding authorization but
every year thereafterlimits it to each of FY2007-

CRS-33
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
authorizessuch sums as mayFY2011 [Sec. 7].
be necessary” for the
program.
No provision.Up to 50% of these fundsNo provision.Provided that $25 million in
may be used for theprogram funds are made
cooperative agreement/available for the previously
voucher distribution but noauthorized site-based grants,
less than $25 million mustHHS may reserve up to $5
remain available for themillion of the appropriated
previously authorized site-funds for the voucher
based grants [Sec. 4].demonstration in the first year
funds are awarded for the
demonstration; $10 million
for the second year; and $15
iki/CRS-RL33354million for the third fiscal
g/wyear [Sec. 8].
s.orHHS must reserve 2.5% ofSame as current law.HHS must reserve 4% of the
leakthe funds appropriated for thefunds appropriated for the
://wikiprogram for related research,evaluation and technicalprogram for related research,evaluation and technical
httpassistance [Sec. 439]assistance [Sec. 8].



CRS-34
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Court Improvement Program (Title IV-B, Subpart 2)
ProgramFor each of FY2002-FY2006Extends both the courtSame as Senate bill [Sec. 6].Same as Senate bill [Sec. 9].


authorizationan eligible highest state courtentitlement to these funds and
(with an approvedthe related matching
application) is entitled to arequirement through FY2011
share of funds, which are set-[Sec. 3].
aside from funds provided for
the PSSF program, to assess
and make improvements to its
handling of child welfare
related proceedings. To
receive is full allotment of the
funds in FY2002-FY2006,
the court must provide at
iki/CRS-RL33354least 25% of the totalexpenditures for this purpose
g/w[Sec. 438].
s.or
leak
://wiki
http

CRS-35
Prior LawAs passed by the Senate,As passed by the House,As enacted (P.L. 109-288)
July 13, 2006July 25, 2006September 28,2006
Court Consultation with Foster Child/Youth at Permanency Review Proceedings (Title IV-E)
Case reviewStates are required to have inProvides that a court orSame as current law.Same as Senate bill except
systemplace a case review systemadministrative body that isthat the reference to age of
for each child in foster care.holding a permanencythe child for whom transition
This system is defined tohearing must consult, in anto independent living
include an annualage-appropriate manner, withplanning is being made is
permanency hearingthe child or youth whosedeleted [Sec. 10].
(conducted by a court orpermanency
court-appointed/approvedplan/arrangement is under
administrative body) toreview (including youth who
review the permanency planare age 16 or older and are in
for the child. In the case of atransition to independent
youth in foster care who isliving. [Sec. 7].
age 16 or older the annual
iki/CRS-RL33354permanency hearing must determine the services the
g/wyouth needs to make the
s.ortransition from foster care to
leakindependent living. [Sec.
://wiki475]
http Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).



Appendix B: Legislative History of the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program
At least since the creation of the current federal child welfare program structure
by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272), Congress
has remained consistently concerned about the number of children in foster care and
the lack of stability and permanence in their lives. During the 1990s, Congress
created a new program (P.L. 103-66), now called the Promoting Safe and Stable
Families Program, which responded to some of those concerns.
By the end of the 1980s, there were widespread concerns about a rapidly
growing foster care caseload (believed to be spurred by the spread of crack cocaine
use) and a belief that too few preventive services were resulting in too many children
being unnecessarily placed in foster care. At the same time, a number of states, often
with the support of private foundations, had begun to offer a model of family
preservation services that provided families with short-term, intensive services; early
research suggested these services would significantly reduce the number of children
unnecessarily placed in foster care.
In this climate, Congress began discussions about increasing federal support for
preventive services, including intensive family preservation. Several years of
legislative efforts lead initially to a 1992 agreement between the House and Senate
on new capped entitlement funding for 1) “innovative services” to children and
families (e.g., family preservation services); 2) substance abuse prevention and
treatment; and 3) respite care. The agreement would have entitled states to their
share of $165 million for these purposes in FY1993 rising to $575 million in
FY1998, and for every succeeding year, the FY1998 amount adjusted by an inflation
factor. The legislation provided specific allotment of the total funds for each purpose
— with the largest share reserved for innovative services (conference agreement to
accompany H.R. 11, 102nd Cong., H.Rept. 102-1034). Although this legislation was
approved by both the Senate and the House, as part of an omnibus package, the
Revenue Act of 1992, it was vetoed by President George H. W. Bush (for reasons
unrelated to the child welfare provisions) and so did not become law.
Original Enactment. One year later, however, child welfare advocates
succeeded in including new entitlement funding for family preservation and support
services in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) which
created Subpart 2 of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act. Proposed by the Clinton
Administration, the 1993 legislation drew much of its inspiration from the earlier
legislative work but made several notable changes. Among those, it included less
entitlement funding and deleted specific allotment of funds for substance abuse
prevention and treatment and respite care (both of which could nonetheless be funded
out of the program that was approved).
As enacted, the Family Preservation and Support Services provisions of P.L.
103-66 entitled states to receive a certain portion of federal funds (rising from $60
million in FY1994 to no less than $255 million by FY1998) to enable states and
territories “to develop and establish, or expand, and to operate a program of family
preservation services and community-based family support services.” One percent



of the funds was to be reserved for support of tribal child and family services, and
each state was to be allotted these new funds based on its relative share of children
in the nation who receive food stamps.10 To receive their full formula allocation
states were required to maintain at least their FY1992 level of funding for these
services and to support no less than 25% of the state’s total family preservation and
family support services program with non-federal funding. Finally, the new law also
provided that funds were to be set aside annually to allow state highest courts to
assess their need for improvements to their handling of child welfare cases ($5
million for such grants in FY1995 and $10 million for each of FY1996-FY1998) and,
separately, to allow HHS to evaluate programs carried out under the new subpart or
others designed to achieve the same purposes and to support research, training and
technical assistance related to the program ($2 million in FY1994 and $6 million in
each of FY1995-FY1998).
ASFA Amendments. Congress returned to child welfare issues when it
passed the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89). That
legislation sought to make a child’s safety the primary concern in all child welfare
decisions and also to move foster children to a permanent family more quickly. With
an eye toward children’s development and their concept of time, Members of
Congress were concerned that states maintained a goal of family reunification long
after it was apparent that such a goal was inappropriate (or in cases where
reunification might in fact jeopardize the child’s safety). They were also troubled by
reports that the number of adoptions out of foster care had remained virtually
unchanged for years while the number of children in care had risen dramatically.11
ASFA renamed Title IV-B, Subpart 2 of the Social Security Act, the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families program. In addition, as one part of ASFA’s multiple
amendments related to the safety of children, Congress added a requirement that the
safety of children be the “paramount concern” in administering and conducting
service programs under the PSSF program. As a part of its focus on expediting
decisions around finding a permanent home for children in foster care (and
encouraging adoption as one method of doing this), Congress defined two additional
service categories for which states were required to use “significant portions” of their
PSSF funding — time-limited family reunification services and adoption promotion
and support. Finally, Congress set annual increases in the mandatory funding
authorized for the program, raising it from $275 million in FY1999 to $305 million
in FY2001. (Congress also continued the annual set-asides from these funds for
tribal child and family services, court improvements, and program evaluation,
research, training, and technical assistance.)


10 Territories receive funds based on a minimum allotment of $70,000 and a formula that
assumes low per capita income in each territory and takes into account their relative share
of the population under age 21. This is the same formula used to distribute funds to the
territories under Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act, the Child Welfare Services
program.
11 For a discussion of the full range of significant child welfare policy changes made by this
legislation see CRS Report RL30759, Child Welfare: Implementation of the Adoption and
Safe Families Act, by Karen Spar and Matthew Shuman.

The time limit for the new category of reunification services was set at within
15 months of a child’s removal from his/her home. This is consistent with a separate
ASFA-added requirement, which provides that states must initiate termination of
parental rights (TPR) proceedings for any child who has been in foster care for 15 of
the past 22 months (unless the state can show good cause why it should not do this).
A child’s adoption cannot be completed without termination of parental rights and
courts are generally reluctant to grant TPR in cases where the family has not first
been offered needed reunification services. Thus the new “time-limited
reunification” funding category sought to ensure that ASFA’s efforts to expedite
permanency were not defeated by a lack of available or provided services. Likewise,
the addition of the adoption promotion and support services category was consistent
with other ASFA amendments that encouraged adoption as a way of attaining
permanent family for children.
2001 Amendments. Program reauthorization language introduced in 2001
largely mirrored language suggested by the Bush Administration and initially sought
to raise the annual mandatory funding level of the program to $505 million.
However, Congress subsequently changed this provision (and the Administration also
changed its budget request) to instead authorize discretionary funds above the prior
mandatory funding level.12 As enacted, the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Amendments of 2001 (P.L. 107-133) authorized $200 million in discretionary
funding for the program in each of FY2002-FY2006 and maintained the prior
authorized mandatory funding level ($305 million) through FY2006. P.L. 107-133
further provided that a state was entitled to its share of any discretionary funds
appropriated in the same manner (i.e., based on its relative share of children receiving
food stamps) as was the case with mandatory funding. Additionally, it provided that,
out of any discretionary funds appropriated (and in addition to the pre-existing set-
asides of mandatory funds for these same purposes), 2% must be set aside for tribal
child and family services, 3.3% for Court Improvement and 3.3% for research,
evaluation, training and technical assistance.
P.L. 107-133 added four findings to the statute and provided four program
objectives (each linked to one of the four service categories funded by the program).
It amended the definition of family preservation services (to include funding of infant
“safe haven” programs) and the definition of family support services (to explicitly
include funding of services that “strengthen parental relationships and promote
healthy marriages”); provided for re-allotment of any unused program funds; moved
the statutory authorization language for the Court Improvement Program (previously
freestanding) into the Social Security Act; and provided that in implementing
changes identified by an assessment, courts could use CIP funds to ensure children’s
safety, well-being and permanence (in accordance with standards established in
ASFA) and to implement a corrective action plan identified as needed via a federal
conformity review of the child welfare agency. Finally, it established research
priorities and specified the kinds of technical assistance HHS may offer to tribes,
territories and states regarding implementing the Promoting Safe and Stable Families


12 For more about the funding proposals made in this reauthorization, see CRS Report
RL30894, Child Welfare: Reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Familiesth
Program in the 107 Congress, by Emilie Stoltzfus and Karen Spar.

program and required the Department to report to Congress biennially (beginning not
later than April 2003) on the evaluations, research and technical assistance funded
with money set-aside for this purpose from the PSSF.13
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. As enacted in February 2006, the
Deficit Reduction Act (P.L. 109-171) increased the FY2006 mandatory funding
authorization for the PSSF program, for FY2006 only, to $345 million. Separately
P.L. 109-171 also amended the Court Improvement Program, which had been entirely
funded as a set-aside from the PSSF funding. These amendments provide for two
new kinds of Court Improvement Program grants, which are related to improved
training and, separately, timely achievement of safety, permanence and well-being
for children; the law appropriated $20 million for each of FY2006-FY2010 (total of
$100 million) to make these grants. These funds are independent of PSSF funding,
and are in addition to the funds already set-aside from the PSSF for assessing and
improving court performance in child welfare proceedings.
The Promoting Safe and Stable Families and Court Improvement provisions of
the Deficit Reduction Act were incorporated into the legislation during the
conference negotiations and had not been previously acted on by the Senate or the
House. However, changes to the Court Improvement Program are consistent with
recommendations made in a May 2004 report by the Pew Commission on Children
in Foster Care and legislation introduced in the Senate (S. 1679) and House (H.R.14

3758) sought to make similar or related court improvement changes.


The Child and Family Services Improvement Act. As enacted in
September 2006, the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-

288) extends the funding authorization of the PSSF program for five years (FY2007-


FY2011) and annually targets the use of $40 million in new funds for the program
for two purposes: to support monthly caseworker visits and to improve outcomes
for children affected by their parent/caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine or
another substance. HHS is required to use some of the research, evaluation and
technical assistance funds it is provided under PSSF to evaluate or otherwise support
those newly authorized PSSF activities. In addition, the law requires states to report
on their actual — as opposed to simply planned — use of PSSF (and Child Welfare
Services) funds and both increases the PSSF set aside for tribal child and family
services, and allows access to these funds for more tribes.


13 P.L. 107-133 also added a new section to Title IV-B, Subpart 2, which authorizes
discretionary funds for competitive grants to eligible entities that support mentoring for
children of prisoners. P.L. 109-288 extended and amended this program, as described in the
body of this report. For more information about federal support of mentoring see CRS
Report RL32633, Mentoring Programs Funded by the Federal Government Dedicated to
Disadvantaged Youth: Issues and Activities, by Edith Fairman Cooper.
14 For more information see CRS Report RL33350, Child Welfare: The Court Improvement
Program, by Emilie Stoltzfus.

Appendix C: Selected Policy Issues
The following section was developed prior to the reauthorization of the PSSF
in 2006 to discuss the definition of service categories under the PSSF program,
findings related to the effectiveness of these services, as well as requirements related
to planning and reporting child and family services. The Child and Family Services
Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-288) did not amend the definition of services
under the PSSF program, although it does require states to report information on the
actual as opposed to planned spending of PSSF funds. Further it requires HHS to
use some of its research set-aside to support research, evaluation, and technical
assistance related to two new purposes for which some PSSF funds are targeted:
improving the quality and quantity of caseworker visits of children in foster care and
providing services and activities to improve the outcomes of children affected by
parent/caretaker’s abuse of methamphetamine (or another) substance.
Service Categories Defined
States are required to spend significant portions of their PSSF funding on each
of four service categories: family support, family preservation, time-limited family
reunification, and adoption promotion and support services. The statute (Section 431
of the Social Security Act) defines these service categories at some length.
Family support — community-based services to promote the safety and well-
being of children and families designed to increase the strength and stability of
families (including adoptive, foster, and extended families), to increase parents’
confidence and competence in their parenting abilities, to afford children a safe,
stable and supportive family environment, to strengthen parental relationships and
promote healthy marriages, and otherwise to enhance child development.
Family preservation — services for children and families designed to help
families (including adoptive and extended families) at risk or in crisis, including
!service programs designed to help children safely return to families
from which they have been removed; or be placed for adoption or
with a legal guardian (or, if adoption or legal guardianship is
determined not to be safe and appropriate for the child, in some
other planned, permanent living arrangement);
!pre-placement preventive services programs, such as intensive
family preservation programs, designed to help children at risk of
foster care placement remain safely with their families;
!service programs designed to provide follow-up care for families to
whom a child has been returned after a foster care placement;
!respite care of children to provide temporary relief of parents and
other caregivers (including foster parents);
!services designed to improve parenting skills (by reinforcing
parents’ confidence in their strengths, and helping them to identify
where improvement is needed and to obtain assistance in improving
those skills) with respect to matters such as child development,
family budgeting coping with stress, health, and nutrition; and



! infant safe haven programs to provide a way for a parent to safely
relinquish a newborn infant at a safe haven designated pursuant to
a state law.
Time-limited family reunification — services and activities provided to a child
that is removed from his/her home and placed in foster care, and to the parents or
primary caregiver of such a child, in order to facilitate the reunification of the child
safely, appropriately and within a timely fashion, but only during the 15-month
period that begins on the date that the child is considered to have entered foster care:
!individual, group, and family counseling;
!inpatient, residential, or outpatient substance abuse services;
!mental health services;
!assistance to address domestic violence;
!services designed to provide temporary child care and therapeutic
services for families, including crisis nurseries;
!transportation to or from any of the services and activities described.
Adoption promotion and support — services and activities designed to
encourage more adoptions out of the foster care system, when adoptions promote the
best interests of children, including such activities as pre- and post-adoptive services
and activities designed to expedite the adoption process and support adoptive
families.
Service Category Overlap
Even a relatively quick reading of these definitions reveals that in many cases
they define a mission rather than provide a list of specific activities that are expected
to achieve this mission. Further, the PSSF service categories have similar and, in
some cases, even identical missions. At the same time, while the service categories
can be understood as having overlapping missions or even, in certain cases as subsets
of each other, each of the PSSF services categories have different target populations
and, as the legislative history shows, they were created by Congress to meet separate
if related goals.
Family support services have the broadest target population and, in philosophy,
aim to bolster the functioning of any family in a given community. Family
preservation services are generally understood to serve a far narrower group of
families — those where children are at imminent risk of removal to foster care,
meaning in most cases that a child has already experienced abuse or neglect (and
including some families where a child has been removed to foster care and
reunification efforts are underway). Federal child welfare funding for family support
and family preservation services was instituted at a time when Congress was
particularly concerned about the burgeoning foster care caseload. The services were
intended to prevent the need for foster care placement, whenever possible and the
new funding for these services was the centerpiece of the child welfare legislation in
which they were enacted (P.L. 103-66).



Time-limited reunification services may be understood as a subset of family
preservation services and are explicitly meant to serve the needs of children and
families who have been separated for 15 months or less (because the child is placed
in foster care). Adoption promotion and support services aim to encourage families
seeking to adopt from foster care and to support those who have done so. Such
services might also be understand as a subset of family support services, or in the
case of adoptive families in crisis, as a family preservation service.
Federal funding for these services was not the central creation of the Adoption
and Safe Families Act (ASFA, P.L. 105-89). Rather, Congress increased PSSF
funding to some extent and required states to spend money on time-limited
reunification and adoption promotion and support to augment ASFA’s central goals
of promoting safety and permanency for children. At the time, Congress remained
deeply concerned about the size of the foster care caseload, but ASFA helped shift
the focus of this concern from policies primarily intended to prevent entries into
foster care to policies that sought to safely expedite exits from care.
State Planned Spending by Category. Federal statute, as interpreted in
HHS policy, requires states to spend at least 20% of their PSSF funds on each of the
four service categories.15 Collectively states reported that they intended to spend
their FY2002 PSSF funds as follows — 29% for family support, 30% for family
preservation, 21% for time-limited reunification, and 20% for adoption promotion
and support. Given that family support and family preservation have received
dedicated funding the longest and that their service goals (and target populations) are
more expansive, program evaluators note that the two newest services categories —
time-limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support — have16
become “well-established in the continuum of PSSF-funded services.”


15 The statute provides that states must spend a “significant portion” of funds of each of the
four categories. HHS has interpreted this to mean that a state must spend 20% of the funds
allotted to it on each service category, unless the state can provide an “especially strong
rationale” for not doing this. See ACYF-CB-PI-04-01, Feb. 2, 2004.
16 James Bell Associates, Analysis of States’ Annual Progress and Services Reports and
Child and Family Services Plans (1999-2002), Apr. 2002, pp. 49-50. For FY2002, eight
states did not plan to spend at least 20% of their PSSF funds on either time-limited family
reunification or adoption promotion and support (but planned to use other state or federal
fund for these services). The General Accounting Office (GAO) (now called the
Government Accountability Office) surveyed states on their FY2002 actual spending of
PSSF funds. When compared to the Bell Associates analysis of state’s planned spending
PSSF funds in that year, the GAO survey shows states reporting different spending
proportions (for categories that most closely match the PSSF categories). These were:
family support/prevention — 50%; family preservation 12%; family reunification 9%; and
adoption support and preservation services 11%. Apart from differences that might be
attributed to actual versus estimated spending, the overlapping nature of these service
categories and various definitions employed by GAO/states and James Bell makes a strict
comparison impossible. U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: Enhanced
Federal Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide States Additional Information to Improve
Services” (GAO-03-956), Sept. 2003, p. 14. Data on PSSF spending for more recent years
have not been compiled or analyzed on a national basis.

At the same time, because states may choose to include the same given activity
in more than one service category, this spreading of resources across categories could
ideally mean that states have a full range of child and family services available to
those who are not yet in need of extensive child welfare services, those who need
such services to ensure that children and their parents can safely live together (rather
than be separated via foster care placement), those for whom the services are needed
to ensure a short foster care stay and permit early reunification, and those for whom
the services support successful creation and functioning of permanent adoptive
families.
Effectiveness of Services
Congress required HHS to evaluate the effectiveness of programs funded under
Title IV-B, Subpart 2 as part of its initial approval of funding for family preservation
and family support services in the early 1990s. HHS used those funds to support
three large-scale evaluations. One looked at overall implementation issues for the
program, a second looked at the effectiveness of two particular models of family
preservation services (both providing relatively intensive casework), and the third
looked at the effectiveness of a very wide range of family support services. (Findings
from these evaluations are discussed below.)
No similar large-scale evaluations of time-limited reunification services or of
adoption promotion and support services have been made. However, these services
may in part be subsets of some kinds of family preservation and family support
programs. Further, Congress amended the statutory language on evaluations in 2001
(P.L. 107-133) to include specific research priorities. Among these are “promising
program models in the [PSSF] service categories ... particularly time-limited
reunification services and post-adoption services.”
As noted earlier, the 2006 amendments (P.L. 109-288) require HHS to use some
of its set-aside funds to fund research, evaluation and technical assistance related to
supporting improved quality and quantity of caseworker visits of foster children ($1
million annually) and to providing services or activities to improve the outcome of
children affected by their parents’ (or other caretakers’) abuse of methamphetamine
or other substance.
Intensive Family Preservation Services. When Congress began
discussion of funding these services in the early 1990s, a great deal of optimism
existed about the ability of intensive family preservation services to cost-effectively
reduce the number of placements in foster care. Since that time, multiple program
evaluations have not shown that intensive family preservation services lower
placement risk for the children and families they serve (when compared to children
and families receiving standard in-home casework services).
In addition, both children and families who received standard in-home casework
services and those receiving intensive family preservation services were found to
have similar (relatively low) levels of maltreatment recurrence (after initiation of the
services) and to exhibit similar levels of family functioning. In other words, receipt
of intensive family preservation services did not reduce out-of-home placement or



maltreatment recurrence, and did not improve family functioning beyond what
normal casework services achieved.17
These evaluations did not compare — nor were they designed to compare — the
placement outcomes for families receiving no services versus outcomes for those
who received services; and they should not be understood as proof that the families
served did not benefit from or need the services. Instead the evaluations were
designed to test whether a particular manner of delivering the same kinds of
caseworker activities (e.g., anything from help paying a utility bill to counseling
about effective and appropriate child discipline) could produce better outcomes for
children and families.
The most-scrutinized intensive family preservation services delivery model
(Homebuilders) provides that services must be initiated quickly (within 72 hours of
a “crisis” that precipitated imminent child removal), that they must be intensive
(caseworkers are to be assigned no more than two families to work with, must be
available to those families 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and are expected to
swiftly offer any or all of a full range of material and clinical aids needed), and they
are to be of short duration (4-6 weeks). As these characteristics suggest, the target
population for the delivery of services via the Homebuilders model is families where
children are at imminent risk of removal. This is especially critical to the model’s
theory of effectiveness, which rests on an aspect of “crisis theory” and posits that a
family in crisis is at a juncture where it is particularly amenable to change.
In practice, and for a variety of reasons, providing intensive family preservation
services to families and children who are “imminent risk of foster care removal” has
proven difficult. In the four-site study contracted by HHS and jointly conducted by
Westat, the Chapin Hall Center for Children and James Bell Associates, the
evaluators found that even though special precautions were taken to ensure only
families at imminent risk were studied, very small percentages of the “control group
children” — those are children who were randomly assigned to receive regular
caseworker services rather than intensive family preservation services — were
actually placed in foster care within 30 days of their assignment to the study. The
share of control group children who were not placed in foster care during this time
period ranged from 89% to 95%. This was very similar to the share of experimental


17 There have been multiple evaluations and synthesis reviews of studies, including studies
that used the most rigorous evaluation design (random assignment). Not all of these studies
made all of the findings mentioned in this paragraph; however, the finding that intensive
family preservation services do not reduce placement (when compared to children receiving
regular casework services) is well-established. This report discusses findings of the multi-
site HHS-funded evaluation of family preservation services which was conducted by Westat,
Chapin Hall Center for Children, and James Bell Associates. The report studied three sites
(in Louisville, KY, Memphis, TN, and seven counties in New Jersey) where a
“Homebuilders” model was applied, and a fourth (Philadelphia, PA) where a specialized
intensive family preservation services model was used. Overall the findings were similar
across these sites. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Evaluation of Family
Preservation and Reunification Programs, Final Report (Volumes 1 and 2), Dec. 2002.

group children not placed in foster care during the first 30 days after their assignment
to the study (89% to 99%).18
Given that targeting intensive family preservation services on children at
imminent risk for removal has been a problem for most or all of the evaluations of
this service delivery model, and that for the multi-site HHS study the evaluators
developed special tools meant to ensure only families most at risk were included in
the study, researchers suggest that optimal targeting may never be achieved. These
evaluators also questioned whether many families coming into contact with child
welfare services — and referred to family preservation services — understand
themselves to be at a crisis point. Noting that the lives of families served “are often
full of difficulties — externally imposed and internally generated” they suggest that
the imminent removal of a child might simply be understood as part of a set of
ongoing problems rather than as a crisis. For families with chronic problems, they
suggest, a short term dose of services — no matter how intense — would be unlikely
to resolve all or many of the chronic concerns. Noting that the intensive family
preservation services provided did not harm families, the evaluators also made it
clear that services for many families whose children are not in foster care are still
needed. However, given the heterogeneity of the child welfare needs of these
families (child behavioral problems, child abuse, child neglect, suspected child abuse
or neglect, etc.), they suggest that a single service delivery model providing access
to relatively general services is unlikely to work for everyone.19
What Next for Family Preservation Services? The federal statute does
not provide that a specific family preservation services delivery model must be used
by states and HHS explicitly declined to do this when it issued program regulations.
In addition, the discouraging evaluation data on intensive family preservation
services is not new (some suggestions of the current findings were available even as
the program was being federally implemented in the middle 1990s). States then have
had ample time to adjust or otherwise change their models of service delivery,
although much remains to be learned about what the most effective services and
delivery of those services might be. Researchers have suggested more study of the
effectiveness of specific caseworker activities, more effective and more selectively
delivered parent training classes (which are a staple service in both preservation and
reunification cases) and different service delivery models, or activities on behalf of


18 Ibid., pp. 9-1 through 9-4. While the low rate of foster care placement strongly suggests
that the evaluation did not successfully target families in which children were at imminent
risk of removal, the evaluators note that even looked at over the 18-month period during
which the study followed families, those that received intensive family preservation services
did not have a reduced likelihood of placement. Finally, even though placement was not
“imminent” for these families, they do appear to have been at greater risk for placement and
thus arguably in need of services; indeed 18 months after the study was initiated anywhere
from about one-fifth to more than one-third of the families receiving family preservation
services (as well as those in the control group who did not receive services) had experienced
at least one placement.
19 Ibid., pp. 9-11-9-20.

specific subgroups of child welfare clients (e.g., young mothers or families with
substance abuse concerns) are needed.20
Need for In-Home Services. Apart from the specific way in-home services
are delivered to families, there remains an apparent need for services to families in
which children have not been removed from their homes but have been maltreated
in those homes. Of the estimated 872,000 children found to be victims of child
maltreatment in FY2004, a little more than 40% received in-home services
(following the investigation that confirmed their maltreatment), an additional 19%
were removed to foster care while the remaining 41% of these child victims
continued to live at home and received no post-investigation services of any kind.
While some of the children may not have been served because their parents refused
assistance offered (unlike removal to foster care, parents generally must voluntarily
participate in services offered to intact families), researchers also note that there may
not be enough of the kind of services needed or there may be long waiting lists for
the services.21


20 See, for instance, Julia Littell and John R. Shuerman, “What Works Best for Whom? A
Closer Look at Intensive Family Preservation Services,” Children and Youth Services
Review 24 (Sept./Oct. 2002) 9/10:673-699, which compared subgroups of service recipients
(based on characteristics of presenting problems) and found that the likelihood of out-of-
home placement, subsequent maltreatment, or case closing was not affected by the duration
of services, service intensity, or provision of specific services. Joseph P. Ryan and John
R. Schuerman, “Matching family problems with specific family preservation services: a
study of service effectiveness,” Children and Youth Services Review 26 (Apr. 2004) 4:347-
372, which re-examined data on the provision of “problem-related” services to families who
were previously included in an experimental study group receiving intensive family
preservation services and who reported some difficulty paying bills; it found that provision
of clothing/furniture/supplies and housing assistance was associated with a reduced risk of
subsequent maltreatment, while participation in an income support program increased risk
of maltreatment; at the same time provision of cash aid and clothing/furniture supplies were
found to decrease the likelihood of out-of-home placement. Richard P. Barth, et al., “Parent-
Training Programs in Child Welfare Services: Planning for a More Evidence-Based
Approach to Serving Biological Parents,” Research on Social Work Practice 15 (Sept.
2005) 5:353-371, which shows that parent-training is widely “prescribed” by child welfare
agencies and by judges (even when poor parenting is not cited as a concern by the child
welfare worker) but that the training is often made available on an undifferentiated basis to
parents with children of a wide range of ages and with different relationships to the child
welfare agency and, also, that the effectiveness of these programs has been little studied.
Robert E. Lewis, “The Effectiveness of Families First Services: An Experimental Study,”
Children and Youth Services Review 27 (May 2005) 5:499-509, which looked at an
intensive, short-term, family-based intervention (based on adaptation of the “Teaching-
Family Model” and intensive family preservation services) delivered to families where child
behavioral problems were the issue; it found that families receiving the services reported
significant improvement in child behavior, physical care and resources, parental
effectiveness, and parent-child relationships (sustained over a number of months), when
compared to a control group.
21 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child Maltreatment 2004, Washington,
D.C., 2006, pp. 83-84, Tables 6-3, 6-4.

Beyond the substantial number of children and families arguably in need of
services who do not receive them, a case-level analysis of findings in the initial Child
and Family Services Review (CFSR) shows that states were less successful in
meeting the needs of children and families served in their own homes, than those
with children in foster care. This analysis found that in the on-site review of cases,
in-home cases were significantly more likely than foster care cases to receive an
“area needing improvement” rating for a number of key indicators related to ensuring
the well-being of children and families. These items in which in-home cases were
significantly more likely to receive this rating than foster care cases include those
related to
!assessing child and family needs and providing needed services;
! involving children/families in case planning;
!adequate face-to- face worker visits with children; and
!ensuring that children receive services to meet their educational,
mental health and physical health needs.
In-home cases were also significantly more likely to be rated lower on the safety item
related to reducing risk of harm to children served than were foster care cases.22
This same study also reported on “common challenges” to better state
performance and while these may apply to either foster care or in-home cases, a
number are directly related to the indicators listed above and for which the on-site
case reviews revealed specific weakness for in-home cases. Common challenges23
associated with those indicators and identified for many states, include
!the agency doesn’t consistently provide sufficient services to address
risk of harm to children, particularly in the in-home services cases;
!the agency doesn’t consistently monitor families to assess service
participation and change in risk factors to protect children in their
homes and prevent removal;
!the agency doesn’t consistently provide appropriate services to meet
the identified needs of children and parents;
!fathers, mothers, and children (age appropriate) are not sufficiently
involved in case planning;


22 General Finding From the Child and Family Services Review, no date or author given
(accessed Oct. 7, 2004), p. 30. This analysis required use of unpublished CFSR case files
and may have been prepared by James Bell Associates. The full report is online at
[ ht t p: / / www.acf .dhhs.gov/ pr ogr ams/ cb/ c wmoni t or i ng/ r es u l t s / genf i ndi ngs04/ ge nf i ndi ngs0

4.pdf].


23 Ibid., pp. 8-10. The report identified “common challenges” among the 35 states where the
CFSR was conducted in FY2002-FY2004. (States reviewed in FY2001 were not included
because information was extracted using a content analysis of state final CFSR reports and
the format requirements were somewhat different for reports based on reviews done in that
year.) The report includes any issue found in at least one-third of those 35 states as a
“common challenge.” However, all of the issues listed in this report were noted as a
challenge for no fewer than one-half of those states.

!the frequency of face-to-face contacts between workers and children
isn’t consistently sufficient to ensure children’s safety and well
being; 24
!the agency is not consistent in providing services to meet children’s
identified education-related needs;
!the number of dentists/doctors in the state willing to accept
Medicaid is not sufficient to meet the need;
!there is a lack of mental health services for children; and
!the agency doesn’t consistently conduct mental health assessments.
In sum, while children in foster care are much discussed as the barometer of
states’ child welfare performance, states’ in-home case loads are generally more
sizeable than their foster care caseloads and the data suggest that not all families are
receiving needed services, nor are those receiving services having their needs fully
met.25
Family Support Services. Where family preservation services may be
requested once a family has come to the attention of the child welfare agency (e.g.,
child maltreatment allegation and/or finding made), family support services seek to
reach families that have not reached that threshold. The central object of these
services is to ensure a child never experiences abuse or neglect and to improve the
functioning of parents on behalf of their children. Typically these services have been
provided by community agencies or groups — rather than by the state or local public
child welfare agency — and the “target family group” is much broader than those
typically served by the child welfare agency. Although family support services may
be described (and implemented) as intended for families “at-risk” of child abuse or
neglect, in theory they are designed to benefit any family in a particular community
or neighborhood. Overall, families that receive family support services (such as
parent training or child development classes) would seem much more likely to seek
out (or volunteer) for the service as opposed to families that may be offered these
same services (or may be ordered by the court to participate in them) for family
preservation.


24 See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General,
State Standards and Capacity to Track Frequency of Caseworker Visits with Children in
Foster Care (OEI-04-03-00350), Dec. 2005. This report does not deal with in-home cases.
However, it found that while most states had standards regarding the number of visits a child
in foster care should receive each month, more than half of the states could not produce
automated statewide reports of the number of caseworker visits actually received by
children, and that — of 20 states that could produce these reports — seven showed that
fewer than half of the foster care children were visited monthly (on average). (Most, but not
all of those states, had a monthly visit standard for children in foster care.)
25 The Child and Family Services Review is intended to comprehensively review a state’s
child welfare agency performance on behalf of the children and families it serves. An in-
depth case review of a sample of 50 cases (generally) was looked at as a part of each of
these reviews. Of these cases, half related to children in foster care and half were related
to children served in their homes. For more information, see CRS Report RL32968, Child
Welfare: State Performance on Child and Family Services Reviews, by Emilie Stoltzfus.

Study Design. Citing the vast range of programs that might fall under the
“family support” rubric, the Abt Associates researchers who conducted the HHS-26
funded study opted to conduct a “meta-analysis” of program success. This
evaluation technique required the researchers to identify previously conducted studies
of a range of family support programs and to organize the data collected in these
studies in such a way that they could generate findings across these studies. For the
family support studies, the researchers coded information from 665 studies
(representing 260 different family support programs) that were conducted after 1965
in Canada, the United States or Great Britain.
Kinds of Programs Evaluated. To be included in the meta-analysis, a
study needed to evaluate a program that provided services intended to improve child
outcomes by strengthening the capacity of parents to support their children’s
development.27 Accordingly, nearly all the programs included in the meta-analysis
had goals of improved parenting (98%) and child development (91%). Most services
were delivered in the family home (62%) but other settings (in descending order of
frequency) included hospital or clinic, school, community center, university -college,
and public or private agency. Home visits were a primary service delivery mode,
followed, in descending order of frequency, by parent meetings/classes/ groups,
parent-child classes/groups and group early education for children. Most programs
(87%) used at least some staff with a degree and formal training. Finally, although
the original family support programs were neighborhood-based and available to all
in the community, many programs targeted specific populations. About 88% of the
family support programs included in the meta-analysis targeted families believed to
be at certain environmental risk (e.g., poverty, risk of abuse or neglect, teen
parenthood), those with certain biological risks (e.g., low-birth weight baby,
developmental delay, behavior problems) or a combination of these populations.
Most services were available to families for less than one year and families received
relatively small amounts of service (measured in number of hours per month).
Findings. Overall, the meta-analysis showed that family support programs
have small but consistent and (statistically) significant positive effects in children’s


26 Abt Associates, National Evaluation of Family Support Programs, Volume A: The Meta-
Analysis, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C., 2001.
27 These studies included both quasi-experimental research findings and experimental
research findings (separately coded to allow for comparison). In addition, the researchers
coded descriptive information for 167 family support programs where the studies did not
have outcome information. This was done to ensure the full spectrum of family support
programs were included in the meta-analysis. However, based on this descriptive data the
researchers noted that while both evaluated and unevaluated programs had similar goals and
types of services, there were certain differences between the programs. Thus, they
concluded that the full range of family support programs has not been truly evaluated.
Descriptive differences they note are that evaluated programs were more likely to target their
services to a specific population and to use home visits as their primary mode of service
delivery, and they were less likely to use center-based early childhood education as a
primary mode of service delivery and to use para-professionals or non-professionals to
provide parenting education.

cognitive development and their social and emotional development.28 Programs that
had larger positive effects on children’s cognitive outcomes were those that focused
on children with special needs (either biological or developmental), or provided early
childhood education directly to children, or provided parents with opportunities for
peer support. Programs that used home visiting as a primary service had less effect
on children’s cognitive outcomes. Although on an overall basis, child safety was not
otherwise shown to be meaningfully affected, programs that targeted teen parents
with young children and combined case management with parent-child activities
were more effective in protecting children from accidental injury, abuse or neglect.
Finally, family support programs were not shown to have a meaningful effect on
children’s health and physical development.
With regard to parent/family outcomes, the study showed that overall family
support programs have small but consistent and statistically significant positive
effects in parenting attitudes and knowledge, parenting behavior, and family
functioning.29 Programs that used professional staff to help parents to be effective
adults, and that provide opportunities for parents to meet in support groups, were
more effective in producing positive outcomes for parents. The programs that had
greatest effect on parents’ attitudes towards and knowledge of child-rearing and child
development were those that work with special needs children and provided
opportunities for peer support. The meta-analysis found no or little meaningful effect
of family support programs on parent mental health, nor on family economic self-
sufficiency.
Other Services. In contrast to the large scale family preservation and family
support studies, HHS has recently directed the PSSF evaluation funds towards
generally smaller scale projects that look at one kind of service or program design
(often at a single site). In recent years projects funded include those related to
strengthening and promoting healthy marriage, the meaning of termination of
parental rights for older foster children, fathers involvement in permanency planning
and child welfare casework, Early Head Start services provided to child welfare
families, interventions for substance abusing parents, post-adoption services, and
adoption promotion efforts, intensive family reunification efforts, and provision of
crisis nursery/respite care service. Research and/or evaluation is ongoing for most30


of these projects.
28 However, the researchers caution that in each of these cases “a small group of programs”
accounted for the statistically significant positive effect. That is more than half of the
studies reported an effect size that was considered not statistically significant.
29 However, the researchers caution that in each of these cases “a small group of programs”
accounted for the statistically significant positive effect. That is more than half of the
studies reported an effect size that was considered not statistically significant.
30 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Second Biennial Report to the
Congress on Evaluation, Research and Technical Assistance Activities Supported by the
Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program, 2005 and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, First Biennial Report to the Congress on Evaluation, Research and
Technical Assistance Activities Supported by the Promoting Safe and Stable Families
Program, 2003.

Planning and Reporting
The 1993 law (P.L. 103-66) establishing funding for child and family services
under Title IV-B, Subpart 2, both encouraged and required states to engage in
planning how these services would be delivered. The law requires states to consult
with “appropriate public and nonprofit private agencies” with experience in
administering services to children and families and to (jointly with HHS) prepare a
five-year plan, which establishes the goals the state intends to accomplish and
describes the methods that will be used to measure progress toward accomplishing
those goals. It further requires states to annually review and report on progress
toward achieving these goals and to make any necessary adjustments to the plan that
reflect changed circumstances. States must continually be engaged in this planning
and review process. That is, every five years the state must establish a new five-year
plan and begin annual progress reviews and reports of that plan. Beyond these
requirements, the 1993 legislation encouraged states to take planning seriously by
permitting each state to use up to $1 million of its first year grant (FY1994) for
planning purposes and providing that this spending on planning did not need to be
matched with state spending.
The policy guidance and subsequent regulations from HHS further encouraged
and required this extensive planning. As ultimately implemented by HHS, the
regulation consolidated a number of child welfare program planning requirements
into a single Child and Family Services Plan. States submit this single five-year plan
(the most recent was due in June 2004 for the period FY2005-FY2009), and annual
progress reports. In addition to the requirements related to the PSSF programs, this
plan must include the assurances required for receipt of funds for Child Welfare
Services (Title IV-B, Subpart 1 of the Social Security Act), Basic State Grants
(Section 106 of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), and the Chafee
Foster Care Independence Program and related Education and Training Vouchers
(both in Section 477 of the Social Security Act). Also, as part of the annual progress
report, states must estimate their total child welfare spending for the upcoming fiscal
year, across the full continuum of services and noting amounts used from all federal
funding streams (as well as state and local funding). Finally, HHS permits states to
use their PSSF funds for these planning purposes without having those funds count
towards the limit on use of PSSF funds which is set at 10%.
Both the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the final rule for
implementing Title IV-B, Subpart 2 emphasized the importance of collaborating
broadly when creating this plan to ensure the full continuum of child and family
services was considered and planned for and to leverage as many resources as
possible for the program’s purposes.31 Studying the implementation of the program,
James Bell Associates found that most states engaged in extensive planning and that
the focus on collaboration meant increased community and consumer involvement.


31 Proposed rule — 59 Federal Register 191 (Oct. 4, 1994), pp. 50646-50672. Final rule —
61 Federal Register 223 (Nov. 18, 1996), pp. 58632-58633. HHS did not revise these rules
following the addition of two new service categories by ASFA (P.L. 105-89) but has instead
issued policy guidance concerning changes necessitated by ASFA and subsequent
reauthorizations.

Initially, over the 14 states where implementation case studies were conducted, most
(8) developed a state-level collaborative body that made the decisions about how
PSSF funds would be used; that is to say the locus of decisionmaking was outside the
state child welfare agency. In part, this no doubt stems from the inclusion of family
support on an equal basis with family preservation in the statute. Where family
preservation has a long history of child welfare agency implementation, family
support was (and remains) outside the traditional child welfare agency purview.
Following passage of ASFA (P.L., 105-89) and the addition of two new service
categories (time-limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support)
— both of which were much more closely aligned with traditional child welfare
programs — the locus of decision-making shifted back toward the state child welfare
agency in the majority of the case study sites.32
Limited Information on Current Program. Since the Bell study, which
as one part of its implementation study made an analysis of the annual progress
reports submitted by states for FY1999-FY2002, there has been no comparable study
of state spending plans. That analysis showed that most states were spreading their
PSSF funding across all four categories. At the same time, that report noted that the
overlap in service categories — because family support and family preservation
might fund the same service (but presumably for a different population) and because
the newest service categories (time-limited reunification and adoption promotion and
support) could be understood as subsets of the initial service categories of family
support and family preservation — it was not easy to accurately report spending in
the statutorily defined categories. In addition, the consolidated planning and lack of
a single plan format made it hard to consistently track how funds were being spent
across the states.33
The researchers suggested that how funds were used (or planned to be used)
might better be understood based on where the service was delivered (in the home,
child welfare office, school, community center, clinic, etc.) and/or who the service
was targeted on (families in process of reunification, families with recently reported
abuse or neglect, teenage parents, parents of children with problem behavior, etc.).
The report did track the planned use of PSSF funds for 17 specific kinds of activities
between FY1999-FY2002. These included home visiting and family centers,
information and referral, recreation, basic needs, employment services, health
services, child care, prevention services, parent support, parent skills training,
mentoring, respite care, domestic violence, drug/alcohol assessment/treatment,
counseling/mental health services, “family preservation” (more narrowly defined than
the statute), time-limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support.
Although the researchers had increasing difficulty in linking PSSF funding to specific
activities (due to consolidation of program planning and reporting), they noted


32 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Family Preservation and Family Support
Services Implementation Study, Final Report, Volume 1, Synthesis Report, James Bell
Associates, Inc., Arlington, VA, Apr. 30, 2003, pp. 45-60.
33 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Analysis of States’ Annual Progress and
Services Reports and Child and Family Services Plans (1999-2002), The Family
Preservation and Family Support Services Implementation Study, James Bell Associates,
Arlington, VA, Apr. 5, 2002, pp. 34-46.

especially large drops in the number of states reporting that they planned to use these
funds for child care (decreased from 21 states in FY1999 to 5 for FY2002), parent
support and skills training (decreased from 27 states to ll states and from 33 states to

12 respectively) and “family preservation”(decreased from 34 states to 19 states).


Reporting Requirements. The PSSF reporting requirements are, for the
most part, a subset of the planning requirements. States must send their five-year
plans to HHS and as a part of their Annual Progress Review and Report, are required
to provide separate descriptions of the family preservation, family support, time-
limited family reunification and adoption promotion and support services they intend
to provide under the plan in the upcoming year; the populations to be served; and the
geographic areas where the services will be available.
Just prior to the 2006 amendments (P.L 109-288), these plans were sent to HHS
regional offices of the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), rather than
to the central Washington, D.C. office), and while they are required to be made
available to the public, they were for the most part, not produced in any standard
format and were not necessarily easy to compare or collect. Further all of the
reporting requirements were prospective — providing information on what a state
plans to do with its money rather than what it has actually done with the money.
P.L. 109-288 amended the reporting requirements so that certain parts of the
report must now include information on how the state actually spent PSSF (and
Child Welfare Services) funds as well as continuing to provide information on
planned spending. In addition, the law requires HHS to annually compile this
information in a report for Congress.



Appendix D: Selected Federal Programs
with Related Purposes
Some other federal programs share purposes similar to those of the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program.
Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP). Authorized by
Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) the Community-
Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) program provides funds to each state
(including the District of Columbia), territories, and tribes to support community-
based services to prevent child maltreatment. The program purposes most closely
match the category of PSSF services described as “family support.” However, funds
under this program are not available for direct use by the state child welfare agency
but must be sent to community-based groups that provide family support and family
resource services.
Funds are distributed by formula to a lead state agency (which may or may not
be the state child welfare agency); the lead agency is responsible for ensuring
coordination of services and for distributing funds to community-based groups that
provide (or can refer families to) core family resource and support services. The
statute describes these core services to, among other things, include — parent
education, mutual support and self help; voluntary home visiting; and respite care.
Other services, which CBCAP local grantees may provide access to include referrals
to counseling for adoption (for those seeking to adopt or to relinquish a child for
adoption); child care, early childhood development and intervention services;
referrals to services and supports to meet special needs of families with children with
disabilities; referrals to job readiness services; referrals to educational services; life
management skills training; and others.
Like Title I of CAPTA, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
(HELP) and the House Education and Labor committees have generally exercised
jurisdiction over this program. It was most recently amended and re-authorized in
2003 (P.L. 108-36). That legislation raised the program’s authorization level to $80
million for FY2004, and such sums as necessary for each of FY2005-FY2008.
However, the program has never received more than the $43 million that was
appropriated for it in FY2005. For FY2006 the program received $42 million and
(under P.L. 110-5) it is expected to receive the same sum in FY2007.
Child Welfare Services. Authorized by Title IV-B, Subpart 1, Child Welfare
Services is the oldest federal program supporting state child welfare activities and
was first authorized as part of the original 1935 Social Security Act.34 P.L. 109-288
made a number of changes to this program and by changing its funding authorization
from indefinite (no year limit) to the same schedule as the PSSF program (funding
authorization will expire with FY2011), appears to promote somewhat closer
alignment of the programs. Child Welfare Services funds are distributed to states


34 The program was originally authorized in Title V, Part 3 of the Social Security Act and
was moved to a newly created Title IV-B by the Social Security Act Amendments of 1967.

(including the District of Columbia), territories, and tribes. The funds may be used
to support a broad range of services to children and families, which are intended to
protect children who have been abused or neglected or are at risk of maltreatment and
may take various forms, ranging from counseling and other supports for parents
(intended to improve child well-being , prevent child abuse and neglect and preserve
a family), to removal of the children from their homes and provision of services to
parents to enable safe and appropriate return of children to their own homes. When
efforts to reunite are not appropriate or do not succeed, child welfare services may
include termination of parental rights, placement of the children for adoption, and
provision of post adoption services.
States may use Child Welfare Services, generally, for a wider range of activities
than are permitted under PSSF and a 2003 General Accounting Office (GAO) study
found that despite considerable overlap in the purposes, states used the bulk of their
Child Welfare Services and PSSF grants to fund significantly different activities. For
instance, while states reported spending both Child Welfare Services and PSSF funds
to support family support/prevention, family preservation, family reunification, and
adoption support and preservation services, they reported using just 11% of their
Child Welfare Services funds for these purposes compared to 82% of their PSSF
funds. States expended the largest share of Child Welfare Funds (71%) for child
welfare worker salaries, administration and management, child protective services,
and foster care maintenance payments. (PSSF expenditures for those purposes
equaled just 8% of state PSSF spending.35)
The House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee
have exercised jurisdiction over Child Welfare Services. Since 1990, the program
has had a discretionary funding authorization level of $325 million, but it has never
received more than $295 million in a given year. For FY2006 the program is funded
at $287 million and under P.L. 110-5 it is expected to receive the same level of
funding in FY2007.
Other Child Welfare and Related Programs. Several additional child
welfare programs primarily support research or demonstration projects related to
adoption, as well as to services to help certain families at special risk of child abuse
or neglect. Each of these programs is funded by discretionary appropriations and any
appropriated funds are distributed on a competitive basis to eligible entities. These
programs include Adoption Opportunities, Abandoned Infants Assistance and
Adoption Awareness. Funding authorization for the Adoption Opportunities
(FY2007 funding — $27 million) and Abandoned Infants Assistance Act (FY2007
funding — $12 million) was extended through FY2008 by P.L. 108-36 (handled in
the Senate HELP and House Education and Workforce Committee). Funding
authorization for the Adoption Awareness programs (which were included in the
Public Health Services Act) expired with FY2005 but the programs nonetheless


35 General Accounting Office (now renamed the Government Accountability Office) (GAO),
Child Welfare: Enhanced Oversight of Title IV-B Could Provide States Additional
Information to Improve Services, GAO-03-956, Sept. 2003, p. 14. Data are based on
responses from 46 states regarding use of Child Welfare Services funds and 44 states
regarding use of PSSF funds.

received FY2007 funding of $13 million. The House Energy and Commerce and
Senate HELP committees handled the 2000 legislation that created Adoption
Awareness program authority.36
Additional programs that support primarily the family support goals of PSSF
include Early Head Start, Head Start, and the Healthy Start Initiative. Like family
support programs in general, the populations served by these programs are much
broader than those generally served by the child welfare population and these
programs are not further described here.37
Some Non-dedicated Federal Funding Used for PSSF Purposes.
Many states also make use of federal funding streams that are not specifically or
exclusively provided for child welfare purposes but for which federal law includes
certain child welfare activities as purposes or permissible uses of funds. Measured
by state use of the funds for child welfare purposes, the largest of these are the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, the Social Services
Block Grant (SSBG) and Medicaid. An Urban Insitute survey of state FY2002
spending on child welfare found that in that year state child welfare agencies spent
about $4.7 billion from these federal funding streams of which some 28% ($1.3.
billion) $1.3 billion was used to support prevention activities (e.g., prevent teen-age
pregnancy, prevent drug use, prevent child abuse), family reunification efforts , and
in-home support, as well as child protective, services (screening and investigating38
reported child maltreatment).
While state child welfare agencies have in recent years had access to
considerable TANF, SSBG and Medicaid funds, because these funds are not
appropriated solely for child welfare agencies they cannot necessarily count on their
continued availability. Instead, their access to these federal funds is generally
conditioned on the funding decisions made by others in the state (e.g., discretion
about how funds are used may rest with the state legislature or in a different state
executive agency) and may further be limited by federal legislative and
administrative changes to these programs.


36 FY2007 funding amounts are estimates based on P.L. 110-5. See CRS Report RS22178,
Child Welfare: Recent and Proposed Federal Funding, by Emilie Stoltzfus. This report also
discusses an Administration-proposed Nurse Home Visitation Initiative for which the
President’s FY2008 budget seeks $10 million.
37 HHS is currently funding a five year (Sept. 2002-Sept. 2007) Early Head Start/Child
Welfare Services Initiative/Evaluation, which is designed to allow grantees to demonstrate
how to best serve children in the child welfare system using the Early Head Start model.
There are 24 projects serving 397 child welfare children (ranging from 4 to 40 per site).
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Second Biennial Report to the Congress
on Evaluation, Research and Technical Assistance Activities Supported by the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program, 2005, p. 10.
38 Cynthia Andrews Scarcella, The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children IV (Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute, 2004), p. 23.

For instance, the current Administration continues to seek new limits on state
use of certain Medicaid services for a range of purposes, including child welfare.39
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171) enacted certain language intended
to clarify how states may use Medicaid funds for targeted case management (TCM)
on behalf of children in foster care. Further, the ability of state child welfare agencies
to use TANF funds may be affected by increased work requirements included in the
Deficit Reduction Act (which are expected to necessitate greater state spending of
TANF on job related costs such as training and child care).40
Finally, Congress has greatly reduced the amount of funding for SSBG, which
includes among its five primary purposes: “preventing or remedying neglect, abuse,
or exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own interests, or
preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting families.” Annual funding for SSBG stood at
$2.8 billion when the Congress enacted new child welfare services funding (now
called the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program) in 1993. In 1996, however,
P.L. 104-193 reduced the SSBG entitlement cap and funding has since declined to
$1.7 billion annually.41


39 See CRS Report RL33866, Medicaid, SCHIP, and Health Insurance: FY2008 Budget
Issues, by April Grady, et al.
40 See CRS Report RL33155, Child Welfare: Foster Care and Adoption Assistance
Provisons in Budget Reconciliation, by Emilie Stoltzfus; and CRS Report RL33418 Welfareth
Reauthorization in the 109 Congress: An Overview, by Gene Falk, Melinda Gish, and
Carmen Solomon-Fears.
41 For FY2006, Congress appropriated an additional $550 million in SSBG funds. However,
this money was in response to hurricane needs and the bulk of the money (94%) was
distributed to five states determined most affected by the hurricanes. See CRS Report 94-

953, Social Services Block Grant (Title XX of the Social Security Act), by Melinda Gish.